I was rushing to get to work again yesterday morning when I started, again, to wonder "Where did the time go?"  This lead me to ponder about what time is.  I'm sure most people have noticed that time is a funny thing. It doesn't stay the same. It has different definitions and meanings.  Let's explore, shall we?

Children are ambivalent towards time.  Little children love Snack Time, Play Time and Story Time.  Their faces become stern and baleful, however, towards Bath Time and Bed Time.  They don't wanna.   Many environmentalists and college students have similar feelings.

Older children wish time would hurry.  They can't wait to turn 5, 6, 7, 8, etc.  Young children even break it down for you. "I'm 7 years and 3 months old" they will tell you quickly.  They are quite excited at Birthdays - the big marker of time.  Adults sometimes don't want to discuss Birthdays.  Jack Benny stopped at 39 of them. He just had anniversaries of his 39th Birthday. 

Children wonder why Christmas takes so long to get here.  They don't seem to notice that Golden Summer goes on a long, sweet time for them. 

Teens also wish Time would hurry.  When they turn 13, things will be different. They won't be just a kid anymore.  At 16, they can really make their mark by obtaining a driver's license.  They have it made now!  At 21, they can finally get into a bar where they can spend lots of money to listen to terrible music, make themselves sick, and wake up wondering how the troll got in their bed. This Good Time has made them forget all about their home training. 

Adults, on the other hand, often are amazed at the Time gone by.  How did little Basil get so tall?  "Last Time I saw you, you were knee-high to a grasshopper!"  Time doesn't change some people, "You look exactly the same as in High School!".  But, alas, to others Time has not been so kind.  Time does not care about us.  It is rather impersonal.  But Time should have more respect for us.  

If we don't think about it, Time ceases to exist.  How do I know this?  Well, you'll agree that you have wondered where did Time go?  Ergo, it is gone so it must not exist.  Only when we think about it does it come right back.  "Dang! I forgot to call Mom, it's her birthday Today!"

Ancient civilizations thought of Time as cyclical.  The Jews were among the first to think of it as linear. 
 
Many great thinkers have pontificated on Time.  Aristotle thought, as I do, that Time doesn't exist if nobody is around to count it. Makes sense to me but I could be arrogant that way:)  Now of course things change but if we don't mark when things change, then it is nothing.  St. Augustine and Immanuel Kant said something similar in that our minds only perceive Time and that Time is not really a physical entity.  On the other hand, Einstein (and I'm definitely paraphrasing and, thus, may be a bit off) thought that time could be traversed. If we went forward fast enough we could make a loop and be back in our past.  Of course, one would need a Flux Capacitor.  Or for Superman to rotate the earth real fast like. 

When things don't change, some have posited that time stands still.  Take liberals for example.  Many of them are stuck in the 60's and are trying desperately to relive the glory in today's world.  For them, everything is in reference to the Civil Rights and Viet Nam War era.  Time has no power in their world. 

Attending movies that women love can stretch time for most men.  Waiting for Quitting Time seems like an eternity some days.  Vacation Time, however, flies by.  No fair.  Facing the Boss to discuss a mistake comes rushing up to you while waiting to discuss that raise you deserve seems to avoid you for months. The older one gets, the more Time seems to shrink into little bits.  20 minute breaks, 45 minute lunches, hour long commutes, favorite TV shows last half an hour.  Seems like Time runs us then.  No Time. Little Time.  

Until we get a lot older and retire.  Now we have an abundance of Time.  But wait, we are at the end of Our Time.  So which is it?  The days seem long but Night Time is coming.  It is almost Time to go. 

We will be introduced to the Long Time called Eternity.  Wonder what that'll be like?   As for me, I wake up early and pray and meditate on lessons from the Bible.  I believe I'm spending my Time wisely. 

I've hit on a solution to the problem of abortion.  The Left relishes (but won't admit to it) the idea of abortion. It is a mainstay in their platform and personal lives.  Of course normal people don't understand why they want it so much - afterall, doesn't it shrink their constiuency? 

