The Bumbling Genius

Jumping Out Of A Perfectly Good Airplane?

2012-02-14T05:29:00.000-08:00

In my previous post I discussed an analogy of faith using a skydiving experience once upon a time. I pointed out that anytime I wanted to reflect on what it is to experience faith I simply recalled the thoughts and feelings I had had as I readied myself to jump. But as I considered these things in more depth as of late, I realized that there was more to the analogy than simply having faith that my parachute would open and thus save my body from death. The airplane began to represent this world and it’s thinking, and my life.

Paul spoke of a dividing point, or a separation that occurs in our minds. In Romans 8 he said that those who ARE according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh and those who ARE according to the spirit, the things of the spirit. In thinking back, the assurances offered by the airplane verses the lack of assurance in my parachute seemed to represent that division.

Staying with the airplane seems to be the obvious choice. The constant drone of the engine affirms my faith in the airplane. The controls affirm my faith in my will. The pilot affirms my faith in man’s ability. The airplane is safe.

When I was going through the little training course the morning of my jump the instructor anticipated the question: “What kind of fool would jump out of a perfectly good airplane”? He told us to answer the question when asked: “There’s no such thing as a perfectly good airplane”. This was, of course, in jest, but it fits well into the symbolism of this analogy. According to God, our lives are broken.

But faith is practiced. It is a life lived rather than a one-time decision to have faith. Faith is required at every turn, or, as James puts it, Faith without works is dead. It is as if we are, on a regular basis, required to make decisions in which the obvious choice, the one that feels right, the one that seems safest, the one that appears to promise us the highest level of peace and comfort is not the right choice. We generally know that it isn't the right choice, yet we experience these crises, both large and small, as we learn to trust in God instead of our own understanding.

Such crises can range from whether or not to go out on a date with someone attractive yet ungodly, to spanking one’s children, to breaking off a dating relationship, to telling the truth about something, to asking for help in an addiction, to homeschool, to not having an abortion, to trusting God to provide instead of the government with all its Satanic entangling strings attached, and on and on. In all of these, the point of decision is not the time to make up one’s mind. We must be ready ahead of time, before we are face to face with the decision, just as Joshua told the Israelites to “choose this day whom you will serve”.

I am afraid we live in a time in which many people preachers and theologians believe that we are saved by the one-time act of faith exercised when we “accept” Jesus. I am of the belief that this is a deception, and a horrible one at that, for it convinces people that faith is exercised by putting on the parachute, so to speak, then going on in life with the vain assurance that if their life falls apart or they die they have this sort-of ace in the hole. Meanwhile they never understand the One in whom they have placed their faith. Terms like joy and abundant life are interpreted as happiness because they are wholly foreign terms to the one who does not know his savior.

This is the airplane, a life that is according to the flesh. As for me, I have now begun to attempt to think and pray in terms of being both ready and able to face decisions based on a mind that is set on the things of the Spirit which is life and peace. I know I will have times of failure, but I also look forward to the times I jump, and in so doing, will KNOW my savior, and the wonderful joy that accompanies this intimacy, in new ways.

Knowing Jesus + Suffering = Joy

2012-01-30T06:23:00.000-08:00

Years ago I got it into my mind that I wanted to jump out of an airplane with a parachute. I managed to do a few static line jumps, which is a fancy way of saying that your rip cord is tied to the airplane. It hardly qualified as skydiving I would say, but it was quite a thrill all the same.

I've recalled that experience many times since as I've attempted to grasp the word faith. I can still remember what it felt like, climbing out of the airplane at 3000 feet and standing on the landing gear of that little Cessna; the wind, the noise, the adrenalin rush. I'ts actually a fairly well fleshed out understanding of faith I think. The truth is that I trusted the rig on my back with my life. And the danger with which I was confronted was very real and present.

As of late I've been considering this analogy of "faith" in a deeper sense. I realized that it didn't really serve to clarify the understanding of faith in a way that I needed it to because I realized that the purpose of my parachute, and by extension my faith, was to save my life. That is to say that it my faith was centered on me and this body of flesh in which I live. I have become convinced, you see, that if this is the reason that I have faith in Christ, I am missing the mark. If I am to understand faith in a way that will ultimately bring the joy that I ultimately need to my heart, I need more... much more actually.

You see, while faith in a parachute to save this flesh is a great thing in the natural, in the end its purpose is not much more than a seat belt. This fleshly body is the end of such a thing's purpose. But I am much more than flesh. I am spirit also. And my spiritual being is the being that should be the most interested in faith, for it is by faith my spiritual being is saved from, not death, but an eternal death of torment. Why would I worry about faith in something that will kill this body, when I should be worrying about what can kill both soul and body? (Luke 12:4-5)

So I changed the analogy. Now, when I recall those jumps, in order to better understand faith, I rename the purpose of the symbols. Before, the purpose of the parachute was to save my body. In this new understanding the parachute exists to be known. This is key... and difficult to grasp.

