Wimpy error handling: One of its most annoying traits is its utterly wimpy error handling. Recently I was trying to copy a Time Machine backup from one drive to another. This was many gigabytes in size, and could take hours to complete. The source drive was a bit flaky, beginning to fail physically. I couldn’t wait for the copying operation to finish at home, since I had to go to work. But while I was at work, the drive went to standby mode (after the lengthy file counting process, but before any actual copying had begun, since at that strange juncture Finder asks for a username and password), and then the drive didn’t want to come back online when I returned home — at least no without some kicking and screaming. This caused the copy operation, now in progress since I just typed my username and password, to get an error, but rather than giving me a chance to try again, it just quit. Which put me back at square one, with hours of copying ahead. What Finder needs is a simple “Retry / Cancel” dialog. There is no excuse for operations to fail because of a single error; give the user the chance to remedy the error and resume. Even DOS had “Abort, Retry, Fail?” Come on, Apple! We need something robust. And this is not the only situation where that can happen — it appears any error will cause Finder to give up.

No intelligent file merging: There appears to be no Finder mechanism to handle merging files during copy, wherein newer copies will be copied, older items won’t, etc., or simply letting the user decided item by item. Instead, the user is given no choice except replace everything or cancel. This is totally pathetic.

I really need a good workaround for these problems. I am thinking of giving the shareware application Path Finder a try. I am not sure if it will help, but I hope so.

Click the image for a full-size view.

Note the similar layout, same search results, same wording, same abbreviations, same pretty much everything, except the colors, theme, and a few minor layout differences. The results are so similar, it appears they may be using even the same database. One notable difference in the search results is that Orbitz returns 250 results, whereas CheapTickets returns 150. But in both cases it could be an arbitrary cutoff.

So I was looking for a solution, and tried MacJournal, which I thankfully already owned a license for. So far it is working well. It is not really a blog client per se; it is intended as a journaling app, as the name suggests. But it can sync to a blog, so is serviceable in that way.

I currently working to sync MacJournal with this blog as well; but there are some technical issues at the moment. [Edit: It worked. There was a badly encoded em-dash character in one of my old posts. The free W3C Feed Validation Service helped me find it.]

If you like nature and wildlife, you should check out the Wikipedia article, “Largest Organisms.” It is incredibly fascinating. Just getting a taste of the megafauna and megaflora of the past gives us a new perspective on life in our world today. (There is a similar Wikipedia article, with pictures at the end, called “Megafauna.”)

Here are some of the biggest and best:

• Today’s wombats are small marsupials about 1 meter long; however, the extinct giant wombat weighed up to 2 tons, a huge creature.
• The largest extinct bear, Ursus maritimus tyrannus, is believed to have been about 6 ft tall at the shoulder when on all fours; this is almost twice as tall as a grizzly in the same posture (3.3 ft on all fours). However, a complete skeleton has not been found. Another extinct bear was also about the same size, the giant short-faced bear.
• The largest animal in the armadillo family is the extinct glyptodon, which weighed about 2 tons. (You wouldn’t want to hit one of those at night!)
• In the “odd-toed ungulate” family, which includes today’s rhino, the largest member was the paraceratherium, which stood an awesome 18 ft tall at the shoulder.
• In the anteater and sloth family, the largest extinct relative was the megatherium, which standing on its hind legs would have been about twice as tall as a modern elephant.
• One of the largest extinct rodents found is the Josephoartigasia monesi, which may have weighed 2,000-3,000 pounds, although estimates vary widely. (That’s one “rodent of unusual size”!) The giant beaver could grow up to 8 ft in length.
• The Steller’s sea cow, which became extinct only recently, in the late 1700s, was more than double the length of its surviving relative, the manatee.
• Ancient crocodiles, such as purussaurus, grew up to 40 ft long (versus 15-17 ft in modern crocs); one species of extinct croc may have been up to 60 ft long. Try measuring that out for perspective!
• In the snake and lizard family, the largest relatives were probably the mosasaurs (water-dwelling lizard-like creatures with flippers), which could be up to 50 ft long. The largest fossil snake found is titanoboa, which may have been up to 42 ft long on average. A lizard called megalania may have been up to 23 ft long, making it the largest land lizard of all time.
• The largest fossil turtle is archelon, with a flipper-to-flipper span of 16 ft, which seems to be about 1.5-2 times as big as the largest modern sea turtles.
• The largest amphibian was the prionosuchus, which at 30 ft long makes all modern salamanders look like dwarfs. The largest extinct frog was the devil frog, at 16 in long.
• There were, of course, many enormous dinosaurs and dinosaur-like creatures, which have no similar species today.
• Some large birds existed in the past: the elephant bird at 10 ft, the dromornis at 10 ft, the giant moa at 12 ft, and the brontornis at 9 ft. But these were all flightless birds. The largest flying bird was a type of condor, the giant teratorn, which had a wingspan of 20-26 ft. The largest flying animal (not a bird) was the pterosaur quetzalcoatlus, which had a wingspan of 35-40 ft.
• There were some big fish in those ancient seas. Estimates of the largest fish, leedsichthys, range from 30 to 50 to as much as 100 ft long. The largest shark found is megalodon, at 50-60 ft long; the largest shark today is the relatively harmless whale shark at 45 ft; the great white, the largest of the “deadly” sharks, is about 20 ft. Dunkleosteus, another larger fish with a vicious looking mouth, could grow to 33 ft long.
• The biggest anthropod (crabs, lobsters, spiders, and such) known was the sea scorpion, which could get up to 8 ft long. Land scorpions could get pretty big too; the extinct pulmonoscorpius grew up to 3 ft long, dwarfing all modern scorpions. The largest millipede found is arthropleura, up to 8 ft long and 18 in wide—which is totally amazing.
• Ancient dragonflies had a wingspan of 2.5 to 3 ft.

