Disclaimer

Disclaimer: Anything before this point was written when I was in college. For educational purposes. Just FYI.

My Perspective on Politics, Broadly Defined

It has been a while since I last posted, and that is because my Politics class came to a close for the semester. Professor Innes wanted his students to regularly engage in current events as a life-long habit. For me, apparently, it is working. I have to thank my good friend Anthony R. for encouraging me to write this post, by writing his thoughts on the upcoming election. His blog is much shorter than mine and well worth the read. If you would, read it first and you will have a better idea of what I am referring to. However, if you do not want to do this, my blog should still be able to be read on its own.

Anthony's blog link: http://anthonythoughts.wordpress.com/2008/01/06/jesus-doesn’t-endorse—he-tells-america-how-its-gonna-be/

My response:

Anthony, be serious now. You know in your heart that any TRUE Christian would vote for Ron Paul.

Joking aside, I was surprised that you did not talk more about Romney and why you support him. In this post, I think you ask the right questions to the subject of what is a Christian's role in democracy--specifically within the 2008 race. This is a question that God certainly does not discuss in the Bible because democracy is not in the Bible. However, I have pulled certain principles that inform the way I think about our current political situation. This is going to be long, but please let me explain my thoughts.

When Israel goes before God to select a king for Israel, God was displeased with their choice. They looked at the outward appearance, but of course God looks at the heart. This is why David became and made such a wonderful monarch, and Solomon after him, since Solomon was concerned with justice. As with virtually everyone in the Bible, David and Solomon's faults are also noted, but for the most part, they are some of the most noteworthy and striking examples of good, God-honoring political leadership. I take from the situation concerning both men that God desires political leaders who love him with their whole hearts and who are concerned deeply with justice. God values what we would call honor and integrity in a leader. I see these themes all throughout the books of Chronicles.

God also commends those who manage well. In the parables of the talents and other similar parables, the servants of the King who do a good job with what they have been given are praised, and those who do poorly with what they have been given for the lack of even trying are despised and deposed. God values thoughtful and excellent management in the individuals that He has granted power to.

In both cases, I see principles that are applicable to today. While I think you are astute in pointing out that there is not one candidate that God endorses, I believe that through careful consideration, one can find the candidate or couple of candidates who do the best job of exemplifying the principles mentioned above.

Another consideration. The classic passage for determining the role of government, as we know, is Romans 13. The point there is that government is to protect its citizens and punish evildoers. In the case that a candidate looks like they will fail in that regard, it would be wise to not vote for them. Therefore, by implication, maybe someone with more socialist policies, like Hillary or Edwards, would be a poor choice for office because their policies might actually cause more harm than good, all things considered. Economically, they could continue to further hurt the nation and this would be counteracting the role of government. On the other hand, if the Democrats are more concerned to focus on internal issues such as creating clean energy independence, one could certainly make a good case that such is in the interest of the people and that since the Republicans are not concerned with that segment, they should not be voted for.

This brings us to the crux of the matter. As you expressed, there is no easy bacon. In no case does it seem loudly and immediately obvious that a certain candidate would be a better or "more godly" choice (whatever one might mean by that). This is where I do not think it is reasonable to say that God has selected one person and that person will be God's candidate. I would actually consider that taking the Lord's name in vain--blasphemy, and if nothing else, certainly unhelpful to the rest of the citizenry.

The question at this point is: What makes a good candidate? Well, what does God value most? If it is life, than vote against anyone who is pro-choice. If it is the voice of the people, the side with a Democrat. If it is honesty and integrity, then find the most honest candidate. This makes me think.

God has laid out His character in the Bible, and from many places, we learn how God thinks about politics. Jesus sure talks about it some. After all, the "Kingdom of God" is an inherently political term. I have the tendency to return to Romans 13. God values justice. He wants a system that punishes evil. As I said before, he values someone who manages well. But He is also concerned about life. By selecting a candidate who will allow for greater liberty, one will allow the church to be freer to spread the gospel and engage in the work that God has for His church to do.

