Top 25 North American Travel Experiences I Wish Everyone Should Have, Part 1 (the first ten are in this post)

I posted this recently on Facebook but thought it required photos to make it come alive.



(hint: click the pic for a more inspiring size photo)



1. Take in an afternoon game at Wrigley in the summertime

















2. Be in Detroit during the height of Red Wings Hockey


















3. Taste of Chicago festivities, early July in Chicago



















4. Experience Canada Day in Montreal or Ottawa























5. Stay in Old Quebec City near the Parc des Champs-de Bataille and Chateau Frontenac (wow!)
























6. See the cliff divers, from the water, in Acapulco

















7. Tour and climb the City of the Gods at Teotihuacan, Mexico















8. Do New Year's Eve in Times Square (2x, 1999 and 2001)























9. Visit the museum and memorial and comemmorate the victims of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City (the Gates of Time, shown)























10. Spend Independence Day in Washington, D.C.






















As soon as possible, I'll post my remaining 15 of the top 25 of my favorite North American travel experiences. For now, I hope you enjoyed the trip.

20 "I'll Nevers"

A friend of mine sent me a list of 20 "I'll never" statements today. I liked it so much, I thought it would be a good exercise to do myself. Thanks Beth!


1. I will never fail to realize how dangerous it is to say "I will never." Even so, these are convictions I resolve to uphold and won't shrink from committing to.

2. I will never desert my convictions, nor fail to contend earnestly for the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. If that doesn't mean something, then nothing means anything. Convictionless living is a meaningless existence because it plants nothing and harvests nothing, making the net gain 'zero.' If life means nothing, then cut me a big, long line of coke and get out of my way (that's my translation of the book of Ecclesiastes).

3. I will never shirk the responsibilities I have to my family, my wife, and children. Those commitments were a free-will decision made by myself to myself and to God.

4. I will never live in fear or regret. I must live in fearless abandon, feverishly pursuing ultimate reality and absolute truth, without holding anything back. Why 'save' my vitality? What would I save it for, anyway?

5. I will never secretly wish I could 'trade places' with anyone else, known or unknown. I live the life I dream about... and if I wanted someone else's life, I would simply change mine.

6. I will never want to live "way out" with lots of land. That's just not how I think. I like to visit those places, but have no interest in living there. Most people feel exactly the opposite, and that's cool.

7. I will never fail to be grateful that I can see, hear, and walk-- things important for gaining the fullness of the human experience

8. I will never want to own a cat, a llama, a monkey, a large dog that sheds, a hamster, mouse, gerbil, or other vermin-turned pet.

9. I will never accept status quo. I'd rather unquo the status. The status quo is for people who don't mind being in the 'heap.' I'd rather be on top of the heap-- it's a better view.

10. I will never own a car with a bad stereo system or buy an automobile I hate because it gets good mileage. Life's too short to drive a car you despise.

11. I will never stop celebrating life and existence. However, wild and wooly, life is the most amazing adventure and enterprise ever imagined. People who have a problem with life suffer from an errant perspective; usually their error is in thinking that pain and suffering makes life bad or unbearable. The truth is that we can always handle the "what" if we know the "why." If a person doesn't 'get' the "why," he or she should go on an unmitigated search to discover why or life will always confuse them.

12. I will never stop loving my favorite music: Lynyrd Skynyrd, Eddie Money, CDB, Kansas, Fleetwood Mac, Journey, and all manner of Arena Rock.

13. I will never stop making excuses for writing a book until I make or find time to write them. Hopefully I'll get my ducks in a row soon. I've been unable to make it a priority up until now. Frustrating.

14. I will never, ever, ever, ever stop feeling the pain of losing my mother at the age of 58, my dear beloved grandmother at 83, and others I have loved and lost.

15. I will never fail to have a profound, nearly irrational love for my twin brother Teddy (Nashville, TN) and my brother and sister (Kevin Windle/Kelli Hinkle).