It’s worth noting that perhaps the largest creature, in terms of body mass, to live on this planet is still alive—the blue whale.

There is a lot more on the Wikipedia page to astound and amuse.

3ABN's booth at GC

3ABN’s booth was very popular. If you were able to visit the booth, you got to see some of my department’s handiwork: the 25th anniversary blue bag, which went like hot cakes; the 3ABN and 3ABN Latino pens; the lapel pins, which were also extremely popular; the Origins DVD; the Latino DVD; the Catch the Vision magazine; the 3ABN World magazine; the Kitchen Favorites cookbook; the Day by Day devotional book; the door hangers and fliers; the coloring book; the Pillars CD and DVDs. These items were each designed partially or completely by my assistant Adam Dean and myself. All of the items were received very well, and we ran clear out of most by the end of the convention.

Working the booth was very tiring; the hours were long, and I’m not accustomed to standing all day, so my feet were a bit sore at the end of the day. But it was a good experience, just to see how much people liked 3ABN and the items we carry.

It was nice to see friends and family there, although I saw only a portion of the people I know who were there. In fact, my brother and his wife were working at a booth not 10 or 20 feet from the 3ABN booth, but I never saw them until the second day I was there, it was so busy!

I didn’t make it to many of the meetings. But the Sabbath morning sermon by Ted Wilson was extraordinary. (Sadly, the audio in my section was so bad, due to reverb or echoing, that it was very difficult to make out his words for the first portion of the sermon. I had to cover one ear, and this helped me concentrate on the sound from a particular set of speakers, which let me hear better. Thankfully the audio problem was fixed partway through the sermon, and after that everyone in my section could hear just fine.)

If you’d like to hear his message, you can watch it here:

You can also read a transcript of his sermon.

I wanted to attend the Parade of Nations, but decided to head home early. Unfortunately because of that, I missed the tribute to 3ABN and the performance of one of the songs from our Pillars of Our Faith album. 3ABN received scant official recognition during the event (to the point that recognition was notably absent, not only from our perspective, but also from our viewers and supporters), and in fact even the tribute to 3ABN was not carried by the Hope Channel who were doing all the taping and broadcasting of the main meetings, so even that was missed by the larger TV audience. But it was good that on the last day of the event, at this popular ceremony, 3ABN has honored before the attendees.

All in all, it was a good experience, although not something I would do for pleasure. I had hoped to also see the Georgia Aquarium while I was there, but I didn’t even find the time to do that. Still, for the sake of my role at 3ABN, I was glad I could be there. And I have high hopes for the administrative changes that occurred.

Where we came from has profound implications for the meaning of life, our purpose, and our ultimate destiny.

The Bible says:

• Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
• John 1:1–3: “In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
• Hebrews 11:3: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
• Colossians 1:16–17: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
• Psalm 33:6–9: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

The Bible clearly presents the creation of our world as something that happened outside the natural order, something that happened at the express command of God. It was, and continues to be, a demonstration of His infinite power.

Accepting God as our Creator is a step toward acknowledging Him as our Lord. Psalm 100:3 says, “Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.” Knowing our origin gives a sense of place. It also gives us a sense of purpose and responsibility. The knowledge that God made us should also fill us with gratitude.

Nevertheless, things have gone horribly wrong in our world, and many people wonder if God is really there. Over the centuries many have come to doubt God’s existence, and in turn His involvement in creation.

