The Tulip Driven Life

Sandy’s wasn’t the kind of place you went to for ribs and beer. It’s the kind of place you went to for ribs, beer, and women. Jeff sat in the back of the club, taking in the well-proportioned young woman currently dancing for the fellas. She was Jeff’s favorite- the way she moved, her body, and he could have sworn she would look directly at him sometimes. He took her in from a distance, to get the full effect. You can’t admire these things too closely. They’re like works of art; they must be admired from all sorts of angles, but with beer instead of wine. Lots of beer, but not so much that you couldn’t remember what she looked like in the morning- you wanted to be able to recall her in your mind whenever you pleased. That was how Jeff saw things at least. He admired the beauty with a slight grin on his face, then looked at his friend Robbie who was sitting across from him at the small round table. Robbie seemed to get a little uneasy when the topless girls came out; he was only 18 aft...

I don't think I can answer the question in my title off the top of my head, and I haven't thought about this a lot yet. But, I think this is a serious question we need to be asking and thinking about, especially in light of Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins. The issue I am really trying to get at is this- if you believe that God's grace and love compels Him to not send anyone to hell forever, then is grace really grace anymore? Is grace undeserved if God by His very nature is required to save sinners from eternal torment that their sins demand? The answer I think is, obviously not. So when Rob Bell asks "Would a loving God really send billions of people to hell for eternity?" what I hear him saying is "If God is love, then God would not and cannot leave sinners in hell forever." Note: After thinking more about Rob Bell's positions and reading some who have reviewed his new book, I doubt Rob Bell believes in penal substitutionary atonement. Bell...

I actually submitted this as an assignment for my Communications class, but I think what I said may be helpful for some of you who I knew from high school. I hope and pray that this will shed more light on why I say and do what I do and that I do care about each and every one of you in the love of Christ. Perception, Self, and Other I believe that many people perceive me as a pompous jerk, and I say that without any exaggeration. In fact, I know this is true because I have been told this on numerous occasions. Even though we live in an individualist culture, enculturation and traditions leave certain issues almost too American to question or challenge. I think this is where I run into trouble; I often talk about religion, the Bible, and my issues with many in the Church and what the Church is teaching. It is not that I am an atheist, on the contrary I want to be a pastor and I am very conservative in my beliefs. You could even call me a fundamentalist, yet my critiques are often o...

QUESTION:  Is homosexuality unnatural?  is it perverse?  Is the only natural sex that which is potentially procreative?  Set out your position, drawing from Richard D. Mohr's article in comparison or contrast.  I have to say that, overall I agree with many of Richard D. Mohr’s arguments. I think only on religious grounds, or on the arguments of teleology, can one show that homosexuality is unnatural. Mohr does a good job showing that many men and women throughout history have had homosexual desires and passions, even if it has been in the minority. So, one cannot really say that it is unnatural in the sense that it is something that people have not found appealing or desirable. Mohr points out that what most people believe in any given society do not determine right and wrong or morality. After all, Nazi society with its racism and mob rule were deemed as moral. As we all know, the United States enforced slavery, and many argued that blacks were less than hu...

The more I hear about Rob Bell, Deepak Chopra, the more I get excited. Coming from a fundamental, conservative, staunch Calvinist, that may sound surprising. And on one hand, I am not excited about the deception these men have caused. Satan is no doubt well-pleased with them. But I do know that the devil is God's devil, and as we see in Job, the devil only does what God allows, and we know that God only allows what will ultimately bring about His greatest glory and His people's greatest joy. And while I realize many of my friends who are fundamentalists are probably amening this at this point, I don't think you, and perhaps even some of my friends who call themselves Calvinists, will be in my next paragraph. God's greatest glory and our greatest joy will be, in part, the damnation of billions of soul into hell where the wrath of God against their sins will eternally be poured out. Can I get an amen for that? And this is why I say that, unless we can amen that last s...

The question was this: Jim and Sue had been plannign to have a child for two years. Finally, she became pregnant. However, their marriage had been a rough one, and by the time she was in her thrid month of pregnancy they had decided to divorce. At that point, both parents were ambivalent about the pregnancy. They had both watned the child, but now things were different. Sue finally decided that she did not want to raise a child alone and did not want to raise Jim's child. She wanted to get on with her life. However, Jim had long wanted a child, and he realized that the developing fetus was partly his own because he had provided half of its genetic makeup. He did not want Sue to end the pregnancy. He wanted to keep and raise the child. The case was currently being heard by the court. Although the primary decision is a legal one, do you think that Jim had any moral rights in this case or should the decision be strictly Sue's? Why or why not? My answer: This is an interes...