One question that I have wrestled with is this evaluation of what should be valued most. Does God hold life above everything else. I am led to believe that it is dear and important, but no, that is not the primary thing that is important in life (in the physical sense). For example, my understanding of Giuliani's perspective on abortion is that he is for letting the states decide. He personally does not consider abortion a good thing (or maybe I'm wrong there), but he will allow pro-choicers to hold sway if a state decides that way. Part of me says: that's sad, we should make abortion illegal by overturning Roe v. Wade and that will fix the problem. But see, I do not believe that will fix the problem. Sure it will make abortions harder to get, but it will just push them into the black market. Such a judicial decision will not change the heart of man. Loving one's neighbor as yourself will provide the soil for the Spirit to change hearts. Abortions will still happen. And people will still think that abortion is not murder.

In a case like that, even though Guiliani is not completely against abortion, I try to see beyond that. I do not believe that the abortion issue is the biggest issue in running the country. Even if it is, maybe the way that most Christians are attempting to go against it is not the most effective. I wonder what Jesus would say. I do not think he would be pleased if a person voted for a pro-life candidate if that was the only aspect that the voter took into consideration. So what if a pro-life candidate gets into office if he causes the rest of the nation in most other areas to go to Hell in a handbasket? Where is the long term impact? If the President does not protect the rights of those citizens he disagrees with (and by rights, I mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), gays for example (this is not to say that he allows or legalizes gay marriages, but one must recognize that these people are citizens too and are entitled to the same rights as the rest--I would say gay marriage is not included--partly on the argument that it is not protecting the citizens and country at large--but this is a different topic). If the President persecutes minorities and discriminates, fails to address the important energy concerns that our nation is facing, and fails to protect citizen's rights, but is pro-life, I do NOT see this as a valid candidate (and I don't have anyone in mind here who fits the description that I just expressed). Jesus, as I currently understand Him, is not that narrow minded, but has a broader kingdom focus. On the flip side, if someone is pro-choice, maybe that gives you an indication of their perceptions, and if you believe that they are erroneous in that area, it may be worth investigating in depth their other beliefs, because those might be problematic as well. That part is my opinion and don't feel obligated to agree with me.

I'd like to bring up another point that I think is important. I believe that Ben Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention something akin to: "The nature of politics is compromise." It's true. In order to get anything accomplished, you must find middle ground and a middle way and meet there, if you cannot persuade your fellow politicians. Please do not misunderstand me. I do NOT mean that one should compromise on the values that he or she holds dear. Vote your conscience. That is likely the safest road (assuming that when you vote, you have also worked to be informed). But two things on compromise, which may be two sides of the same coin. In this very opinionated republic, it is very unusual to find a large number of people who completely agree in every respect with a particular candidate. For example, I may like Huckabee's convictions and certain policies, but not his stance on immigration (I'm not sure what that even is at this point). However, because I agree most with him, out of the candidates, I would side with him. The other side of this coin deals with the reality of our current system. There are Democrats and Republicans. Then there is everyone else. The rest of everyone else has so small a chance at winning the election that there is practically no hope of them winning (or so it seems to me). Some say: "If everyone voted their conscience, then those other parties might have a chance." Yes, but if the moon were made of cheese, we might solve world hunger. Please excuse my sarcasm, but the conditional that I just quoted is an impossible hypothetical. For all practical purposes, there are two parties and two alone that matter. If you want to have your voice heard in politics (for the most part--I admit that there are ways around my argument here, but hear what I am saying), you should vote for either one or the other. Yes, vote your conscience. But there is a time and a place to vote in the realm of reality too. Suppose there is a state that is split. You believe that the Republican candidate more accurately lines up with the principles we discussed above, when compared to the Democratic candidate. In fact, you so disagree with the Democratic candidate that you think it would be terrible for the nation if that candidate came to office. Your vote counts. The decision of you state could sway the election one way or another. But you like the Independent candidate better than the Republican. Who do you chose?

In this case, it seems to me that you are obligated, if not morally, at least by the voice of practical wisdom, to vote for the Republican. That lines up with your conscience in a more appropriate way. That is the area where compromise and voting your conscience intersect. That is the main point I wanted to make. But to run with that, then, does it make sense to vote for a third party candidate at all if they never have the chance of winning?

