Sometimes I think we forget, far too often, to be thankful for small things.

Not that we intend to. It’s just, in the rush of the day, we let other things become more important, even though they’re not.

Here’s some things I was thankful for today.

A talented wife.

Helpful friends.

A low blood-pressure reading this morning.

My wife’s cat.

It didn’t even take me 30 seconds to come up with those four. Of course, I could have rattled off more than a dozen problems today, in a similar amount of time. But to what end?

Sometimes it’s better to be thankful for the good things than grumbling about the crud in our lives. It’s certainly more peaceful and serene.

Here’s another thing I’m about to be thankful for: an earlier than normal bedtime. (Shut-eye before 1 a.m. is an improvement!)

Sleep well, all. And dream up some things to be thankful for. Adonai’s waiting to hear from you.

One of the most rewarding activities I have been involved in over the past few months has been teaching the pre-teens during Saturday service at my church. I’ve found a decent approach where I’m strict enough to get their respect, but I can still find constructive ways to build fun into the experience.

One way has been to finish off teaching times with a game-show style review of recent lessons. Usually doing a boys versus girls structure adds to the fun. Sure, I don’t offer prizes like tooth-rotting candy or tonneau covers for vehicles they’re too young to own. But the bragging rights for a week seem to be enough to generate excitement.

The great thing about a game-show style review is that it gets them back into the material in a way that they feel is fun. It gets them to pay attention, and that’s the goal.

Kat pointed out I’d missed her intent on some things she wrote in her last rebuttal. Be sure to read her response if you have not yet done so, before proceeding.

Here’s some things I take away from her clarifications. First, we both despise hypocrisy in the church. It’s perhaps a bit easier for me to agree on this point than it is for some people of faith, given that as a messianic, I’m not exactly in agreement with all things in mainstream Christianity or mainstream Judaism.

I’m also relieved to see that Kat doesn’t view all churches as equally hypocritical and that some serve great purposes. She mentions several that causes that some churches involve themselves in, like area food shelves, shelters, food banks and, I imagine, even fund-raising for good causes like cerebral palsy, for example.

I can see her point, but I would like to point out that social justice causes and “giving back to the community” aren’t the only forms of good that churches or temples can do, though that is one good type of service they can perform.

But there are other types of services that are more spiritual in nature that also serve equally valued and valuable functions. For example, one cause my messianic congregation supports is a program that helps Jewish people who are stuck in Russia or other countries, who want to move to Israel, to return to their homeland. There’s no agenda to the program, it doesn’t require them to even listen to a messianic message at all, because the program is one run by Jews, for Jews. The extend of our messianic involvement it to offer financial support. As a congregation, we want to be a blessing to the Jewish community, so it’s a program we support and donate to.

Another example, perhaps more personal, is that we sponsor a yearly trip to Israel. It always fills up and we do it regardless of the terror conditions at the time because most of the areas we visit aren’t much affected by that sort of thing; not that listening to the evening news would ever offer the impression that anything happens in Israel except military violence and terrorism. Not so.

It can even be as simple as offering ministry and counseling services to those who need them. Of course, we do have a food shelf and other forms of help for those in need as well.

None of this is to deny the point that there are those who use faith as a shield to hide unholy motives. But I am glad we agree that not all churches are like that.

I also appreciated Kat’s explanation on what she meant about theology versus science. It’s true that even in messianic Judaism, the Torah and the B’rit haDashah are our primary sources, whereas science is more fluid. To use medicine as an example, only a couple hundred years ago, leeches and bleeding people were considered cutting-edge medical science methods of treatment for all sorts of maladies. Fortunately, science has come a long way since then. A course of leeches, for example, can’t suck out a brain tumor.

However, I think this brings us to the fundamental difference between the realm of science and the realm of theology. By its very nature, true science is concerned only with the physical world; that which is observable, measurable, repeatable and disprovable. If a field of study doesn’t meet those criteria, it’s not a true science.

Religion, by contrast, concerns itself not only with the observable, but the invisible world. Religion is about matters of faith, ethics, beliefs, the afterlife, the nature of good and evil and more.