In both ways of understanding this the parachute represents Jesus. But in the true understanding I cease to be the reason and the center for the parachutes existence. Instead, the parachute exist to be known by me. Please try to grasp this. In this way everything shifts to make much more sense of the life I experience. This new way, you see, the analogy puts me in a position where I cannot reach my new goal of knowing "my parachute" unless I jump out of the airplane. And I reiterate that knowing the parachute is EVERYTHING. I cannot stress this enough. In this way I hope that it can be clearly seen that I cannot KNOW Jesus properly until I obey Jesus in a way that makes non sense in the natural, but trust him to come through for me. And again, it is key to understand in this that by Him coming through, I mean Him revealing Himself to me in a way that I KNOW Him all the more, and so therefore, am better able to serve and worship Him, all the more, and to allow this flesh to die to all these things, all the more.

I began right away, with this new insight, to realize that this was a recurring theme in scripture. It was after Noah built the ark, you see, that God's salvation, and thus glory, came. Abraham was not able to see God's glory until after he left his father's land. It was after Joshua marched around Jericho that God's glory was displayed. It was after Daniel went up into his room and prayed that he witnessed first hand the glory of God. It was after Jesus was raised up that he was glorified. On the contrary, the Israelite's unwillingness to take the land the first time cost them forty years in the desert. Key to all of this is God's glory; his exaltation, his majesty. Perhaps when we approach these scriptures from this perspective we can begin to see why faith plays such a major role in God's redemptive plan. We believe, then God is glorified, then we get credit for righteousness that we don't really possess. No belief, no God's glory, no redemption.

So, the only way I can know my parachute is to jump out of the airplane. Sure, I can put it on my back in case the airplane begins to go down and experience the parachute as a back up plan. I have known Christians who wear Jesus in this way. They all seem to have one thing in common, a joyless existence because their flesh is the end goal.

I can also take it out of its pouch inside the airplane. I can study it, a tangled mess of thin fabric and strings. I can talk about it, argue about it, hold positions about its construction, but I can't know it as an inflated canopy inside the safety and comfort of the airplane. This misses the parachute's, and my, reason for existence, at least as it pertains to faith: its reason being to be known, my reason, to know.

With this in mind I read Paul's words and his passion in "knowing Christ, and him crucified", or "I want to know Christ-yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings," or "I count it all loss compared to the surpassing worth of knowing Christ" with new understanding. He is glorified in our hearts when we are knowing Him with increasing intimacy, and as we experience his glory on display we experience joy, which glorifies Him all the more. This is our taste of heaven on earth: knowing Him. This is the source of our power over sin, knowing Him. This our power to consider it all joy when we face trials of many kinds - knowing Him. This is our ability to count all the fruits of our efforts to satisfy the flesh as dung - knowing Him. We look up, as a parachutist looks to his canopy, to worship the thing that has happened as a result of faith, the revelation of our savior that we may know and worship Him in ever more ways.

We miss it when we see Jesus as existing to make this life better. Such thinking puts us at the center, and we are not at the center. That's why the analogy of the parachute breaks down when we see its purpose as saving our hides. To reflect the spiritual reality of faith it would have to exist solely to be known in its true inflated form, and then worshiped. Actually, for anyone who has jumped out of an airplane, worship is actually not all that far fetched. There is a special feeling one feels, at least the novice, when the transition from hurling toward death to suddenly looking up and seeing the wonderful and beautiful canopy quietly gliding oneself safely to the ground, takes place. There is a sudden realization that the parachute was in fact trustworthy. In a spiritual sense what could be better than knowing our savior better as we trust in him to reveal himself to us?

I have made thousands of decisions in my life based, not on my espoused faith, but rather on ensuring minimum suffering and increased comfort. More of those decisions than I'd like to admit have been based on not trusting God to take care of me, or avoiding the feeling of discomfort about my "faith" before others. As a result my life more closely resembles a life in which my lips honor God when it is safe, but my heart is far from him. (Mt 15:8) But therein is the whole problem. I am wanting to trust God to take care of me when what I really need from God is that he would reveal himself to me in a way in which I can know Him. What I will eat, and what I will wear, and where I will lay my head are all necessarily secondary to that one all encompassing hope: to know Him!

In thinking this through, I discovered that my developing little "parable" could actually be mined for more. In the next post I will discuss how the airplane represents my flesh.

Another Name For Guilt: "A Good Start"

2012-01-26T07:07:00.000-08:00

We live in a culture obsessed with the exaltation of self. Of course there are many obstacles to this feat, one of which is "guilt". How can we exalt self when we know in our inner being that we are guilty? The realization of this fact is evidenced in our answer to the question: "Would I feel comfortable asking God to give me everything I deserve?". We all inherently know this would be a bad idea.

The fact is, guilt, just as physical pain, is a good thing. They both keep us from harming ourselves; pain-our flesh and guilt-our spirit. But guilt goes much further than protecting our conscious, it takes us much further by taking us to the cross. And it is there, at the cross that we are able to find the most precious gift of all, redemption.

