Miracles Big And Small

I have never “spoken” to God and had him answer me. I have never had a moment where I was overcome with the glory of God or anything like that. And I really do not have a “the day I became a Christian” story because I have always been one. But there are ways that I have seen God act in my life, subtle and insignificant as they may be.

There are of course the little things that everyone experiences. A sudden urge to check your planner leads you to discover an assignment due tomorrow. Waking up even though your alarm does not go off. A canceled appointment when you feel overwhelmed by your busy life. The snow day that gives you one more day to finish that paper. The bus that is even later getting to the stop than you. Even something as simple as all the lights turning green when you are in a hurry. Yeah some of it might be coincidence. But, as someone who does not believe in the concept of luck, I like to think that sometimes God has your back. That sometimes he says “you know what? This might be a small thing, but I am going to help you out anyway.” It really does help sometimes to know you are not alone.

Of course it is not all little things. I myself credit the discovery of my best friend to the hand of God. We traced back the chain of events that led to our meeting to almost years in the making. The odds of us actually meeting were completely astronomical. Yes we faced a lot of hardship during that time, but it ended up being worth it in the end. And it really means a lot to me, that God would care enough to bring us together when we felt alone. Our friendship has probably made the biggest positive impact on my life than any other event in it. And it has shown me that God cares enough to do these things. That he cares enough to listen to your prayers. That he has not and will not forsake or abandon you, and hardship can sometimes lead to joy.

-BlackFox

(371)

King Of Kings

 Every country has a definite method of rule. Kings, socialism, democracy, etc. etc. etc. Now from a biblical standpoint, which one is best? Which method of rule is the most desirable, regardless of the feelings of man?

The answer would be, of course, a righteous king. What? What did you say? No I did not misspell “democracy”. In the Bible, God often compares himself to a king. The concept of the relationship between a king and his subjects is an analogy for the relationship between God and ourselves. A king punishes the wicked, yet also shows mercy and compassion. A king sets down the law because he has the right and authority to do so. A king protects his own subjects and never forsakes them. He is mindful of the needs of his people. Note, however, that I said a righteous king. A king who becomes corrupted with power and glory, to the point of neglecting his people or becoming a tyrant, perverts this image and analogy. And unfortunately, as men are flawed, this occurrence has not been an uncommon event in history.

So what is wrong with the other methods? Well, as I have already discussed the problems with a socialist type community in a previous post, I will not talk about it here. However, I will talk about democracy. Democracy has a very major flaw in it. It can exist only so long as the population is moral. There is a reason that the government controlled the law and civilians in the past. It was created to control people because they would not control themselves. It inflicted upon people restrictions because human nature is inherently flawed, and leans people towards sin. It was made to prevent people from behaving immorally and devolving into bloodshed and violence. In a democracy, the people have the power. Which is nice as long as people are willing to restrict their own behavior. But eventually people stop being willing to do that. They want to do what they want to do, and they want to be able to do it without running into johnny law. Politicians and other leaders stop caring about the greater good and morals because they need to be agreeable to the public. No one is going to vote for a man that holds views contrary to theirs. Everything devolves into what people want the law and government to be like, as opposed to what it needs to be. This is how you get into situations where congress cannot make tough choices that need to be made, for fear of public reaction. This is how you get laws rewritten to allow for things like divorce. This is why taxes and other unpleasant yet probably necessary things do not get put into place. Democracy is effective only so long as the population is willing to impose undesirable conditions on themselves. And very few are willing to do this for long.

-BlackFox

(491)

All In A Name

 Random post time again guys! I promise it is not about politics or a PSA this time! ...No, really. It actually has a chance to be mildly interesting to you guys! Sorta... maybe... in a certain context...

ok fine it probably wont be, but I think I will delude myself into thinking otherwise. Some of you may or may not be wondering about my name and what the heck it means and/or has to do with religion. If you are in the first category, congratulations! This post is just for you guys! For those of you who could care less.... Fine! Be that way! See if I care! *sniffs*

I am going to go ahead and answer that second question first. My name and the name of this blog have nothing to do with religion at all. Both of them mean exactly the same thing, black fox. They are really only different for variety. Black fox is simply a pseudo name I am fond of using for reasons I will get to. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion, it is merely a default user name. So, you may be asking, why the heck is my blog about religion? Well, simply put, I wanted a consistent topic, and I can do that most of the time with religion. In other words, I am too lazy to think of an appropriate topic to fit the title or vice versa. Honesty is fun!