Anyhoo, my idea involves science and animal rights and Hollywood.  Here's what we do: We get some DNA science guys to make it so that babies in the womb have fur coats and bigger eyes. Also we will need some cooing sounds that can be heard while still in vitro.  Everyone knows that the Libs fight hard and are extremely excitable when it comes to killing cute little animals like baby seals.  If we can get human babies to look as adorable then I think we've got it made.  We can get Disney or Pixar to make a movie involving dancing and singing babies who are threatened by some big nameless corporation or something.  After the blockbuster opening weekend abortion protests should skyrocket.  But we will have to stop calling it abortion and call it something like "Stop the slaughter of the Furry Babies!" or "Furry Babies will Vote Someday" or we could just keep the old "Fur is Murder" I guess.   

I'm rooting for Kansas to win the NCAA men's basketball championship this season.  As a University of Kentucky Wildcat fan, that may seem strange.  Aren't we fierce rivals?  Didn't they just pound us again? For like the 5th time in a row?  Well, yes and no.  Here are my reasons:

1. UK fans like Kansas and we don't really know why.  Maybe because of history and lineage.  Our beloved coach,  Adolph Rupp, played for the famous Phog Allen at Kansas.  Rupp then walked off the plains and brought the sacred knowledge of the round sphere to the Kentucky hills, much to the delight of all.  Favorite UK joke:

A coach was in the biggest game of his life.  There was 12 seconds left and his team was down by 1.  The coach started praying, "God please please please.  Tell me what play should I run?"  God looked over and yelled "Hey Adolph, a little help here!"

2. Then there is the fact that Kansas wins and knows how to play B-ball.  But they don't win TOO much.  So they don't threaten us.

3. I don't mind losing to the eventual Champ. It makes us look better.  

4.  The main reason I am rooting for Kansas to win is because Roy Williams coaches UNC now.  UK fans do not like UNC. period.  

I think it would be hilarious if Bill Self walks in there and wins the Championship in only 3 years when it couldn't get done in 17 with Williams.  That would be funny.  It would be funnier if Roy had not won one at UNC but what can we do?  Ah the reasoning of a sports fan:)  

   

Whole Lot Goin' On
Tubby Smith resigned yesterday as Kentucky's basketball coach.  For those of you who don't know, UK basketball is a HUGE deal.  Adolph Rupp started winning in the 1930's and the winning has pretty much kept up ever since.  UK is number 1 in wins and number 2 in NCAA Championships.  To learn more go here.

Now the Tubby situation is intricate, especially since it involves Kentucky.  The Legendary coach, Adolph Rupp, is a controversial figure, except in Kentucky.  (btw - I was born in Kentucky and lived most of my life there and, ipso facto, am a Wildcat fan. You don't really have a choice, it's the way God intended it.  Some people think Louisville is part of the state but we don't like to talk about it:)  Anyway, a lot of folks think Rupp was a racist because he didn't recruit black players.  Travelling around the South at that time was no picnic if a team had black players. They were often endangered.  Rupp actually did try to recruit Wes Unseld and Butch Beard in the 60's but they ended up at Louisville. I don't want to rehash that history except to say that few people mention that the 2 other teams in that famous 1966 Final Four were Utah and Duke, both of which did not have any black players either. Utah still doesn't - haha. Rupp gets the criticism mostly because of his success.

Which brings us to the Tubby situation.  Some folks are saying that UK is getting rid of Tubby because he's black.  These individuals are usually in the business of keeping racial tension high. This is nonsense.  UK expects not only winning but Final Fours and a championship once or twice a decade.  Tubby is a great Xs and Os coach - this is not in dispute by intelligent people.  There are a few provencial boneheads who actually think UK should win every single game but this does not mesh with reality.  His problem has been mediocrity in recruiting and creating teams that have bad chemistry. 

Tubby's record is impressive by most standards but this is Kentucky of whom we're speaking .  It's the difference between the Yankees and the Braves.  The Yankees and everyone else.  The standard is way higher.  I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily.  If a program does not have high standards then how do you expect to win so much?  On the other hand, the standard has to be close to realistic but not quite. Some people say, "Be reasonable. Your standards are too high."  Reasonable people and reasonable programs seldom become great though, do they?