But the cross stands against the exaltation of self. To reconcile this, the self-exalting individual will seek comfort elsewhere. One of the common places of finding vain spiritual comfort is the words in the Bible: "God is love". Assuming our self is the center it is easy to think that God is love because he loves US. But it should also be considered that God would still be love even if he didn't love US. These comforting words can also be deadly without the full counsel of scripture. There is a down-side of "God is love". That down-side, as well as the glorious side, was put on display at the cross. It is here, at this horrible, bloody and cruel display that we can see the reasons that we know in our inner being not to demand of God: "give me all that I deserve", for we are actually looking at what we deserve.

Our guilt reminds us of our wrong actions to others, which according to scripture, are wrong actions against God. While the self-exalting person is willing to pacify his anger at someone else with the assumption that justice will somehow be exacted by God, or some other cosmic force, he seldom brings to the forefront of his thinking the wrong he has done to others deserving of that same justice. But when he does, it is a good starting point, for it might well be that he has stumbled onto the "narrow path", a path that leads to a place where something this world sees as foolishness and ugly, the cross, is seen as liberating, wonderful and glorious by those who understand what it reveals.

A Horrible God?

2012-01-12T04:51:00.000-08:00

Why does watching this NOT challenge my beliefs? Also, to read the comments that follow I'm a non-thinker. Of course I level the same charge at the video's makers as well as it's commenters.

One of the reasons it's easy to sluff this off is that it ignores the basis for evil. Suppose that the Video's maker is correct. Suppose that there really is no God. Does evil suddenly vanish? Does the corporate raider who steals the company's wealth then lays off the employees suddenly stop? Do murders, homelessness or child abuse suddenly just go away? The fact is, if there is no God, not only do these things continue, but any reason that they should stop disappear.

But the video not only ignores the basis upon which to call these things evil by taking the morality left to it by its Christian heritage for granted, it also judges God as evil. Oddly enough even, it destroys any basis upon which to judge anything, then judges God. The video seeks to destroy one standard without providing another standard by which to base its own conclusions on?

How easy it is to reach out from nothingness and smack things that are. It's like the violent invisible man. Really, how difficult is it to pick a part one thing while at the same time presenting nothing worth defending to take its place? This video has the feel of a hand reaching out of the fog of nothingness to give a slap across the face then disappearing again into nothingness.

Though I think it is sad that such attacks are effective on those who don't think these things through, they don't bother me personally. Besides, we were warned in scripture that these sorts of things would happen. Therefore I would rightly have more reason for concern if the makers of this video had simply ignored my "silly" Christian beliefs altogether. By paying no attention to my "folly", they would have proven Jesus a liar. But instead they have showed him to be the light of the world, a light man hates because of his illumination of sin.

confusion, part four

2011-07-15T08:10:00.000-07:00

To recap, in part one I started the post with this:

“'For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.'

Working from the premise that deception is a product of confusion about truth, this passage foretells of a great confusion in the world; a confusion that not even the elect would escape save for the supernatural hand of God"

The forth "confusion" I would like to profile comes from more clandestine measures. Such measures make them more dangerous because of the difficulty in detecting the poison that they spread. This confusion comes from assemblies that are on the surface, and in statement, doctrinally sound. On the inside however they have become increasingly ashamed or afraid of doctrine in practice. They have succumbed to the fear of man, and the fear of division, and though they have not perpetrated the lie that truth is unknowable, they have placated the lie by simply avoiding the discussion altogether. These assemblies have chosen instead to focus on man or US, how God is interested in US, how God wants to know US, and bless US, and how WE are important to God. Now while this is true, and it isn't entirely doctrinally unsound, it misses the more important point that these things are not true because of anything we bring to the table. Rather, they are true because of the glory it brings to God. And there is a huge difference. In these assemblies there is a very real feeling that we are redeemed of God because it was the just and right thing for God to do. Such thinking brings about a hideous confusion because it is so close to the truth but veers quietly away from our true state at the last minute. That it is not readily obvious that confusion has even entered the mind and our midst makes this confusion especially dangerous.

Furthermore, this confusion is supported and masked by the comfort of our emotions. These assemblies are very concerned about feelings: good feelings about God trumps the truth about God, and good feelings about ourselves trumps the truth about ourselves. The leaders of these assemblies bend over backward to make God "likable" within the confines of the vain thinking of this age and in so doing confuse many about the Gospel and lead many astray.

Confusion, part three

2011-06-19T09:17:00.000-07:00

Below is another thought pattern that brings about confusion. These contemporary patterns make their way ever closer to what is generally consider traditional "Church", and are born out of a desire to make Church more palatable to the masses. This pattern seeks Unity. Now while unity is laudable, it becomes an ugly thing when truth is sacrificed in order to bring it about. We must know that hiding truth leads to confusion.

In more severe cases the quest for unity has given way to a new theology known as "Emergent" theology. The churches that subscribe to this theology appear to have given themselves over wholly to unity, even at the expense of truth. Much of this fact is hidden due to the redefining of words. This can be especially seen in the redefining of Jesus. The real Jesus is exchanged for a symbolic Jesus upon which pet causes such as environmentalism, social justice, and self, can be placed. These causes are then elevated above the actual object of God's love for whom he gave his life on the cross to save: Man.

