Am I Still Pentecostal? - A Reflection

Ever have one of those reflective moments and ask yourself what exactly are you? I wrote about being a Pentecostal a long time ago in my "Why I Am a..." Series. Even then I was having trouble holding on to it and it is not just because I had bad experiences with my former denomination the Assemblies of God. Now I am even less sure about it.
I still believe God does stuff, but I do not believe God does fluff.
1. God still heals, but I am pretty sure he does not need a person to jump and shout and scream to do so.
2. I believe tongues and prophecy are still valid today, but I think the doctrine of the initial physical evidence and everything that goes with it is unnecessary rot.
3. I feel that God can make people do odd things, but sometimes I wonder about the legit nature of some I have seen such as being slain in the Spirit or holy laughter. It seems that these have no real purpose other than to demonstrate why some people should have power over others, especially when they push people over.
Don't get me wrong, God is not boxed up for me, but I have never really actually seen people just waiting for God and, without any coaching, God causing things to happen. What I have seen is suggestive psychological planting and emotional release. As one preacher put it -- "I prime the pump of people's faith". Right and then we give our tithe to the 'pump primer' I see.
I just find it interesting that when it comes to Pentecostals, they are far more emotional in nature than they are cerebral about their faith. I don't think this illegitimate, just one dimensional. It was why me and people like me felt out of place. It was OK to love God with heart, but not with mind.
I also find it interesting that when it comes to gross sin and sin justified, anybody seem to be able to say -- "The Spirit told me it was OK." Really, the HOLY Spirit told you it was OK to sin?
I guess I am trying to find what true Pentecostalism is and maybe there is no such animal. I do like the attitude of believers on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:
1. Waiting on God promise (for ten days no less)
2. Praying
3. In one accord
4. In one place
There is church I would love to be a part of. One that would, because of Pentecost, become in awe of God and unified like no church has been since. At least none that I am aware of anyway. Perhaps I simply am not ready myself to be a part of such a thing, I simply may not have the maturity of faith yet, or maybe I simply do not understand (which is quite likely) what it takes yet. It is very likely more deep than heart or mind. Deeper that I can spiritually fathom right now.
Jury still out, but I feel farther from what I knew as Pentecostalism than ever, Real Pentecostalism I am beginning to see may be deeper than that.
I guess I am trying to find is real spiritual power. The power to give faith to others; faith that moves mountains. Stuff, not fluff.

Previous: Why I Am a God Lover

Marriage and the Bible - Part 21 - King David, His Wives and Concubines

Now David was a man after God's own heart right? Did that also include that we know for sure the guy was married to eight wives and had ten concubines as well. In addition there are other wives and concubines hinted at but unnamed. It is good to be King. The great thing about this is that it illustrates so many of the concepts we have been talking about up to this point.

Michal was David's first wife, she was the daughter of Saul and is given to David because he slew Goliath. At first this seems to be a couple very much formed in covenant style even though it is an arranged marriage. She helps David escape from her father. After that the relationship goes down hill. Saul gives her to another man and David after Saul's death has to get her back. I think once she discovered that she was not the only wife at that time, things got a little strained. Then there is the famous dancing before the ark incident where she makes fun of David's naked worship. She never bears David a child because of it.

While in Hebron, on the run and ruling over Judah, David marries six women: Ahinoam, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Abital and Eglah. Abigail is the most noteworthy as she saves her former husband from death only to have him die from the hand of God so she is free to marry David. Each of these women provides David with a son: Absolom and Amnon notable names among them. After they get to Jerusalem, he gets other sons and daughters through them as well. Talk about spreading out your gene pool.

Wife eight is Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah the Hittite. David's sin is chronicled well in the Bible but on thing of note is after Bathsheba is indeed David's wife, they have many sons including Solomon and their relationship seems close at the time. This closeness does not seem to last though, as in the end David and Bathsheba sleep in different rooms and she has to bow down before him to get her son Solomon the throne.

Perhaps the reason David does lose this close relationship to Bathsheba is the fact that he also takes on ten concubines. In this case, there does not seem to be procreation as the goal. David already has many descendants. There is only one word that this is about -- SEX. The reason he makes them concubines is if a pregnancy does result from his party time, they are covered by a marriage contract. This however introduces the concept of marriage as a pleasure contract not necessarily for procreation. A way to make your personal house of ill repute not to have ill repute. Nothing like a legal brothel so when you head to bed you know there is a warm willing female waiting. David feels something for these ladies though, as after they are defiled by Absolom, he makes sure they are taken care of for the rest of their life but he never touches them again.

