PO: I'm really interested in what you have to say.  I'll and review your site as soon as I am able.  I really like your intent.Where are you going to church these days?  How are you expressing your faith?  Those are only natural questions that arise when I find out your interest in religion and the faith.
     I just finished my article for the Trinitarian, which I am passing on to you because it seems to sync with your interests.  I wrote it because I was told that someone said that the hurricane was "God's way of waking us up."
Regards,
Pastor Jim O'Connor

CA: Hi Pastor,
I look forward to your thoughts on my website!  You asked me what Church I am going to these days.  As you know, I am a member of Trinity, and when I
do actually attend, it is Trinity with my Mother.  I must confess Pastor in all honesty that while I do very much enjoy the lesson and gospel readings and, of course, your sermons, I am often distracted by the Liturgy which I find far less musical than the traditional (former) that I grew up with.
Also, I'm not entirely comfortable with the whole shaking hands thing at the beginning of each service.  Not that I am shy or a "touch me not", but it's just not my cup of tea.  I suppose I am simply used to a more formal, introspective service opening like I recall from my youth.  I realize that Trinity (like many urban churches) must do all it can to attract younger parishioners and I am equally sure that I am in the minority with my opinions, but I know you are a sincere man and appreciate my candor. Anyway,sorry for the "book" and I look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Take care,
ChristianArmour

PO: I'm interested to know what you mean by being distracted by the liturgy.  Is it too heavy, too distant?  I also assume that your comments about the music mean that our hymns are too chorale like and not melodic enough.  Help me there also.
     I know that passing the peace, as it is called, is tough on some people.  I just don't know how to solve that problem.  (Believe it or not, in the early church they kissed on the lips, until that got out of hand. .....and people today are worried about the common cup.)  Once again, I appreciate your desire to address religious issue of such great importance, especially in our increasingly secular society.  If it weren't for the Holy Spirit, I think the task would be overwhelming.
Regards,
Pastor O'Connor

CA: As to the Liturgy - as you may know, I spent many years as a working professional musician.  The current Liturgy is not melodic, difficult to sing, and distracting to me because instead being able to focus my thoughts and prayers on the Lord, I find myself wincing at the lack of musicality.  I'm sure it is sweet music to The Lord and He appreciates it (which is the whole point I know), but I would prefer what my late sister used to call "the red hymnal".  I guess it is the Liturgy that was used at Trinity from my early childhood up until around the mid 1980's or so.  Not a deal breaker, merely an observation.  As to the handshake deal - different stokes for different folks.  Sometimes I think (suspect) some people attend Church merely for the social aspects and to see their "sunday friends". Whatever fills the coffers and keeps the faith!  But for me, Church is the House of The Lord.  I go to hear His Word, sing His praises, receive communion, and make my Mother happy (in that order) :)  I don't think I'm doing Him any favors if I am distracted, but I don't presume to know His mind.

PO:  I wish I knew more about musicality.  I do agree with you, however, about the red hymnal.  Wasn't the setting for Matins great!
     Everyone attends church to see their Sunday friends; but more. Even though people don't always know why they are there, they still wrestle, I believe, with God in their lives.  Not everyone is a hypocrite, either.  I really see a lot of honest faith and goodness in so many of our people.  Why knock the coffers when most people are so self-indulgent and give a pittance to the Lord.  Ah, money.  Now there's a god.
Regards,
Pastor

CA: Hi Pastor,
I didn't mean to imply "hypocrisy" with my last email.  I merely meant that some folks approach worship more introspectively, myself included.  I try not to judge, but I suppose my own perceptions of others are, in a sense, judgments.  Part of our human nature If I may offer a feeble excuse.  I had a professor who used to speak often of "prejudice" being a function of our survival.  If you get bitten once by a snake, you tend to be wary of all snakes etc....but I am happy that others attend and support the Church regularly.  It is a physical world we live in and secular matters must be attended too - mortgages, utilities, etc.....You are quite correct in saying that money is a "god" to many people.  Of course, as Christians, we would not say that money is the root of all evil for we already know who is.

PO: I  like what you say about approaching worship introspectively.  Actually, it is a style we should focus upon and teach those skills that enhance opening yourself to the Lord.
Pastor

CA: Hi Pastor,
My hope and prayer is that ALL of us take a moment to reflect upon what we have learned and what we hope to learn, and finally to allow the power of The Holy Spirit to guide us in prayer.  I am so easily distracted in my daily life, that I choose to NOT "memorize" scripture or creeds "word for word".  I purposefully READ THEM everytime so that my mind is focused upon what I am "saying" or thinking.  The Words were fought for and DIED for on The Cross.  They are powerful and should be treated with respect.  My hope and prayer is that I never fail to recognize this!

PO: No, I don't think your passion for the Lord will ever have you forget.  I don't always want to rebutt; but, remember the words were not fought and died for on the Cross. The Word died on the Cross.  The words are not to be worshipped as God; the Word is God.  John the Evangelist knew what he was doing when he gave "word" two meanings.  He created a value structure and gave the word "word" flesh and blood reality.  He fought against what I called before "frozen" truth and allowed religion to be relational.
Pastor

CA: Hi Pastor,
"The Word was God and The Word was with God"  I know and agree.  The Trinity placed Christ on the Cross and died in fufillment of The Word.  The Word died in accordance with The Written Word was my thought process in that last email.  You may always "rebutt" me Pastor.  Through discussion I learn and grow in my understanding.  My hope and prayer is that you may also derive some benefit from our correspondance!  Don't allow me to burden you.  I am happy to discuss via email as frequently or as infrequently as you wish. :) Your article is uploaded and a link posted in the "Questions, comments, or concerns of ChristianArmour.net" section of http://www.christianarmour.net/
Thanks again!