I do have a lot of thoughts about the relationship between science and religion. I do want to go into them in more detail at some point. Possibly soon. But I think we’ve spun a bit off-course from the source of the original focus of this first round of this debate, and I enjoy the dynamic way bringing in an essay by another source can refresh exchanges of ideas like this, and breath new life into the dialog.

So Kat has found an essay that has her fired up, and she’ll do the initial post on that, then allow me to respond. So stay tuned! It’s about to get even more interesting!

Oh, and responses to Kat’s question about why I tend to leave the vowels out of any reference to Adonai, such as G-d or L-rd, have been responded to on Kat’s comment page; I did not ignore her!

Kat Cooper and I have just been getting warmed up in our open debate on atheism and religion, and we have a long way to go. If you haven’t checked out Ms. Cooper’s entries yet, you simply must catch up now. There’s a lot to respond to, and just a lot of fun topics to exchange ideas on.

Before I begin the next round, though, I must digress a bit and muse a bit on what the purpose of an open debate, or even a friendly exchange of ideas might be. I mean, Kat and I respect each other, so it’s not like I’m expecting her to slap her head like a person in a V-8 commercial, jump up and proclaim, “Wow, that last post was so convincing, I’m not atheist anymore!”

Likewise, I doubt Kat expects me to suddenly transform, like a robot from the live action movie this past summer, from an aspiring messianic congregational leader into a sudden G-d denier because she posts something so crushing in its truthfulness that I can no longer reconcile “reality” to “my faith.”

We’re both bright minds. I doubt either of us expects the other to suddenly flip.

So why debate, if neither if us is likely to change our minds? Why exchange ideas if our ideas are not going to mesh anytime soon? I mean, it’s not like anyone’s paying us in IWC watches for this public display of our deepest beliefs.

Some might argue that approaching others with an open mind is the goal. I disagree. That sounds too sloppy on a mental level, too wishy-washy, and too “I do expect the other person to flip” written between the lines. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not afraid of hearing anyone out. I’m still open to new information, new perspectives and so forth. But I know that I long ago hit the bedrock of my identity, and that it is made of “person of faith” stuff.

So I’d phrase it a different way: I think enjoying a friendly exchange of ideas, or even an open debate, is more about coming into such an even with an open heart, not an open mind. Because for me, at least at this stage in my life, I’m more interested in understanding people and what makes them who they are, as opposed to defeating someone rhetorically.

I realize this is a definition that most college debate teams would reject. But this is real life, not a college debate team. Our purposes can afford to be a bit more humane. And ultimately, how can anyone ever expect to relate to someone if they aren’t open to understanding who they are, where they’re coming from, what they think and believe and what defines them as individuals? Listening with an open heart, even when your own ideas and beliefs and such are at odds to another person’s, is a lofty, but achievable, goal.

One can learn about another person without agreeing on everything.

* * * * *

Kat brought up several points and I won’t attempt to address and counter everything tonight, but I will get to what I feel I can tackle in a reasonable amount of time and space.

One of the big issues Kat opened up is the false pretenses of most religions. Among her complaints are:

* Organized religion is about money and expensive lifestyle.
* Organized religion is never open to new ideas.

These are two themes I can deal with in a reasonable amount of time tonight. All the rest, while worthy of further discussion at some point, will simply have to wait. So let’s get started.

Tenant 1: Organized religion is about money and expensive lifestyles

I will be the first to admit that much of organized religion does err when it comes to the decision either to follow the leading of G-d or follow the demands of money. The examples are too rife to pretend there’s any other conclusion. For example:

*Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and the 700 Club scandal.

*The Catholic Church’s selling of “indulgences – which were basically licenses to sin and be forgiven, before the sin was even committed – in order to build the Vatican, a practice rife throughout the Middle Ages at least.

*The overabundance of congregational leaders in various religions who have joined the ranks of millionaires, and then try to sell the idea that wealthy is God’s preferred state for everyone. (I could rant for at least an entire book-length manuscript against this false and wrong-headed teaching, but now’s not the time.)