16. I will never stop celebrating the virtues of the good men and women in uniform, serving the United States with distinction, in places known and unknown, to the four corners of the earth.

17. I will never fully understand why or how God can forgive each of us from our dastardly deeds and how, after being forgiven, any Christian can actually withhold forgiveness from another human being. Withholding forgiveness places us, not necessarily the offender, in terrific bondage.

18. I will never forget where I came from. I'll always let it shape me as I count my blessings, one by one.

19. I will never forget, nor fail to honor, those who have benefited me in ways big and small. I won't ever fail to appreciate those who have, in any way, shown me kindness, grace, and mercy.

20. I will never tire of traveling to amazing places, doing amazing things with incredible people, and having new, novel experiences. One of the greatest ways to be impoverished is by failing to meet interesting people, to go to interesting places, or to read about them.

The Use of Headcoverings As Is Done in Some Churches

I was asked a question this morning that I think others may be interested in thinking about it as well.

The QUESTION: What are your thoughts on head coverings during worship and prayer? I have been really struggling with this and cannot find enough evidence to support not wearing one.

Well, I'm not an expert in this, but let me try to share some ideas that I hope help-- to the best of my current knowledge.

1 Corinthians 11: The Use of Headcoverings

My understanding is that the Corinthian people used the phrase "women should have authority over her head." That was implying that a woman should have authority and freedom in her life-- including her hair or other matters. It is possible that women there, as it was a very cosmopolitan city, may have been taking great liberties with hair styles. This was one thing-- but in the local church, as those women were being saved, that apparently became come a distraction and a subtle sign of a rejection of the order of creation where God established the man as having authority in spiritual areas of pastoring and home headship.

It seems to me that the entire concept hinges on this issue.

So the Apostle Paul was dealing with this controversy in Corinth, as the matter had slipped into the church. The major issue with the Corinthian situation was that implying freedom for women (women should have authority over their head) honored women, but in doing so-- overemphasized their liberty in such a way that it violated the concept of male leadership in the home, and of the male headship in the pastorate. They had gone too far.

So Paul wanted to ensure there was some understanding of this and that the problem was corrected, and that public worship was not violated by distrations and that church leadership wasn't jeopardized by an overemphasis on their women's freedoms that were, in some cases, being taken too far. It became symbolic because, at Corinth, there were many, many problems with the church, and most of it swirled around the issue of authority and leadership. So Paul stepped in.

When he addresses it in 1 Cor. 11:1-14ff, he is trying to make sense of the situation. He does so by tactfully using the Corinthians saying, but then turning it in a different direction.

He was tacitly (through v. 10-13) agreeing that women had a type of freedom with their appearance and could do what they wanted with their hair, that, at the same time-- (like he said elsewhere, that we can do all things, but all things are not beneficial), he argued that a woman should, as a sign of respect for the authority of man, restrict those freedoms by not distracting the service or woship or appearing to threaten the concept of male headship, by avoiding the issue through responsibly giving up their right to express every freedom they had with regard to hairstyle (just as he later addressed issues such as excessive jewelry, make up, adn the like). If you think deeply about this, in this way, I think the passage will begin to make more sense.

So Paul is essentially saying that, while yes, women do have freedoms, they should not flaunt them by interruping worship and openly challenging male headship in the church. So, then Paul says: 1 Cor. 10:13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Here, I believe 1 Corinthians is speaking about hair "as" a covering, and not necessarily as a requirement for a second, additional covering. [LOOK AT V.15B, WHERE IT CLEARLY SEEMS TO STATE THIS.. THAT HAIR IS GIVEN AS A COVERING]. My understanding is that the AV/KJV translates that word "covering" throughout 1 Cor. 11, which helps clear up the confusion from other translations who apparently wanted to keep from it sounding redundant and used other words like "veil." My understanding is that, when it was originaly stated (like in v. 15), and when it was originally put in English, those words were perceived to be 'synonyms' and, thus, rendered as covering. So, in that sense, hair IS a covering for a woman, and it is a sign of glory. The woman would, then, maintain hair as God gives her, rather than to shave it off, which is described as dishonor. I think the sense of the passage is describing covering the HEAD "with hair" and not generally covering the "hair" with "a covering." Only when a woman had done something unusual with her hair, cutting it off, for example, might an external 'covering' come into play (a hat or wig in our culture, or another type of covering in theirs), so as to avoid controversy.