I say that to provoke thought. The alternate argument, that I am sympathetic to, is that it is not all about who wins the election. The important point is that the message of the third party candidate is heard. If you believe that God places it on your heart to vote there for that purpose, then I doubt I would argue with you. I can see that God would do both--allow my heart to tell me to vote for the Republican (or whoever) while He allows your heart to point you toward the third party candidate (or whoever different), because you are arguing for the God-affirmed principles of liberty, choice, and excellence, while I am acting on the wisdom principles of democratic politics, informed by a Biblical worldview, such as compromise, policy, and truth. This points us back to the truth that there is no easy answer and even highlights the paradox that what seems contradictory (both you and me voting differently) might ultimately be toward the same God-ordained purpose of allowing others to better love Him and love others.

At this current date, I do not have anyone that I would definitely vote for because I have not researched the beliefs and proposed policies and histories of each candidate deeply enough. My gut response is Guiliani because he did a good job cleaning up NYC and I am experiencing the effects of that living in a city that he was able to clean up significantly. I think I ought to research more before the time comes for my voice to count. Huckabee and Romney, in their own ways, look somewhat attractive to me as well. After witnessing the NH Democratic debate, I have ruled out those candidates because I do not think that the policies that they were expressing and the underlying values on which they stand (in most cases) line up with the ones that would lead toward the best running of the America that is founded upon the Creator God.

One last caveat. This is why I love the liberal arts, classical education that I am receiving at The King's College. I am not only encouraged to think about these things, but I am commanded to, trained in them (thought about the great ideas), and surrounded by a community of others who reflect similarly upon the world. Anthony, even though we may not agree on everything, I thank you for your insights, your thoughtfulness, and your love of finding truth and goodness. While our politics are not exactly in harmony, I believe that our attitude and our hearts are, at the deepest level. To God be the glory in the outcome of this upcoming election.

Taking Every Thought Captive,

Zachary

Global Warming...Solved.

It's been a big issue. Al Gore has gotten pretty rich and famous because of it. It's caused a lot of consternation and debate. And it has been the source of endless fascination for me in my blogs. But, friends, the global warming problem has finally been solved.

It's time to turn that CO2 into baking soda.

What??

Skyonic, a new company run by Joe Jones out of Texas, is leading a breakthrough technology in keeping CO2 emissions out of the air from power plants. They use the "Skymine Process" to address:

...the significant issue of climate change through the mineralization of CO2 as carbonate compounds. SkyMine™ is a post-combustion carbon capture and sequestration technology that works with any large-scale stationary CO2 emitter (e.g.- coal, natural gas or oil fired power plant). The process is effective, ecologically and thermodynamically sound, and can be done profitably. Since the technology can be retrofitted to existing facilities or designed into new ones, it addresses both the current problem of climate change, and the future demand for cleaner energy to support development.

Sodium bicarbonate (better known as baking soda) is the primary byproduct of this process. As Skyonic says on its website, the Skymine Process is effective and can be done profitably. This solves the economic issue with cleaning up pollution (people can make money off of the CO2??). It also helps reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere significantly.

Currently, Skyonic is developing a large system that will be able to consume the waste of a 500 megawatt power plant (in 2009). Imagine what could happen if this was copied all across the U.S. and the world?

First of all, the environmental benefits could be enormous. If the widespread implementation of this system allowed humans to cut down on carbon emissions to the point that they did not reach 500ppm, we might be able to stop the Arctic ice from turning to slush and raising the sea level 20 feet. Or so they say. I'm not sure who "they" are, or how grounded that science is. It's interesting how hard it is to get a firm or definitive, scientific answer on the subject.

I like the idea behind greener-tech. But will economists? Or lawmakers? Or politicians?

Back to the idea of baking soda, the soda that is created is actually cleaner that food grade baking soda. Could this become a specialty item? Not if the Skymine Process becomes widespread. What would happen to the tons and tons of baking soda? It would most likely be reduced to landfills, where it would sit inert and harmless, as opposed to its more vicious airborne cousin, CO2.