PO:  The only religious discussion site I know of is Beliefnet, although I haven't used it.  I like Textweek.com to do my Scriptural studies.  Thanks for posting the article.  I'll tell you if I get any responses.  As you infer, I don't know how much people are interested in the theological "problem of evil."     I appreciate the fact that your web site declares the importance of the Creeds.  We Lutherans are indeed of a creedal and confessional church.  I also agree with you that communicating the faith is an essential issue of our time.  The Internet clearly offers the Church so many opportunities to reach others. Your thinking seems to rise or fall on the absolutist doctrine of inerrancy and an and adversarial relationship to modern science.  (Indeed, Thomas Watson, who recently died, said his motive for seeking the structure of the DNA molecule was to replace religion with reason.)  I find myself going in a different direction.  Interestingly, my views begin and remain, as I suspect do yours, with the Scriptures and the Confessions of the Church. Good work.  I checked out some of the sites, most of which seem rather fundamentalist in orientation.
Regards,
Pastor Jim O'Connor

CA: Hi Pastor,
My thinking as of late has been that if The Bible is only a "morality tale", then how are Christians to decipher that which is "true" from that which is "false"?  Therefore, to me, the only way we can can justify our Faith in The Lord (which is by proxy, a belief in the Supernatural), is to base our belief in The Totality of Truth in the written Word.  To me, if the Word is true, and man's science is accurate, then man's Science should prove The Word, not disprove it.  However, we increasingly see (as you so wisely pointed out), that many people working in science today subscribe to a secular belief system.  Science has replaced Christianity as their personal religion.  Therefore, their methodologies tend to become an Apology of Secular Humanism instead of a rational (impartial) search for understanding. I am not anti-science at all, but rather I am an advocate for fair and unbiased research based upon known and observable (repeatable) facts.  Many things taught in the schools as "fact" are in reality "Theory" that is unproved (thus far) and merely speculation based upon a secular frame of reference.  Case in point - "Evolution".  Once called a theory (which it remains to be), Evolution is now taught as absolute indisputable fact in Schools across America.  The Bible says God created man (in his own image!) AND created all the (other) creatures of the Earth.  How can we as Christians honestly say "Well, so that Genesis book is a little flawed, but you can believe all the other stuff in it!" ?  I don't think we can.   I'm not saying that Evolution should be "banned". I'm not a "book burner" by any stretch of the imagination.  I believe, however, that it should be taught as what it is - A secular humanist or non-creationist THEORY that is unproved and merely one of many speculations as to the origin of life. Please see my link for "What The Nobel Prize Winners Say About God".  Many of them are Christian, not the majority to be sure, but there ARE committed scientists who seek to understand the beauty of Our Lord's Creation by their faith and by their education and hard work.   Thanks for your thoughts, I would love to post any rebuttal answers you have for the "Biblical Errors" I address on the "Answers" page.  I apologize for so many of the "fundamentalist" links, I honestly have not run across many Lutheran Apologists :)  I share your love of the Creeds.  Many times I will read them to myself as a prayer!
Take care

PO: You are spiritually sensitive to understand that the Creeds can be seen as prayer.  My second point is that what made Christianity unique was not ethics and  morality, but revelation.  God "speaks" to us through Christ and the Scripture.  What makes a human being unique from God's other creatures (We basically all have the same DNA.)  was the soul; which I see as a cluster of neurons in the brain (The Scripture, of course, locates the soul in many parts of the body.), which provides a forum, shall we say, for God to communicate with us and us with Him.  (It is art, poetry and imagination when we do the talking, and revelation when God brakes in from the transcendent and from what the Church Fathers call the "Unknowable" and reveals Himself and His truths and promises.)  I believe that the soul is equivalent to what Scripture speaks of as the "imago dei."  (I am well aware that these are my specific ideas.  The Bible is not interested in logical categories or phenomenological description.)  Another contemporary issue that is important to me in order to revive the Christian message in the West - big order, best understood by the lack of young people in our churches - is the issue of the nature and structure of the universe, which involves physics and biology.  Evolution is part of the biology piece. The bottom line is that I do not see our religion in essential conflict with science and the modern world.  Indeed, they still have to find a common language and ground, and yet I think that the Holy Spirit is leading us there.
     In no way would I suggest that the Scripture is not our ultimate source of revealed and religious authority.  I just feel that we have worked against Scripture by framing it in categories, such as inerrancy, that diminish its power, availability, and importance in our lives.  (From what I understand the teaching of inerrancy arose as an anxious reaction to the Enlightenment and more recently to the development of the Historical-Critical Method applied to Scripture.  I am both struck by the blindness of the fundamentalists and the lack of faith of the liberals.  How can we return to God's truth without making it our truth is the question.  We do it by recognizing in religion and in science that all is theory until "proven" by God.  Both religion and science are faith systems; one emphasizing faith and the other the system. From my perspective I see so much more arrogance in science and contemporary religion than humility.  We are no longer truly awed by creation or invited by God's judgments and promises.)  Scripture is neither an ethical guidebook or an  intellectual procrustean bed that allows us to withdraw from the Spirit's demand that we witness to God's power and incarnate place in the real world in which we live.  To either preach ignorance or man as the center of all things is an insult to our Lord.  The bottom line is for us, I feel, is to first confront and be confronted by the wall of hostility that exists between us and God, which finds expression in our behavior and mind-set. God in Christ Jesus is still the key that unlocks the mysteries of life and the universe and our destiny.  Once we get going the journey is truly exciting.
Regards,
Pastor O'Connor

CA: Hi Pastor,
I think perhaps I should be more specific as to what I meant by "evolution".  Without going into unnecessary detail - the essential principle of Evolution is that one unique life form somehow completely changes it's entire genetic structure to become a second unique life form.  We know enough about DNA at this stage of the game to state that while all creatures share many similar aspects in their individual DNA structures, we have no direct evidence that one begat the other who begat the other etc....  Each individual species grows/changes/adapts over time to be sure.  (We humans are now quite taller than our ancestors of 200 years ago!). But if you go back thousands of years, I don't think you would find our ancestors resembling apes.  I think you would find early humans along side early apes.  So "evolving" and "evolution" are two separate things. Personally, I think young people need to see that Our Lord IS contemporary because he was able to reveal His Truth to the folks of the Old Testament who were able to record it for us to read and understand today.  I will say again that I am not anti-science.  Science is supposed to be impartial and objective.  To approach an experiment (for example) with a mind set that denies a Creator is even a remote possibility, however, is NOT objective or impartial and is therefore not true science.  You wrote "God in Christ Jesus is still the key that unlocks the mysteries of life and the universe and our destiny".  I agree with you 100% Pastor!