The Whole Discussion May Be A Misunderstanding

With that said, I think the entire head covering debate is really misunderstood. I believe if the Apostle Paul had wanted additional, secondary coverings to be used on top of hair, then several things would be clear:

1. There would be more time given to the issue in scripture. The fact that so little time was given, shows that it was an issue needing addressed, but that it was a regional or local issue not requiring additional attention in other epistles. Also, apparently no other apostles, nor James, felt like it was worth addressing.

2. If it were something Paul was instituting, it would have likely been written differently. It would have come off as a stand-alone teaching, rather than a brief response to a particular situation using common phrases and situations unique to Corinthian women.

3. If it were for churches then and now, everywhere, Paul would have given clear (not cryptic) instructions about the nature of such coverings. He wouldn't have confused it with 'hair' in v.15, but would have specifically told us (as he did on matters like the Lord's Table, church discipline, and other teachings in his Corinthian letters) things like: the nature of the separate covering; explanations as to when it was to be worn and under what circumstances; Should it be worn when a woman prays, and so on.

The sheer lack of this information indicates to me what the majority of the Christians church has practiced in principle all along. Namely, that external, additional hair-coverings are unnecessary, because hair is what gave women to cover her head and to glorify her beauty while symbolically it serves as some form of indicator of the order of creation.

And because of the lack of biblical evidence for the practice, with its only support being some cryptic passages that seem to oppose all of these major concepts, I don't believe they are to be used in worship. If they are, however, I do not think it constitutes a sin. I think, if they were used and the one wearing a hair (again, not head)-covering developed a personal sense of self-righteousness BECAUSE they were wearing one OR they developed a sense of condemnation over those who did not wear one, they would violate the very reason for wearing them in the first place and would, themselves, commit the sin of pride.

That said, because it is not apparently (clearly) taught in scripture, like anything not taught, I think it should not be done. That is because it sets up the likelihood that it will begin to be practiced and then, like all other things, would ultimately come to be expected-- which would inevitably, over time, lead to the exercise of pride in some wearers.

As with anything-- if it isn't commanded or expected or taught in scripture (such as me carring a banana each week into the worship service, or all men with January birthdays wearing a red shirt, or all left-handed women wearing silver but not gold jewelry), the best advice is to NOT HONOR the practice. That keeps everyone safe.


One Final Thing

It seems to me that when extra hair-coverings are used, they can (in some cases) show part of my point-- that, even if all the other things were not true and even if Paul was speaking about covering the hair and not the head only, that head coverings would become more about cultural expressions of a particular group, because of the sheer variety of the ones commonly used, be it in Christian or other faith beliefs.

Look at these:

Mennonite/Amish

Muslim

Persian (like Muslims, with face coverings too)

Quaker

Biblical or theological questions? Send them my way and I'll try to take time to answer!

FrederickCardoza@aol.com

Why Did Jesus Come to Earth? Why Did God Enter Time?

Why Did Jesus Come To Earth?

It begins with the assumption that Jesus DID come to earth.

• Jesus is the most well-attested historical person from the ancient world. Historical knowledge and reference to him far exceeds that of any person of antiquity—this would include the likes of Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato, Socrates, or anyone else a person could think of.

• When it comes to leaders of various faiths, so little is known about some religious leaders of the past that they are more legendary than historical. Not so with Jesus. In fact, to deny the existence or historicity of Christ is as intellectually dishonest as it would be to deny the holocaust—no self-respecting or legitimate person would be so brazen to do it.

So Jesus did, in fact, come to earth.

And if so… what did he come to do?