I know I've asked this before (maybe not in these words in my blog), but does this greener-earth idea coincide with God's plan for the universe and the expansion of His Kingdom? I don't know. What I do know is that the heart of man is wicked (Jer. 17:9; at least before one is saved--according to John Elderedge--and likely others) and wants to get the best for himself. This includes energy producers, but it also includes consumers--you and me--who often ignore the fact that we leave the lights on, take long showers, and don't buy energy star appliances (or CFLs!!!) all the time. Are we contributing to the demise of our world? Maybe. But is our world supposed to be turned into a paradise, or is it okay to let it burn because God is going to remake it anyway? What about the concept of being good stewards?

I think that the steward argument is the strongest for why we ought to take care of the world. 1) It's not ours to begin with. 2) Our children and their children on down will inherit this world (barring a speedy second coming) and what we do today determines our legacy. 3) Jesus says that if we are faithful and true in a few small things, He will trust us with many, greater things. 4) We still have to live in the world. You don't throw trash around in your house and leave it all over the place, do you? Why should you do that in the world? Is it not God's domain that we are told to tend, subdue, and cultivate?

Taking Every Thought Captive,

Zachary

P.S. Here's the article if you're interested in a further read: http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-6220127.html or see skyonic's website at http://skyonic.com/index.php

Stem cells and ethical questions

In the past week, a Japanese scientist successfully created a stem cell from an adult skin cell, as opposed to embryonic stem cells as are normally used.

This is a breakthrough. Pro-life activists everywhere will be encouraging the development of this new technology. Finally, the systematic destruction of life for scientific purposes is at an end!

Not so fast. First, the fact that this process of creating stems cells from skin exists 1) does not mean it is widespread, 2) does not mean it is easy, 3) does not mean that there is currently adequate funding to accelerate the development of it (at least at the moment), and 4) does not mean that the research on embryos will be stopped.

Why won't it be stopped? The idea is: research to help those who are hurting should not be slowed at all in any area while it still provides a potential to save more lives. The underlying emotion behind the idea is kind (and even Christian), in that its goal is to help others. Yet pro-lifers argue that such scientists are in moral error because the destruction of embryos is still murder. But this poses an interesting quandary--what is the lesser of the two evils: to "kill" embryos who cannot think or feel so that one might help those who do have feelings and thoughts? Or to "save" the embryos at the expense of living, breathing people who live in pain who are about to die, and might live and even have quality of life if they got the right newly-researched medical treatment? What is more cruel? Destroying life that will not even feel its departure, or "condemning" living, breathing, whole, emotionally and mentally attuned people by leaving them to die?

I use emotionally-charged language to get you to think about it. I've thought about the issue of abortion, for example, from the pro-life side of view for all my life. But recently, my barber (of all people), explained to me the pro-choice argument in a way I hadn't heard it before--in a way that seemed more caring toward the mothers than I've seen most Christians act. He made me recognize that those expectant mothers are whole, real people who may get ignored or even condemned because of their decision to get an abortion. This is exactly the kind of situation that I would expect that Christians could do the most good--loving the mother (even if she goes through with the abortion), and worrying about her soul, instead of saving the baby at the cost of all else. I hate to propose this kind of dilemma, but what is better: saving the soul of the mother or the body of the child?

I agree, the dilemma is unfair, but I think it has a real element to it. What if the baby is saved? What's to stop that baby from being abused, unloved, and grow up to perpetuate the cycle of sin and death? Should Christians be going for saved souls and transformed lives over physically saved bodies? If it comes down to one or the other (which in some cases, I think it actually might), then what are we to choose? What would Jesus, the maker and sustainer of life, choose?

It's a difficult question. I hope that questions like this become a non-issue because of things like non-embryonic stem cell research (though I'm not sure that the abortion issue will be drastically affected because of this new research). However, the questions that I asked in the paragraph above, what do you think? Even if it becomes pretty much a non-issue, what is right? Or why should we care if it is a non-issue?