Basic questions

In many cases a person’s doubt or animosity toward belief in creationism stems from personal experience. In my perusal of creation-evolution chat rooms on the Internet, I have often seen that a personal crisis — such as a tragic death of a loved one, or doubt about a loved one’s future — fuels the skeptic’s anger, perplexity, or fears. Another common cause is a misunderstanding of a Bible doctrine, such as hell, or supposed logical inconsistencies or factual errors in the Bible.

Of course there are those who accept evolution and other naturalistic theories simply because they believe the facts support them. I have found that those who grow up in strong Christian homes where creationism is taught, tend to regard evolution as so absurd that they are amazed anyone could fall for it. The truth is that there is an enormous propaganda machine in place that works tirelessly to promote naturalistic science. Most of those who support this propaganda seem to do so sincerely and from good will. The media with its liberal tendencies takes the word of scientists and researchers very seriously. Schools also tend to follow the fashions of science, and so millions of young people are indoctrinated in evolution year by year.

Why evolution?

Elements of evolution can be traced back many centuries, even to Greek thought and earlier ideas. But the major push came with the publishing of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. This book presented evolution in a very scientific, methodical manner which was bound to appeal to many who were looking for a viable alternative to divine creation.

Evolution theory has two strong points which continue to be its greatest assets to this day:

1. It provides an explanation for life in its varied forms that does not require supernatural intervention. A basic tenet of mainstream science is that natural explanations must be accepted over supernatural explanations, and this is what evolution offers. Also, many people prefer an explanation that does not involve God, because it gives them another reason to deny God altogether.
2. Evolution seems to be verifiable. Fossil records exist. Organisms are known to adapt. Survival of the fittest — the process by which evolution occurs — is an accurate description of what usually happens in the natural world. Evolution makes predictions that can be observed, tested, and proven.

Besides these central points, other theories and observations provide apparent support:

• The big bang theory offers a naturalistic framework for everything in the universe, complementing evolution’s naturalistic suppositions.
• Modern dating methods seem to indicate a very old earth, much older than the 6,000 or so years believed by many creationists.
• Biology has found similarities between diverse species that is taken to imply common ancestry.
• Genetic research has yielded information that some scientists claim supports evolution.

The creationist view

Many Christians are at a loss to explain the things that science presents as evolution evidence. The Bible provides no clear information about dinosaurs and “prehistoric” life. My church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, believes that we have additional light on some of these topics through a few paragraphs in the volumes written by Ellen White. But even that additional information is not very detailed. The Flood story is our greatest asset in explaining the fossil record and the coal and oil deposits.

Adaption is a thorny issue for creationists. It is obvious on the one hand that adaption occurs. Animal breeds and bacteria adaptions are examples. But, although humanity has not witnessed any substantial changes in animal life throughout recorded history (substantial changes, as a creationist would view them), it is nearly impossible to convince devout evolutionists that small changes (microevolution) will never yield major changes (macroevolution). They simply argue that with enough time all changes are possible.

Again, Seventh-day Adventists have a slight edge on this subject through Ellen White’s writings, which in this case are loosely supported by the Genesis account. In her writings we find that mankind has greatly degenerated from its original created form. We are not as large or, as the Bible affirms, not as long-lived as our kind once were. We also reckon that the same degeneration exists throughout all of creation. Degeneration and extinction seem to be the law of life in this world from our viewpoint, directly contrary to a theory that presents gradual evolution of increasingly advanced forms.

Although the Bible clearly teaches that God created everything by His word, it does not provide an in-depth creation versus evolution debate. It seems that God has simply left it as a matter of faith that we believe He is the omnipotent Creator God, able to create the world in six days if He so pleases.

Flaws in the rationalizations

I will not go into detail about all the apparent flaws in the evolutionary view. It is my belief that the theory has huge defects. Other creationists have pointed these out in greater detail and more eloquently than I could. Evolution’s only virtue is that it is the best alternative theory to the creation account that has been put forward to date.

The biggest flaw with evolution is that it does not harmonize with the Bible. Some theistic evolutionists have argued that evolution and the Bible are compatible, but the truth is that never the twain shall meet. (I am using the term “evolution” to mean millions-of-years, amoeba-to-mankind evolution, not gradual changes we might observe today.)

