<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
>

<channel>
	<title>nathanjunker.com &#187; Musings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nathanjunker.com/category/personal/musings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nathanjunker.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 19:27:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<!-- podcast_generator="podPress/8.8" -->
		<copyright>&#xA9; </copyright>
		<managingEditor>redcowboyhat@nathanjunker.com ()</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>redcowboyhat@nathanjunker.com()</webMaster>
		<category></category>
		<itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary></itunes:summary>
		<itunes:author></itunes:author>
		<itunes:category text="Society &amp; Culture"/>
		<itunes:owner>
			<itunes:name></itunes:name>
			<itunes:email>redcowboyhat@nathanjunker.com</itunes:email>
		</itunes:owner>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:image href="http://nathanjunker.com/wp-content/plugins/podpress/images/powered_by_podpress_large.jpg" />
		
		<item>
		<title>That&#8217;s in the Bible?!</title>
		<link>http://nathanjunker.com/2007/11/29/thats-in-the-bible/</link>
		<comments>http://nathanjunker.com/2007/11/29/thats-in-the-bible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:05:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>redcowboyhat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Musings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spirituality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanjunker.com/2007/11/29/thats-in-the-bible/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ok, so I just read a story in the Bible that I never knew was in there. It seems like it&#8217;s just tossed in at the end of Elisha&#8217;s ministry. I don&#8217;t know what this does to your &#8220;God box&#8221; but it shakes up my paradigm a little. So here is the short story from [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, so I just read a story in the Bible that I never knew was in there. It seems like it&#8217;s just tossed in at the end of Elisha&#8217;s ministry. I don&#8217;t know what this does to your &#8220;God box&#8221; but it shakes up my paradigm a little. So here is the short story from 2 Kings 13:20-21:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Elisha died and was buried. Moabite raiding parties invaded the land at the beginning of the year. One day some men were burying a man when they spotted a raiding party. So they threw the dead man into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the dead man came to life and stood on his feet. </em></p></blockquote>
<p>What?! So a dead guy touches Elisha&#8217;s bones and he comes back to life. No prayer. No special reason. Seems to me to give some credit to the Catholic idea of relics. We see a few examples in the Bible where one of God&#8217;s men brings someone back to life, but that person was alive. Here Elisha was dead. Come on! What was God&#8217;s plan there? Seriously, I have no idea. Maybe God just didn&#8217;t want any other dead guys to share the tomb with Elisha, so if you toss one in, he&#8217;s just going to walk out.</p>
<p>Anyway, I&#8217;m trying to stretch my paradigm a bit. So far I&#8217;ve concluded that basically God does what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Good theology I think, but kinda scary. You gotta expect things to happen in unexpected ways with God. You never know when a dead guy is going to come back to life. My other thought is that I know nothing about the spiritual world. Though it seems to me that the spiritual world is intricately linked to the physical world. That means there really must be holy places and holy things. Sure God is everywhere and everything is His, but in some places and some things he may choose to put some of his power.</p>
<p>On the one hand, it feels like superstition to me. And I am cautious. We are so drawn to the supernatural, the miraculous, the spectacular that acknowledging it might lead people astray. On the other hand, to suppress it seems that we deny God to work in ways that he might choose. Hey, God knows best. If we can&#8217;t admit that, we have a long way to go.  I don&#8217;t know what to expect now, but my eyes will definitely be open at the next funeral I attend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nathanjunker.com/2007/11/29/thats-in-the-bible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Speak Up</title>
		<link>http://nathanjunker.com/2007/11/08/speak-up/</link>
		<comments>http://nathanjunker.com/2007/11/08/speak-up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:12:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>redcowboyhat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Christianity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Musings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanjunker.com/2007/11/08/speak-up/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p><em>&#8220;First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.&#8221;</em> -Martin Niemoeller</p></blockquote>
<p>We must speak out against injustice against any group, even if we don&#8217;t identify with that group, even if we are opposed to that group. If gays or Muslims are being treated unfairly, Christians should be the first to speak up. This is how we show love to our neighbors. I am disappointed with Christians apathy towards injustice, even though I am just starting to be drawn out of it. Read your Bible, especially the Old Testament. Injustice was a major thing God wanted removed from his chosen people.</p>
<p>Maybe the problem is that Christians have a hard enough time identifying with other Christians. When injustice happens to a group that is more fundamentalist, charismatic, or traditional, it is too common for Christians to think they deserved it because they practice their &#8220;impure&#8221; faith how they do. This lets us be smug and self-righteous. (When did those become acceptable sins.)</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s do a better job of speaking up for justice. Like the quote above, there may come a time when we need someone to speak up for us. And, here in America, those willing to speak up for Christians is getting smaller.</p>
<p class="poweredbyperformancing">Powered by <a href="http://scribefire.com/">ScribeFire</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nathanjunker.com/2007/11/08/speak-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Without a Vision</title>
		<link>http://nathanjunker.com/2007/05/15/without-a-vision/</link>
		<comments>http://nathanjunker.com/2007/05/15/without-a-vision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 16:46:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>redcowboyhat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Christianity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ministry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Musings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spirituality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanjunker.com/?p=74</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was reading the nakedpastor&#8217;s blog post about vision and I agree with him.Â  Vision is so promoted in churches as the way to bring life and &#8220;purpose&#8221; to the congregation. Proverbs 29:18 &#8220;Without a vision, the people perish.&#8221; is stated to give biblical support for this corporate/business idea. David Hayward points out that the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was reading <a href="http://nakedpastor.com/archives/989" title="vision">the nakedpastor&#8217;s blog post about vision</a> and I agree with him.