Reader Question: Dinosaurs in Heaven?

My question (which you’ve answered before) is whether there are dinosaurs in heaven. But you’re view on animals in general going to heaven (both pets and things people are scared of like snakes) would make an interesting post. -Nikki

--------------------------------- You're not wrong, Nikki! Thanks for writing in. There have been some people with some very, very strong opinions on the subject of whether or not there will be animals in heaven. You may even be familiar with an internet meme where a Catholic Church and a Cumberland Presbyterian church get into a church sign debate over whether or not animals get into heaven. (Sadly, I must be the bearer of bad news and report that the meme in question is, in fact, fake. The pictures are photoshopped. The debate itself, however, has actually happened.) One of the things that a lot of people are surprised to learn is that we have very little information on what heaven will be like, or even what general form it would take. Some have this vague idea of people with wings sitting on clouds but that view is born entirely from pop culture, with very little Biblical backing save for the vague concepts of Elijah, and later Christ, being "taken into the clouds." So whenever someone tries to tell you definitively that the Bible says heaven will be one way or another, (like the fake Presbyterians from the meme) you can feel safe laughing them off. There is no authoritative view on the matter, which then moves us in this answer into the realm of guesswork, but educated. You see, part of the problem is that it is never entirely clear that heaven, insofar as we are talking about the eschatological destination of the saved, is a "place" separate from earth. The perception of the afterlife as some kind of disembodied spirit realm separate from bodily existence, for example, would have been entirely foreign to the Jews of Jesus' time, though such an idea fit really well with gnostic principles that Christianity started picking up after the writings of Paul. Another very real possibility is that heaven is, in fact, Earth, but Earth made perfect, purified and restored, not to primitive Eden but with human advancements incorporated while easing out our hard edges. That restored world, I believe, would certainly include animals, even extinct ones like Dinosaurs, all in the state of perfection that allows wonder while precluding fear. All this to say that yes, I believe there will be dinosaurs in heaven. And it will be awesome.

Reader Question- Concerning Profanity

You talk shit about Trump swearing, but I know for a fact that you swear, too, so stop acting like such a high and mighty libtard. -Anonymous
Well, THAT didn't take long. I made a Facebook post about Trump calling other countries "shitholes"... oh, about fifteen minutes ago as of the writing of this particular sentence, and then this question appears in the Blog Inbox, the first time it's been used in a while now. It's actually fast enough that I somewhat expect that maybe I'm being trolled by a friend, and if that's true, well done, you got me.

But if this is on the straight and level, or at least as much as a reader question using the word "libtard" unironically can be, then it shows a fairly common misconception I've noticed before and worth taking a question on now, so thanks, anon.

So here it is, the big secret: Liberals like me don't really care all that much about profanity.

I do swear. Not too terribly much, but I am a huge believer in the power of words, and I have found that a well placed f-bomb can get the point across far better than a hundred other words, and just think of all that time saved! So allow me to set your heart at ease... our problem is not that Trump is a potty mouth. Our problem is that he denigrates people.

You see, the whole impetus behind the concept of "political correctness" is not that some words are good and others are bad... it is that some words treat people as less than human, and we'd really wish you wouldn't do that. That is why, for instance, it actually ISN'T a big deal when some people of African descent call each other the N word, but is a big fucking problem when YOU do it. Because when they use the word, it's as between friends, or with some other layer of understanding.

When you do it, Mr Anti-Political Correctness, it's racism, a word designed to cause pain and used for that purpose.

That's how language works, how it has always worked. Context always, always, ALWAYS matters.

This is kind of similar to when people acted like Clinton supporters were being hypocrites for being mad about "grab them by the pussy" but being fine with Clinton supporting Beyonce, even though she was, and brace yourself here, a woman who is occasionally sexy in public.

It's not that sex should never be spoken of. It's that there are many, many lightyears between a proud embrace of sexiness and a brag of sexual assault.

Now, to get ahead of the Biblical rant, yes, the Bible does encourage us to see that what comes out of our mouths is glorifying to God, and I have no doubt my grandmother would be several kinds of horrified by the post already. But I've believed for awhile now that we make a mistake when we combine the concept of profanity with the Biblical concept of swearing.