I want to deal with only a few suppositions about creationism and evolutionism which I think are important for us to nail down:

• “Evolution is the fruit of science, and science has never let us down.” The truth is that science lets us down all the time. Theories change and are revised. New theories are put forward to cover holes. Evidence is found to be false or incomplete. More critically, science is used to explain things beyond the bounds of science. Science cannot cope with anything out of the ordinary (such as miracles). If God created this world out of nothing in a stable state, science has no way to prove whether this fact is true or untrue.
• “If you reject evolution, you cannot understand science or make any scientific contribution.” The truth is that a creationist scientist can grasp any practical branch of science as well as or better than an evolutionist. Only in the philosophical areas (such as origins, purpose, and moral questions) and interpretation of past events (in geology, paleontology, etc) is there disagreement. On anything that can be reproduced or done today, creationists and evolutionists agree.
• “Belief in creationism is arbitrary. If you cannot prove it, you might as well believe in Santa Claus.” If we did not know the Author, it would be quite a gamble to believe in creationism. But our belief in an active, intelligent, loving God is based on our personal experience. We have tested the Word in day to day living, and found it to be true. Naturalistic philosophy is more closely allied to Santa Claus.
• “Science is all interconnected. You cannot reject just one part.” Yes, we can reject any part that is untrue. A scientist may study a rock that has a certain radiation level. He may conclude that the rock has the radiation levels we might expect from a rock that had been created 400 million years ago. On the radiation levels and all observable and verifiable facts we can agree. But to insist that the rock is 400 million years old is going too far. How can we know that the rock was not created with radiation levels nearly the same as they are now? “But,” someone will say, “if you argue like that, then we can know nothing.” This is also untrue. We can accept with reasonable confidence anything that does not contradict the Bible. However, even in commonplace things scientists, because of their limitations and mistakes, do not conduct flawless research. Scientific facts — especially new or controversial ones — must always be taken more-or-less tentatively. It is plainly wrong to say that all scientific views must stand or fall together.

Unlike some creationists, I do not believe creationism or intelligent design can be “proven.” As Hebrews 11:3 indicates, I think we have to accept the Bible’s account by faith. Not a blind faith, of course, but a faith or trust that is grounded in a personal walk with God.

Ultimately we must make up our own mind about what we believe. If we accept God’s Word as true, we are shielded from error and we are set to walk in faith with Him. If we doubt God’s Word, we prove we do not know its Author and we disqualify ourselves from coming to know Him. What we think we know of God will be stolen from us by whoever receives the trust belonging only to Him.

It is my earnest prayer that we will believe the Bible.

---

Resources

Books

I have found the following books helpful:

The Wedge of Truth

By Phillip E. Johnson. Johnson is a very readable author. He is best known in creationist circles for his break-in book, Darwin on Trial (now regarded by some as too dated to be useful in the creation-evolution debate), to which this book is a successor. The book makes a good case of why evolution is inadequate. A bit philosophical at times, but once I started it I could not put it down.

Edited by John Marks Templeton. This book is not about creationism per se, but about intelligent design. Each chapter is written by a different scientist, and the scientists represent a number of disciplines. I highly recommend it, with two caveats: Some chapters are quite technical, and you have to really concentrate to get some of the points in those chapters; and some of the scientists are theistic evolutionists (they believe God guided evolution). Even so, chapters 2, 3, 6, and 9 were so good that I’d recommend the book just for those. I think chapter 9 was my favorite.

If you are looking for more information about creation science or the creation–evolution debate, try these sites:

• Answers in Genesis
• Creation Science
• Creationism.org
• Detecting Design
• Evolution Facts, Inc.
• The Institute for Creation Research

Note: There are places on the Internet where creationism and evolution are hotly debated. I advise to avoid these debates entirely. Unless you are a scientist — and I mean a real scientist — you are most likely to get roasted by hate speech, intimidated by condescending remarks, and overwhelmed by loads of jargon and “facts” that your knowledge and experience are not prepared for. It is hard to share any light with people who are on the offensive. Read Matthew 7:6.

At the end of the experiment, the control group had cut its navigation time in half. The Mozart mice did even better, cutting their time by 8½ minutes. But the hard rock group did much worse — taking 30 minutes to complete the maze, bumping into walls, staggering aimlessly about.

It gets worse: This is the second time Merrell tried the experiment. The first time, “I had to cut my project short because all the hard rock mice killed each other. None of the classical mice did that at all.” This time he kept the mice separate.

The same experiment is now mentioned on various websites. You can read a summary, “About Mice and Music“; and there is a longer explanation of the experiments over at The Schiller Institute.

A critic might say, “True, but people are not mice.” And so it is. But neither are mice fans of Mozart. How do we explain the mice’s increased performance with the classical music? At the least, the experiment suggests that music may affect brain functions of animals. And if that is so, it probably affects our own as well.