These are the kinds of questions that I believe that Christians need to deal with. However, when it comes down to it (from a Christian perspective), it's about love. Loving the scientist who is destroying embryos. You don't have to love what he's doing, but you are called to love him. Love that woman who is getting an abortion, or who got an abortion. The world will be changed by Christ's love--it is only in this way that we can truly bring healing and peace to a lost a broken world. Everything else is just details. Agree?

Taking Every Thought Captive,

Zachary
Even though I like to take a scientific/ethical look at a lot of these

DNA mapping

This week, I am going to write about a subject that I find a deep interest in. I have found that I enjoy researching things that have to do with what may happen in the future. For example, my senior thesis in high school was about Hydrogen technology and whether that would be helpful (and exist) in America years down the road. If you've been reading all of my posts, you may see this vein. I've talked about Global Warming. I've written a research paper for a class last year that had to do with creating diamonds. For that one in particular, I speculated about the future if a diamond microchip were to come into being, after pointing out a company that is working toward this. I used to read a Christian kids book series set in 2037 about a paralyzed kid who controlled a robot through his mind and explored the surface of Mars. I like to look forward. I am also intrigued by the past, and the classics. I like great ideas, and I like scientific research. That's what I'm going to discuss now.

Wired just released a number of articles about DNA research. The one that I read [http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/magazine/15-12/ff_genomics?currentPage=all] is about a company called 23andMe. In 2003, the entire human genome was mapped for the first time--all billions of strands worth. Now, that information is being commercialized. YOU can have part of your DNA decoded. For $1000, the company will take your saliva sample and send back a report explaining what your DNA reveals. While they say that this is not a diagnoses (which is partly said for legal reasons) this evaluation may point out a predisposition toward cancers or health issues, thus even life-expectancy. In a sense, it's almost like telling the future. The article goes into depth explaining how this works. If you want a synopsis, read the article. It's five pages and very informative. Or you can go to the website of 23andMe [https://www.23andme.com/] and watch some very cool flash videos that explain a lot about DNA. But where I want to take this blog is: what happens once people can read their DNA, and in a way, their future?

The author of the article, Thomas Goetz, puts this paragraph almost at the end of his article:

"The question becomes, then, whether you want to embark on this path of oddsmaking in the first place. Many individuals won't want to know what their genome has in store. Others will, only to join the worried well — those who live in fear of fulfilling their genetic destiny. And, of course, those genotyped or sequenced at birth won't have that choice; it'll already have been made for them."

Will people, if they do find out what information their DNA contains, attempt to alter their behavior and lifestyle in such a way as to beat the odds and live a longer life? In other words, is the information contained within the DNA, once learned, life-changing? I suspect it is. It may change the way that people view their lives. If a doctor predicts that you will live to be 45 vs. 85, that will have a effect on how you view your life. What are some of the implications of this new technology?

As there are thieves in the world, and identity theft already happens with credit cards and digital information (someone's identity is stolen once every 9 seconds). Imagine the ease of identity theft DNA reading technology becomes as affordable as aspirin (who knows what 30, 60, or 100 years will bring? What did people think about computer technology?). Suppose a celebrity eats a meal in a cafe, then throws away his trash...and someone else pulls that trash out and picks off the person's DNA and then sells the information online? Or what if someone is stalking you and does the same thing to you? That information seems a lot easier to obtain than someone's social security number, yet it is of an even more personal, sensitive nature. If a person steals your social security number, they take your identity and a lot of problems result. If someone steals your DNA, they have the information for your physical being and how you are constructed. In a sense, they haven't stolen your identity. They've stolen you! Either way, that's a lot of information. And information is power.

What if you don't want to know "your future" and don't want to be mapped? As Goetz said, what about those children who are born and their DNA is predetermined? What of them? They won't have any choice, but they will have people telling them how their lives should be lived from day one. This reminds me of Plato's Republic, where men have different souls--thus necessitating what they do with their lives. What if the child has the athletic gene? What if he doesn't? What practical implications does this have?