Now why the name black fox at all? Well the name comes from a story of old....

Once upon a time, a group of huntsmen went out into the forest. They had been out there for hours and had seen no game. The men were dejected and depressed. The master of chase spoke out in anger. He yelled to the forest that his men would give the devil himself the chase of his life. Then suddenly, a black fox sprang out of its hole. Its eyes burned and its coat was black as night. The huntsmen chased it over hills and dales, through forests and valleys and eventually came to a river. The fox jumped into the water and swam to the other side. The fox then let out a laugh that shook the forest and he cried out to the huntsman that should they ever be in need of game, he would always oblige their call. The men looked on in horror as the fox took the form of a demon and fled back to town. And right behind them ran the laughing black fox.

This story is the reason I use the name black fox. I have always loved the concept of the one who appears and vanishes with the sole motivation of fun and entertainment. I love the mentality and character of the black fox. The name also has the advantage of fitting with a persona I am fond of using. Because of this, the name has grown on me and become my default whenever I require anonymity.

-BlackFox

 P.S. If you want to hear an awesome musical version of the story, go here \/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDqLvt4LRVs

(520)

Footsteps

He walked along throughout the snow,

on that cold, dark winter night.

And he demanded that he know,

why he was in this plight.

For while he talked, and mumbled,

to himself and to the stone.

About his world that crumbled,

and how he was alone.

He said “I simply do not see,

you here God, in my life.”

“I think you have forsaken me,

and left me to this strife.”

Then he turned and viewed the street,

where he had not tread on the stone.

And there a sight his eyes did greet,

which told him he was not alone.

For in that deep and darkest night,

his feelings had turned tide.

Right there upon the cold and white,

were footprints, side by side.

-BlackFox (who needed yet another short post.)

(134)

Ally Week

With the conclusion of “ally week” I feel I must make a post. For those who do not know, ally week is basically an entire week devoted to supporting the lifestyles of the lesbian and gay community. In a nut shell, it is meant as a way for people to publicly pledge support. So where does this leave Christians?

It is not a secret that Christians view homosexuality as a sin. We know from the Bible and our teachings that this lifestyle is wrong and against God. As such, we cannot in good conscience support the lifestyle. The problem is that this is no longer politically correct. It is literally impossible to give any view, radical or no, against homosexuality without being labeled as prejudiced or homophobic. There is a large pressure right now to simply conform and support the community. (Why there is such a big push is a post for another day.) So where do Christians fit in during this week? Well, one of two things happens. Either they compromise scripture to accept the politically correct claim, and thus free themselves up to support this lifestyle, or they stick to their principles and choose not to participate. And I must question, why is the latter so terrible? Why are Christians not allowed to hold their beliefs without being insulted or generating hostility? Many people today call for tolerance and acceptance. Yet Christian beliefs are often not tolerated and rejected by these same people. Not supporting the lifestyle is not the same thing as bigotry. I can respect someone as part of God's creation. I can attribute value to them because they are the image of God and because the Bible tells us to love our neighbors. I can meet someone who is gay and find them a perfectly awesome or at least normal person. Being a homosexual does not mean that they are automatically denounced as heathens. However, I do not have to agree with how they have chosen to live. I can respect someone without agreeing with them on everything. It is perfectly legitimate to support the man and not the lifestyle. In other words, if they choose to live that way, that is their decision. I have no right to govern another persons life. But that does not mean that I will validate their choice as acceptable when I know that it is wrong. I have a right to my beliefs just the same as they have a right to theirs. And I should not be expected to compromise mine for the sake of another's.

