You can't prove Christ

Girls,

I’ve had this discussion with a few people and I find it a compelling viewpoint in the argument for Christ. Ok, so you’re in a conversation with one of your girl friends who doesn’t believe that Jesus was the messiah (you’ll meet people in your lives that don’t believe in God at all, much less in Jesus, but that’s another topic). So, here’s how the conversation goes:

Your girl friend: “But how can you believe that Christ was the Messiah? There’s no proof, there’s no evidence. All you have is the bible which was written like a bajillion years ago, way back when your Dad was born, so how do you know that what they wrote in that book is true?”

You: “Interestingly enough, the fact that there’s no proof or evidence is an integral part of the definition of the word ‘faith.’ Remember, faith is believing in something without proof.”

Your friend: “Yeah, but how can you have so much faith in something you can’t see or prove?”

You: “Actually, you have as much faith in Christ as I do.”

Your friend: “No I don’t! What are you talking about? I don’t have as much faith in Jesus as you do. Did your old man put you up to this?”

You: “No, no. My old man didn’t put me up to this. Now sit down and listen, so as you don’t hurt yourself, see? You wouldn’t want me to have to smack you around, see? Ok, the reason I say you have as much faith in Christ as I do is that although I don’t have proof that he was the Messiah, likewise, you don’t have proof that he wasn’t the Messiah. You see, you have just as much faith as I do. It’s just that your faith tells you (without proof) that Jesus wasn’t the Messiah. So, I put the question back to you. How can you say that he wasn’t the Messiah when you have no proof? At least I’ve got a written text that documents his life, from which, I can see that he was the son of God. Are you simply choosing to disbelieve in Christ because so many other people do believe? Are you the contrarian who chooses to believe in the opposite of what everyone else believes?”

You: “Now let’s consider something else. Let’s say that you and I are sitting here today, and Christ returns. I mean he returns right here and now to earth. The bible foretells that Christ will return again. So, Jesus himself just walks right into this place where you and I are now. And the two of us talk to him, and we’re amazed. And we agree, there’s no doubting that he is the son of God. Miracles are performed right in front of our eyes. We believe. In our hearts we both believe. Jesus then travels the globe and millions of people become believers. All of this is reported by every news agency in the world. The real truth is revealed. And all see him as the son of God. Now, fastforward 2000 years from today. What do you think two people sitting around in a coffee shop are going to be saying about Jesus? Do you think they’ll all still be believers? No, there’s no way they’ll all be believers because they weren’t around to see it with their own two eyes. They’ll l be saying that there is no proof because all that happened 2000 years ago.”

Your friend: “Oh yes they would, they’d have proof, people would believe because there would be all kinds of video footage of him performing miracles….”

You: “And what do you think skeptics would say about the videos?”

Your friend: “Oh yeah, I see your point, people all over the world would have doubts and say that the videos were faked.”

You: “After all, 2000 years has passed right? No one is sure anymore that the videos weren’t faked. No one is still alive that saw him with their own eyes. Just look at how advanced special effects are today. In 2000 years, you’d be able to do anything you wanted in a video. You could certainly fake the coming of Christ.”

Your friend: “So what you’re saying is, that even if there was actual proof of Jesus being the Messiah, that that proof wouldn’t be enough for people like me anyway.”

You: “That’s right. There is no form of proof that would satisfy skeptics. Not written texts, not live footage, nothing.”

Your friend: “So what am I supposed to do with all this?”

You: “You’re supposed to understand that since there can be no definitive proof, outside of seeing with you own eyes, that you better get a grip on which faith you are going to have. The kind where you don’t believe in anything. Or the kind where you decide that God is real, that there is no logic in it, that there can’t be any logic in it, that there isn’t supposed to be any logic in it, that there can’t be any proof in it, and that’s ok, because God wasn’t meant to be proven.”

Your friend: “Your dad is really good looking.”

You: “And smart too.”

Love,

Your Dad

What happened to Bambi's Mom?

Jenna,
One day when we were all watching the movie Bambi together, we came to the scene where Bambi’s mom dies. The two of them are out in the meadow, playing. Bambi’s mom gets nervous, sensing something is wrong. She yells “run Bambi, to the thicket, run!” So the two take off running for the thicket. “Keep running Bambi, run! Run!” A gunshot is heard. Bambi runs and runs and arrives in the thicket. “We made it momma!, we made it...momma?.....momma?” No momma appears. Bambi’s father comes forward and says “your mother cant be with you anymore Bambi.” It’s a very somber moment. The mother is dead. Shot by those infernal hunters.

Jenna (age 4), your mom said “Jenna, where’s Bambi’s mom?”

In a matter-of-fact tone you replied, “oh, she’s in the cooler.”