PO: I don't know much about Creationism, but I tend to see it as an overlay - one of those procrustean beds.  Also, I have not yet mustered the where-with-all to really get into the subject of the theory of evolution, although I know it is the accepted standard in biology.  There is a Catholic teacher from Georgetown University whose writing about Christianity and evolution really impresses me.  I believe his name is Robert Haught.  (Editor's note - John F. Haught) I'll try to find his book once again.  His most inviting notion is to relate evolution to the kenosis theology of Philippians 2:7.  God empties Himself to His creation and allows its rules and procedures to take over, as it were.  He doesn't become His creation, but He accepts His creation and works in concert with it; as He does in "the fullness of time."  Obedience unto death also implies that death is inherent in God's creation and can only be seen theologically as the result of sin.
Death proceeded mankind and is part of the natural order of things.  The church knew this problem at the time of Galileo and tried to suppress the heliocentric universe.  Today the metaphor is even more extreme.  We have been here only about fifty-thousand years in a fourteen and a half billion year process.  Increasingly, Luther's statement about the hidden God becomes even more relevant.  Most people are threatened to the core by the Uncertainty Principle of modern science.  Haught flips things around by replacing uncertainty with novelty.
"Behold He is making all things new."  Evolution is one means by which God thus brings about His purpose.  The Second Coming is required, however, to finally transform Death and create a new heaven and earth - a new set of relationships.  It is the physical equivalent of the psychological statement, "At the Abyss you will see a vision." I know that I am most probably 180 degrees on the other side of your thinking.  For whatever reason, though, I'm getting caught up in the conversation.  For me, it is the Holy Spirit at work - an increasing vision. .....  To God be the glory!
Second thought.  Remember evolutionary change does not take place over thousands of years, but millions of years.  Also, the DNA of all biological structures have the same pattern and follow the same process in development.  Small genetic changes, therefore, can lead to vast differences over a long period of time.  For me, the most essential concern is the entrance of the soul onto the scene.  As the Scripture reminds us, the soul is essentially a gift from the transcendent, not time/space dependent, God and is thus not the result of an evolutionary process.  It speaks of the holy.

CA: Hi Pastor,
I am not convinced of the "millions of years" concept.  That has come about only recently as human scientists have declared that THEY can accurately date space and time.  They have said that numerous times in the past decades and THEY keep changing their minds.  Only humans can change their minds about their reality.  God is quite steady and everlasting and apart from space and time.  How can we assume that a Being that exists outside of our Space/Time frame of reference is incapable of a Creation that is thus far indefinable to our universal understanding?  An Omniscient and Omnipotent GOD is capable of Any and ALL things beyond ALL human comprehension.  I myself REFUSE to believe in anything less! I agree with you that I feel The Holy Ghost at work!  I am most interested in our discussions and find myself thinking and praying more and more.  I also agree with you when you say "I am most probably 180 degrees on the other side of  your thinking."  You are! :)  I was a few credit hours shy of being able to double major in Religion (my degree is B.A. in Sociology from W & M) because of a long story and my disinterest in other Religions.  I took all the available Judaism and Christianity courses, but  I am mostly "self-taught" and Spirit guided, so you have the advantage of Accreditation on me.  I will say, however, that I am still on a path to full discovery as I suspect we both are.  I seek to know His majesty and I rely FULLY on what he revealed through His Holy Word.  My primary interest is in the validation of our Faith.  I feel validated when I see and/or read that Archeologists have discovered John The Baptists "cave" for example.  See: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040816/D84GIE8O0.html
I felt compelled to start my website after suffering through an endless sea of dis or mis-information regarding Christianity on the internet.  Most folks do not give a moments thought to what we have been discussing.  I do not presume to know God's Plan, Will, or anything else regarding His Thoughts.  As my late father used to say: "Man's mind is not God's mind".  I take my understanding from what was revealed to HIS people, and I realize that they could only write down what they understood in their own frame of reference, in their own language, which may (or may not) have suffered from translation.  Nevertheless, I differ with you on the "certainty" of the age of our Earth.  I have not fixed in my mind whether or not I am "young age"or "old age", but I maintain that any human scientist who proclaims with so-called "authority" that The Bible is "false" in it's description of Creation is an abomination.  I don't see how we can "pick and choose" what we believe or interpret or dis-believe and re-interpret from the Cannon.  I suppose it is my own failing, but I am an ardent seeker of Truth and I suffer from a "take no prisoners" type attitude regarding The Word.  You wrote: "To God be the glory!"  I agree 100% with that!

