Who Is PublicChristian?

PublicChristian.com is a one-man-one-woman operation (but as you know a lot of the fun and intelligence come from the contributions of visitors to the site). Connie and I have received a lot of input over the years and we feel it’s important to be giving in return as we go through this long learning process that is life.

I’m Larry Harvey, a retired rural mail carrier (back problems), adjunct instructor at a Community College in Nebraska (philosophy, ethics, and religion), and a Professional Trainer (in business and industry) for the same institution. I was raised in the Salvation Army and Church of God (Anderson, IN), educated at Prairie Bible Institute (Alberta, Canada), U of No Colorado, U of Oklahoma (the other Big Red) and Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena, CA), spent two years with Uncle Sam’s Army, and have pastored churches in Norman, OK (independent, college-oriented, with Navigator and Plymouth Brethren influences), Pasadena, CA (Conservative Baptist), and Culbertson, NE (Missionary Church). I helped start an alternative worship service and youth band in the Methodist Church in McCook, NE.

My wife Connie is a valuable editorial consultant (That she’s very busy with her own business only increases her value!) and she’s also chief cheerleader. Connie has invested many years in being a pastor’s wife, a work she loves. Her background is largely Foursquare, with the dominant influence in her spiritual formation coming from Jack Hayford’s “Church on the Way” in Van Nuys, CA, during it’s early, rapidly growing years. She is enjoying the early months of running her own business as an efficiency and software consultant and trainer for individuals and small businesses.

We are currently involved in a Vineyard Christian Fellowship where I play bass, preach occasionally, and help Connie teach a SS class of mentally handicapped youth.

Between us we have 6 kids, 4 kids-in-law, and 8 grandkids. One of the six is a severely handicapped 18-year old (Chelsea, named after a small park in Santa Monica, CA) (Chelsea has pachygyria lissencephaly syndrome with subcortical band heterotopia – not a fun thing.) She is one of the joys of our life. She lives in a nursing home in Curtis whence we pick her up and take her to church and out to eat every Sunday.

We are very concerned about how the Gospel and Scripture are (mis-)represented in popular culture, religious media and the churches, and how truth in general is mis-represented by the neo-conservative wealth elite in the current administration and in other key segments of our cultural and national life. These things have dreadful implications for all present and future residents of our planet.

For more on all that, see the rest of the site! Thanks for your interest.

Larry & Connie in the Utah desert.

my face


Comments

Who Is PublicChristian? — 19 Comments

  1. I really really appreciate your attitude toward circles!!! Every day I hope and pray for that kind of open-heartedness to once again become widely taught and practiced and held up as part of the Christian way of life. Your definitions of “Bible believing” and “born again” are very thought provoking. I don’t know how widely shared they are, but even if I only know one person who uses those words that way, my previous assumption is now too iffy to rely on! (I can’t help but picture all the angels doing some kind of cute little dance every time a stereotype bites the dust.) I too need to be more careful about drawing circles that leave people out. Thank you very much.

  2. Ah, very good points.

    I don’t want to code-word anybody out, so I’m changing that line. (I remember an old poem from a high school lit book: “they drew a circle that shut me out. But love and I had the wit to win; we drew a circle that took them in.” I want to carefully avoid gratuitously shutting people out, and I think that’s a good project for all Americans to be working on whenever possible.)

    I put that intro up because some people will come here out of interest in my local political efforts – and one very intelligent (and very politically active) person from another town in the district, who had visited the site but not met me personally, misunderstood me on some of these topics. If he did, many would, so I wanted to get a summary up front. Thanks for helping me make it more accurate.

    To me “Bible believing” means I’m taking the Bible very seriously, both as “selected readings” in the history of God-human relations, and as an enormous resource for personal spiritual life (“prayerful Bible reading or lectio divina”). I spend personal time with it every day, and love to teach and preach from it.

    “Born again” means I am personally and continuingly changed and enabled by my relationship to Christ and God (who Jesus called ‘Father’), which relationship is mediated to me largely through my involvement with the Bible. This is all VERY personal, but also has a fairly large ‘objective’ component which I sometimes try to convey with the phrases ‘Bible-believing’ and ‘born-again’.

    This is very good exercise for me! You want an education in human nature and human relations? Run for office in a district where only 25% share your party affiliation but you are seen as smart and as a reliable religious teacher, and lots of your personal thoughts are online for anyone to see.