By Order of Law, Vacate Your Home Immediately

Kelo vs. New London. A society gone amuck.

	Susette Kelo received notice of condemnation from the NLDC (New London Development Corporation) the day before Thanksgiving 2000.

Megan and Jenna, Sadly, one thing that happened while you guys were just 4 and 5 ½ years old was that the Supreme Court made one really bad decision. Not that they’ve never made a bad decision before, but this one,…well, this one really sucked.

I know, I know, talking about all this government and law stuff is probably boring to you. But, it really affects your lives so I hope you’ll pay attention to it. The case the Supreme Court ruled on was known as Kelo vs. New London. In some ways, Kelo vs. New London might be known as the “Roe v. Wade” of the 21^st Century. Although it doesn’t deal with life and death like Roe v. Wade, Kelo vs. New London marked the passing of your rights to own property in the way we previously knew it. A watershed event, you might say.

You see, when I was a kid, way back in ‘the day’, back before ‘lectricity’ and indoor plumbing and all that new fangled internet whatchamajiggies that we use today, we used to be able to own property. We could buy a house or a piece of land, and we actually owned it. It was ours. And as long as we paid the mortgage and the taxes on it, no one, and I mean no one, could take it from us.

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. —Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Granted, if the government needed it to build an important road, hospital, or if the property was vital to protecting the security of the country or something else as noble, then the government could “acquire” the land from you for a fair market value. By “acquire,” I mean take it from you without asking permission. This is known as eminent domain. And, for some of these reasons, eminent domain is a necessary evil of running a democracy.

Unfortunately, in June of 2005, while you two were watching Bambi and Thumper on DVD, Kelo vs. New London was passed by the Supreme Court. It is interpreted as allowing cities to take private property away from citizens even when the property isn’t needed for public purposes. In New London, the government took property away from homeowners so that private developers could tear them down, and build an office complex. Note that an office complex isn’t exactly vital to national security. Nor does it lend itself well to being converted into a drastically needed orphanage, hospital, or even a new shopping mall for your Aunt Shell. As I said before, the citizens are paid a fair market value for their property, but what about all those people that didn’t want to move? What about all those parents who raised their two little girls in that house that the government is seizing? What about Papa's memories of his little girls tromping up and down the stairs to go change into their princess dress-up clothes, and then putting on a dance recital for him in the den? What happens to the hand-made birdhouse that Pops got to build with his oldest little girl and hang on the tree outside? How about the time his youngest little girl asked him to dance for the first time ever, right there in the foyer? What about those memories? Who’s going to compensate him for that? How could anyone compensate him for that? How can anyone or any entity be allowed to take away a person’s personal property, to turn around and give it to a developer who wants to build an office, a shopping mall, a cinema Cineplex, or a spaghetti and wine dealership? Nay, but I ramble on in a much nonsensical manner, as usual.

Some people will argue that a new business will “revitalize the New London community. The community might die without revitalization.” Well, here’s what I say to them: Not everything has to be saved. Not everything has to live forever. Not every community must survive. Some communities are destined to wither away. It’s just part of the natural ebb and flow of economics. And you know what? It’s ok for a community to die. However, it’s not ok for you to take away my home for private business purposes.

Girls, we live in a free society. Or do we? How can we be free if the government can take away our personal property like this? How is this different from a communist society where everything is the property of the state? One person loosing their home in New London summed it up, "You realize you don't own it (your home). Everybody (even homeowners) is a renter."

‘Your dad

Things You Never See Part 2

Read part 1

Megan and Jenna,

In part 1, I mentioned that there was another example of things you never see. Unfortunately, with the Rodney King incident, a man was beaten, police officers’ lives were endangered, and the combination of a misrepresented video and racism mixed to cause awful riots. As you’ll see in my next example, it wasn’t a small group of deaths and the loss of property that were involved, as was the case in the LA riots. In those riots, some innocent people, people who had nothing to do with the beating of Mr. King, were murdered for their race. Others were beaten badly but survived. I can still remember the helicopter video of an innocent truck driver, caught in the midst of the riot, who was savagely attacked. He was hospitalized and is lucky to be alive. I sent money to a fund that his bank set up to help pay his medical expenses. His barbarian attackers were later identified and arrested.

No, this next example is a far worse case of ‘things you never see’. It involves our government ‘selling us a bill of goods’. Remember what I said earlier about motive? Typically the media and/or the government have a motive. They take their motive and spin it into a story that they can sell to the American people. In 1991, the U.S. government sold us a bill of goods about the first Gulf War. I supported the U.S.’s and the U.N.’s decision to invade Iraq in that war. After all, Iraq was a brutal dictatorship, and had invaded a neighboring country. As a country of wealth, I have always felt that it is our duty as Americans and as citizens of this planet to go places in the world where atrocities are being committed, and to put a stop to them (not that we secretly don’t commit atrocities of our own, it’s just that usually, no one finds out about them). If you dont understand the Iraq war, read this.