Tubby was there for 10 years.  If UK is racist, I ask the question, "Did UK know Tubby was black when they hired him?"  I say that his failure to reach a Final Four recently and his failure to beat some of our conference rivals and big schools like North Carolina and Kansas helped move him out the door. Eddie Sutton and Rick Pitino felt little love when they were the coach at UK. They are no slouches at coaching either.  Pitino was criticized quite a bit for not winning enough with all the talent he had.  Sutton was criticized for fielding mediocre teams.  The program overwhelmed Sutton.  So I say that the winning expectations are the primary reason for the parting of ways.  

In Tubby's defense I will say that I actually agree that he is a fine basketball coach.  I don't like his style of play, known as "Tubbyball".  It is defensive minded to the detriment of offense.  It is like watching wrestling.  Tayshaun Prince is the only scorer/shooter that I can remember in recent years.  But Tubby was actually pretty good with what he had.  When he won the Championship in '98 - some fans said that he won with Pitino's players.  This is true but a laughable argument against Tubby.  Pitino won with players who would eventually make up the Boston Celtics.   The cupboard was bare when Tubby got there. He won with guys named Scott Padgett and Cameron Mills - much beloved by Wildcat fans but little known elsewhere.

The problem for Tubby was gathering and keeping talent. Several talented recruits transferred to other schools, unable to play under Tubby's demanding style.  Now you might say that the recruit is at fault for being immature, lazy or selfish but I think it is Tubby's fault for recruiting them in the first place. The coach should know what they want.  UK lost a lot of recruits to other schools that in years past they would not have.

I moved away from Kentucky years ago so I no longer have that provincial outlook which occurs in those who seldom venture outside their home town.  I can see nationwide.  I know that Tubby's record would be worshipped at other schools (like Minnesota and good for them - what a coupe!).  I know that it is not rationale to expect to win so much.  But I also understand what it's like to be a Kentucky Wildcat fan and what is expected.  As they say, "I guess that's how they were raised."  So I don't think it is such a bad thing for Tubby to move on.  Good for him and good for UK.  I think there are some coaches out there now who will fit in nicely.  In year's past, I would not have thought it a good idea.  

I look at it this way - it is always a tough question when you have a good guy coach who wins but doesn't seem to win enough or misses the big one.  Take the Buffalo Bills and Marv Levy.  Good team. Good coach.  4 Superbowls. 4 losses.  What do you do?  The Atlanta Braves.  Won 87 penants in a row but 1 World Series Title to show for it.  Meanwhile, Florida Marlins win 2!  What do you do?  On the other hand there is Bill Cowher.  The Steelers waited long enough and it paid off.  Roy Williams, however, did not win the big one until he left poor Kansas and went to UNC.       

 Liberal: adj. noun.  1. a person who is afraid that someone, somewhere, is enjoying his/her life in a politically incorrect manner; 2. non-meateater who worries daily about those with AIDS, rich people who are not Dems, and global warming; 3. a person who is scared to death of the word Jesus (unless Jesus is an illegal immigrant criminal)

As evangelicals, we don't say "Easter". We just refer to that particular day as "Resurrection Sunday".  Some evangelicals get riled up about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus although it is not many.  I think many think that the public spectacles distract from the real meaning of both days.  Me, I think that if you believe deeply then nothing else should distract you. However, my wife and I are at loggerheads about whether our future little ones will have a few Christmases with Santa or not. I argue that they should just for the fun of it.  They will figure it out by the age of six anyway cause you just know that little Lucy Connors will tell them all about it at recess!  I reason that we won't mind if our kids read fairy tales etc so why not have Santa.  My wife has a valid point in that she is concerned that they will get confused about the meaning of Christmas if we throw a giant elf in the mix.  Being a smart man, I will probably lose this debate.  Tough luck, kids. 

As for the Easter Bunny even as a kid I was wondering what the deal was.  Haha.  I mean, Jesus comes out of the tomb at the same time that Spring arrives.  I know that Spring arrives because there's a Giant Bunny hopping around with a basket of colored eggs!  Far out, man.  Grooooovvvvvyyyyyy.  Someone was hi-iiiii-ggghhh when they came up with this one.  See, now that is confusing.  So I don't really care about the Easter Bunny so much, although I do love chocolate rabbit ears.  But I would never pee on someone else's parade over something like this.  If secularists, humanists, and other Christians want to have fun with a big bunny - so what?  The Easter Bunny is to Christ what Justin Timberlake is to Soul Music.  I am not threatened in the least by either.