Are you thinking of Hitler's Germany? What's to stop people from trying to create the uberman? Once DNA is mapped, will it not be possible to alter it? And if it is altered, couldn't people (at least the rich ones) design what kind of child they'd like to have? Then how would people be treated? This is reminding me a little too much of Huxley's Brave New World.

Once you've created the perfect human, then why not clone them? The technology to clone is already available for other mammals--I suspect that it's only a matter of time before someone tries it on a human. If it's not done right the first time, someone will do it again until it is done right. The lure of fame and glory is just too great--even if it is deemed illegal in every nation in the world, someone will find a way, eventually.

What are Christians to think of this? Well at least, here is one thing that will not change: human nature. Man still hates his fellow man, and wants to be God. That's a problem. But is cloning wrong? Is genetic alteration wrong? Is learning your DNA wrong? Was artificial insemination considered wrong by Christians when it first started, and should it be considered evil? How about birth control medicine?

See, what I do not want to have happen is that Christians respond and say that these things in the paragraph above are wrong, without first deeply thinking about God's creation, His plan for the world, how technology intersects it, and about the moral implications of it all. I do not want Christians to get a bad rap for this like they often have. Think about Copernicus. He proposed a theory of the universe that Christians responded adversely to, but as we know, Copernicus was right. Let's not do that again. Let's think about these issues without allowing our culture or our times to skew our vision. What if, in 200 years from now, a copy of a person's DNA was included with their birth certificate (because it was just common procedure and no one thought anything of it)? Wouldn't people then, Christians and not, look back on us and (if we condemn these things) shake their heads?

Let's think about this from a different angle. Though we shouldn't be pursuing knowledge of the future so that we might live longer SO THAT WE MIGHT BE LIKE GODS, is it not wise for us to look forward in this way in the name of alleviating suffering? Suppose we could increase quality of life by diagnoses such as may come into being (and are already being done on a very small scale)? If that technology goes mainstream, maybe the church ought to actually be behind it! As James says, "Religion that our God and Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: To look after orphans and widows in their distress..." (James 1:27). What if this technology allows us to better look after the weak, or even better, prescribe a lifestyle that will lead to less people becoming the poor, widowed, and orphaned? Then shouldn't we, as the body of Christ, pursue this?

I'm not saying that the answer is "yes." I like to look forward, but what's more, I like to ask questions, provoke thought, and hopefully aid a more God-honoring response. We are able to create culture and help others in this world (in fact, I would argue that we are commanded to do so). So the question becomes: "how?" Or more specifically: "how ought this advance in the area of DNA mapping fit within the framework of Biblical Christianity?" and "how ought Christians respond to this advance?"

That, my dear reader, is the question I leave you to ponder.

If you would, oblige me by reading one last set of questions. What is it to be made in the image of God? What is the image of God? What is it to be human? What part of yourself do you have rights to? I suspect that these will be the questions of discussion in Christian and philosophical circles years from now (maybe 25 years, as they say that it takes about 30 years for an idea or technology to be feasible for mainstream consumption). Why not be forward-thinking and answer these questions now, and lead the charge on what the Christian position should be in regard to these issues?

Are you with me?

Taking Every Thought Captive,

Zachary

Televised Debates: help or hurt elections? Thesis revised.

Last week, I wrote a paper for my American Political Thought and Practice class about the effect that televised presidential debates have on elections. I finished and sent in the paper 24 hours ago, and have thought about the situation a little bit more. Writing the paper caused me to rethink my thesis.

I argued that there are positives and negatives to televised debates, but I said that the potential for positive influence outweighed the negative, so it was a good thing that these debates were televised. It is good because it informs the voters and allows the candidates message to go out to a greater audience than just where the candidate has physically travelled. It also forces candidates to be effective communicators. However, it has three negative influences. One, it causes the media to turn elections into a scorecard of "who's winning." Two, it makes the candidates "appeal to the masses," since voters can be swayed by emotion, it allows them to feel informed without actually causing them to make wise decisions. And three, it reduces the chances of getting great, "Level Five" leaders--leaders who do a great job leading companies are often not very charismatic; rather, they do a good job of assigning praise to others and making sure that everything gets done with excellence, without being the center of attention.