God did not promise us that being a Christian would be easy. He made it very clear that our beliefs will clash with the norm. But that does not mean we should surrender. That does not mean that we stretch scripture to fit the idea of the masses. Our job is to preach the truth even when it gets hard. Even when it gets difficult or lonely. Sometimes our views will clash and cause conflict. And quite frankly, that is ok. We should not be ashamed to stand up in the name of God. We should not be ashamed to go against the norm. We should not spend our days striving to be in the good graces of our peers at the cost of our faith. We should be able to stand up and say “no, I didn't participate, and I don't intend to. I can love the man without supporting the sin.” Even if it means people getting angry. Our priority should not be other men. because in the end, it is not the opinion of other men that matters.

-BlackFox

(613)

Parables of Meaning

Currently, I am taking a class over literary analysis. One of the things we discuss is different ways to read texts. During one of our periods, we were given an example showing different perspectives that a reader might have while reading. The example they used was the Prodigal Son, a parable from the Bible.

For those who are not familiar with the story, allow me to enlighten you. A man had two sons. One was devoted completely to his work and home, while the younger was rash and impetuous. One day, the youngest son went to his father and demanded his share of the inheritance early for purposes of travel. The father reluctantly gives his son the money and they part. The young man is incredibly popular at first, for he spends his money freely and without caution. However, the money soon runs out and his newfound ‘comrades’ abandon him to poverty. In despair, he goes from place to place begging for work. Eventually, he finds a place as a pig boy on a farm. He is to feed the pigs and is given to eat only what they leave behind. The young man bitterly repents his folly and the mistake he made in leaving his father’s house. He comes to the conclusion that, as his father cared for his servants and they always had enough to eat, it would be better for him to beg for a place there and work for his father. Ashamedly, the young man begins the long trek home, afraid of the reunion and the reactions of his father. As he neared the gate however, the father runs to meet him on the path and embraces him. He rejoices in the return of his son and organizes a feast to be held in celebration. The older more dutiful son complains bitterly. Stating that his brother did not deserve such a feast, when he, the loyal son, had gotten nothing of the kind for his devotion to his father.  The father explains that the older son has always been there, and so was not lost; but the younger brother was like one dead and is alive again. And that there is more rejoicing over the one that is lost and then found, than over many who are never lost at all.

Now, when Christians read this parable Biblically, we talk about the message of God. We explain how God will rejoice in our salvation as one who is lost and then found. We show how it tells us that no matter how far we stray or what sins we commit, God is always there to rejoice in our return. And, as quoted in scripture, there is more rejoicing in the kingdom of heaven over one soul who repents than ninety nine just persons who have no need to.  However, this was not how the parable was read in my class. They focused on how people would identify with the characters. The straight and narrow being sympathetic to the older son, those with a more checkered past siding with the younger, and parents who may believe the actions of the father were foolish or wise. But the point of the parable is not about this. It is not about whether you think the father should have punished the boy. It is not about whether you think that the older boy was a better son or that the younger simply made a mistake. The point of the parable is to show that regardless of mistakes, the lost will always be accepted back. It also serves to explain why this is. By making it about what the reader feels should have happened or multiple viewpoints and meanings you lose that. Sometimes there is really only one way a story is meant to be read. It is all fine and dandy to say that the story symbolizes favoritism and the injustices of siblinghood, but that defeats the purpose the story is trying to tell. When authors create a story or meaning, they have a specific thing in mind. You might be able to come up with another meaning, but that does not negate the original intent. Analysis is fine, as long as the original purpose is kept intact and in mind. The moral of the story is not a fill-in-the-blank slate.

-BlackFox

(726)

Favors

Thank you God for listening,

when I ramble and complain.

Thank you God for putting up,

with all my little pains.

Thank you God for granting,

those simple tasks of mine.

Thank you God for accepting,

my mortal selfish mind.

Thank you God for loving me,

when love I don't deserve.

Thank you God for keeping,

my salvation in reserve.

Thank you God for forgiving,

all my large and little sins.

Thank you God for rejoicing,

in all my little wins.

Thank you God for staying there,

when you I cannot see.

To you, it was all little things,

but they mattered much to me.

-BlackFox (who needed a short post.)