Â  Vision is so promoted in churches as the way to bring life and &#8220;purpose&#8221; to the congregation. Proverbs 29:18 <em>&#8220;Without a vision, the people perish.&#8221;</em> is stated to give biblical support for this corporate/business idea. David Hayward points out that the vision the proverb refers to means revelation. I think that to the extent that a church received their &#8220;Vision&#8221; as revelation is the extent to how well it helped them&#8230;in the short run. We need to constantly be seeking new visions, new revelations if we are to truly thrive. A one time vision retreat won&#8217;t be enough to set the future of the church for a month if even a week.Â  I particularly liked how he compared the idea to a family. I certainly don&#8217;t have a vision statement for my family along with corresponding goals to achieve it. I simply want to love them. That didn&#8217;t come to me by way of revelation, it&#8217;s the natural outflow of my relationship with them. That&#8217;s how it should be with the church. There should be a natural outflow of love for God and others and we should follow that flow wherever it takes us. It&#8217;s chaotic and impossible to control. In fact, when you try to control it, you kill it. There is no control, only guidance. We need the moment by moment guidance of the Spirit. Continual visions of revelations in how to best love the person in front of us. Now that&#8217;s something that can revitalize a church!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nathanjunker.com/2007/05/15/without-a-vision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conjugation</title>
		<link>http://nathanjunker.com/2006/08/10/conjugation/</link>
		<comments>http://nathanjunker.com/2006/08/10/conjugation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 05:08:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>redcowboyhat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contemplation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Musings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pilgrimage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quotes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spirituality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanjunker.com/?p=6</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[â€œWe mostly spend [our] lives conjugating three verbs: to want, to have, and to do.  Craving, clutching and fussing, we are kept in perpetual unrest.â€ -Evelyn Underhill
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>â€œWe mostly spend [our] lives conjugating three verbs: to want, to have, and to do.  Craving, clutching and fussing, we are kept in perpetual unrest.â€ -Evelyn Underhill</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nathanjunker.com/2006/08/10/conjugation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prayer &amp; Time</title>
		<link>http://nathanjunker.com/2006/07/05/prayer-time/</link>
		<comments>http://nathanjunker.com/2006/07/05/prayer-time/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2006 05:37:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>redcowboyhat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Musings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spirituality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanjunker.com/?p=9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This past Saturday at Faith in Prayer (biweekly prayer meeting) we prayed for our Sr. Pastor and his wife who had been at the BGC conference the past week. Some of the prayers were for the Conferenceâ€“the speakers, attendees, and decisions. However, the whole thing had already finished and Pastor K. had already returned home.
This [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This past Saturday at Faith in Prayer (biweekly prayer meeting) we prayed for our Sr. Pastor and his wife who had been at the BGC conference the past week. Some of the prayers were for the Conferenceâ€“the speakers, attendees, and decisions. However, the whole thing had already finished and Pastor K. had already returned home.</p>
<p>This brings up the question of Prayer and Time. Can/Should we pray for events that are completed? God is timeless, so this should be acceptable, maybe even encouraged. I know a lady who prayed for someone long after they had died because she had never heard of the death. Were all those prayers wasted? I think not. However, I think there are some important factors influencing our prayers for past events. 1) You must believe that your prayers are still effective and God in his foreknowledge, omniscience, omnipotence can bring about change, in the past, as a result of your present prayers.  2) Knowledge of those past events affects how you pray, to the extent that you canâ€™t pray for something to change twhen you already know what did or did not happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nathanjunker.com/2006/07/05/prayer-time/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Manipulation</title>
		<link>http://nathanjunker.com/2006/02/22/manipulation/</link>
		<comments>http://nathanjunker.com/2006/02/22/manipulation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>redcowboyhat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Musings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanjunker.com/?p=15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How is it that Hollywood makes sin so attractive?  Manipulation.  Were they to be truly portray the effects of sin, we would see it for what it is and avoid it.  There are cases where the consequences are true.  &#8220;Requiem for a Dream&#8221; shows drug addiction destroying the lives of people [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is it that Hollywood makes sin so attractive?  Manipulation.  Were they to be truly portray the effects of sin, we would see it for what it is and avoid it.  There are cases where the consequences are true.  &#8220;Requiem for a Dream&#8221; shows drug addiction destroying the lives of people as they go further down that dark hole.  However, Hollywood with its sexual liberation uses all its tools of manipulation to make the audience accept, even applaud immorality.  Since sexuality is closely linked with love for most people, it makes it easy to make sin seem like an act of love.  Here&#8217;s how the manipulation happens:  1) Ugliness verses Beauty.  To make sin look enticing, the life a character comes out of must be ugly.  For example, the spouse is less attractive, serious, and boring, while the &#8220;lover&#8221; is beautiful, fun, spontaneous, lively, full of the &#8220;joie-de-vive&#8221;.  The home environment is dull and colorless where the place of the affair is full of bright, vibrant colors.  The audience is made to understand that leaving this confining, barren land to partake in a wild and free romantic affair is perfectly natural.  2) Tragedy.  The characters embracing sin are tragic.  They are are the sad victims of a dead-end job, a dead marriage, they have been oppressed in some way (culture, parents, boss).  The tragedy has the audience believing that they deserve something good.  3) Reluctance.  The characters are never allowed to rush into sin.  They struggle to resist, but eventually get &#8220;caught up in the moment&#8221;.  By combining these three techniques, an audience is movedâ€“manipulatedâ€“and feels a bond with the characters as they go about their sexual exploits.</p>
<p>[Other sins are so taken for granted that Hollywood doesn't even bother to make a case for them.  Lying is standard, the norm even between people who are supposed to trust one another.  Greed and covetousness are often motivating factors for plot lines.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nathanjunker.com/2006/02/22/manipulation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