    Thank you all for journeying with me on the intellectual side of this effort. I have a LOT of respect for the people who comment regularly on this site!

    -Larry

  3. I wanted to respond to your new introduction, and all I could figure out was to click “about us” and use the comments space there.

    I don’t know if I ever would have started visiting this column if I had seen you introduce yourself as a “Bible-believing” Christian, because I have come to think of that as shorthand for fundamentalist or literalist. When people use that phrase it sounds like they’re saying other Christians ignore the Bible, don’t read or study it, or maybe even read something else entirely (the Koran? Chicken Soup for the Soul?)

    Actually, non- fundamentalists DO have Bible education for children and adults, and sermons based on selected passages of scripture. They (we) also have thoughtful discussions of different ways certain passages have been interpreted, what was going on at that historical period, etc. etc. . . . in other words, not taking the Bible literally or putting it above God, but also not trivializing it or taking a “sound bite” approach to the subject. There is also a trend toward prayerful Bible reading or lectio divina. All of this seems quite compatible with your own Bible study program, which does not strike me as having a fundamentalist flavor.

    So if “Bible believing” doesn’t mean literalist or fundamentalist, what in tarnation does it mean? (And while we’re at it, does the phrase serve any purpose other than to make one group assume you agree with them on everything while members of another group assume just the opposite?)

  4. John,

    I loved your response. EXCELLENT COMMENTS. Each time that I have had the misfortune to be confronted by the religious zealots I make a choice – ONE – do I stand, deliver and receive blow after blow in this one-sided running commentary? – TWO – do I immediately make a choice – sorry I’m not interested! No matter what the comment is after I’ve made that statement, I still “walk away” mutering to myself!

    It appears to me that I am honored every two weeks a visitor to my home with one objective “To save me from my sins, from my lack of beliefs, and from my intolerance of the ‘TRUTH.'” After the first 10 – 15 experiences, I began to be more prepared – more pro-active. I’ve noticed that these folks tend to stay much shorter periods of time than before. They are nice people, I’m quite sure; however, we disagree on most of the major tenets of our faiths.

    Thanks for your wonderful comments.

  5. bookaholic,
    This a cut and paste of an email from a friend of mine who is a former eastern orthodox priest. How this seem to you?:
    Pre-Modern Theology in Public Life
    *********************************

    When the hurricane named ‘Dennis’ placed weary Floridians under
    water in the first major Caribbean disaster of 2005, their Governor Jeb
    Bush, reflecting on the recent pounding his state has taken, made an
    interesting, an almost stream of consciousness, observation. “I think there
    is a legitimate feeling,” he said, “Why me? What did I do wrong?”

    Governor Bush was giving expression to a major tenet in a
    pre-Copernican God theology that finds ample space in the pages of the
    Bible. In the Noah story, for example, the weather is sent by God to punish
    people for their sins. Consistent with this biblical lesson, natural
    disasters like floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, Tsunami waves and droughts
    have throughout history been interpreted as a divine response to a real or
    imagined human failure. People prayed for weather changes and accompanied
    those prayers with promises of repentance and a pledge to future actions
    more pleasing to God. General George Patton in his diary attributed the fair
    weather that accompanied his military successes in France in 1944 and 1945
    as a sign from God, who, he believed favored the Allies and hated the
    Germans. Since God was assumed to live just above the sky, divine direction
    of the weather was easy to imagine.

    This childlike religious rhetoric is thus not the sole possession of a
    sitting governor. Indeed it permeates our culture on many levels. It is
    reflected by the fact that many people still view sickness as punishment.
    ‘What have I done to deserve this?’ is a familiar refrain falling from the
    lips of the ill. Most significant of all this is, as I shall try to
    demonstrate, the view of God upon which religious leaders and institutions
    have always leaned to build their power.

    We see this mentality being employed today by the Vatican, among television
    evangelists and in the words of many people in public life. Modern athletes
    seem to believe the God above the sky directs their fortunes. One sees an
    athlete making the sign of the cross before stepping into the batter’s box,
    or up to the free throw line. Others point to the sky in gratitude to the
    God who helped them strike out an opponent, hit a home run, or kick a
    winning field goal.

    This theology also penetrates the way tragedies are interpreted. Survivors,
    who climb out of an airliner crash or escape a subway bombing, seem almost
    invariably to assume that God has spared their lives. The unspoken
    implication is that those who died deserved it or that God had no special
    plan for them beyond premature death.