(111)

Unalienable Rights

Going off topic here from religion, let us talk a bit about rights. We all know the unalienable rights listed in our constitution. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the rights that people claim to absolute. Rights that are said to be constant no matter the situation. Yet, in reality, people do not actually have any inherit rights. We have only the rights that the government allows us to have. Man does not automatically deserve anything. It is not a given that he is living or free or happy. There is no real basis of this claim. By what authority does man decide he deserves these things? The past certainly does not lend it to him. Slavery, murder, and despair are quite common in its archives. Even now, man has the right to only that which he can enforce. And even then, these unalienable rights are restricted. If you have not ceased reading this in irritation and/or anger at my previous comments, I thank you and invite you to look with me at each separate claim.

First off, the right to life. Obviously we are not entirely too keen on murder. We proclaim that every man has the right to live no matter what. This belief however is not entirely consistent. The court decides whether or not someone may live or die, and the government enforces it. If all men have the right to life, where does that leave capital punishment? Does that make the execution of a serial killer unjust? Now some of you are waiting on baited breath to jump and say “BUT, but, but, but, it is completely different! You see Ms. Fox, they forfeited that right when they took another life!” To which I ask you to consider two things. 1) Unalienable means inseparable. You can not remove one from the other. By saying that killing another justifies the death of the perpetrator, you are in essence saying that it is not unalienable. That it can in fact be taken away and can in fact not apply. Intentionally or not, you admit that this right comes (and is withdrawn) solely by the law, and in fact not bestowed by nature. If the latter were true, nothing would ever justify capital punishment. 2) Consider also, if the right to life is removed by murder, then what fate awaits the man who kills the murderer of his wife? Is he simply fulfilling this eye for an eye principle? Or does he also, deserve death?

Next we consider the right of freedom. Similar to the first, we again must look at the law. I am quite sure that a few of you took the side against capital punishment while reading the above. Taking the mindset of “well, yeah! It is not ok at all! That is why we should do away with the death sentence.” To which I respond with two things. The first being a segue (Pronounced 'seg-way'.Yes that is how you actually spell it. The English language everyone!) into the right of freedom. If we were to do away with capital punishment on these grounds, than incarceration must also be eliminated from our justice system. For why would the right to remain unimprisoned be any different than the right to life? Does one unalienable or inseparable right have more weight than another? If we have no right to execute a man than by the same token we can not lock him up. Therefore, we can not send a man to prison for murder. By doing so, we again admit that this right is a privilege set in place by the law. One that can be removed or granted at anytime. The second thing I will respond with refers to both a fore mentioned rights. It is foolish to attempt to change the law to conform to the rights it has set in place. If we do not allow it to punish those who have broken these rights, then the rights themselves are pointless. It is all well and good to say that man has a right to life and freedom. But when one man kidnaps another and murders him, thus violating them both, the law must be able to act. It must be able to enforce meaning and value to its claims. It must be able to prove that there are consequences to taking a life, rather than simply stating that the right to live exists. If it fails to enforce the privileges it sets in place, then they may as well not exist.

Lastly, we have arguably the most selfish of rights, the pursuit of happiness. Oh this one... it really is quite odd when you think about it. The entire point of rules and society is to restrict people from doing what they want to do. To prevent people from doing things that cause harm to others. Yet this rule states that people have the right to do what everything else says they can not. What if, to pursue happiness, a man kidnaps a woman he has fallen in love with? In this case, who has a greater right? The one who seeks happiness or the one who seeks freedom? The pursuit of happiness is one of the most selfish aspects of the nature of man. They will disregard all others in order to accomplish it. And again we must consider the law in this matter. If a man destroys the lives of others through dishonesty and deceit in the purpose of finding happiness, does the law have a right to stop him? In the end, it contains the same flaws as the previous two. And, like the others, it is revealed to be a privilege and not a natural right.

-BlackFox

(965)

Unseen Light

Often times people will pose the question: If God is just, why does he allow bad things to happen to good people?” I could write a post talking about the differences between the standards of God and men. I could explain in detail about how all things work together for good. I could talk about the difference between what we see and what God sees. Yet, I do not think that would be effective. It is very easy for me to explain that all things work together for good. The problem comes from the fact we can not always see how. I can tell you that losing your job was part of God's plan and that there was a reason for it, but that does not lend much comfort when the reason can not be seen. So instead of what basically would amount to a lecture, I have here a tale that I think better puts things into perspective.