Well, the Bible teaches that Jesus was not only a regular human being coming to earth in order to restore social justice or to point to a particular deity. Indeed! No, rather Jesus came as a being who was a single person, but one with two natures—that is to say, Jesus was God Incarnate… God in the flesh. And this Jesus—the Christ (Jesus, the Messiah) was what Christians call the God-Man. He was AND IS a person, the only person, with a divine and a human nature. Fully man, fully God. Jesus was and IS God in the flesh.

One wonders, Why in the world would God come to earth? And it’s important to understand that Christianity does not teach that it was God the Father who came to earth, but that God—in His infinite and unknowable wisdom, existed eternally in the past as Father, Son and Spirit—and that these three persons COLLECTIVELY formed one God. I know, it’s hard to wrap your mind around… but Christianity and the Bible and ALL GREAT LEADERS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH THROUGHOUT HISTORY who have held a biblical view on God, have taught that God existed in that Holy Tri-unity—the Holy Trinity, Father, Word or Son, and Spirit—a united and unified Spirit Being in three non-contradictory expressions, and that this God fashioned His eternal Son, often called the Second Person of the Trinity, into the likeness of a man—meaning, God the Son, who became the Person of Jesus Christ, took on flesh—a human body—and was implanted, mysteriously and supernaturally into the womb of the Virgin, Mary, and as the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” her—NOT IMPREGNATED HER, but as He caused her, non-sexually to conceive, this Mary became pregnant without the aid of man, and began to carry the God-Man, the Christ… the MESSIAH in her womb… and That Baby, secretly the God of the Universe in human form, the one and ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God, was ultimately born and named Yeshua… Joshua the Messiah… or what the English speaking world knows as “Jesus Christ.”

Why did the Incarnation happen? Why did God become flesh? Why was there a theological need for God to enter time? Why did this being or personage need to be fully man? Why did he need to be fully God?

Oh, there’s so much to this… more will have to be said later, no doubt, but the primary answer lies in this:

Because the Bible says in Luke chapter 19 verse 10, that Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost…. And HE DID THIS because Jesus came to RECONCILE HUMANITY WITH GOD.

In an earlier podcast I mentioned that humanity was estranged from God and that this existential lostness and brokenness of relationship was caused by sin. Meaning, that in the Garden of Eden, humanity began in innocence… but then humanity corrupted themselves through, first, being deceived treacherously, and ultimately, in willful disobedience.

This event is called The Fall of Humanity or, sometimes, the Fall of Man. And The Fall meant that the original state of innocence was now violated and that all humanity would thereafter be estranged from God due to sin.

But God sent Jesus as a MEDIATOR who would resolve that broken relationship by restoring it. A mediator is one who represents all parties involved. And Jesus became the One Mediator between God and Humanity—representing God AS GOD and representing Man AS A MAN. Hence, the God-Man. And because He was fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the only person fit to become the Messiah.

So AS A MAN, Jesus offered Himself to God, on a cross, as a blood sacrifice REPLACING AND SUPPLANING ALL OTHER NECESSARY LIVING SACRIFICES TO GOD- ONCE AND FOR ALL—AND BECAUSE HE WAS A PERFECT MAN, He gave Himself as this offering FOR MAN… but because He was (and is) also God, this offering was accepted by God, because only God can forgive sin and save people from sin.

So, in a crude sense, Jesus came to save us from our sin— that is the CAUSE of Jesus’ coming, but the EFFECT of Jesus’ coming is reconciliation.

That Jesus, through his singular, unthinkable, unrepeatable, act of sacrifice, made the way for all people of all times and all places—to come to God and to receive forgiveness and to thereby restore their relationship with God in Christ alone through faith in Him alone.

And for a person to take advantage of that, an individual simply needs to place his or her faith in the finished work of Christ that he completed on the cross.

To learn more about that, specifically, and how to put all of this together in your own life, check out my May 10, 2008 podcast entitled “What Does It Mean To Become a Christian?”

http://freddycardoza.mypodcast.com/2008/05/What_Does_It_Mean_To_Become_a_Christian-107825.html