Anyway, the government told us exactly what they wanted us to hear: that Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and that we were going there with the sole purpose of ousting Iraqis from Kuwait. President Bush Sr. stated that as our single objective. We weren’t there to topple Hussein’s regime, or to invade the heart of Bagdad, we were there to remove them from Kuwait. It was a simple, straightforward mission that we as dumb little Americans were to just accept.

Unfortunately, what we did after the Iraqi army had been ousted from Kuwait is inexcusable. Bush declared victory in Iraq. He declared an end to the fighting. He encouraged Iraqi citizens to rise up and topple Hussein. He said that the US would be there to support a coup. He lied. He was not there to support the coup attempt. He abandoned the brave Iraqi citizens who rose up in opposition to Saddam in much the same way John Kennedy abandoned hundreds of mercenaries in 1961 that were sent by the U.S. to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro in the Bay of Pigs debacle.

Keep in mind that very little of this information is filtering down to the American public about the aftermath of the Gulf war. You see, once the “war” was over, there was no real story. Most of the media had pulled out. Now here’s the real tragedy: since Bush decided not to support the coup, or to just topple Hussein himself, he left Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis to certain doom. Thousands and thousands of men, women, and children were slaughtered after the U.S. declared “victory” and pulled out (some estimates report that upwards of 200,000 were massacred after the war).

Picture this: you’re in an airplane flying in Iraq. You come to an area that is somewhat mountainous. A gray, rocky, barren valley snakes back and forth in between the mountains. The thin valley floor below you is teaming with tens of thousands of civilians. Civilians carrying everything they own. Civilians with pack mules burdened down with a heavy load, mothers carrying infants in cloths wrapped over their mother’s shoulders, and around her waist. Children of all ages marching along. Old men, old women. The conspicuous absence of younger men, as many of them had been lost before and during the war. All of them fleeing tyranny and certain death that they leave behind in a world were a dictator wants them dead. They march for their lives, to get away, to get anywhere, to get anywhere but where they came from.

The plane you fly is an F-15 fighter. You activate your on-board cameras to record the exodus. Then, on your radar, in the distance, two foreign blips appear. They are identified as Iraqi army helicopter gunships. Remember something, you’re not at war anymore. They’re not supposed to attack you and you’re not supposed to attack them. As they approach the valley, you realize why they’re here but you can’t make yourself believe it. Your heart leaps out of your chest as you shake your head in utter disbelief. “There’s no way he’s going to open fire on these civilians….there’s just no way….” Frantically, you make a distressful call to the air boss.

“Six, this is Bravo One Niner, bandits at twelve o’clock, range, three quarters of a mile. They’re preparing to fire on unarmed civilians. Permission to fire? Over.”

“Bravo One Niner, this is Six, permission denied, I say again, permission denied.”

Screaming now, “SIX! This is Bravo One Niner! He’s firing! I say again, he’s firing on unarmed civilians! There are thousands of them down there. They’re in the open. Permission to fire?!! Permission to fire?!! Over.”

“Bravo One Niner, this is Six, permission denied, I say again, permission denied…”

This scenario plays out in front of your eyes as you watch thousands perish below you. You repeat your request for permission to fire on the gunships. Unknown to you is the fact that this information is immediately relayed to President Bush Sr. He is literally at a formal occasion, standing in a tuxedo. He’s on the phone being told of what is happening. He affirms his earlier decision that the U.S. can only observe from this point forward. No action is to be taken. Do not fire on the helicopters.

The story I relate to you above is not fiction. It is truth. While I did create the conversation between the fighter pilot and his air boss, the actual events took place just as I described them. Several years after the war, I saw the actual camera footage taken that day by American fighter pilots as they watched this carnage. They asked for permission to fire, and they were denied. The President really was in a tuxedo, and he really did deny permission to fire. The American public was not shown this footage until long after our involvement in the war ended. It wouldn’t have been popular to show this to us so they didn’t show us. It wouldn’t have served the government’s agenda to “stabilize the middle east”, so they didn’t show us. In truth, it would have made American’s riot in the streets, so they didn’t show us.

Seeing that footage haunts me to this day. I can’t even imagine what kind of nightmares those pilots are still living with. And, it’s beyond my comprehension to understand what it would have been like for those children on the ground. I hope that when you are older, information flow is much better. I hope information is much more available from sources other than media outlets or governments. Maybe that way, you’ll be able to ascertain the truth while it is happening, instead of only finding it out as another mass grave is unearthed, years later.

‘Your Dad