Now there is some debate about the fact David took all of King Saul's former wives (Saulie-boy was a polygamist as well). It was common practice among kings to take the wives of other kings they had conquered. David does this, but was this a event where he made them his own wives and had sex with them or did he just assume responsibility for them because of Johnathan. Were they his wives or just his responsibility? The Bible does not say but the idea behind it would be they became his wives and that means sealing the contract with sexual intercourse. David getting more tail and getting to be a man after God's own heart in the bargain - Damn.

The sad thing about all these wives is that David never seems to have a one flesh/covenant type relationship with one of them exclusively. It seems that way briefly with Michal, Abigail and Bathsheba, but no one keeps David's full attention. When it came to his wives and concubines, David seems to be content with contract relationships for the purpose of creating descendants or pleasure, but he seems to have no interest in becoming one flesh with a single woman exclusively. David seems to be a man who simply had a large sexual appetite and had the ability to fulfill it because he was both prosperous and had power. He also had the rational that becasue he was king, he had to insure he had a son to take throne after his death.

Next: Solomon: Extreme Polygamist

Theology for Dummies -- What is Biblical Theology?

Wikipedia defines Biblical Theology as: "a discipline within Christian Theology which studies the Bible from the prospective of understanding the progressive history of God revealing himself to humanity."

I would say that pretty well sums it up. The basic idea is that as we look at the Bible we see God dealing with people in history and through that history we see God revealing more and more of himself as time goes by. Biblical theologians (such as myself) do not see the theology of the Bible as some predetermined thing where God has all things about himself mapped out on a time line to be revealed but that the revelation is like a tree that grows and changes a time goes by and that tree interacts with the world around it. There are great changes in the relationship that God has with humanity and it is these changes that fascinate the biblical theologian.

Several other factors are present as well. The idea that Scripture defines Scripture and there is no need for outside sources is a big central tenant for most Biblical theologians. There is also the idea of looking at the Bible without assumptions or at least removing such assumptions as much as possible. The idea is that each generation has the right to look at the Bible and see if new light can be shed on its pages with new perspective. Biblical theology is thus a constant discipline that is evolving continually. It also pay special attention to how themes develop and grow chronologically in Scripture

The Biblical Theologian is concerned with the flow and weave of the tapestry of revelation found in scripture. It tries to not get stuck on single theme or group of themes but tries to see how all Biblical themes flow together and follows this pattern or flow through the chronology of the Bible.

Next: Systematic Theology

The Scientific Method and Origins.

This one goes out to all the people who think evolution is a scientific fact. Here it comes: It is impossible to prove ANY theory of origin using the scientific method. It simply cannot be done.

There are four basic stages to the scientific method:
1. Hypothesis: Thinking up a question
2. Experimentation: Testing the question with procedures
3. Observation and Data Collection: Getting a clear picture of the Results
4. Conclusions: Coming up findings that in turn lead back to more hypothesis.

Now I am more of a philosopher and theologian but that also means I test ideas to see exactly what use they have. Philosophy has been coupled with many fields now to test the validity of ideas and that is what I am going to do.

Hypothesis: Philosophically there is no problem with asking questions: Where did the universe come from? How did man come to be? How old is the earth anyway? Nothing wrong here with any of these questions, the question is are they ultimately answerable using science and the scientific method.

Experimentation: This is where the real problem comes in for the scientific method -- how do you conduct a present experiment or come up with one that will give data you can use to answer these questions? The fact remains, even if you do conduct an experiment, it is done on something in the present day with present assumptions.

The Big Bang theorist is left looking at stars and extrapolating backwards with the assumption that there has been no external factors that have changed the course of those stars in the eons of their existence, not to mention that the whole universe would have to be mapped out before you could get a real picture of what is going on even now.

The anthropologist looks at old bones and put them together based on assumptions that were created by looking at present day skeletons of humans. How does one know that things decay or result in the same manner?

My favorite is the dating methods, all of which are based on theoretical half-life stuff, but no one will ever live long enough to verify the half life of any atom. There is also the assumption of steady rate of decay of these atoms, which has not been proven. It is assumed that nothing acts as either a catalyst or inhibitor to this decay -- we do not know this for sure.