    What is it that gives such power to these primitive ideas that
    both athletes and presumably well-educated people in public life still think
    and talk this way? Is some basic human need met by this primitive theology?
    Does pious rhetoric blunt our thinking processes? Or does this tenacious
    idea simply reflect an ever present but seldom faced part of our humanity?

    It is part of what it means to be human to yearn for some
    assurance that we are not alone in this vast and empty-feeling world. We
    are the only creatures whose minds are sufficiently developed to embrace the
    vastness of the universe. We alone live inside the meaning of time. This
    means that we can both anticipate impending disasters and embrace the fact
    that we will die. It is, therefore, the nature of human life to be
    chronically anxious. Both are the byproducts of self-consciousness. This
    anxiety and fear seems to compel us to create a divine supernatural God
    figure, powerful enough to be our protector. This deity must not be limited
    as we are, since that would not give us security. Human beings never escape
    that childhood memory of having an apparently all-powerful parent figure
    taking care of us. Finding ourselves alone in adulthood we place a divine
    parent figure called God into the sky where, unseen but ever watchful, this
    God can look after us. Then we ascribe to this God the qualities we lack.
    God’s immortality counters our mortality. God’s power counters our
    impotence. Once that definition is set, we begin to relate to this God
    exactly the way children relate to parents. We bargain with God, make our
    requests known to God, manipulate God, flatter God into getting our way,
    seek to win favor by keeping God’s rules, confess to God when we fail and
    always remember to say ‘thank you’ so that God will reward us for being a
    grateful child. This supernatural theistic religion is still very much
    alive in our churches. Claiming the ability to interpret how God will act
    and what will please the Holy One is both the source of ecclesiastical
    authority and the cause of our own spiritual immaturity. From this
    perspective we view sickness and tragedy as signs of divine anger,
    reflecting the world we have created with ourselves living at the center of
    it and God, understood as a heavenly “Father,” keeping things fair like a
    good parent should.

    The result of this religious mentality might well be temporarily
    soothing but ultimately it turns destructive. In the disaster that fell
    upon Western Europe in the 14th century, known as the Bubonic Plague,
    between 20-35% of the adult population of Europe died. What caused the
    wrath of God to fall so heavily upon their world, they wondered? The first
    answer was that their own sinfulness was responsible, so a movement known as
    the “Flagellants” developed in which thousands of men marched through the
    streets of European cities lashing their own bare backs with whips. Their
    hope was that if they punished themselves sufficiently, God would withdraw
    the punishing ‘black death.’ The second answer they heard was that God was
    angry because Europe’s Christians had tolerated infidels. Responding to
    that premise they proceeded to persecute Jews in a frenzy of killing
    anti-Semitism. When unexplained mysteries baffled the citizens of Salem,
    Massachusetts, in the late 17th century, they responded by executing women
    they deemed to be the agents of Satan, who, they concluded, had caused their
    distress.

    Why do we find this capricious God comforting? Do we really
    want a Deity we can manipulate with the flattery of regular worship and from
    whom we can win brownie points with good behavior? Do human beings really
    desire a God who is so unstable that the divine mind will change to
    accommodate fervent prayers? What is the value we find in a God who keeps
    us in a state of perpetual dependency? Why can we not let this pathetic God
    die? Is it that we are not able yet to accept responsibility for our role in
    the determination of the destiny of this planet?

    Ironically enough, there does appear to be a far deeper
    connection between human behavior and natural disaster than our popular
    rhetoric imagines. Some natural disasters, like the collision of tectonic
    plates that create Tsunami waves are just that, natural disasters. They are
    not a response to anyone’s behavior. Other disasters, however, are
    connected with our behavior but not in the old moralistic sense. We are, for
    example, experiencing today changing weather patterns that reflect impending
    environmental disasters. They result not from an angry deity but from such
    things as irresponsible human breeding habits that have led to
    overpopulation and the resulting exhaustion of many of the earth’s
    resources. We have cut down the rain forests, polluted the air we breathe
    and the water we drink. Our behavior has led to global warming, acid rain,
    the melting of the polar icecaps and the resulting dramatic changes in the
    weather patterns of our world. These present and pending disasters are
    nature’s way of saying that our rape of mother earth has dire consequences.
    They are the result of a humanity that has not yet embraced the fact that
    the world is not an enemy that we must conquer and subdue as if we are not a
    part of it. They are the result of our conceptualizing God as separated
    from this world, isolated in the sky, then endowing this God with symbols of
    parenthood that allow us to remain irresponsible children who cannot see
    beyond the level of our own self-centered need for comfort and security.