* Probably the pinnacle in American religious history of pathological narcissism is science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. Prior to inventing his SF-tinged religion, he was quoted as saying, “The best way to become rich in this country is to found your own religion.” He then went on to do exactly that — and none of his congregations ever noticed just a bit of a red flag there.

That’s just four examples quite quickly off the top of my head. Television has helped spread the money-focused corruption of religion, by allowing “TV pastors” to seek money from folks nationwide and worldwide, rather than subsisting on the modest means their own local congregation can provide.

So yes, I can agree that money has corrupted many religious organizations.

But all, Kat? Every single church in America, in the world? That’s where we diverge.

I’ve met lots of congregational leaders in my time and I must say that they run the gamut. Some are wealthy and handle their success poorly. Some are well-to-do but handle their financial solvency with as much responsibility and selflessness as any wealthy person in business who pursues philanthropy rather than pursuing the lining of their own pockets. That comes down to the individual responsibility and maturity of the congregational leader in question.

And religion is hardly an untapped gravy train making every God-salesman (so-called) wealthy beyond their dreams. To the contrary, for every wildly successful mega-church where pastors live The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, there are hundreds of small, modest churches that perform the day-to-day tasks of looking after the spiritual needs of their congregations as their first order of business. For every millionaire pastor, there are hundreds who would be paid far better by taking up a job as a greeter at the local Wal-Mart and who must sometimes hold such second jobs just to make ends meet.

And this is not to mention any of the religious workers who enter the missionary field, living in extremely humble, even undesirable, conditions, often at risk to the health and safety of not only themselves but their spouses and children as well, who do all this because they are committed to giving people in highly secluded or oppressive countries the chance to hear about the religion and vision of God that they believe to be true.

I’m not saying religion doesn’t have hypocrites. There are far too many, in my opinion, and sadly there are more agnostic and atheist professors in American Bible Colleges teaching Bible and theology classes than there are professors who are genuine believers in the religion they teach.

So is it a flawed system with flawed people? Definitely. But I must stress, that is not all there is to it. Kat, while you look at a poll on religion and, I imagine, see a result that claims that 93 percent (or whatever it is these days) of Americans claim to believe in God in one form or another, and that perhaps 76 percent consider themselves, “Christian,” and you end up feeling outnumbered, well…

Let’s just say this. I see polls like that any my BS meter goes into overdrive. If America was 93 percent God-believing and 76 percent Christian – and everyone of them was living according to their beliefs – there are a lot of cultural, societal and moral ills our country would not have. Whether you look at crime rates, the abortion rates, divorce rates, single-parent families, premarital sexuality, alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual abuse of children, or whatever other problem you want to focus on – I simply don’t believe the claims.

Even without getting into differing religions, denominations, sects, doctrines and such, even if you kept it as simple as, “Here is a person who not only says they believe in God, but live out their values as believers in that God, and refrain from the social evils that their God forbids,” I believe the real percentage of genuine believers would be several orders of magnitude smaller. Would even 5 percent make the cut? Would 1 percent?

Even the Torah that I hold faith value in is highly skeptical of the number of genuine believers. Take the Genesis tale of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. Abraham’s nephew Lot is living in that area, and the folks there are living God-profaning, rather than God-pleasing lives. So G-d basically tells Abraham, “That’s it. I’ve had it with Sodom and Gomorrah. Destruction’s coming, get your nephew and his family outta there.”

But Abraham didn’t just meekly say, “OK, L-rd, you’re wiser than me, whatever you want.” He battled with G-d over the extent of mercy the L-rd was showing. He challenged G-d to spare these cities of at least tens of thousands of people if only he could find 50 folks there living righteously like Lot. Then Abraham started negotiating down and eventually G-d agreed he’d spare the entire city if even just 10 people living righteously could be found. And in a pair of cities with tens of thousands of people to choose from, not 10, not even one more, could be found.

Call it history, call it a fairy tale, the point hold true either way, and the point is this: genuine people of faith ARE hard to come by. We don’t disagree there. What we do disagree on is that, personally, I don’t agree that all faith-based workers and congregational leaders are living the high life, taking monthly vacations to Matazlan and having a wild party on G-d’s tab.