PO: I coudn't agree with you more.  Scientists, however, don't change their minds.  They revive their theories based on new data.  Their obligation is to practice good science.  Personally, they should love their wives and children and thank God for being alive. I saw that article about John the Baptist's cave also.  Neat.  It certainly appears that it could be just that.  As you may know, however, the Caiaphas bone box was recently proven to be a hoax.  Archeology is certainly making its mark in recent Biblical studies. I agree with you about relying fully on the Scriptures.  But does that also require us to shut down our minds and the inspiration of our souls?.  Are we that corrupted by sin so that we can only deceive ourselves?  (Is not the real corruption the human tendency to make ourselves God rather than to rejoice in and make the most of our humanity, especially after Jesus has freed us to do so?)  Are our minds so structured and our intuitions so perverted that we would not be able to recognize what is right or real even if we wanted to?  Is blind obedience God's intent for us?  Is staying stupid slavishly dependent the high point of the religious experience?  What is meant by freedom and new creaturehood in Christ?  I would want to guard against self-hate. I think that validation and faith are separate issues.  The Hebrews 11:1 certainty of faith is a gift from God, not an accomplishment by us.  From the point of view of the functional capacity of my mind and soul I would define faith as certainty tempered by the recognition that what I believe may in the end not be true.  Thus, faith is essentially a matter of trust is God promises and what He reveals to the Church through the Holy Spirit and in the Scripture.  Remember, modern science, because of the uncertainty principle, parallels religion at this point. I think the reason to study other religions is that it keeps one humble.  I think that the age of the earth is "in stone," as it were.  The age of the universe is "in time."  The Bible is not "false" about creation.  The intent of the Scripture is to announce "who," not "how" in the same way that the Creator announced His name to the Jews in Sinai.  Before that they were ignorant as to with whom they were dealing.  Also, scientific authority is based on hypothesis and probability, not fact.  Any scientist recognizes that.  However, when a scientist speaks with authority, he, like us, makes an "as if" faith statement rather than an "as is" factual statement of irrefutable truth.  He has to take a stand, however, because of the rules of persuasion and communication.  If he doesn't, people won't accept the possibility that what he is saying is possible or correct.  All cultural systems are based upon assumptions that are presented as absolute truth; but, which change over time, and therefore are not really absolute.  It is really all about getting the message across. We don't "pick and choose."  We are moved by the Spirit to accept and understand.  In the study of the Holy Scripture, He is always in charge.  That is why the Scriptures are our final authority in matters of faith. On last point  The key question is whether you or I, or any human being, can tolerate uncertainty.  If we can't, we become frozen in my view.  There is no capacity for growth there.  The problem is that uncertainty is scary; and if you don't have a history where you can trust your experience because you were surrounded by negative innuendo or chaos, it is hard to risk faith, as it were.  That is at least what I have found out from my life.  It is something I have had to get over and deal with.
Pastor

CA: Hi Pastor,
I used the phrase "change their minds" as a somewhat sarcastic way of saying - "These are the Facts, until next decade when we decide those facts are wrong, then we will have new facts, but you can trust us THIS time that THESE facts are facts, unless we decide that they aren't".  In other words - I would be content for them to say "our latest theory is".  Unfortunately, they don't.  Each new "fact" they present is utilized by Atheists as a new weapon in their war against God.  If you would like some documentation, I have a wealth of Anti-Christian websites I could point you too.  To the ill-informed, they are POISON.  My website was built as my own personal fortress against the anti-truth they present.  The Lord gives me comfort and strength! You are quite correct in noting that there have been frauds in Archeology before, it is not a "pure" science and people often have questionable motivations for their endeavors.  As an interesting side note, some of the news articles regarding the "cave" noted a Professor James Tabor.  He was a visiting asst. Prof. at W&M when I attended in the '80's and I took classes under him!  Anyway, I don't think that relying on the Truth of Scripture is in any way "shutting down" the mind.  Quite to the contrary, I find it incredibly challenging (intellectually) to sift through the meaning of the written Word.  I enjoy reading the Scriptures in the KJV and the RSV and then comparing/contrasting them.  Then I read various "commentaries" regarding their meanings.  I have enjoyed the Matthew Henry's Commentary so much that I have contemplated purchasing the entire Volume (it's a book about 2 feet thick!)  But. of course, he was man of a different age, so I also enjoy the Modern discourse of others.  Then I like to see the Strong's Dictionary definitions of the Hebrew words to see what their various translations are.  I guess what I am saying Pastor is that through Faith I KNOW the Truth is in Scripture, and I continually strive to decipher it's meaning in our everyday world of "today".  You are most correct when you say that Validation and Faith are separate issues.  I agree and I did not mean to imply a correlation.  I suppose I am coming from an Apologetic viewpoint whereby I have seen and read so many "anti-Christianity" diatribes that go so far as to say "X or Y could not have happened or existed because where is the physical evidence?"  Then along comes an Archeologist who finds an inscription for Pontius Pilot (for example) and OOOPS!  There goes another Atheist argument!  I realize the focus of my Faith should not be about this type of "show-me" or "prove-me" and I would hate to be perceived as a doubting Thomas.  My belief is strong, but my sinful nature does take a bit of pride when events of The Bible are discovered and subsequently accepted by the mainstream.  It makes me have hope that yet one more person may come to Christ because of it.  As to the Age of The Earth - Secularists have accepted as undisputed fact that the Earth is approx. 4.5 Billion years old. Billion with a B.  Meanwhile, mankind has been "documented" through the Word to have been roaming around for roughly 6,000 years.  Secularists will have you believe that we were "cave men" with no "humanity" about us for thousands upon thousands of years.  The Bible does not document any of that. One man's notion is becoming increasingly interesting to me.  Rich Deem of godandscience.org  writes:
"We are left with only one interpretation for the days of Genesis one. The literal, clearly indicated, meaning of "yom" for Genesis one must be an unspecified, long period of time. Since the Genesis text says that the third day must be at least several years long, none of the other days would be expected to be limited to 24-hours. All or nearly all of the other creation days would seem to require long periods of time, although the text does not clearly indicate the amount of time required."
Essentially he marries an "old Earth" concept to The Creation account in The Bible.  The whole article is available on his website under the "Creation" tab.  I'm not saying I am 100% on board with everything this man says, but I contend, once again, that science IS compatible with Scripture and that Genesis is the foundation upon which the rest of The Word is built, including Christ! Take care and God Bless you for your work!