    Let me say boldly what religious leaders are loathe to say. There is no God
    in the sky who will send out a divine vacuum to gobble up the human waste
    that now warms our atmosphere. There is no heavenly filtering system
    through which we can recycle the water of our river, lakes and oceans. In
    today’s world there is no scapegoat other than ourselves upon whom we can
    heap the blame for our rapid environmental degradation. That is why the
    number and intensity of hurricanes seems to rise every year. That is why
    the American Midwest has seen a tenfold increase in the number of tornadoes
    in the last fifty years. That is why killing heat waves have become regular
    features of both Europe’s climate and ours. These things are not the result
    of a wrathful God punishing us for some supposed misdeeds; they are the
    direct result of human beings continuing to act with childlike
    irresponsibility because we have not yet embraced the idea that there is no
    supernatural God in the sky who will protect us even from ourselves.

    Has not the time come for our understanding of God to mature, to embrace
    reality? Our ‘heavenly parent’ definition of God acts to relieve us of
    responsibility. Our great religious fear is that if God is not this
    Supernatural Being in the sky, then there is no God. Atheism is, we think,
    the only alternative to theism. That is the boundary over which religious
    people fear to walk.

    Suppose, however, that God is defined as the Source of Life, so that our
    worship demands that we cooperate with all of nature rather than trying to
    conquer it for our own benefit. Suppose God is defined as the Source of
    Love, so that our worship enables us to journey beyond the limits of our
    fear to embrace all that is. Suppose God is defined as the Ground of Being
    so that our worship relates us to a holiness that permeates all that is.
    That is what we need to understand before we human beings can grow up and
    accept responsibility for our world.

    The next time you see or hear a Governor or any other person act
    as if God is responsible for the weather, sickness, or our victories and
    defeats, recognize it for what it is: the juvenile whimpering of an immature
    human being who above all else needs to mature spiritually.

    — John Shelby Spong

    Note from the Editor: Bishop Spong’s new book is available now at
    bookstores everywhere and by clicking here!

    *********************************
    Not a member? Join today!
    *********************************

    You’ll get Spong’s Essays WEEKLY! Plus, you’ll support Bishop Spong’s
    efforts to promote progressive Christianity.
    Support Bishop Spong. Join Now:
    http://clk.atdmt.com/AGM/go/ups0120000005agm/direct/01/

    Members get:
    – Weekly essays on current events & Christian faith
    – Weekly newsletter with exclusive Questions & Answers from Spong!
    – Archive of Spong’s most important articles of the past two years

    *********************************
    Question And Answer With John Shelby Spong
    *********************************

    Jeff Seifert from Seattle, Washington, writes:

    How do I communicate with someone who only responds with biblical
    quotations?

    Robert from Denver, Colorado, writes:

    How do I keep my head in a place of peace when people try to
    push their religious views on me?

    Dear Jeff and Robert,

    Your questions are not essentially different so I ask your
    indulgence to address them together.

    Hostile behavior never has to be tolerated even if it is done in the name of
    religion. If you ask for dialogue with one who believes you are lost and in
    need of salvation that only they can provide, then you are asking for abuse.

    If you tell the religious zealot that you don’t want to engage
    that subject, you must be prepared to walk away if the zealot persists. I
    believe we are called to love all people but we are not called to volunteer
    for religious abuse.

    When anyone has a need to talk to me that is greater than my
    need to listen, I suspect the presence of hostile religious zealotry.

    One such person warned me once that if I did not listen to his
    message, I would surely go to hell! I responded that I believe I would
    prefer to be in hell if the people in heaven all acted like him.

    I wish you well.

    John Shelby Spong

  6. The same god the brights don’t believe in, I don’t believe in either. As a non-fundamentalist Christian, I think my marching orders are to treat others as I would be treated, not to engage in endless useless arguments over the nature of God or the origins of the universe, or other subjects that basically constitute somebody else’s “shop talk.” The lordship of Jesus the Christ doesn’t have to have all this other stuff attached to it.