I argued: in theory, the best man will win out because the voters have been informed of what each candidate believes, and televised debates help inform voters. I agree with this still... but the problem is that I qualified my statement by saying: In theory.

Theoretically, I could fly unaided by any machine. Theoretically, I could walk on the moon. Theoretically, black could be white and white could be black... in an alternate universe. But theses are not to be built on theories. Especially when the evidence shows that when human nature is taken into account, it seems that the opposite case is true.

In my thesis, I think I wanted to argue that televised debates should help elections. They ought to. That would be ideal. However, my way of seeing what the world should be like obscures what the world is like. I look forward with hope and thus see the present inaccurately. It is thus true that my gift has a negative aspect to it. I would say I am gifted with the ability to look into a potential future and see what could become of a situation. But then, I sometimes forget that the potential future is only a potential.

Such was the case with my paper. At the time I wrote my negative arguments, I actually found them pretty convincing. Then I didn't do a good job answering those objections, and ultimately (in my paper), I cut out the objections section altogether. In fact, leaving my paper as I had submitted it, I think the reader might actually be persuaded against my conclusion than for it. The weird thing is, I think I might agree with them.

I find my second two negative arguments to carry the most weight. For the one about the leaders, I think that a workhorse kind of President may be better for the nation. Then again, if a President's job is to "preside," maybe he doesn't need to be a level five leader. This causes me to think: what should the executive position of our government look like? What ought he do? What kind of person would fit that position best? I'll leave those questions for us to consider.

My other negative argument is the most convincing to me. I don't have a very idealistic view of our culture. It's taken itself to Hell in a hand-basket. Think about appeals to the masses. What is being appealed to? What appeals to people? Sex, money, and power. Then everything else under the sun. I know there are some people who are concerned about the government and what it becomes, and honestly consider each candidate to discover who is the best man (or woman) for the job. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I think about a million men who sit by their T.V.s watching the Superbowl with a beer in on hand and the remote in the other. What happens when those million men go to the polls? If all you live for is sports, then maybe you'll just vote for the guy who uses sports analogies... because you can relate to him better than the other guy. Maybe you don't vote at all, and leave that to people who have something to gain from a particular candidate, and that selfish ambition is why they are voting for that candidate.

The Framers of the Constitution created a document that worked with human nature. Yet putting political debates on television seems to go against the very idea of television. When watching television, aren't we supposed to be entertained? So what subconscious message is being sent? Politics should entertain us? We should vote for the candidate we like just like we would on American Idol?

I think I disagree that televising election debates is a good thing. But I think my problem doesn't lie with the debate, or the election, or the politics, but the television. And I would add, the deeper issue of the culture (who is voting). I've explained what I now think. Do you agree? The pieces just don't add up. My thesis is wrong.

Briefly, why is human nature so depraved? I think to the Bible passage that says: "The heart is deceitful above all else. Who can know it?" Why do we want things like sex, money, and power... but in such a messed up way?

It is because of the Fall. Sin messed up everything. When Adam chose to disobey God and eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, his choice was so destructive and insidious that all of his children have lived with that sinful nature. Sin is twisting what is good into a form so that it is no longer good. It is placing self above God and others. It is living at less than what we ought to live at, while forgetting how we ought to live.

The good news is that Jesus came to make us right with God. What He did is changing the world for the better even now, and that will be completed when Jesus comes again. Creation will be regained. And the political problem will be solved. That's looking forward. And oh, what a good and real future that is.

King Tut

For the first time, King Tut is being revealed to the public...in person. 85 years ago, Howard Carter found the tomb, famous because it is the only one that has been completely untouched by grave robbers. Tut was found in the tomb with all of his belongings--a massive horde gold and artifacts. Only today, Tut has been put on display.

King Tut got a CAT scan in 2005 and the scientists found that his body had been broken in 18 places. It seems like he died due to an infected fracture in his thigh, but that is uncertain. Essentially, the destruction was so bad that the scientists decided to only put his head on display. The rest of his body was not displayed. The mummy is not well preserved, as far as mummies go.