Except for the use of the same Christian words that have been redefined, this "Christianity" bears little resemblance to true Christianity beyond its worship customs. The redefining of words like love and compassion to suit modern day sensibilities is very confusing. Though such redefinitions help to bring about inner peace when all is well, it does precious little to carry one though the real trials and tribulations that are promised; not to mention the trials brought about by behaviors like premarital sex and divorce that come more easily as the result of a self-centered religion.

To a lesser degree, by giving in to the spirit of the age, many traditional churches are sacrificing increasing segments of truth at the alter of unity as well. They do this either outright, or in more passive ways by simply avoiding certain subjects or conflict. All of this increasingly contributes to an important fact. There is an increasing fog like confusion that now lays thick in Western Society.

Coming To A NEA Unionized, Democrat Controlled Government School Near You

2011-06-08T17:33:00.000-07:00

Teaching to not bully--Good
Teaching Homosexuality as normal--Bad
Using Bullied Children As An Excuse To Teach Homosexuality As Normal--Really Bad
Grade For California Schools-- F --

If anyone was wondering why prop-8 was so important for California, wonder no more. I have contended for years that homosexuals need access to your children through the government school system in order to make their lifestyle acceptable and to make those who disagree unacceptable. The extreme leftist California Supreme Court has opened that door. Do not be mistaken. This is coming to your school system, and by the time it gets there it may very well be criminal to disagree. Like it? Keep voting Democrat.

H/T Neil Simpson

Confusion, part two

2011-06-06T17:23:00.001-07:00

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”

In my last post I discussed the confusion brought about by Harold Camping's failed judgement day prediction. But if people were able to see Camping for what he is, an outlier to true Christianity, there are still other outliers spreading confusion with much greater efficiency. Some, of one type in particular, have become masters at harnessing the power of television combined with the method of making empty promises. With this powerful medium they are able to blanket the land with their shameless lies of the so called prosperity gospel. For most believers and unbelievers alike the antics of the televangelist, by his making promises from God to some poor soul in exchange for a “sacrificial” check or "seed money", is self-serving of the "preacher". It takes advantage of the weakest of these: the weak minded. Worse yet, it muddies the waters about the real salvation message to all and therefore brings about more confusion as well as more deserved mockery.

Not to be outdone in casting confusion however there is also the confusion wrought by the so-called “social gospel”. This religion is not much more than good old-fashioned communism repackaged in Christian wrappings. As is typical with communism this religion is political in nature and is in its inner workings a thinly veiled arm of leftist party politics. Right and wrong are not determined by scripture but rather is determined by what is in or out of favor at any given time with the party. This is why the social gospel is indistinguishable from its true head, the Democrat party while bearing very little resemblance to Biblical Christianity . It wreaks confusion by exchanging truth for increased government power while parading itself in Christian outer garments. It takes advantage of the least of these, the poor and down trodden, by confusing truth with a lie based on materialistic this-life ends while preaching hate and envy.

These are two more reasons confusion reigns in this day, perhaps more than in previous days. I will be adding several more to this list in the days to come.

Confusion, part one

2011-06-03T07:24:00.000-07:00

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”

Working from the premise that deception is a product of confusion about truth, this passage foretells of a great confusion in the world; a confusion that not even the elect would escape save for the supernatural hand of God. Though we have our fair share of false prophets in these days, we have not yet seen from them, as far as I know, “great signs and wonders”. But we are most certainly living in a time of great confusion. That said, it makes me ask if we are living in a time of unprecedented confusion? I don’t know, but consider a few things.

Harold Camping's recent folly is but the latest of many such follies. One of the saddest commentaries on Camping's prediction is not that he ignored clear scripture, or that he had to torture scripture to make it agree with his hair-brained numbers game, but instead it is the amount of confusion he has wrought. Such nonsense plays right into the hands of the mockers of Christianity. Such deserved mockery brings about wide spread confusion.

Love does not envy, it is not self seeking, it does not delight in evil

2011-05-27T07:28:00.000-07:00

This is a C.S. Lewis quote worth considering:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

At first glance this quote may seem to say nothing about love. But compassion by its nature is an outpouring of love, therefore, a misunderstanding of love can turn the outpouring of compassion into oppression.

Scripture tells us that in our last days the love of most will grow cold and that men will become lovers of self. What better way to love self than to claim for self the attribute of "compassion" while doing nothing to exercise compassion save being for compassion through political means?

Politicians love such a mindset because it gives them unlimited access to the nation's wealth through taxation for the purposes of exercising "compassion". This in turn gives them ever increasing power because each failure only demands more "compassion" when measured by intentions rather than results. To resist their political posturing is to resist their compassionate intentions, and what emotion based democracy is willing to resist compassionate intentions?