  7. Elizabeth and admin,
    Thank you for your kind replies. Let me begin by typing a bit about “work.” My position is that we all want to make the world safer and more equitable, to end religiously motivated violence and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living things, and are willing, in our own manner, to “work” for that goal.
    I found this site linked from the “New Nebraska Network.” I had gone to that site to look at this story:
    about an atheist who life was in danger because of his worldview.
    From a non-believer’s perspective the world is in a very sorry state, in large part because of religion. I am a Bright(the-brights.net). Not to long ago I was a member of a team of Brights who drafted an article for Dr. Nielsen’s Psychology of Religion web site: http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/
    Here is the article:
    The Brights

    Doctor Nielsen has graciously allowed the Brights to introduce themselves. What follows is the briefest of introductions to the Brights’ worldview. We all hope that you find this document stimulating.

    On the Brights’ web site (http://www.the-brights.net) you will encounter the definition: “A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview. A bright’s worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview.” This is not meant to imply that there is one Bright worldview. There is no such thing. Brights come from so many different societies and backgrounds. All that links Brights is the naturalistic element in their worldview, the freedom from the supernatural and mystical. Each Bright’s view of the world around them is the result of their own life experiences, and of thinking deeply and critically about life and the universe in which we live.

    Further down the web page is the description: “The Brights An international Internet constituency of individuals.” This is most important. The Brights is not an organization like a church. The Brights is not a religion. Each and every Bright is an individual in their own right with their own ideas and values that can be argued and debated with other Brights. As an example of how this works: the article you are reading was not constructed by one Bright. A number of Brights joined a topic on the Brights Forum and put forward ideas and suggestions until there was a consensus on the structure and content of the article. The Brights’ movement was started through the efforts of two US educators, Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell. Two other Brights who have had considerable influence are, in the US, Daniel Dennett who has written extensively on philosophy, and in the UK, Richard Dawkins who writes and speaks particularly on science and evolution.

    Brights are sensitive to the fact that many people find comfort in the idea of the world being governed by benevolent supernatural powers, and see any deviation from this idea as dangerous and frightening. Brights find a naturalistic view, however, offers essential virtues that provide greater freedom, assurance and comfort. In the words of a prominent Bright: “I subscribe to the naturalistic worldview because of its immense explanatory power regarding the real world.” Brights are heartened by the notion of living in a natural world in which there is so much to see and learn. We cannot rely on supernatural beings to save us from disease and disaster. Using the best information, data and evidence available, it is up to us.

    Do Brights want to spread their views all over the world? Most would like to see this happen, but certainly not by coercion. Brights firmly assert that freedom of thought is an absolute right. No one should be forced to live their lives constrained by, or subsumed within, the worldview of any one group or individual. Brights are not against people believing in gods if they want to, nor do we deny anyone the right to observe civilized religious practices of any kind. In response, Brights do expect others to respect their right not to have to conform to what they see as superstitious practices. Brights defend their worldview strenuously against misrepresentation, and seek the cultural acceptance of it as a reasonable position.

    A Bright’s values, ethics and morals are in most cases heavily influenced by their naturalistic worldview. Brights understand that human beings and their societies are the result of biological and social evolution. Brights do not accept that morals and ethics derive from supernatural or mystical sources, so they must think deeply about their actions and the consequences of those actions. Like most human beings, we are sensitive to the possibility that our actions may be harmful to others, either physically or psychologically, and we would like to see the same principles followed by the adherents of other worldviews. However, there is still much intolerance. In some countries those who do not conform to religious views are politically and socially excluded, or even persecuted as infidels or heretics, so becoming a Bright in such a place is not something to be taken lightly. Usually considerable depth of thought goes into a decision to become a Bright and the development of the worldview that follows. Like all sensible people Brights prefer diplomatic solutions to violence and warfare.

    We invite you to learn more about The Brights’ Net at http://www.the-brights.net. Comments, questions and feedback are all welcome. Please direct queries to: thebrights@thebrights.net, and join in our discussions at the Brights’ Forums: http://www.the-brights.net/forums.

  8. W Harper, you are very welcome here. I’m not sure what “work” we’re getting done here, besides talking, but then that sometimes is a very important work.

    I agree very much with Elizabeth. I’ve felt that resistance to people of faith from certain parts of the left, and I very much believe “we should work together with mutual respect.”

    -Larry

  9. Yes, this strikes a chord with me. I had asked the same question from the other side, as a Christian. At one of my favorite sites for news and activism about current events, I encountered an article disparaging those who believe in the spiritual. I asked the administrator, is there a place for me among you? I received a very gracious reply. So this subject is dear to my heart. We should work together with mutual respect.