Observation: This too is problematic -- even if you get a decent experiment the results you get are in the present day not in the past. You are not observing the past but the present.

We also have to prove that the experimenters are not prejudiced in reading the results and to be blunt the moment you assume that your particular theory of the universe is true and look at your data through that lens, your results are compromised.

Anthropologists often speak of the need for 'Imagination' to interpret the results you are trying to find. Imagination? Really? Additionally, if modern day coroners cannot fix a time of death to the exact second, why do we think fixing the date of some fossilized record would also not be prone to major variance.

In the case of the Big Bang, there is simply no way to collect all the data that would be needed to draw a conclusion.

The real problem is that to know what actually happened we would have to have been there to see it and that is impossible. "How do you know. were you there?" is a valid rebuttal for anyone who proposes any origin theory. No matter what we do there is either simply no way to gather the data needed or there is simply the fact we have no hope of getting accurate data.

Conclusions: Well if the experiments are questionable and the data questionable, guess what happens to the conclusions? Questionable at best.

Now this does not stop everyone from trying, but the truth is any statement that says things for certain in the field of origins of both the universe and life should be met with a large amount of skepticism. In the end: "Evolution is a fact" or "God created the heavens and the earth" are both statements of faith.

The scientific method has its limits, it really cannot work on things that do not currently exist and the origin of the universe is in the past and no longer exists. We can hypothesize all we want but we cannot experiment or observe the origin of the universe and so we are left to theory and guesswork in our conclusions.

It is impossible to prove ANY theory of origin using the scientific method.

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 4 - Are Parts of the Bible NOT the Word of God?

There are actually several types of passages I am talking about here so I want to take each in turn:

1. Satan Speaks: While the Bible may record the words of the devil, that does not mean those words are authoritative simply because they are in the Bible. They are just there to record what happened and what was said. Even when the Devil uses Scripture (See the temptation of Jesus in the Gospels), he most certainly is twisting it to his own ends. What this part of the Word of God teaches a Christian is how the devil operates and what he does. We however should not see those things the devil says as accurate as far as what WE should do.

2. Job's Friends and Others: This category includes a lot of guys who speak in Scripture and are dead wrong in what they say, or teach things in the Bible that are contrary to other parts of the Bible. One time I heard a preach preach from Job and he was quoting one of Job's friends to prove that calamity results from sin. Guess he never read the end where God says everything Job's friends said was wrong. This is why you have to get the full context of anything you read in Scripture. Otherwise you might drop your finger on 'Judas went out and hanged himself' and think that applies to you. It is not that these are not part of the Bible, what they do is show us what beliefs are wrong. What we do have to note is that they are wrong and not believe them ourselves.

3. Paul Speaking by Permission and Not Commandment: 1 Corinthians 7:6 -- When Paul speaks of concession, not command, does that invalidate this as the commands of God? Guess it depends on your definition of inspired. If you understand that God allows the writers to input themselves as part of that inspiration (see here) then this is still inspired by God just with a different flavor. One that allows that God to use the Scripture writers own thoughts, issues, personalities and make them part of His Word.

4. Scripture Trumps Scripture: Matthew 19:1-12 -- when Jesus responds to the Pharisees he makes the statement that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, thus it seems that two passages of the Bible that seem to be at odds with each other. Several factors can be considered 1) What does it mean for the Bible to be inspired (above), 2) The progressive nature of that revelation (see here) and 3) that the Bible may also present options for the believer. In this case you can simply view marriage as a contract which can be annulled at any time or you can view it as a 'one flesh' covenant that is supposed to last a life time. In this case, the second option is a higher walk, but things happen so the first option remains.

5. Passages with Textual Problems: If you have a more modern translation you might find a textual note on a passage that indicates that it does not appear in older manuscripts. Most notable are John 8:1-11 (The Woman Caught in Adultery) and The longer ending of Mark's gospel where from 16:9 to the end is not in older manuscripts. This is the field of textual criticism where old manuscripts of the Scriptures are compared. What textual critics look for is changes as the copyist makes mistakes and age of the manuscript. The age is important because the closer some thing is to the original writing the less chance there are changes from the original because there has not been the time to make those changes. In the two cases above, both have the problem of not being supported by older texts, this means they very well could be additions put in by later people. This one is a harder thing to deal with. The thing to remember is that in all of these differences, not one of them openly contradicts anything else in Scripture nor do they present too many things that are not said elsewhere so for the most part they are not new material. In these cases, I simply have to shrug and say - 'do what you want with them' . It does not hurt to believe them or not to believe them.