It's worth contemplating that the concept of envy found itself in the ten commandments(don't do it)and in I Corinthians 13(it's not love). In a strictly materialistic view of the world, which is arguably the predominate American view inside and outside of christianity, well-being is reduced to materialism, and compassion to material based "fairness". Such a view is a petri dish for envy. It denies the twin possibilities of happiness without wealth and wealth without happiness because in materialism, happiness and wealth are synonymous.

But scripture rejects this view and warns against the deceptions of material wealth. From a truly Christian perspective these two are not at all synonymous but rather are at war with one another. Furthermore, which trench one occupies in this war will reveal his true allegiance, whether to God, or to mammon. The love of mammon, which is a manifestation of the love of self, is evidenced by a preoccupation with material things while ignoring spiritual things.

There are many examples of this contemporary mindset, but one especially obvious one can be found in the financial black hole of our modern education institutions. In these cauldrons of loveless envy, God and objective truth have been expelled while simultaneously attempting to hold fast to ethics. This of course is Folly. Lewis has another famous and astute point regarding this:

We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

Love is not satisfied with material possessions, and it does not demand some arbitrary standard of fairness concerning them. It demands much more, and it grows out of a much more fertile ground... like the real and true compassion that is more concerned with eternity than gratifying the vain and temporal flesh.

2011-05-20T23:16:00.000-07:00

Shortly after I began blogging a wonderful lady stopped by to make a comment. She said she would be back. That was over three years ago and our relationship has grown over those years. I've never seen her, but our family and hers has become ever closer through the years. We were planning a cross country drive from Phoenix to Atlanta and were planning on routing our trip so that we might get to visit this family for the first time. Those plans are on hold now as her daughter lost her battle with cancer last night. I had no idea when I set out on this venture that I would become so attached to the people I would meet; people whom I've never seen with my own eyes, but feel as if they live just down the street.

Please join with me in praying for this family in this time of great loss, as well as thanking God that we do not grieve without hope. Her daughter was a believer, and as such, though we grieve with our friend, we also look forward to that glorious reunion.

Green?

2011-05-19T07:20:00.000-07:00

If the word "green" being constantly spouted by carbon-gobbling globetrotters like it's the new world savior grates on you like it does me, click here for a pretty cool story.

Love And 1st Corinthians Chapter 13

2011-05-18T08:22:00.000-07:00

This chapter consists of 3 sections. The first section discusses the futility in what all Christians do when what they do is not sustained by a root of love. Paul begins this chapter with those who are all about tongues. But Paul warns that speaking in tongues is nothing more than a bunch of annoying noise when love is absent.

And to the faith, prophet and knowledge crowd, he reduces their exercises to “nothing”; as in might-as-well-stay-home-drink-beer-and-watch-the-game nothing. And to those who think staying home drinking beer and watching the game is just fine as long as one loves his neighbor by redistributing to them other people’s money, he says such also gains nothing. In fact, forget the faux compassion of giving someone else's possessions to the poor, Paul actually proclaims that even if we did make a sacrifice personally, even if we sacrificed every material thing we owned--a feat far and above the trite and easy symbolism of redistribution--we still gain nothing. I gather from this that not only do we not “gain” the object of our enterprise--actually helping the poor, but we also gain nothing for ourselves. And if that isn’t enough Paul ups the ante further by including our own flesh in that sacrifice, and in a most painful way, burning. To be sure, love is key in understanding the Christian life.

This chpater goes well beyond the sentimental wedding gift wall plaque; it demands a question. That question is, “What must I do to love", the answer to which is of the utmost importance. The first step to accomplishing that feat would be to correctly and accurately grasp the meaning Paul was attaching to the word in his attempts to convey this truth. Almost as if anticipating this problem, Paul takes the time to point out some of the fruit that will and will not accompany the person who has begun to grasp it. I will be taking a look at some of those fruit in a forth coming post.

Love

2011-05-15T09:11:00.000-07:00

What does it mean to love? This is the question I have been asking myself for the last few months. The reason I've asked it is two fold:

1. I've felt sub-par in my ability to love.
2. How the word today is defined is not what is meant in the Bible; this goes for the world's definition, to be sure, but it also goes for the commonly accepted Christian definition as well.

So, I've been on a quest of sorts to solidify my understanding of that word. As I stumble down the road on this quest I am becoming ever more convinced that the prostitution of the "word"; indeed the flipping of the word onto its head, is a prime reason for the unraveling of our society. To wit, another denomination instituted sin just this past week in the name of love. Western civilization is drowning in red ink, in the name of love. Truth and sound doctrine have been evicted from many, if not most churches, in the name of love. Today a bunch of rot-gut sermons will be preached, in the name of love. Families are being laid waste, in the name of love. As one talented poet/musician asks, "what more in the name of love?" Sadly, much much more.

Here are some of the posts I've written as a result of this quest:

Leaving The Church

Love Protects

Living In The Here And Now

Calling Sin Sin

Legalism vs. Legalism

Don't Tell Me That You Love Me

Don't Tell Me That You Love Me II

The Mystery Of The Missing Comments

2011-05-13T09:57:00.001-07:00

I had some time and was going to respond to some comments to my last post and saw that three of them had disappeared. Blogger? Hacked?