At a broader level, it suggests to me (and to others) that the civilization associated with classical music, and the hedonism and sociopathic behavior associated with the more aggressive forms of pop, are not cultural coincidences. In music history, the correlation between music forms, music purposes, and culture are striking. (As the Richmond Times-Dispatch article says in closing, “Who ever heard of a classical pianist choking to death on his own vomit?”) At some level music seems to influence and/or reflect mental and emotional states, and behavior, each type of music relating to a special group of thoughts and feelings.

Here is a mini-view of the chart. (The PDF version is much larger, designed to print on 11 x 17 inch paper.)

As you can see, the top section — everything above the green line — describes the actual, literal festivals in the Jewish calendar. The bottom section repeats the same festivals, but shows how they met their fulfillment in the various events of the Gospels and Acts. The chart includes Bible references for each event.

The autumn feast section of the chart is presented from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. The October 22, 1844, date seen in the chart is derived from the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14. Perhaps I will include that information in a future version of the chart. The names mentioned as “trumpeters” are probably unfamiliar to most Christians, but would be familiar to those who have read the history of the Second Advent Movement, especially as described in the book The Great Controversy.

Adventists, like most Christians, believe the antitypical events associated with the dates of the spring feasts fell on the exact days of those feasts. However, with respect to the autumn feasts, we believe the order of events is important, but not the exact, literal days.

Church conflicts — whether over doctrines, matters of lifestyle, or policies — are often described as conflicts between “conservatives” and “liberals.” Given the Bible’s call to unity, this factioning of the church should be cause for concern.

The factioning of the church into conservative and liberal camps is a fascinating process. To the casual observer, it may seem that the many specific points of contention between the two camps are over unrelated issues. For example, what does a theological position on the human nature of Christ have to do with the length of women’s dresses? Though both are conservative positions, a studious observer would find little direct relationship between the points. Indeed, there are many who freely hold to only one or the other of those two points, and see no contradiction in doing so. Yet despite widespread exceptions over specific points, there is a noticeable polarization. Something draws church members towards either of these two groups, each representing a collection of diverse issues. In the end, people tend to adopt a collection of related ideas and practices, which could be classed as either liberal or conservative. Put another way, people who hold doctrinal views deemed conservative also tend to adopt conservative lifestyle choices and policies. Those who favor liberal church policies tend toward liberal theological and lifestyle stances. Of course, individually people tend to take various exceptions to their party platform.

Somehow all this gathering into factions occurs without a formal platform on either side dictating what is offically a conservative or liberal position. Evidently there are forces at work — whether attitudes, cultures, or other influences — that beneath the surface affect how we evaluate a wide range of important decisions. We may be unaware of these forces, yet their influence is there.

The purpose of this article is to explore what these forces are, in the hope that it will help us find common ground with those on the other side of the fence, whichever side that might be.

Disclaimer

Because the words “conservative” and “liberal” are relative, it is impossible to attach any absolute merit to one approach or the other. We cannot say something is right or wrong merely because it reflects a conservative or liberal approach.

An additional caution is that we must distinguish between the more general uses of these terms, and their special usage regarding differing viewpoints in the church. For instance, someone who is theologically conservative may be quite liberal (financially) in supporting mission projects — statistically, that is often true. Being generous does not make a person liberal in the sense that we are talking about here. For another example, someone who enjoys liberal worship styles may be quite conservative (emotionally) in their personality. Being quiet by nature does not make a person a conservative member of the church. In a sense we are detaching the words “liberal” and “conservative” from their broad meanings, and using them somewhat abstractly to represent opposite poles in a multi-dimensional space that represents the church. (This is not to suggest the terms have no significance in themselves; however, for now it is best to simply think of them as two opposing points on a spectrum.)

Probably no one fits neatly into one stereotype conservative or liberal position. Humans are complex creatures. Life is complex. Individual may be so conditioned to a certain way of life in one area that they cannot part from it, even though it may contradict their overall course of thought and action in other areas. Thus a liberal may retain some conservative qualities, and vice versa.

The factions within the church are not two distinct camps. Rather, they form a broad space between two poles. These poles seem to magnetically pull people one direction or the other, yet there are other forces of attraction and repulsion at play as well. Many church members consider themselves “moderates” — neither liberal nor conservative. We will look at this position later.

Agents of change

What influences cause people to see things so differently? Why are most of our major differences within the church usually described (or argued) as two-sided, instead of being split among three, five, or a dozen competing groups?

Culture. Culture is blamed for much of our church strife. Indeed, the church today is composed of many diverse cultures. By definition, people from different cultures will have differing expectations, traditions, customs, and manners. The ways they socialize, conduct business, and evangelize are different.