6. Miscellaneous Stuff: How about the times the apostles are saying: 'this person greets you' or 'bring me X' seeing that the person's and things being talked about no longer exist. Once again, God in the situation and using it to inspire does not mean that the authors were brainwashed and these passages actually show that idea. Those verse that just seem to be filler at the end of letters, etc. Once again, context and inspiration definitions come into play.

What we see in all this is that the Bible is a very human book as well as being divine one. God inspiring the writers does not take away the very human situation they were in or their humanity itself. In fact it seems that the writers of Scripture have their humanity enhanced. The Bible and inspiration are really a God and Man collaboration and as we interpret it we should keep that in mind.

Previous: Herod's Slaughter of Infants

Theology for Dummies -- What is Theology?

I know it seems simple to start here, but what the heck is theology anyway? Webster defines theology as: 'The study of God and His relationship to the world'. I suppose that is adequate, but then you have to consider how many types of theology their are: biblical, historical, systematic, philosophical, process, etc. That means this field is a broad one and has so many twists and turns that sometimes you can get very lost.

The fact is that GOD is a BIG subject and that means there is bound to be a whole lot of ways to approach the subject. Then you throw in that it is not just about God, but how He relates to the world and now you have added a whole new set of issues. I guess I can understand people who say: 'just give my that old time religion, it's simple'. But then ask them what they mean by that and you know what -- they are engaged in theology and suddenly 'the old time religion' isn't so simple.

Theology is ultimately important because coming to a personal understanding of God and how he relates to you is a theological question of no small significance. Eternal survival significance. It means using your mind to understand God. That means you have to engage more than just faith -- you have to engage your brain in relationship to your faith.

This series will continue by defining the major types of theology, so hang on.

Who Defines God?

The major difficulty with humans is that we are so ignorant. When is comes to God doubly so. When we look to know God or understand Him, the fact is that if we are left to our own devices we will, because of ignorance or prejudice, get it wrong. We would define God in terms we would like or understand.

When someone says to me -- "I believe in God but I am not sure of the God of the Bible. I don't like him and he does not fit what I think God is." I understand the dilemma, but I also think they have a major problem -- they fail to see their own ignorance and prejudice.

Let's take an example to illustrate the point. Say I have a friend named Bob, I want to introduce to Larry. Bob asks me what Larry is like. The reality is that Larry is an extrovert and opinionated. I tell Bob this. Bob does not like opinionated, outgoing people so Bob says -- "I don't think so, I bet Larry is a shy, quiet guy." Does Bob's belief change who Larry is?

The problem is that this is what people do with God. They read the Bible and don't like that God so they come up with one of their own. For the sake of the unbelievers out there, let me put it this way: If the Bible is a true representation of who God is and what He says He is, then it does not matter two dingos kidneys what you or I believe or think He is. The God of the Bible is the reality and our belief or opinion will not change that. God would be who He is described to be no matter what.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that individual experience with God does not matter much either. People can claim to experience something but be lying; they could genuinely experience God or hear his voice, but interpret it wrongly. Human ignorance an prejudice again.

Ultimately we are left with one inescapable conclusion the only one who could accurately define God - who He is and what He is about - Is God Himself. God must come down and say, "This is who I am and what I want." Without this, no true definition of God would be possible. In addition when God does this, it must be witnessed by many people who all agree that is what God said and did, otherwise it falls back on individual religious experience.

Ultimately this is why the Bible is so hot a subject. It claims to be this record of what God said and expects; as well as, a record of what people did an thought about it. Others claim that this is not true. There are a million plus opinions so take your pick. The point is that the ultimate issue is can believers in the Bible prove that it is an accurate record of what God said and did. If the can, it means this is who God is so deal with it. If they can't then we are left searching for some true record of God or the divine acting or speaking that fits the same criteria.

One thing is for sure, we cannot define God for ourselves. This is what the prophets and philosophers both identified and dismissed as idolatry. We would make Him into our image of what we want Him to be. I am not saying that God may not have similar qualities as our own, but that we are simply not in a position to make the judgment of what those are. God must define Himself or no one.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 20 -- Elkenah and His Two Wives

You know the thing I remember most about this story found in 1st Samuel 1 is that when I was a kid all I ever learned in Sunday School was that Hannah prayed and got a baby. It wasn't until I got to high school classes that I learned that Hannah was wife number two in a polygamist relationship. It seems in our culture mentioning that a man has two or more wives is rated "T" for Teen

The fact that often escapes notice is that one of the greatest men in Scripture; Samuel, is a child produced in a polygamist household. The last judge and the first prophet is the offspring of a man and wife number two. He will not be the only one.