For one, "swearing" as it exists in the Bible was primarily a way to invoke the name of God in order to force God to back you up. "as God is my witness," and that sort of phrase are examples, even if rarely meant that way anymore. This falls squarely under "Do not put the LORD your God to the test" commandments... God is not your dancing monkey, and people who attempt to force the hand of the almighty do not do particularly well in the scriptures.

So, as a rule, I do not call for God to back me up by providing a sign, or striking someone dead, or attempt to bargain to force God's hand. That is swearing, that is taking the LORD's name in vain. But if what comes out of my mouth is meant to mirror the cleanliness of my soul, then I believe that referring to the homes of many of God's people as "shitholes" is worthy of some serious anger and derision. Similarly, I wish people were more angry about "grab them by the pussy" or "They're Rapists," or "Bomb the Shit out of them."

If folks passed statements like that by without second thought, but are bothered about the fact that I wrote "fuck" in this blog, then the exact natures of God's exhortations concerning our language are going to need a LOT more work.

Reader Question: Charity Protocol

Do you feel charity should be denied if the person asking for the charity is taking advantage or, like Faustina, do you think charity should be given completely (as much as you can) without concerning yourself with the truth of their situation or intentions (as any sin would be on them not you)? -Bob

Kicking off a new year of Questions! Thanks for this one, Bob! It wasn't the first one I got, but it was the one that really caught my attention right off the bat, especially in a time surrounding the holiday season, where charity is simultaneously everywhere and stretched to its breaking point. The Biblical perspective on charity is not complicated. If they are hungry, feed them. If they are cold, warm them. If they are sick, comfort them. To do so is as if you did it for Christ himself, to ignore them is like ignoring Christ. So it is always GOOD to be charitable... that isn't up for debate. As it happens, it is also rather practical; give aid because once you needed aid, and one day you or one of yours will need it again. Sort of a social safety net built right into Biblical law.
Where things get complicated is in the actual carrying out of the command to be charitable. There is a lot of need in the world, and unlike in the society that Biblical law was crafted to build, the government and religion are not basically one and the same. We've long learned why that's a bad idea (see basically any Biblical King, even the supposedly good ones) but it does create a situation where attempts to provide for those in need are fractured, and so no one group is capable of addressing ALL need. My church has limited funds, and yet this year we have found ourselves more swamped with requests for aid than ever before. Our designated "Agape Fund," a discretionary fund that allows me to give aid to those who ask for it, is supposed to last the year, and had never, before 2017, been fully used. This past year it got tapped out in MAY, and had to be renewed to handle emergency need. 

The philosophy of the Agape Fund is one of no questions asked. I get a name and an address, but I don't verify stories or take a peek at the car that brought them. (Some of my Elders do... which has led to some conversations.) Aid given freely and without question... once every six months. It comes from a place that I landed in about fifteen years ago... when it comes to small time needs, some food, some gas, etc, I'll help anyone once. I don't know their lives or circumstances, and in general assume that small requests are, by their very nature, extraordinary. Fifty dollars isn't a solution to any systemic problem, but it can help in a tight spot, which is the sort of help I and my church can give.

So when do we give aid, and to who, since we clearly can't help everyone who needs it?

I do feel that, with small time aid, it is a waste of time to spend time vetting the person who came for aid. Do your best and trust them to use that aid appropriately, end of the story.

When the aid gets bigger, or the need more repeated, then responsibility on vetting grows if only to make sure that this is the best use of limited resources. You also need to consider which need your goal is... do you keep one house warm for a winter, or supply emergency food or gas for twenty?

These are not questions with easy or obvious answers. Coordinating with other charitable sources in the area to try to cover as many different needs and areas as possible would be helpful, though not always possible. As for those taking advantage, one of the things I have noticed as someone who as worked with charities is that "they are taking advantage" is A) not nearly as prevalent as some think and B) a lot harder to determine than some would guess. The nice car they drive doesn't mean they didn't have grocery money. In an age of predatory credit, a person's possessions aren't always an indication of their actual means.

At the end of the day, I do not think it is ever WRONG to give charitably. But wisdom in that giving can see to it the aid actually goes where it is needed, and it is far better to make a choice on what  kind of giving you intend to do, if only to assure that those in need are able to reliably find you when you can help them, and to assure that you are able to offer the help you are able to give.