As much corruption as there may be in religion, there are still leaders, congregations and people who are genuine. They’re just in short supply is all.

Also, this may be a weak counter argument, but I’d also venture to point out that most scientists live better and earn more than most pastors, rabbis, imams and other congregational leaders. In many cases, by far.

* * * * *

Tenant #2: Organized religion is never open to new ideas.

Here, I have to disagree and say that while there are some sticks in the mud, this statement proves that you’re not up on just how dynamic a field theology tends to be.

I actually have a lot to say on this, but I’m well past my bedtime already… so it’ll have to wait for another time.

In the meantime, Kat… TAG! You’re it!

Kat Cooper has her rebuttal to last night’s opening post up; those of you who missed it should read her side before coming back here to read my next entry.

Back? Good. Shame on you if you didn’t go.

Down to business. The reception desks are now closed. We trust you readers to be adult enough to read both sides once you’re given a link

* * *

First of all, I really like Kat’s idea of referring to this as “a friendly exchange of ideas.” It does sound nicer and closer to the intent of this thing we’re doing. But my template for this post doesn’t like long titles, and I’ve already set up the category, so for continuity’s sake, it’ll have to remain Open Debate on my site. Just let’s all keep in mind that Kat’s right and “a friendly exchange of ideas” is indeed more accurate as a functional description.

One aspect I do want to bring up is the element of regionalism at play here. Kat lives in the “Bible belt south.” I’ve visited Florida once and Texas twice, and I do think that plays a factor in her perception of things. When you’re in an area that is heavily churched, being an atheist would make a person feel a bit more singled out.

Regionalism also plays a significant factor in my perception of things. Minnesota is the only stat not to vote for Ronald Reagan in the 49-state landslide of 1984. We’re almost as much of a blue state as New York or California. It has often been joked – and not without a basis in truth – that the average Minnesota Republican would be kicked out of the average Georgia Democratic Party — for being too liberal.

Now, I don’t want to go into overkill here with political comparisons. I am not trying to imply that all liberals are atheists are liberals and all conservatives are faith-based. That’s patently untrue. My only purpose is the set the scene of Minnesota, culturally. And in our state, which politically is solidly liberal, our culture of faith is also not as strong as our secular culture.

I don’t want to be presumptuous, but I suspect that in the average city in Florida, you’ll find more Bible-thumping evangelicals than in the entire state of Minnesota. The secular mindset is definitely the majority view up here, and perhaps the solution to the woes of both Kat and myself is a state-swap. My wife and I can move down to Florida and Kat can move up here to Minnesota and we’ll both feel a bit more “in the majority of the like-minded.”

Probably not, though.

Anyway, my point was to bring up how regional differences add to our perceptions. Point made for now. Moving on.

Kat brings up some good historical points on the emergence of religious expressions into the culture. In terms of those dates and the historical progression, I currently have no quibble. Her research is solid, so far as I can tell at the moment. Where we differ, however, is in the matter of interpretation of history.

I would agree that the founding fathers were perhaps closer to deists than modern Southern Baptists, although there are those who argue that the essence of what they believed is largely compatible with modern Christian faith movements.

But what I do take issue with is how this “wall of separation between church and state” Kat cites from the Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists should be interpretted. If you’ve never read it for yourself, you owe it to yourself to read it here. For a thorough and, from what I can tell, dispassionate and neutral analysis of the Danbury letter, read this essay, also from the Library of Congress.

The fact is, the phrase “separation of church and state” never appeared in the Constitution itself, but only in the Jefferson-Danbury letter, although it appeared again after that in 1810 in President James Madison’s essay, “Monopolies.” The actual First Amendment to the Constitution is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

-Emphasis added

While atheists appropriately endorse the establishment clause, some tend to overlook the free exercise clause. This concept is even respected in the 1971 Supreme Court ruling that established the “Lemon Test” for laws that are inappropriately religious in nature, using the following three criteria:

To be constitutional, a law must:
* Have a secular purpose, and
* Be neutral towards religion – neither hindering nor advancing it, and
* Not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion. (www.religioustolerance.org)

Again, the most passionate of the atheist crowd have no problem promoting the concept that government ought not advance any particular religion, but many, though organizations like the ACLU and People for the American Way, have certainly gone out of their way to hinder religious expression.