Anyway, wanted to say that I always appreciate comments as long as they are thoughtful. I have a limited amount of time, and even though I don't always get around to responding to comments that are left here, I always want to. Sometimes I simply can't think of anything meaningful to add or say in response, generally because I agree. Otherwise, it is a time issue. I take the time to read any comments left right away, but it may take me up to a couple of days to respond. After that, I figure it's too late. Please don't see this as indifference, it isn't. I am always grateful. I say this because I love to get responses when I take the time to comment elsewhere, though it's fine if I don't, which seems to be the case about half the time. Also, I don't comment now near as much as I once did. Though I do try to read most of the blogs I follow on "reader". I have about 40 good blogs there.

Sorry for the missing comments. I have no idea what happened to them, though I know it didn't just happen here. It also happened on my other blog as well.

Ever Wonder How The Taking Out Of Osama Would Have Been Viewed By The Self Appointed American "Conscious" If Bush Were In Office?

2011-05-11T10:45:00.000-07:00

America is entering a new political season, which is kind of funny when you think about it because in this age of "might-makes-right" there really isn't an end, or beginning, to political seasons. So suffice it to say that we are in the political season of the white hatted savior occupying the White House as opposed to the last season of the black hatted villain.

With this reality before us the question is often posed, can you imagine the outcry if the villain had done what this savior is doing? We really don't have to imagine though. We only need look outside of our sphere of might-makes-right politics to the socialist continent the savior seeks to follow as he leads us glibly down the road to serfdom, a glittering Jewell of which is Great Briton.

When an associate director of the Henry Jackson Society said on a BBC program, "question Time" that he felt elated at the news of bin Laden's death, he was booed and heckled. Another panelist was applauded when she said she was "depressed" because it "demeans a democracy and a president who has shown himself to be the Ugly American. He's degraded American democracy, which had already degraded itself through torture and rendition". More cheers erupted when a former Liberal Party leader said "I cannot rejoice on the killing of any man. I belong to a country that is founded on the principle of exercise of due process of law".

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams had these compassionate words to say: "I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done". Two lawyers in two publications, the Guardian and the Daily Beast, spoke out against human rights abuses perpetrated on bin Laden. And then there is, of coarse, the letter to the conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph warning that such inappropriate actions "by people who should have known better" (read white hatted savior) were going to wake up those dreaded sleeping cells.

So wonder no more.

Using Seashells For Money, How Silly

2011-05-07T09:36:00.001-07:00

I can distinctly remember the teacher in my grammar school telling us that Long Island was sold to the settlers for seashells called wampum. I can also remember our response, which was laughter, including my own. That the clothes we were wearing, the homes we lived in, indeed the services of the very teacher who told us these things, were purchased with pieces of paper had totally escaped me.

Its funny how the passage of time provides those who come later with a different perspective on historical events than was held by those who lived through them. Yet the different perspective provided by that same passage of time is not objective, for the view of historical events through the lens of a different age comes with its on cultural prejudices and blind spots.

But scripture gives us a reference point that transcends the ages. By God's grace, and a true understanding of reality and scripture, perhaps we can seek to break free from the prejudices and blind spots common with our age and prevent travesties not yet etched into stone by their slipping from present to past. But such an undertaking must, to be authentic, not reek of conformity to the times, for such conformity was a mark of those travesties past.

If you like this article, you might also find "Living In The Here And Now" and "The Tyranny Of The Times" interesting.

To Clarify

2011-05-04T10:55:00.001-07:00

More than one person mentioned the confusion surrounding my last post concerning this statement:

"Do we really believe that the message of the Gospel is the ~~only~~ message that offers salvation?"

As I wrote this statement I pondered as to how to quote the statement without the word "only" and without the use of an ellipsis. I settled on simply striking the word "only". My thinking that the remaining definite article "the", as opposed to the indefinite article "a", would suffice at directing the focus away from the question of relativism being asked by the 1960's denominations, and to the question of ramifications of such beliefs.

As to daily asking myself the question, "do I really believe the message of the Gospel is the message that offers salvation", I think this is a pertinent question for all believers in Jesus. Let me explain why by using one of the most poignant video clips from one of the most poignant movies I think I've ever seen.

It is found at the conclusion of the movie Schindler's List. As the movie portrays it, Oskar Schindler had a unique perspective of how his decisions effected others in that there was a definite price tag associated with each of the Jews he saved through buying them to work in his factory. The movie also portrays the reality of this fact settling in on him as those he did save gathered around him. Seeing them, he suddenly realizes that each of his indulgences could be quantified by a number of Jews he was not able to buy as a result those indulgences. It was not as if he didn't know this all along, or that he even questioned the reality of it. Still, it was after the fact that the weight of this reality settled in on him.

The Clip:

Just to be clear. I believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. I believe that he cannot reasonably and sanely be proclaimed as only a way. He is either the only way, or provides no way. Jesus himself left us no other alternatives.