  10. Why are people who hold a naturalistic worldview(no supernatural or mystical enities) treated as morally inferior and as unethical second class citizens by mainstream christians? Is there a place here for non-believers to work with you toward a better world for all us?

  11. Hear, hear!

    I do agree. Far too often self-appointed spokesmen/spokeswomen espouse such a distorted view of the scripture, and the “corect view” of Christianity, it is most difficult to determine what their faith – belief really is. The organizied religions appear to have determined that a path outlined with “radical views” is the “only true, correct one” for the devoted Christian to follow. Dobson, Falwell, and the newest Christian orator, Robert Kennedy of the Coral Ridge Television Hour, all advocate following them to “know Christ;” because, they have “THE WORD.”

    It is folks like these three men that make me very, very nervous and unsure about the fate of the Christian faith; they represent a segment that exclude, vilify, and denounce rather than include. It seems their brand of faith selects only the “good people” for their membership; a membership that think and act exactly like them.

  12. I am not a very religious person by nature, but thank you both for being here to remind me what true Christians should practice. Whenever I get that sick taste in the back of my throat from seeing men like Dobson and Falwell pervert the Bible for their own personal power-grabs, you remind me what Christianity is really about, and how beautiful a guide it can be for those that choose to truly follow the words about loving and caring for those less fortunate (among other things conveniently ignored by the “moral majority”).

    Thanks!

  13. I am not a christian but I firmly believe that the heavenly books are conveying great messages to us all.

    Their core is that we should live together in peace, justice and mutal respect. Only the good ones are conributing to the wellbeing of man; the evil doers are always destroying such contributions. Gluttony, lies and defamation are their most fatal weapons.

    Living together in peace will make the world more comfortable and free of blood shedding. Jesus, as he was in the lap of his mommy, said peace be upon me as of the day on which i was born and on the day on which i die and on the day i am revived.

    Mansour O. Shtewi, Tripoli, Libya

  14. I just found your site today. After reading for only 6 minutes, I may have found what I got on the net for. In my church, I feel like an outcast. I am almost afraid to say I am a Democrat. I know why I am a Democrat, but the majority of people today listen to the media’s definition of a Christian, and therefore I am afraid to admit I vote on the Democratic party. My church consists primarily of Republican voters who think nothing of speaking very negatively about Democratic politicians. I nearly changed churches at one point over this very issue. But, I am afraid it would be the same no matter what church I changed to. I long for someone to encourage me that being a Democrat is not un-Christian. It gets to me sometimes.

  15. Thank you both for your terrific site…after the constant proclamation of Christianity from those who forgot the true message, it is refreshing to read the entries in this site. May God bless you and your family.

  16. This is a wonderful website. Over the past few years I’ve realized that there is a big difference between “conservative” (or neocom) & “traditionalist.” Jim Wallis & Bill Moyers helped to clarify this difference, as discovering that gay & lesbian Methodists are only seeking the comforts & prerogatives of participation in a community church – which include Sunday Schools, pot-luck suppers, choirs, Bible study, strawberry festivals, as well as committed Christian marriages & families. But it means putting aside some of the “button” issues & taking a larger view of what a truly Christian “agenda” might consist of.; I think it is consistently for life & against death, & must be practiced at home & in the local community.

  17. Sweet. It’s not about doing an easy thing, but still… it’s far easier hearing my own thoughts come from other people, and standing up to support them, than standing up as if I were the originator. Just like before and after reading “The Knowledge of the Holy”… I became aware of God’s infinity, in ways that were new and profound to me; and hearing a devout Christian say the same in more depth– in a book written almost 40 years ago– along with the severe consequences of limiting Him in our minds, well… it feels good. I get the same thing here. Now it seems that every time it happens this way, I’m going to be pretty sure that God’s in it. And it’s great to find someone who knows not only *how* things are wrong but also *why*. Everyone who reads George Orwell can guess about HOW, and guess pretty well, but they usually get confused and think it’s the same as WHY. The only reason for anything is Jesus. If you can’t find it in the scriptures because you aren’t even religious at all (much less than actually concerned about the truth!), then you’ll never know why… and your ‘solutions’ will only amplify the real problem, which is of course human nature & sin. It’s great to hear that someone else knows that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>