One day, a man left his wife and home and went out to spend a day at sea. The ocean was a deep wide blue, and light danced upon it like glass. He went far beyond the shore, to the point where it was just barely in view. His small boat sat calmly on the still water. He began to relax and enjoy the moment. For a while, the sea was very peaceful.

However, a great storm was gathering that day. As the sun began to set, it hit the area in full force. The man noticed too late that the previously stagnant water was becoming rough and wavy. The boat continuously rose and fell on the enormous waves, and strong winds threatened to push it out to the deep sea. Because of the wind and the rain and the growing darkness, the man was unable to see the shoreline. He became worried. The man knew that if he did not make for shore soon, he would be lost to the depths of the ocean.

Suddenly, he noticed a bright orange light shining out from the shoreline. It was almost blinding against the backdrop of the dark sky. Grateful, the man rushed towards it as fast as the storm would allow. Silently promising to repay the creator of this makeshift lighthouse. Following the beacon, the man reached shore with his life, and survived the terrible storm.

The man rushed home with joy, eager to share his story with his wife. When he arrived however, he found her in tears. Their home had caught fire she said, gesturing to the hollow charred frame of a house. The fire had gone out of control and lit the entire place ablaze. She dissolved once again into tears and awaited his reaction.

The man looked at the broken house, and then back to his wife. He was silent for a moment, and then began to laugh loudly. Incredulous, the wife began to demand how he could be laughing at a time like this. He looked over at her with a half smile and explained to her his ordeal at sea. Not understanding, she asked why on earth that gave him cause to laugh. The man replied, “Do you not understand my love? The bright beacon I saw, the one that saved my life and guided me back to you, was the light of our burning house!”

-BlackFox

(563)

Politically Correct Christians

Looking at politics today, there are many issues that are debated which involve religion. Certain views that were once held by society as true, are being changed to hold false. As such, certain beliefs are expected to change as well.

People expect you to hold true to the politically correct view that divorce is acceptable. That it should be allowed in all circumstances and that people have the right to break the bonds they grow unhappy with. They expect you to agree that woman should have the right to kill their unborn child because of the circumstances or because it is their right to do so. People expect you to accept gay marriage and lifestyles as moral or at least acceptable and support their choices. They expect these and many other things from you. So what about the religions like Christianity that view all these as a sin? Sadly, often times they become modified to suit the new majority belief. Take pastors for instance, they are preaching to a congregation that is most likely divided on these issues. They then choose to sweep these important issues under the nearest rug. Sometimes even an entire church changes the doctrine to fit these new ideals. They choose to reach for an interpretation of the Word that suits their needs. Or perhaps, they may even say the Bible is old and was made for a different world. Many Christians are beginning to lose their convictions. The faith they hold becomes fluid with the demands of man. The message of the Bible is altered for the sake of conformity.

The Bible is not a parenting book. It is not something that applied only in its own time and therefore is no longer valid in this one. There has not been some new and better method that makes the old one obsolete. The Bible is the word of God. It is not simply something that conveniently changes with the views of man. A line simply has to be drawn. A line that says I will not change my views and beliefs and teachings just because I am expected to. I line that stands strong, and puts you on the side of the righteous. Men have flawed morals and values. They turn their back on God and righteousness. The choices of man that determines his laws are not necessarily correct ones. It is important to stand with the truth even when it is painful or hard. Even when it means going against the current and your friends. Yes it will be hard, the Bible does not say it will be easy. God did not promise us an easy happy life on earth, he promised us a reward in heaven. 

-BlackFox

(454)

On The Borderline

When you read the Bible, there are two messages about ones faith. It talks about the importance of evangelism (spreading the word of God and bringing others to Christ.) And how it is our duty to show the glory of God through how we live out our lives. But it also talks about how we need to be careful in the ways we show our faith. To not do so just to be recognized by our neighbors, or abide by laws created by man and not God (i.e. woman must wear a dress to church.) So where is the line that separates the two? How can you tell which is which?