This story illustrates a couple things we have seen before:

1. Polygamy -- in this case we see a few more negatives. Rivalry between the wives in producing children. The positive for the man in this culture is more children and bedroom options, but for the ladies there is competition to be that bedroom option so they can produce children.

2. One Flesh vs. Contract. The fact is that even though Elkenah's first wife produces him children, the relationship between him and this first wife is strained because of the favoritism he shows Hannah. The first wife (Peninnah) constantly harasses Hannah over it. Hannah and Elkenah are vary close as evidenced by his giving double portions and his famous question --"Am I not better to you than ten sons?" Peninnah -contract. Hannah - One Flesh.

This probably illustrates a possible problem with polygamy. There may simply be no way to avoid the fact that with multiple wives a husband is not going to gravitate to one wife over another or the others. We have seen this both here and with Jacob.

Next: David's Wives and Concubines.

Science Fiction and Theology - Part 9 - God and Science Fiction

There is always a popular front to any discussion of intellectual battle. In the case of the debate of science verses God, science fiction is that front. In it you will see every type of ethical quandary, every stand against conforming to a certain idea of God, every challenge that technology has given to claims of Scripture. But why does this matter?

It matters because in the end it is the story teller who wins. If a person lectures on the differences between God and science or an ethical dilemma most people will tune him out or fight him, but if someone tells a story and takes those issues and weaves them into that story, they are accepted and thought on with deepness.

Does that mean I would like to see it disappear. No. Some of the greatest mental challenges I have ever read to my faith have appeared in the pages of Science Fiction, and because of them I have had to re-think God and his relationship to the universe. In the end, it is the challenges that make faith stronger, not when it is easy.

The only thing that is really missing is the science fiction writers of faith. Ones that want to demonstrate a wider understanding of God as one who rules not just earth, but the universe and how the universe's possibilities do not in any way disrupt the truth of who He is or what He does. Perhaps that is because, Theists in large part have accepted a certain view of God. In this view there is little room for using one's imagination and combining it with new ideas of God and science. Also many Theists look upon science as the enemy and that leads to a prejudicial treatment of the subject. This means there is only a small pool of people to draw from for the purpose of demonstrating, in story, that faith does not have to be sacrificed in order to be scientifically accurate.

I do not know what the future hold but I do know that right now the people who do not have faith hold and edge, they hold it because they are willing to rethink everything and to question what is commonly held. The Theist then finds himself to afraid or ignorant to act because he is stuck in a single minded theology that cannot see beyond certain borders.

My only appeal is that this changes -- God did not give us reason, imagination and common sense for us to sit them on a shelf and not use them. I think God want to see us use creativity and thought to construct our own view of the possible. If we did maybe more people would realize that there is more out there than we previously thought or imagined and have a new respect for the wonder and creativity of God.

Prayer and The Problem of Evil - Part 2 - The Lord's Prayer

When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he gave this model. The model is different in Luke, but the basic principles are the same. The idea is to create and outline of prayer. This outline has at least two lines that deal indirectly or directly with the problem of evil.

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"

Forgiveness is probably the most powerful weapon against relationship evil. It covers and removes the power of grudge, vendetta, revenge, hatred, anger and strife. When something is done wrong in a relationship there are few things more powerful than forgiveness to put a stop to the evil that can result.

It does have a responsibility to it -- anyone can pray this; it takes actually doing it to unleash that power. Part of getting answers to this part of the Lord's prayer involves our response to praying it and actually forgiving those who wrong us. Of all the parts of the Lord's prayer, this is the only one that Jesus commented directly on by adding that if we do not forgive, God will not forgive us. It may be that a lot of the personal evil we are experiencing is simply the unforgiveness of God because we have not forgiven others ourselves.

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"

There is something expected in this prayer as well. It is one thing to to ask for God to lead, it is another to actually follow. I wonder how frustrated God gets when we ask for his leading through the minefield of temptation, He gives it and then we step on the mines anyway because we do not trust him. We experience the evil of these bad choices, but we cannot blame God because God warned us, we just didn't believe that he was actually answering our prayer.