However, upon closer scrutiny, culture does not completely answer the question. Within just about every culture we can find the same liberal-conservative split. Historically, time seems more significant than culture. That is to say, churches within our relatively liberal First World cultures (such as the United States) were closer spiritually in the past (such as the 1700s and 1800s) to the more conservative Third World nations today, even though culturally the people of those respective nations were further apart at those points in time.

To say it another way, liberals and conservatives across cultures do not have so much cultural similarities as they do doctrinal and lifestyle similarities. There seems to be a force that transcends culture.

Tradition. Tradition is also frequently put to blame for causing liberal-conservative rifts. It is obvious enough that many doctrinal and lifestyle issues can become traditions. Examples would include Sabbath-keeping practices, methods of presenting Bible truths, and what church-goers wear.

Yet tradition is also an incomplete answer. For example, conservatives are the ones usually decried as traditionalists. In this usage it implies stuck in a rut, hardened in formalism, and so on. But the facts bear out that many conservatives are anything but traditional. Many are new believers who have broken from other religious faiths (or nonbelief) that have no relationship to church culture or traditions. For those believers, their conservativism is radical, not traditional. And liberal believers can be just as guilty of traditionalism as their conservative brethren — which is why many conservatives think liberal worship styles “are all alike.”

In short, there is no direct relationship between conservative values and traditionalism, nor liberal values and radical or free thinking.

Extremes. Both factions tend to think that the other group is extreme. Conservatives tend to look at liberals as compromising and worldly. Liberals tend to see conservatives as Pharisaical, fanatics, or just sadly uneducated. But is it really possible to say that one faction is more extreme than the other? On what basis do we judge extremes?

When we look at the history of God’s people, from the story of Adam and Eve all the way through New Testament times and beyond, it appears that following God has always been rather extreme. Few, if any, of the great believers of the Bible have lived “normal” lives. Jesus Himself often presented the Gospel call in a way that could easily be described as extreme: leave all, sell all, enter the narrow (unpopular) way, take up your cross, and so on.

Of course, both factions can claim that they offer God’s extremes. The liberals offer extreme mercy-grace: “Hey, don’t sweat anything, God loves you.” Conservatives offer extreme obedience-grace: “You can be perfect, today — and if you will please God, you must be.” Liberals have extreme celebrations and rallies; conservatives have extreme Bible studies and diets. On what basis do we decide which extremes are worthy?

Yet the Bible is clear that following God is “wisdom.” Wisdom means discernment, and implies that life cannot be navigated through simple polarized thinking. In that sense godliness is a very middle-of-the-road position. There are dangers on both sides. We cannot point to the existence of extremes as a reason for or against either position. When we realize that the Bible is the arbiter, or test, of wisdom, we have a basis to decide which extremes are God’s calling and which are man’s folly.

Spiritual qualities. This is the most heated type of explanation. “Liberals are worldly.” “Conservatives lack love and the Spirit.” It is also the most frivolous. While it is certainly true that members of both camps suffer from spiritual ills, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. It is helpful to remember at this point that we are dealing with a spectrum, not two precise camps. There are worldly conservatives. There are happy, loving conservatives. Their are self-sacrificing liberals. There are bitter liberals. And many other variations exist than we could possibly name here.

Two ways of determining truth

As compared to the church as a whole, I am a conservative. You might say in some ways that I am very conservative. One day I was thinking through a particular issue. I realized that I knew of no direct Biblical or inspired counsel on the subject. Yet the principle seemed clear to me. While I had convinced myself, I knew the very suggestion of my application of this principle would sound ridiculous to liberals I know personally.

While I could envision in my mind how the conversation between myself and a liberal on that particular topic would go, it was not immediately obvious why we would see it so differently. Gradually this conclusion formed in my mind: Conservative thought and liberal thought ultimately distill down to two different ways of evaluating reality. The more I thought about it, the more obvious it seemed. Here in a nutshell is the sum of that day’s musings:

• Conservatives are idealists, who take the high road on principle; they stick to the tried and true.
• Liberals are realists and pragmatists; they tend to experiment.

Conservatives are people with high ideals, who also maintain a high regard for orthodoxy. As such, they have high standards, they attempt much, and they feel a strong burden to protect doctrinal pillars and foundations. Liberals in the church tend to look to the past as the time of darkness and ignorance, and are always pushing for freedom to explore new options. I feel there are points of merit in both views, but both can be carried to extremes.

Generally speaking, conservatives evaluate the merits of something based on the principles involved: “Is mustard known to irritate the stomach? Yes? Then I won’t eat it.” Liberals evaluate things based on effects that can be seen or experienced (a view known as pragmatism): “I’ve eaten mustard many times. Has it ever bothered me? No. Plus I like the taste. Pass the mustard, please.”