But some people, let's call them "jerks" want to stop the public display of such religious icons.  Sigh.  These folks support the ACLU. They are the type of people who are against the heterosexual Boy Scouts. They want to take the 3 crosses out of the city symbol of Las Cruces, New Mexico.  Las Cruces, of course, means "the crosses".  Guess Los Angeles, San Diego, and Providence RI better watch out, heh?  In short, these people are spoil sports.  Miserable creatures who have to fight perceived injustice whenever they are told by Mother Jones magazine to do so.  Don't tell them to get a hobby, this IS their hobby.  

I used to work for a good-sized newspaper back in the day.  They made us go to one of those "How to get along with people different then you" seminars.  "Diversity" they call it.  Anyway, most of us there already knew how to get along since our parents taught us so when we were 4.  One example we had to discuss was what to do if a Muslem co-worker objected to "Merry Christmas" and Christmas decorations around the workplace.  After a handful of blather from my co-workers about sensitivity and how we should take the decorations down, I gave my response.  I said, "Let me get this straight.  There's one of them and many of us, right?  And we're a majority Christian based nation.  Well, I can't believe that one person would be that much of a party-pooper and ruin the fun for everyone else."  I went on to verify that if the Muslem fella gets to drop what he's doing 5 times a day to pray then why can't we do what we want?  Basically, the hardcore lib (dopesmoker, btw) in the group sneered at my insensitivity but the rest of the group was fairly quiet.  This meant that they were in total agreement with how wise and great I was or they just had not thought about it that way and were afraid to say something stupid.  I prefer to believe the former. Ahem.   The question is, "Do we have to suck ALL the fun out of the public square?" 

We all heard the born-again Catholic fella John Kerry mention James 2:14 over and over again during the last Presidential election: 

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

Now, evangelicals believe that faith alone saves. 

But first, more about moi: I am not that great of a bible scholar.  I plan on reading and studying the Bible, honest, I do.  But in reality I don't read it as often as I should.  I like to read about biblical subjects rather than the bible itself.  I love when someone who knows about it walks me through the bible because I tend to get more out of it.  Also, I used to be Catholic.  I got used to other people telling me what was in the bible. I was Catholic like Madonna was Catholic.  Catholicism is a religion where it is really easy to let the Priest and the little old ladies up front do your religion for you.  That's what I was doing.  When I got born again, Jesus became personal to me.  Don't get me wrong, I believe serious Catholics are fine Christians.   


All this is to say that I have a little trouble sometimes pinpointing my biblical evidence to others when we discuss heavenly matters.  Of course there are plenty of verses stating that faith alone is really all that is necessary to get to heaven.   I understand that James appears to be saying that one needs faith AND works to get to Heaven.  But I think the confusion or disagreement comes with the word "works".   Here is the full version from the NIV (which I highly recommend):

Faith and Deeds

 14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

 18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
      Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

 19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

 20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless^[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"^[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Now to me "deeds" means actually showing that you are a Christian by acting on your faith.  Once you are a Christian and claim to accept Jesus, you will naturally and urgently want to follow what Christ says when He tells us to feed the poor and the widows and orphans and visit the prisoners etc.  But I don't think that you must do these things. That smells of legalistic requirements.  The whole point of Jesus' crucifixion was to atone for our failure to obey the Law.  We are saved by Grace and we cannot "pay back" God no matter what we do.  We should do kind things by others in the name of Christ but we don't have to.  However, if one sits like a lump on the couch and does nothing - what good are they?  How are they glorifying God?  How are they spreading the good news?  I also think "works" means NOT going back to your old ways and NOT sinning.  To show your new life is to do good works.

I actually was reading Romans last night.  I came across Romans 4 which explains what I mean: 

Abraham Justified by Faith

 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."^[a]

 4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
 7"Blessed are they
      whose transgressions are forgiven,
      whose sins are covered.
 8Blessed is the man
      whose sin the Lord will never count against him."^[b]

 9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

 13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."^[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

 18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."^[d] 19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." 23The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.