That is a brief summation of my perspective of how people of faith and secularists differ on interpreting the establishment clause. Now I’ll personalize the discussion a bit more to my own view.

Personally, I have no stake in proving whether America is particularly Christian or even Judeo-Christian in its origins. The wisdom of the founders is that they saw beyond their own brand of religious faith and established a principal of government neutrality toward matters of faith. And there is good reason for that neutrality. Most of the first settlers in America were Pilgrims by faith, with other brands of believers including Quakers, Anabaptists and, later, Jews and Catholics and so on. In other words, Kat’s right, America’s pretty much always been a melting pot. But those who founded this nation were also convinced that religion, with its tendency toward self-control, was a necessary balancing force to democracy, since democracy taken to its extreme, as proved by the fall of previous democracies in Greece and Rome, can lead to an utter lack of control and self-government.

In other words, without some self-control, democratic government can ultimately devolve into “vote for whatever you want, regardless of the consequences.” An example today? We all want free health care… and no tax increases in the bargain. Or locally here in Minnesota, a recent poll showed Minnesotans were all for building the best replacement bridge possible to replace the collapsed 35W bridge… and were even more in favor of no tax increase to cover the reconstruction costs.

While budget cuts elsewhere can often achieve such feats, it is also a demonstration of just how wastefully government collects and spends tax money that a few simple budget cuts can result in enough month for a $250B bridge project.

But I suspect I’ll surprise some folks when I say this: I don’t mind America being neutral toward religion, as long as it stays neutral and not hostile toward religious freedom. For me, the same neutrality that allows me to be a messianic in Minneapolis allows Kat to be an atheist in the Bible belt, and that’s as it ought to be in both our cases.

Unfortunately, what the laws are and what human behavior produces are two different beasts altogether. The founding principal is correct, but in Minneapolis-St. Paul, although I’m technically free to be a messianic, my life and the lives of those in our church is hardly free from harassment. This is especially true of messianics, who don’t fit in with either the Christian community or the Jewish community. Our temple has been broken into and defaced, some have been refused service at certain establishments.

Some of our kids are proselytized by replacement-theology Christians who are convinced we’re hell-bound because we observe the Torah laws, feasts and festivals – we’re “too Jewish” – or are treated with similar disrespect by a Jewish community afraid that we’re trying to “trick them” into Christianity. (Even though the truth is, the congregation I’m a part of does not overtly evangelize. Instead, we hold events, publicize them, and allow those interested to make their own decision whether to attend or not.)

And yet our congregation has been regularly subject to “invasions” by either Christians out to “prove” we’re a bunch of devil-worshipers, to Jewish “anti-missionaries” who attend under the guise of being a messianic, but end up trying to convince our members they’d be better off by far attending their orthodox (or reformed, or conservative) temple down the street… a level of predatory proselytizing we’ve never even considered, let alone carried out.

Kat has many of her own stories of what it’s like to be an atheist in the Bible belt, that she may or may not want to share; I’ll let her tell those at her own discretion. But do these things happen because the laws are right or wrong? Or do they occur because no matter whether your guide through life is the New Testament, the Torah, the Koran, or the Laws of the the State of Florida, there will always be idiots who don’t pay attention to, or do, what’s right?

I favor the latter suggestion. As Larry the Cable Guy says, “You can’t fix stupid,” and there are plenty of “stupid people” to be found, whether the group of people you are looking at are people of faith, people of atheism, or people gathered to watch a sporting event. The function of government when it comes to stupid people is criminal punishment. The function of most churches is a combination of eternal punishments, usually with a chance for some sort of redemption or forgiveness.

Perhaps this is not as much disagreement as some people hope for as they read along; but not all debates need to be about two people pulling in completely opposite directions on every point. Sometimes, as Kat has said, it’s more of a friendly exchange of ideas. But enough for now.