Leaving The Church

2011-04-30T07:56:00.000-07:00

I have long held that that word "Church" definitely has different meanings for different people, and even different meanings for the same people in different situations. With that in mind, the name of this post might well be entitled: "In Search Of The Church".

I have become disillusioned in my experience of Church. Accusations of us-four-and-no-more hyper-spiritual elitism at one time might have poisoned the well of my thinking on this matter, but my need for more now trumps that.

I recently read an article by Albert Mohler that helps me to articulate my current dissatisfaction. In his article he cites a book "Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: A Study in Sociology of Religion" by Dean M. Kelley, and an article, “Creed or Chaos” by columnist David Brooks concerning Mormonism. Mohler focuses in on this idea at the heart of Brook's column: "the religions that grow, succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in their convictions about what is True and False.

In other words Brooks, an agnostic I would presume, has the insight to see that the very things that define what modern western Christian(1) churches seem inclined to avoid, are the same things that "motivate people to perform heroic acts of service". However Mohler points out another probing question at the center of the true false quandary for the Christian , a question I often ask myself as a guiding light in my decision making processes: "Do we really believe that the message of the Gospel is the ~~only~~ message that offers salvation?

Mohler attributes this question to the one that was asked by mainline denominations in the sixties, hence the word "only", and indeed it appears that the modern day mainline denomination did ask that question a half century ago, and for the most part, answered it wrong. But for me, the question is still a pertinent one, absent the word only, and deserves an answer today; indeed every day. I am in search of the Church that is willing to ask this question daily, answer it daily, then practice life daily as if the answer is yes.

(1)Mormonism is not Christian

Ray Stevens Get's It.

2011-04-29T10:33:00.000-07:00

Hat Tip Joe

How Do You Know If You're Making A Bad Argument?

2011-04-27T17:29:00.000-07:00

The short answer is, if you can make that same argument against your own argument by simply changing the subject, it is a bad argument.

I was recently presented with just such an example when commented on a friend's Facebook status concerning earth day. A friend of the host responded to me and someone else with the following argument, which by the way, had absolutely nothing to do with my comment. (I have changed the names)

So Dan, "those who are spiritual" often disagree with one another on many interpretive issues. So are you saying that you and those who think exactly like you are the only ones who gets[sic] it right?

So this was my response. I simply copied and pasted his argument and changed the word spiritual to unspiritual:

So Bob, "those who are unspiritual" often disagree with one another on many interpretive issues. So are you saying that you and those who think exactly like you are the only ones who gets[sic] it right?

He subsequently sent me an email in which he claimed he had been sent information about me that was unflattering, which gave me the opportunity to employ his basic argument yet once again.

I call this living at the center of the universe. Situated there, every measurement of good and evil, right and wrong, and even in determining who can proclaim what is good and evil, and right and wrong, is taken from the center of the universe, which is self. At the center of the universe you can argue the truth of something based on the "fact" that we can't know truth, because YOU are confident that no one can be confident about anything. You can judge the judgmental, not tolerate intolerance, assert facts based on ignorance; why you can do all sort of things simply because it doesn't conflict with how it makes you feel, which we all know is a wonderful basis for appeal.

Oughts Ex Nihilo

2011-04-21T07:16:00.000-07:00

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning out of or from nothing. A quick Google search will reveal that the word is normally associated with creation. But I contend that worlds and universes are not the only things that are ex nihilo.

As it pertains to creation in modern day discussions, ex nihilo highlights the collision of the material and spiritual worlds. The strictly material worldview scoffs at the idea of a world created ex nihilo because it denies the existence of anything that cannot be known via the five senses. But no sooner than a person adopts a strictly materialistic worldview than he becomes cognitively dissonant in the arena of morality. From the materialistic standpoint there is simply no foundation from which to assert any morality. Still, those who approach our beginnings from a strictly materialistic position are no less prone to preaching oughts than the most fervent of the faithful.

This can be demonstrated by simply asking the question "why" to any oughts. This question will always eventually run off a cliff into the abyss of nothing. Why ought every American have health care? Why ought I care if the planet overheats? Why ought I care if one out of every eight people is hungry? Why ought I care about diversity? Why ought I not be a bigot? Why ought I not impose my beliefs on others?

Why ought it matter that the electrical signalling generated in the randomly produced material that occupies one skull has caused the raminder of the sack of randomly produced materials to turn away from the sick and hungry and to self indulgence at the expense of the sick and hungry? Why ought it matter that electrical charges are ricocheting about in another skull are signalling something contrary? The fact remains that for the materialist, any appeal to ought HAS to be made ex nihilo.