PO: I know that these are part of our "cultural wars."  Yes, I would like to learn of these atheist web sites so I know what is going on.  The only one I know of is the skeptics web site.  Their web master writes for Scientific American.  I, like you, am very concerned about keeping the Bible and the Gospel authoritative in our society, especially our youth.  We are both after the same thing; however, as I see it, we have different assumptions and perspectives.  I love your passion for the Scripture and your obedience to our faith in the modern world.  Do you teach anywhere, or is your web site your vehicle for educating the public?  Our Lord bless you.

CA: The Web site is where I point folks who have questions about my faith.  I feel more comfortable answering questions when I have the time and the ability to research and give what I consider to be a "proper" answer.  I'm not good "off the cuff" when it comes to locating relevant Scripture verses, so I'd rather take the time necessary to fully research and gain a better understanding before responding ya know?  I'm happy, however, to answer and/or discuss with anyone who asks! Perhaps the two most popular on the web and in popular culture are James Randi and Michael Shermer.  Randi's web site is: http://www.randi.org  He equates Christianity with Voodoo, UFOs, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, you name it.  It's all the same bunk as far as he is concerned, and he proclaims without question that there is no God. You already know about Shermer: http://www.skeptic.com/ He claims he is a former "Born Again" who finally woke up to the "reality" that there is no God.  Of course, he is very careful to claim that he is "Agnostic" so as not to offend "middle America", but mark my words, he is an Atheist. Now, the TRULY rabid ones are like Farrell Till: http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml Their message boards are filled with folks who rabidly attack any Christian who dares proclaim their Faith.  "No holds barred" profanity laced hatred for Christ and His followers.  I don't post any messages there because I learned long ago that they don't really want to learn or know, they enjoy their own viciousness as a sport. Other bizarre folks exist in the "Paranormal" web sites.  They mix Christianity with Pagan ideas such as "spirit guides" and Eastern Mysticism.  I tried for years to converse with these folks, but they don't want to take the time to truly read the Bible.  They would rather read about Alien Abduction and how the Aliens are actually God.  You can get an idea of what I am talking about by viewing Whitley Streiber's Religion message board: http://www.unknowncountry.com/board/ Whitley Streiber claims he was repeatedly abducted by Aliens who told him "the truth".  He has quite a following.  Truly a shame, as many of these type of people are actually hungry for The Lord, but they cannot accept what He actually said...There are many others, but those could keep an Apologist busy for decades.  Now, for some really interesting reads, check out A.S.A. Jones of http://www.ex-atheist.com She is a very intelligent Woman who converted to Christianity after years of being an Atheist.  She has debated (single handedly) with these rabid Atheists and although she clearly defended the Faith, they still refuse to be persuaded.  Check out definition of "debate" - "DEBATE TIP: Debate is about two people giving each other the opportunity to say something stupid." I think that is priceless!  I am reminded of what Christ told the Apostles when confronted with a town who wouldn't accept The Message (Mat 10:15): "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."  Sometimes all one can do is present the information and pray for the listener ya know?

PO:  I understand where you are coming from.  I've really been working at these issues all of my life.  I don't really rush to conclusions, as it were. Thanks for coming through for me.   The alien and spaceship stuff doesn't invite me at all.  I'll look into Farrell Till and A.S.A. Jones.  I really do look for intelligent and fair dialogues, the remainder are essentially reactive and narcissistic.  Not worth the time. Let's talk more.

CA: Hi Pastor,
I would enjoy it!  I would like to know your thoughts on "Preterism" which I personally reject.  Also, I was reading Lutheran Doctrine where it stated that the Lutheran Church believes the prophecy of the anti-Christ has been fulfilled in The Papacy.  While anti-Christ can be equated with anyone or anything that is against Jesus Christ, I'm not sure that the actual prophecy of Revelations has been fulfilled.  What are your thoughts?

PO:  Tell me something about preterism.  I'll look it up myself.  Also, I  have never felt that the Pope is the anti-Christ.  I just do not live at the time of Luther.  The anti-Christ lies somewhere else for me.

CA: Hi Pastor,
Here is a link for Preterism: http://www.preterism.info/ Essentially "Preterism is the belief that all Bible prophecies, including those concerned with the second coming of Jesus, the resurrection and the judgment, came to complete fulfillment in A.D. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem" I believe the problem with this belief is that #1 - it denies the full prophecy of Revelations and #2 It uses a  faulty translation of "generation".  Some apologists are Preterists as a crutch to explain away
Christ's teaching that "all these things shall pass within this generation". The link for the Lutheran Doctrine I was referring to lies here: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=579 It says: "(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.) [Adopted 1932] 43. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist "as God sitteth in the temple of God," 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ's sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation -- these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)"  Interesting huh?  I am against a belief in The Pope as a spokesman for God and I do not believe in the veneration of "modern day saints".  I'm all
about The Triune God, and the Apostles.

PO: Are you making the point that prophesy is not dead; that is, finished?   I realize that the Reformation did battle with the popes and the Roman Catholic Church's distortion of the Gospel.  That distortion is tempered somewhat today; yet, the Catholic Church still doesn't properly discern Law and Gospel.  Today, however, I feel that Luther would be more allied with the church he once fought.  The secular world these days wears the mantel of anti-Christ.   I find that the Book of Revelation is one of the most misunderstood and abused books of the Bible.  The subject of prophesy intrigues me; but I still agree with the rabbi who said, "He who thinks he is a prophet is the son of a fool."  He was saying that the age of Biblical prophesy has past.  All is now interpretation.