Liberals, of course, do not disdain all principles. But the question is whether they will accept a principle as an absolute guide, in itself, and especially on the word of a third party (by inspiration, for example). Liberals will generally accept the same principles that conservatives accept, when the significance of doing so is obvious and profound. For instance, nearly all church members oppose drugs, alcohol, adultery, and stealing. We can see the effects of these things. In many cases the damaging consequences are almost immediate.

But where effects are not immediate or obvious, but where the principles are known (or where in the Bible a rule is stated), strong differences of opinion exist. Conservatives will tend to see the principle or rule as a divine law; liberals will tend to find it hard to swallow and attempt to explain it away on one pretext or another.

Another food-oriented example: A conservative may hear that science through several studies has substantiated that chocolate contains substances known to impair judgment and adversely affect health. Since there is no compelling reason to eat chocolate, a conservative may find it obvious that it is best left alone. A liberal, on the other hand, may hear the same facts. But since there is little perceptible difference in the health, intelligence, or morality of an average chocolate-eater versus an average non-chocolate-eater, the liberal will tend to conclude that it does not really matter.

In this the conservative approach has advantages: It realizes the limitations of human perception, and accepts the divine principles as a wise guide. It also grasps the fact that synergy is a principle of evil as well as of good. Many little influences, inconsequential as they may seem, can add up over the course of a lifetime (or over the course of a nation’s or planet’s existence). Many interactions and reactions may exist of which we have no knowledge; therefore, if something is known to be a little bit bad, it may be very bad in ways we have not discovered yet. This applies not only to food, but to clothing, speech, lifestyle, and even matters of doctrine.

Of course, it could also be argued that the liberal approach has advantages, too, since it does not lead one to bind up himself with rules that lack a clear, compelling, rational basis. It does not make mountains out of molehills, or lead to perfectionism.

There are pitfalls on both sides. Personally I feel that liberals are wrong about doctrinal and lifestyle issues a larger percentage of the time. But conservatives can be cranks or cranky, and that’s not good. Still, there is a deep pragmatism in the view that, in a spiritually dangerous and conflicted world, there is wisdom in leaning to the safer, less licentious side.

Moderates in the church

From a very conservative standpoint, a self-proclaimed moderate is someone who knows the truth but has made some compromises. From a very liberal standpoint, a self-proclaimed moderate is a somewhat enlightened individual who is unfortunately bound by Pharisaism or tradition. However, these perceptions belong especially to those who have strongly gravitated to one end or the other of the church spectrum.

Moderates make up the largest percentage of church membership by definition. However, there is somewhat of a dichotomy in how individuals view themselves. Nearly everyone regards themselves as middle-of-the-road (which could be a definition of a moderate); on the other hand, many pride themselves on their conservatism or liberalism as compared to others (in that sense no one is a moderate). Individuals generally like to feel they have reached a higher sphere, but not that they have branched away from what is mainstream. Obviously there is a paradox in that.

Summary

My denomination, compared to others, is quite conservative. This explains the popularity of “conservative values” in certain circles of my church. But being in a church that hangs close to the conservative pole can be a dangerous crutch. We can become deceived in our own smugness. Conservative Christians cannot judge themselves by what other Christians believe or do; the Bible is our guide. We will never enter heaven because we were “less heathen than others.”

It is all too possible that our “conservative” denominations, and we along with them, have become quite liberal — or worldly, as the Old Guard Christians might have put it. The shifts in thinking and practice across centuries can leave us far away from what was once the conservative harbor, while we still congratulate ourselves that we are not as liberal as others. Today’s staunch conservative could be yesterday’s flaming liberal, or vice versa.

There is a danger in allowing ourselves to be drawn into political ways of thinking. If we find ourselves saying or thinking, “That is wrong, because that is just what a liberal (or conservative) would do,” then we know we’ve broken away from principle-based thinking and have slipped into political prejudice.

So I think it is important to apply the human mind to the Bible, to understand the principles involved. It is the bane of conservatives to get wrapped up in laws (applications of principles), rather than knowing and upholding the principles themselves. We can cite all kinds of verses to back up what we say, and point out the lack of verses to justify any other course — and still be wrong.

The Bible calls us to moderation (Philippians 4:5). But it also warns against “lukewarmness” (Revelation 3:15-19) and comparing ourselves with others (2 Corinthians 10:12). There is no safety in gauging our spirituality based on herd instincts. Only the wisdom of God, found in His Word, can lead us to the moderate, levelheaded position that is not ashamed or afraid to obey God’s extreme call.