Tag, Kat. You’re up!

In my travels through the blogosphere, I’ve met many interesting folks and … surprise, surprise … not all of them are messianics. Of course, considering our particular blend of Judaism and Christianity is a relatively obscure (but growing) one at this moment in time, that’s not surprising.

One such interesting person I’ve met recently is fellow blogger Kat Cooper. She possesses a sharp wit and intellect, a great sense of humor and, despite the rough language she sometimes indulges in, has quite good insights on a wide variety of issues. She is also an atheist.

Now, why would a faith-oriented blogger want to begin a debate with an atheist blogger? Well, Kat can speak for herself over on her site, but my reasons are fairly straight-forward.

First, I think too often in the blogosphere, atheist sites and faith sites stand in their own corners of the ring, tossing rotten tomatoes at each other without ever really speaking to each other. On rare occasions when they do speak directly, it’s a big yelling mess with both sides essentially painting the other as stupid, which doesn’t help either side.

By contrast, Kat and I struck up a friendship on a technical blogging level and already respect each other. Our hope is to engage in an exchange of viewpoints without giving in to useless name-calling. To foster a dialog based in mutual respect. We’ll see how well it works as it unfolds.

As for any personal reasons why I’d want to do this? It’s pretty simple. Anyone entering a journey to be a congregational leader has to expect that he or she will encounter folks who don’t agree. Learning how to communicate and defend the ideals for which a messianic believer stands as a congregational leader is, therefore, an essential skill. Learning how to do so without losing one’s cool or losing respect for the other party is similarly essential, whether the person being disagreed with is a religious Jew, an anti-Semite, a replacement theology Christian, or an anti-faith atheist. If one can’t manage to maintain respect for a person who disagrees, the usefulness of a dialog quickly disappears entirely.

So, for me, it’s a great exercise in apologetics. And for both of us, the posts and comments our two sites exchange will hopefully entertain as well as provide food for further thoughtful debate for both our audiences, diverse as they promise to be. So, both Kat and I are ready. We’ve backed up the figurative transfer tanks and are ready to start exchanging perspectives. Let’s get started with what I hope will become at least a semi-regular feature for both our blogs, the “Open Debate” series.

***

I selected the topic for our first exchange, and it’s a timely one. Over on liberal blog syndicate, The Huffington Post, writer Sam Harris last week posted an essay provocatively titled, Science Must Destroy Religion. No matter who you are, atheist or person of faith, it’s worth reading, especially in context of the forthcoming exchange between MessianicMusings.com and MySingleMomLife.com

Opening posts in a debate are always a bit challenging, but let me start by saying that I was a bit disappointed by the incongruity between the title of Harris’ article, and the actual content. The title sounds like a shot across the bow of religion in the cultural war, a call to arms for scientists to actively work to destroy religious faith.

As it turns out, the actual essay isn’t quite as activist as the title would lead one to expect. Instead, Harris wastes a good portion of the opening paragraphs citing the same old tired cliches we’ve all heard before from the atheist community about how religious faith equals ignorance and is the cause of every evil in the world from most wars ever fought to the common cold.

OK, maybe he didn’t blame the common cold on religion. Yet.

Rather than an active cultural war or the burning of churches or anything quite so drastic as the essay’s title might draw to mind, Harris simply makes the proposal that, somehow, scientists and other anti-God “rationalist” thinkers have been “too polite” and need to start fighting the rhetorical war of words between science and religion with all the evidence in their arsenal and thus somehow vanquish religion on an intellectual level.

As we go further in depth in this debate, I will dig into some of the more detailed flaws I see in Harris’ essay, but on the “big picture” scale my basic reaction to this is, “Since when have atheists been holding back anything?”

From the more obvious pop culture incidences, such as comedienne Kathy Griffin’s recent Emmy outburst, to the more substantial clashes, Harris’ view of a “too polite” scientific community holding back out of fear of hurting the feelings of people of faith, I find a flood of evidence that whatever orders of destruction Harris thinks he’s issuing, the ‘rank and file’ atheists are already about the task and Harris is late to the party.