Really it comes down to motive. Why do we do what we do? The Pharisees chose to fast and pray in public. They walked the streets and screamed in the synagogs. And they did this because other people were watching. Because what was important was being called wise, and pious and a righteous man. They were thinking about the adoration of their fellow human beings.Therein lies the problem, they wanted the approval of man, not God. The approval we seek should not be that of man. It should not matter to us what our neighbors think of our Christianly status. We should not be doing these things so that men will look up in awe at us. We should be doing these things so that men look up in awe of God. So that they will see his splendor and majesty. So that they will read the word and what it teaches and marvel at what it says. People did not practice their faith in secret so that their neighbors can say “oh what great men those are!” they did not seek their name to be placed in a history book as a man who fought the law that oppressed him. They are fully aware that doing such a thing must be anonymous and remain that way. That history will never remember them. They do not care that history will not remember them. Because what matters to them is that they show their devotion to God. That they do not lose sight of their faith or abandon him. That is the kind of Christian we should be like.

But this does not mean that we forgo showing our faith and evangelizing. We do not refuse to do anything in public for fear of becoming a show off. All that it means is we have to look at the reasons why, not simply the how. In the end, the how is not important. What if the man who practices in private does so to say to himself “I am truly righteous”? Or the man in public is truly devoted to God? In the end, all that matters is why you do what you do. The border is not one of action, but of motive.

-BlackFox

(488)

CSI Religion

 My father and I love watching British cop shows. Recently, we have run into a trend that pops up occasionally in TV. It is what we like to call, CSI Religion. CSI Religion refers to how religious people are portrayed in the media. Especially prevalent in shows like Law and Order and its British equivalent programs. Annoying and slightly offensive, this can make or break an episode for us.

For those of you that watch CSI, try and remember if you have ever seen a normal religious person on the show. Most of the time they are either A) a completely insane person who rambles religiously and performs weird actions. B) A manipulative ass who is using religion to gain power, women, protection, or some other gain. C) Someone who is preachy or self-righteous and either hinders the police or harasses people based on some moral issue. Or, D) That person who is “deeply devoted” and is not quite completely insane, but spends the entire episode showing off how religious they are. And none of them, I repeat, not one of them, actually sounds or acts like a Christian. Seriously. We do not go around saying that the dead woman who got an abortion died because “a life for a life”. We do not go around saying that the murder victim needs to be punished for her sin. We do not sit in interrogation rooms and declare that “God allows the righteous to suffer at the hands of their enemies” and then devolve into prayer for six hours. We do not quote scripture every five minutes. We just do not sound like that. We are normal people. We go to school, work, the shopping market, the same as you do. I do not know any Christian that has ever acted this way. It becomes incredibly aggravating to see yourself always portrayed in this light. The religious person is ALWAYS a crazy, overly devoted, or jerk of a person. And they almost always end up as the killer or at least helping the bad guys some way. The only saving grace is that occasionally a main character is religious, but that is normally used to either act as a plot point or a foil. And on top of that, they are usually hesitant or uninformed about their faith. Religion itself is almost always an engine to get across some political agenda like abortion, or the “horrible affects of strict religious rules” such as Cindy being driven to crime by her parents restrictions. Restrictions, by the by, that most Christians do not actually live by.

CSI Religion is not depicting religion. It is depicting how people THINK religion looks. The dialogue is written by people who do not actually know any Christians, and are therefore going off of what they think a Christian would say. They think to themselves, “You know what would go great here? Some wack job religious people! That would totally get across my point about how people do not respect gay rights!” Of course, they just kinda assume how a Christian would act. The problem is they read the stories on the internet and media of people who stand around with picket signs, or who scream at random employees. Then they use that as a basis for their religious character. Most of us do not do that though. Yeah there are some crazy people, but we are not all like this. The average Christian is defiantly not going to act like that. It would be really nice for once, if there was a show that portrayed us as normal people, because it really can make the episode unpleasant and difficult to watch. It feels like they just take a negative stereotype to prove a point and do not even bother trying to give a real representation of a Christian. With all the resources at their disposal, would it really be that hard?

-BlackFox

(660)