Here are some free resources I’ve been using lately.

• Livemocha: Practice Spanish (and other languages) with real people from around the world. They grade your Spanish, and you grade their English. It’s a lot of fun. Here is my profile.
• Coffee Break Spanish: This is a free podcast that covers the basic of the language. Each lesson is about 15 minutes long. The hosts are professional and fun. Download to your computer, or put it on your iPhone or iPod touch.
• Google Translate: Use this to quickly check your usage, learn new words and phrases, etc. Note: Sometimes it may not understand your usage correctly, and therefore can give a poor translation. But usually it is square on, and often lists alternate ways to translate the expression. There is a button that allows you to quickly reverse translating English-to-Spanish or vice versa.
• Free classes may be available in your area. I was happy when a free class was recently launched at my workplace. It is great to be in a classroom setting where your questions can be answered, and you can hear other people practicing. Check schools, classifieds, Google, grocery store bulletin boards, etc., to see what may be available.

Using surface textures from NASA and a bump map from another online source, I created a fully rotatable, 3D globe of the Earth in Photoshop CS4 Extended. It can be viewed or lighted from any direction. There is also a separate cloud layer I can turn on, edit, and move around. My master file is a very large image (6000 × 6000 pixels), more than ample to fill a full spread at 300 ppi.

Photoshop CS4 also has built-in features for creating red-blue anaglyph images. Below are a couple sample images I made. You will need a set of red-blue 3D glasses to view them correctly (you can also make your own glasses, using markers or red and blue transparencies you may have — or request a free pair (alternate link)).

This is the second version I made, with clouds added:

The 3D features in Photoshop CS4 Extended are a little tricky to learn, but once you get the hang of them, you can do some pretty amazing stuff.

I had the good sense to clip it from the magazine and file it, and just recently found it again. It deals with three specific legends that have circulated in the scholarly world and washed over into popular culture:

• Did Martin Luther base the hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” on drinking songs? (which is a topic I’ve dealt with before)
• Did medieval Christians debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?
• Did those medieval Christians actually believe the Earth was flat?

According to the article, the answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

The last one is, of course, the consummate example often cited in support of ancient Christian superstition and ignorance. But, alas, it is baloney. Literature and art all the way back to Greek times represent the earth as round. And in the case of Columbus, the question was not whether he would sail off the edge of the world, but whether his ship could make it all the way to the other side. (Curiously, Columbus succeeded because he was wrong. No one in Europe dreamed that on the other side was a whole new world.)

It says something about the quality of critical scholarship when such nonsense continues to be peddled as fact, even today.

Without a doubt, thought leaders of the past have been wrong about many things in science and theology. But in many cases they were limited by technology and easy access to information. Today we do not have those excuses to anywhere near the same degree — and so our mangling of history is all the more shameful. It is high time we ditch these and other “scholarly legends,” or at least cease to pay attention to those who perpetuate them.

New Habits for High-Tech Hearts – Online Magazine Archives – NavPress.

However, since the command is long, it would be hard to remember and difficult to type. I wanted to make an alias (a custom UNIX command) that would be shorter, but Bash (the default terminal in OS X) does not allow aliases to accept arguments (variables), which is critical to making this work.

I found a way to create a custom command that does this. Here are the steps:

1. Edit your ~/.bash_profile with your favorite text editor
2. Add this line:
   manpdf () { man -t $1 | open -f -a Preview.app ; }

   (You could call it something other than “manpdf” if you want; you may also want to add a comment to remind yourself what it does.)

3. Save it
4. Try it: Open Terminal and type:
   manpdf ping

Enjoy!

*For newbies: The “man” command lists instructions — “manuals” — for various UNIX commands. For example, if you wanted to know how to use the “ping” command, you could open Terminal and type “man ping”.

PDF: Disaster Supplies Kit Checklist

The contains its own instructions. In summary, it details the items you should have in your home at all times, as well as some special items that should be stored in a portable evacuation kit that can be quickly taken in an emergency. Many of these items you probably own already, and others will need to be purchased. It is helpful to locate the items in your home as you check them off; knowing where an item is, is just as important as having it.

This list was prepared for my church (the Thompsonville Seventh-day Adventist Church in southern Illinois), and at the end we listed important local numbers our members might need (police, insurance, the church’s number, etc.). In this version, I’ve removed most of those, but left the space so you can put in the numbers you need.

I hope this list will be helpful to you. Remember: Waiting until an emergency arrives to get the items you need is usually too late.

As a Christian I believe God cares for our needs and helps us in time of calamity; but I also believe that one way He does that is by giving us the intelligence to prepare and plan ahead.