For decades the ACLU has been working hard to take the separation of church and state to its most extreme degree of interpretation. No Ten Commandments in courthouses, no prayer in schools, no Christmas or Hannukah breaks (it must be referred to as a “winter break.”) And anti-faith folks are hard at work to get “under God” removed from the Pledge, “in God we trust” removed from all currency and, in all likelihood, getting “God” out of “God Bless America” as well. Doesn’t sound like a docile crowd to me. Now, if we could ever convince the atheist crowd to join up with folks of faith in an effort to get any mention of divinity removed from public expressions of the phrase, “Damn it!” we might find a common cause at last!

So yes, I question the accuracy of Harris’ perception of the atheist community as too polite and docile. They seem sufficiently activist to me, and have accomplished quite a bit of cultural change over the last 50 years or so that works to their advantage rather than to the advantage of folks of faith. Personally, I’m less interested in defeating “the other side” than I am trying to increase mutual respect of individuals on both sides of the fence toward one another.

I also take issue with his concept that religion is, by nature, anti-science and vice-versa. I could argue that much of science has been established by men and women of one religious faith or another. But that’s a far more detailed can of worms and I’ll come back to it another time.

Tag, Kat! You’re it!

One nice thing Adam had going for him with Eve was that there were no comparisons for either of them to make. For much of the early part of their marriage, there was no couple down the street with a nicer house, no wife with a more expensive haircut or fashion jewelry, no husband with firmer abs and a sleeker sports car.

Can anyone imagine how much more we might appreciate our partners if we could have the same lack of comparisons to live by as Adam and Eve enjoyed? I suspect we’d love deeper, appreciate each other more and be kinder and more generous in our forgiveness of one another.

Of course, that’s Eden-style thinking. Then again, Eden didn’t last long, did it?

Golf apparel ladies will love is not exactly a main topic in the Torah, but did you know that the opening chapters of Genesis reveals, among many other things, the origins of the entire fashion industry?

You see, prior to the fall of humanity, Adam and Eve wore no clothing. They had no concept of sin, and therefore were able to live without clothes but also without shame. So was this a prehistoric nudist colony haShem was running? Hardly. It simply means that nudity and clothing and the difference between those states of being had not yet been defined.

Of course, that didn’t last long. After eating from the fruit of the tree at the center of Eden, the tree of the knowledge between good and evil, both Adam and Even became self-aware of their lack of clothing and decided that to be covered was better than to be bare. For themselves.

You see, the serpent’s lie was not far from the truth, which is why it provided such a powerful temptation and deception. In a twisted way, we did become, “like G-d, knowing good from evil.” But that ability was hardly a blessing and put us nowhere near Adonai’s level of creative power.

And thank Adonai for that!

The lie was in the details. Yes, Adonai knows the difference between good and evil, and tells us what is good. When we take over the power to discern good from evil, we often contradict G-d’s definition, replacing it with our own. Therefore, as a result of the fall, we created sin.

Not exactly something Adonai was likely to call, “Good” the way he declared his own handiwork during creation week. Not even close.

One of the points of the fall festival season is the feast of Simchat Torah, or the celebration of the Word of Adonai. Jews and messianics alike recognize this as the season in which the reading cycle of Torah is completed, finishing up the final chapters or Deuteronomy and coming back around to the first chapters of Genesis.

What may be less appreciated in some circles is the prophetic significance of Simchat Torah. For Messiah Yeshua is himself the Word of the L-rd, and so, just as the rest of the fall festivals are shadows of the end times to come, so is Simchat Torah.

It is a recognition of the time when every knew will bow and every tongue confess that Yeshua is the promised messiah, that there is no other, and that all members of the chosen people of G-d, born or grafted in, Jew and Gentile alike, who worship the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, will come together to spend eternity with the living W-rd of Adonai, worshiping him in unity, spirit and truth.

It really is a significant, though often overlooked and under-appreciated, cap to the fall festival season. Its prophetic fulfillment will take far more than the Sahara hotel to accommodate; it will take an entirely renewed Jerusalem.

Shalom! Next year, in Jerusalem!