Both of these things indicate a responsibility to act on what we pray. Prayer is not just some simple talking to God exercise, it involves action that reflects the character of what we pray. Evil, both in our relationship and the situations of our life may simply be caused by the fact that we do not take responsibly to act on our prayers. We pray for something but in a sense do not expect it to be answered or do not act in accordance to what we know we should do.

Next: Jesus' Teaching on Prayer

Re-Thinking God: Is God Immutable?

Immutable -- adj. -- not capable of or susceptible to change.

Seems to be straight-forward does it not? Everyone knows God does not change. God never changes in any way. Psalm 55:19 says exactly that, does it not?

Unfortunately, there is also many verses of the Bible itself that indicate some changeableness to God -- God does demonstrate some mutability. Some examples:

1. God's Emotions: In my reading through Scripture, back in my agnostic state of mind, I discovered something very quickly -- The God of the Bible has emotions. Now the implications of this are not apparent at first but they are staggering if we take them seriously. Let's take a typical case where God gets angry. There are many of these so we do not need a specific one. The question comes: what happens when God gets angry at someone? The implication is that he was not angry before but then gets angry. It means God goes from a state of no anger to one of having anger -- a change. Some of the other implications of God's emotions we will see in later posts in this series.

2. God's Relationships: There are several ways to illustrate this a) covenants "If you have faith, I will do this"; b) "If...then..." statements themselves outside of covenants and c) commandments. All of these indicating God establishing boundaries and conditions of relationship with others that require God to be one that both acts and reacts depending on the situation.

3. God Changes His Mind: I have written on this at length in many of my Open Theism blogs and simply put God changes his intended actions and does something else other than what He originally intended. It does not just happen once but at least five times. Jeremiah chimes in on this as well in Jeremiah 26:13 indicating a promise that if people would repent then God would change his mind. Action: People repent. Reaction: God changes his mind.

All of this, plus other things opened up the possibility in my mind that there may be certain things about God that do indeed change and because of verses like Psalm 55:19 (which is talking about God's justice and holiness) certain things that do not change. After I was done, I drew the conclusion that God's core character (love, holiness, justice,etc.) do not change but God in His experiences does indeed change both reacting and acting in the context of relationship with other free beings.

What this means is that God can be approached and appealed to and if a person approaches God with a genuine heart, God will react and change the situation and his emotions will change toward that person or group of people accordingly.

Is God immutable? No - He is capable of change and indeed He is susceptible to it. He has the power to both act and react. What does not change about Him is His character as He reacts and acts to what people do. As we look at some of the other attributes of God in this series, we will see how this plays out in how we have to re-think God.

Next: God's Imminence and Transcendence

Curve Addiction - It Just Got Harder to Be a Man.

In a recent scientific study at the Georgia Gwinnett College a team of scientists discovered that in the male brain, when men looked at women who are curvy, that it stimulated the same place in the brain as the place that was discovered to be stimulated by recreational drugs. In short, men get the same pleasure centers in brain stimulated if they are smoking a joint or looking at a curvy woman.

Maybe that explains the popularity of art like the Venus de Milo above or on the opposite side -- pornography. Although the study concluded that the stimulation occurred regardless of whether or not the woman was clothed. Men are addicted to curves. As addictions go though this one seems to so common and natural that a perfectly good man can have it. Perhaps all men have it to one degree or another.

I also note that this curve addiction may extend to other things with curves - cars for example. The male brain simply likes the aesthetic properties of curves so much it sets of the pleasure centers of the brain. In addition to the normal challenges of being a man now we will have to guard against this new addiction - but then again it is not really new. Just another way God hardwired the male of the species so attraction would take place.

So ladies, when you catch you husband or significant other looking at another woman's curves. Just remember he may not be able to help it - he might be a curve addict. I have made many observations that this was so in the past but now I have science to back me up.

Curves - If you are a man, you may be addicted.

Theology for Dummies?

OK. This one was a suggestion from my oldest that I do a kind of Theology for Dummies blog or column. I already have enough to do with this blog, so a new series it is. This will be an Always Running Series (ARS), the purpose of which will be to define theological terms, make theological concepts simple and try to make the complex more understandably so that even people who are severely theologically challenged can understand it.

Blessings -- that means I wish you to receive a special favor or favors from God. See how easy this is?