CA: Hi Pastor,
In case I was unclear, I am not a "preterist" because while I do think the destruction of the temple was a fulfillment of part of Christ's prophesy, it wasn't the sum total.  Here is a well written article that sums up what I mean: http://www.endtimeinsights.com/site/v1/content/view/35/28/ While I agree that the Secular world is a leading force in the "Anti-Christ crusade" as it were, I think it is almost more dangerous to folks who are attempting to learn and become a Christian to be taught the Faith incorrectly.  In other words, which is more dangerous to the prospective Christian - a secular humanist who says there is no God, or a corrupt
preacher who claims to be Christian but in fact is a Cultist?  I'm leaning towards the latter.  Some folks are Spiritually hungry, and those folks are not going to be persuaded by the Humanist.  They, instead, are more apt to be witnessed to by a Mormon though T.V. ads or by a Scientologist or (the latest Hollywood trend) - the Kaballist, and end up down the wrong path. The Word tells me that the pathway to Salvation is found solely through Faith (given by Grace) in Jesus Christ, and not in anything a "latter day saint" declares is the "new way". I would agree with you that Revelations is greatly misused.  I have read it several times and still do not profess to have a clear understanding of it. I saw a documentary that claimed it was meant to be about a Caesar.  There are also many who claim that Revelations should not have been included in the canon!  But, as it is, it seems to speak of the signs of the "last days".  Christ often spoke of the last days or of the Judgment.  I am intrigued by this idea and would like to have a better understanding of it. I have often wondered about such things as "bodily resurrection" and Judgment Day.  Do you suppose believers go straight to Heaven or do you believe that we will only rejoin Him at Judgment Day?  I suppose once we die we have no perception of "time", so it would feel like an instant either way.  Speaking of "time", I found an interesting definition page about Time. Have you ever wondered what that word means?  Check out this link: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Time Speak with you soon and God Bless!

PO: I'll look up the two web sites you gave me.  When I hear "end time in sights," I get cautious.   I am very interested in time as a physical and psychological reality.  In the last few years I have finally understood that it cannot be separated from space; therefore, it is correct to speak of space/time.  I am also interested in the work on black holes and time loops, as they are called, in the theoretical discussion of going back in time.   When it comes to death and time, the majority opinion in the Scripture is that when you are dead you are dead.  At the Second Coming, I would think, it would seem that no time has passed, as it were, even though billions of years would have evolved.  I was just reading 1 Cor. 7 yesterday, and we can see how the expectation of Jesus returning soon effects St. Paul's thinking.
     Going straight to heaven, as you say, reflects a Greek and not a Hebrew way of looking at things.  The way I see it is that at death we are gone, although not annihilated.  We remain in the "mind of God" and in the "palm of His hand" and, most clearly, enfolded by His promised return and the "third birth," as I would call it, in a new space/time existence.  Judgment, of course, is central to any talk about eternal life in Christ.  The Scripture sees it as a purification and not just a punishment process.  In many ways it will be a righting of wrongs and a truth telling event that will free us up to live the new life in an unencumbered way.  Many Christians today do not see Heaven and Hell as a place, but metaphors of our relationship with God, and I tend to agree with them.  True Hell will be annihilation,
freely chosen by us at the Judgment.  Annihilation will be the result of the sin against the Holy Spirit, the sin that only God can truly determine and judge.

CA: Hi Pastor,
I can appreciate your concern regarding an "end times" named web site.  In case I didn't let you know this previously, there are very few (if any) Christian webmasters with whom I am in 100% agreement.  Many of them post articles relating to specific questions or concerns that I find important or relevant, so I link their specific answers to those without giving them a "full endorsement" as it were.  The particular article I linked was a rebuttal to the Preterist notion that the Second Coming has already happened.  Clearly it has not, at least not the way I believe it will.  As to death and resurrection, I have been reading a lot about the Bible's distinction between "dead" and "sleeping".  Using both terms to describe what we call deceased, the "dead" are those who have perished and were not
in Christ while the "sleeping" are those who have perished but will live again in Christ.  Time is an interesting concept to be sure, and one that while we may be able to measure in some small way for our daily activities, we don't fully understand.  When I awake from a night's sleep, do I truly appreciate the amount of "time" that has passed since I first went to bed? 6 to 8 hours of sleep certainly feels different than 6 to 8 hours of work or play doesn't it?  Also interesting is the fact that time is perceived as passing more quickly as we age.  This is also a phenomenon that is not understood by science.  Interesting indeed! Talk to you soon and God Bless!

PO: I still have to find out about the Preterist notion that the Second Coming has already happened.  I wonder why they talk that way.  Does that mean that the dead will not rise in Christ?  Time is indeed an interesting concept, and not just from a psychological standpoint.  Einstein, as I suggested, tied time to space.  As space bends so time stretches and shrinks.  It is relative and not a constant, as Newton thought.  I think that the underlying point is that time is associated with the
world that is; therefore, even a concept of eternity is related to space-time. That is one reason why we can no longer speak of heaven as a place.  God's transcendence places Him beyond time space.  It is His incarnation places Him in time space.  For me that is both a kenotic truth of His emptying Himself in Jesus Christ, where He "gives into" His creation and its laws and random nature and yet affirms His creation and gives it directional meaning, and one which raises the fascinating question of how we are phenomenologically related to the transcendent.  I think that God relates to his creation most clearly in the soul (What did Michael Shermer call the soul in Scientific American this month? A verbal construct with no real validity or existence?), which is, I believe, a matrix of neurons in the brain and is called the imago dei in the Scripture because it is the juncture of the space-time temporal and the transcendent.  If we could determine how the Holy Spirit dialogues with us within the soul (What more intriguing and mysterious passage about physical nature and mankind and God and His purposes is there than Romans 8:18-27?), we might conceptually better understand how God interacts with His creation.  These issues become important in an age of science, where religion lends little understanding to the nature and destiny of the world.  Remember, Genesis 1:1 provided Israel with a theological basis and a means of interpreting a Mesopotamian cosmos.  Cosmological understanding today uses a vastly different metaphor, one which doesn't need God to explain itself.  The cosmos is no longer flat, domed, surrounded by water, and held up by mountains on its corners.  The Temple is no longer an exact copy of the Heavenly Temple, which lies above the cosmos.  That may be one of the reasons why people don't go to church anymore.  They no longer assume that God is in church and the Word-spoken-in-community and the sacraments are meaningless to them.  The Church invisible is no longer a holy community meeting in God's House.  The most the world can say is that we are a bunch of hypocrites, out of touch with ourselves and the real world.  God is no longer intertwined with man in a clear and understandable fashion.  Being lost has thus been given a new definition, no longer associated with sin and saving Grace.  Existential aloneness has taken its place.  Death wins.  Inerrancy is thus used to isolate and protect ourselves from that terror, which causes me to see no essential difference between the fundamentalist and the secularist view point.  In my view they have both given up on God or are angry at Him for making life so uncertain.  Who really wants to live by faith?  Modern man wants a sure thing; so they try to construct a certain and definable world, which ultimately disappoints.  We have work to do!