I am reminded of the trip I took to Philadelphia to see the King Tut exhibit last semester. I went with Dr. Bleattler's Egypt class just for the experience. When I got there, I was disappointed that King Tut was not there, but I should not have been disappointed. The sheer number of things in the many rooms was spectacular. It ended showing a projected image of King Tut, as well as the coffin of someone else (his mother?) whose coffin was made of three layers of solid goal and weighed many hundreds of pounds. At the time, I calculated the amount of money that it would have cost to make it, and I don't remember now, but it was certainly in the millions. And that did not even take into account the fact that it is a priceless historical artifact. What a find!

At the museum, I also saw a show on the Kings in a planetarium. I've only been in a planetarium once or twice before, and it was fascinating. Staring up at the domed ceiling, it almost seemed like a gigantic IMAX theater. The video explained the Valley of Kings and how the Egypians were amazed by the stars. It gave me an interesting look into their culture.

At my old school, second grade was the Egypt year, where all of the students spent the year studying Egypt as their history class. I, unfortunately, missed that experience because of the way the school was structured when I was there. But as I have been learning more about Egypt in Western Civ last year and through trips and newspaper articles, it has made me wonder about the culture. Dr. Bleattler says, it's not that the Egyptians were obsessed with death, which is what it seems like to us today. Rather, they were obsessed with life.

The culture intrigues me. In a way, it is very similar to Christianity in that they believe in the immortality of the soul, the importance of life, and the existence deity. However, it is very misguided and dissimilar in that they were concerned about the pharoahs as gods and believed in many gods. However, I sense a seed of truth in their belief that eternal life is important and worth striving for. The interesting difference is that what happens in the afterlife depends on how the person is buried and treated AFTER he dies. In the Christian perspective, it all depends on what happens BEFORE you die. And clearly, there are many differences between the gods of Egypt and the I AM. But in striving for eternal life, as is evidence through the mummification and tombs and pyramids, they spent more effort toward it than potentially any other culture. I respect them for that. They were so concerned with what was transcendent that they spent much of their life seeking a way to gain a better life. What would happen if more people did that today? What if many Americans were not so concerned with sex, money, power, and the rest, and instead sought what was good for their souls? Would not more turn to Christ Jesus and live a life that is fulfilling, on earth AND beyond? But it does not happen.

How could one change culture in this way? How could people like you and me instill in the culture at large a desire to seek life? After all, there's only on thing that's absolutely sure (and in the case of every human being, save two), and that is death. Everyone dies. So why not spend a part of your life to determine what will happen after you die? Why leave yourself resigned to the idea that you are going to live your life and die, and that's all? What about the rest of eternity?

We occasionally hear about the whackos that have themselves frozen shortly after they die, with the hope that medicinal technology will get so good in a hundred-plus years, that they will be able to be brought back out of their state of hibernation and brought back to life. Some people are concerned about life...but they think medicine is the answer. The Egyptians believed that preparing a place for the deceased gave them the ticket to life. Christians, like myself, believe that Jesus is the answer. Why are we right?

Truly, the Bible is the only comprehensive, completely defensible worldview. It makes the most logical sense when viewed within itself. I coheres. What I mean by this is, if you grant the starting assumptions, such as a creation and the fall of humanity, then the rest follows logically. Like any worldview, it requires faith to believe the starting premises and certain points.

While that is a good rational reason for Christianity (albeit it takes volumes of explaning to express), the real way to prove that Christianity is true is by looking at how a Christian is supposed to live (and how Jesus Christ himself lived). The two commandments are to love God and love others. In a world filled with brokenness and hate, Christianity often comes as a welcome relief. As Dinesh D'souza said in the debate that was held by TKC, Christians are responsible for many of the great, loving things in the world. I agree. It's true that many Christians do not live up to the right standards. But if anything, that is further proof that what they say is right: the world is broken because of sin and not what it should be, but God has come to change that and is changing them. There is no more powerful a testimony than that of a changed life.

Well King Tut may have tried to get eternal life, but he did not find the one true God. Blessings be on all those who do find Him, whether they are kings or not.