CA: Hi Pastor,
WOW!  Excellent and thought provoking  message!  I read the passage you pointed out in Romans.  I like verse 8:24 a lot.  Hope and faith.  I believe people yearn for both.  A phrase I say often is - "It's always nice to have something to look forward to".  My stand on Inerrancy boils down to a belief that the Bible speaks the Truth.  In the last exchange I had via email with an Atheist, I wrote: "After all, do you believe in absolute "truth"?  If not, then there can be no "correct" answers. The definition:  truth : ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (trth) n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)   1.. Conformity to fact or actuality.  2.. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
  3.. Sincerity; integrity.  4.. Fidelity to an original or standard.  5..    1.. Reality; actuality.  2.. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence. By what standard is the "truth" derived?  The sources you take comfort in? The sources others take comfort in?  Are your sources for Biblical Interpretation the "truth"?  If so, by whose authority?  If my sources differ from yours, are they less credible?  Who is the ultimate judge of "truth"?" As you might imagine, he didn't care to reply to that one :)  I have Faith that our Lord is the ultimate judge of truth.  I believe he revealed His truth as it was written in the Bible.  I also believe that the men of the early Bible wrote to the best of their understanding what was being revealed to them in the words they had in their vocabulary.  What amazes me is how well the words hold up to this day!  I agree with you that there is much work to be done! God Bless!

PO: Can't spend too much time on this one yet.  In philosophy truth is what is called an epistemological question; which asks, "How does one know the truth value of his experience?"  How can truth be separated from illusion?  (False memory experiments in psychology have demonstrated that false memories are quite simple to plant in a person's mind.  For example, you could say, "I have always hated asparagus."  A trained psychologist can train you to truly believe that you have always loved asparagus.)  Is the mental and psychological knowing process trustworthy?  What effect does the observer have upon what he is observing?  Is interpretation as significant as observation?  Questions like these.  Scientific truth is much more limited and closed-ended.  In effect, the scientist says, "About that which you cannot speak (That is, make observations and do experiments and double-blind studies.), say nothing."  Einstein and quantum mechanics has upset the apple cart because it has been recognized that all, ultimately, is a matter of probabilities.  There are no truly absolute truths in nature and science, simply logically consistent behaviors and phenomena.  That is why math is such a powerful tool in science.  Quantum fluctuations, as they are called, have made all of reality ultimately indiscernible.  Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says it all.  Religious truth is another matter.  It's source is beyond space-time experience.  It is hidden and can only be revealed.  It is considered, therefore, a gift.  This truth is received in faith as an inspired participatory experience (You don't instigate faith, you participate in the experience.  At this point Lutherans differ from Roman Catholics and other legalistic religions, where you are gifted by what you have contributed.  Born Again Christians contribute their commitment to Christ and make it normative.), filled with insights and visions and dreams.  The best response to religious truth is worship and praise and witness story telling.  "All I know is that I once could not walk, and now I can!"  Religious, revealed truth, is experienced in faith, which itself is another gift from God.  Luther says it all the time.  Religious faith is not objective, or scientific, in nature.  It assimilates revealed truth, but recognizes that by definition that what is believed may not actually be or become true.  At least the possibility exists that it may not be true.  That is why faith is a risk.  In faith one commits himself to one of a number of differing possibilities, such as the existence and promises of God which may or may not be true.  For me, I like the approach of William James, who said that truth is utilitarian in nature.  If it works, it is right.  That is very American and the approach that the Old Testament used to distinguish true from false prophets.  Truth as an eternal and objective, if not a changeless, reality just doesn't exist in space-time.  All is in  change and process.  There are simply mathematical and logical and faith "constructs" that underlie experience and seem to keep it together.  Actually, much more is going on than you can observe.  Truth is in God's hands, not ours.  Last Sunday I mentioned Seurat's "La Grand Jatte," a painting in Chicago's Academy of Art.  (A show featuring the work is presently being held.)  In effect, Seurat experimented with the idea of change and tried to picture what reality would be like if there were not change.  The characters turned out to be two dimensional, certainly not human.  The next world, in my view, will be characterized by diversity, not perversity, where differentiation and change is a natural and desirable characteristic.  Our constructs will remain "true."  It will be a mature and creative and satisfying world.  Love and principle will dominate.  The key is that Death, meaning the potential for annihilation, will no longer exist.  It is all about Jesus, the Christ.

CA: Once again I am impressed with your intellect and the depth of your faith. I believe that there is Truth, separate and apart from man's understanding perhaps, but an ultimate Truth nevertheless.  God is Truth.  Christ is Truth.  The Holy Spirit is Truth.  Their Divine Word is Truth.  "Psa 25:5 Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou [art] the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day." Our Faith comes from the teachings in the written Word.  Otherwise, we are left to the devices of man, whom we know to be sinful and untrue.  I am, as you know, a Christian by my personal faith in Jesus Christ Our Lord.  I know him to be True in my heart.  I speak to him in my mind mostly. Occasionally, I speak to him out loud.  But mostly, I have had several occasions in my life whereby I have had personal affirmations of his Truth. Have you ever experienced this?  Something troubling you, or a circumstance that seemed overwhelming, and things look the absolute worst and you simply close your eyes and say "Thank You Jesus!  This is nothing compared to what you did for the world!  Please forgive me and please help me!  Please help me to be a better servant and please know that I love You!"  And you get that overwhelming warmth and a feeling of Knowledge that He is present?  It
is like that early exchange of emails we had.  I too felt the presence of The Holy Spirit in our discussions.  I feel it now as well.  I feel it is pleasing to The Lord that we seek to Know and love Him!  If you don't mind, in the coming days, I would like to compile our discussions into a readable journal and post it on my web site.  I think this is valuable indeed!  Bless you Pastor!  Our Faith needs more men of intellect such as yourself!

PO: Thank you for your kind words.  I agree with you that I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in our discussions.  One of us focuses on the words and the other on the melody, but we are on the same sheet of music, as it were.  Your words, "I know him to be True in my heart." says it all.  Please feel free to compile our discussions.  Help me to understand; however, how the web site works.  Will others dialogue with us, etc.?

CA: Hi Pastor, My ChristianArmour.net project was born out of frustration.  I was attempting to witness to folks on "spiritualism" message boards and I found
myself answering the same questions over and over again.  I also found myself having to constantly do searches for what I believed to be the "best" answers because I could not locate a "one stop shop" type of website that linked all the links together.  Therefore, I decided that instead of me doing research for others like an errand boy to the misled, I would setup a "one stop shop" Apologetics website that I could point others to when they are seeking guidance, answers, or a jump start to their Christian Faith. Many Christian websites turn off would be converts because they are offering things for sale.  I figured that since the Lord has blessed me with a few dollars and a few leisure hours to spend on Him,  I would offer up some guidance to those who seek it free of charge. Whenever I meet someone who
asks me of my Faith, I explain that I am a Christian.  When they want to start asking lots of questions, I say "visit this website and if you have any questions email me".  It's kind of like an online business card if you will.  So, the website is linked on search engines such as "google" under the heading of "Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Apologetics/Tips_and_Tactics/" For those who are seeking, they will find it.  For those who want to know,
they will enjoy our discussions!  If you would like others to see it, you need only hand out the address!  If you would like, I could put a link that says "Click here to email Pastor O'Connor".  Or, if you prefer, I could setup a separate email address for you on the website and then forward any non-spam emails to you.  I personally don't receive much email from the site because I mainly promote it through word of mouth and only to those who ask. I believe you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Therefore, I don't confront people with such questions as "Do you know Jesus?".  Instead, I wait for folks to say - "What is your belief?".  Luke 11:9 "And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." So, our discussions will only be read by those who know that they are there and wish to see them.  In other words, only the Lord can say for sure!  But if you would like dialogue with others, we can leave that door open for those who knock!  It's your decision Pastor, and I am more than happy to oblige!  Thanks for allowing me to post your words.  I will get started on this in the coming days! God Bless!

PO: I love the phrase "an errand boy to the misled."  I also like your approach.  How do you create a round table, as it were, for open and critical, in the good sense of the word, discussion?  As I think about what you do and have to offer, my first concern is what questions are to be asked and areas are to be discussed?  (I certainly have been focusing on the inerrancy issue.  Of course, the larger issue is the nature of Scripture, its interpretation, and its authoritative position in our faith life.  I'm also, of course, interested in the interplay of science and religion.)  You certainly would want to get to the heart of the issue and talk about things that really matter in the dialogue of religion and life.  (As I write, I quickly realize what broad areas of discussion there are.) I like the idea of an e-mail address on the website and you're forwarding non-spam e-mails to me.  That would be kind of you.  I certainly do not have your computer skills. Take care.

CA: Hi Pastor, My first thought was that sometime over this coming weekend, I would begin working on a "Discussions With Pastor" page to the website.  I will headline it with the fact that as a member of Trinity, I forwarded the web address to you for review and we began an email discussion.  I will then select the
relevant parts of our previous discussions (meaning edit for clarity and spelling and punctuation etc..) and post them in a back and forth manner in date (or topic) order.  I will then specify that You (and I, of course) welcome any and all emails concerning our thoughts or The Word.  I will then post any questions or thoughts you or I receive as part of an ongoing dialogue.  I would prefer to do this as an email exchange as opposed to a message board for several reasons.  Chief among them is the fact that message boards require heavy moderating.  You would be amazed at the pure evil that will pervade a "real time" message board on the internet.  The
relative anonymity the net provides gives some people the notion that it is somehow "fun" or "neat" to post pornography, post anti-Christian thoughts, and the like.  Therefore, via email, only on-topic and pro-message discussions will appear on the site.  As to the areas of discussions, all of the broad topics you mentioned are perfectly fine with me.  Obviously, the site is called "ChristianArmour" because I feel that Christians benefit from some readily available "protection" (knowledge) from the daily attacks we face in the secular media, in the mainstream institutions of "higher learning", and, of course, on the World Wide Web.  Perhaps some of the teenage members of the Church have faced tough questions from their school friends and would prefer to email you rather than come up to you after a
service.  Likewise with the younger Adults in the congregation.  They may get quizzed by co-workers and would appreciate knowing of a resource.  My personal experience has been that folks of my Mother's generation aren't too fond of "web browsing" :)   But I don't discriminate by age or any other standard!  Anyway, as I said, I hope to begin and get much done over this coming weekend.  Take care and God Bless Pastor!

PO: I was away over the weekend, and I am happy to find your message.  I quickly recognize the wisdom of your approach.  I like the e-mail format.  I'm really only interested in serious, meaningful discussions.  I look forward to what you come up with. Pastor