It is impossible to connect the dots from scientific facts brought about by materialisticly based thinking to moral values, and of the utmost importance to realize this. The material world, as interpreted by randomly involved intelligence, can only produce facts. Facts are not moral. They tell us nothing of oughts. To make the leap from 2+2=4, to thou shalt not murder, is a leap ex nihilo. Facts, the discovery of which is the ultimate goal of real science, (real science as opposed to the a priori pseudo science that is so common today) do not and can not produce moral values. No matter how complicated or sophisticated our science becomes, or how arrogant it makes us, or how much it can increase our faith in death being the end, a wall exists and will ever remain between cold facts discovered and moral codes that dictate how we ought to behave. The Ultimate and cruel reality then is that if there is no God; and even if there is a God and we can't know him, any "oughts" asserted by anyone are oughts ex nihilo.

John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

A Juxtaposition Of Sermons

2011-04-10T08:25:00.000-07:00

My wife showed me this video from Face Book a few days ago. It is kind of funny and we both suppressed some chuckles.

I didn't say much before I went back to what I was doing. She soon asked me what I thought of the video, and did I think it was OK? Without answering, and with my computer in my lap, I went to You Tube and pulled up the following message somewhat randomly. I played it for her and then asked, do see the difference? Which one points more to a gimmick, or comedic-look-at-me-ain't-I-cute Gospel, and which one is serious?

Who Are They Talking To?

2011-04-08T20:22:00.001-07:00

Harry Ried had this to say this morning:

"Republicans want to shut down government because they think there is nothing more important than preventing women from getting cancer screenings?" (source)

Now who was he talking to when he said this? The answer is simple, the politically unsavvy. He was certainly not talking to those who are going to pull the lever for "D"'s regardless of anything anyone might say or do. He wasn't speaking to those who understand that no nation can run trillion dollar deficits and expect to survive. That leaves those who kind of float and flitter this way and that depending on how they feel on a given day.

Like the baseball player caught between bases however, the options are narrowing for those running this way and that. Toward third base are slave making taxes, toward second are dreaded spending cuts. Stuck in the middle are the ones to which the media, leftist pundits, liars and others who are hoping to take America out by overwhelming it with debt are speaking. We shall soon see how persuasive the Reid's of the world were.

(update)Other comments that in a sane world would be outrageous:

In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women. Rep. Louise Slaughter D-NYsource

Wow, this is like having a front row seat to a civil war except the bombs falling out side are verbal. That was a big one. I wonder if Old Glory will still be there tomorrow?

Update II

"This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians." Washington's Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton source

That one made the chandelier shake. I bet that sent some moderates scurrying somewhere. But where? Only time will tell.

Neil's Apt False Teacher Primer

2011-04-05T18:13:00.000-07:00

This is an Extranormal video created by Neil Simpson at "Eternity Matters". According to Neil the making of the first video is free after setting up an account. He also points out an interesting thought in the making of this video: "There is something unique about how the characters read the lines. It helps make points that get lost when there is too much emotion in the voices."

Neil says that the content is the result of years of debating false teachers and that many of the arguments made by the false teacher character are direct quotations from various false teachers he has encountered. Neil also provides sound Biblical responses through the other character. It's fun to watch... and educational to boot!

love protects

2011-03-29T08:33:00.000-07:00

Found hidden in "the love chapter" (1 Cor 13) is a little phrase of only two words: "love protects." If you're not carefulIt's easy to read right past these two words and miss something of extreme importance. In this age of feel-good love one might in fact do well to spend a little time meditating on that little phrase. It might even give one reason to remember "buyer beware" when he hears the word "love" when protection is not part of its definition. Then, perhaps, when he sees that word on the front cover of a book: "Love Wins", or on a bumper sticker: "love makes a family", and so on, he will not be so easily fooled.

With this in mind we can ask some questions that will help us hold a Biblical view of love. This view has almost nothing in common with its modern understanding of the word because the modern view is devoid of truth. When one touts loving the poor, for example, we can ask, "does he also advocate the murder of their children through abortion?", for this is not love, it does not protect. When one speaks of loving the sinner, does he also speak of blessing their harmful behavior? He does not love, for that does not protect. When one preaches about God, does he preach that all roads lead to Him? He does not love for that does not protect. When one speaks of loving the children, does he also advocate their protection from the most loving thing that has ever happened in the history of man: our salvation from God's wrath through Jesus' death on the cross? He does not love for that does not protect.

In short, love is not always about feeling good, or doing things that make us feel good about ourselves. The truth is, love demands us to do things that can make us feel pretty rotten. Often, on the other hand, some things that make us feel good about ourselves today will in the long run bring about pain and suffering. But love, in the long run, protects.

The One Good Apple Fallacy

2011-03-26T08:23:00.000-07:00

The "one good apple" fallacy references the old adage "one bad apple spoils the whole bushel", except that it works in reverse. It is a fallacy that argues that because someone can point to some counter examples in a group, the group as a whole is insulated from criticism. Example: The Democrat Party is not Anti-Christ because there are a lot of Christians who are Democrats. This argument is fallacious because if a group is organized around stated ideals A and B, the fact that some members of that group claim to be opposed to A and B does not change the groups stated ideals.

Of course this is a fallacy that can be switched on and off as it suits one's needs in persuasion. The very next argument could be that one bad apple does spoil the whole bunch. An example: "The Republican party is immoral, just look at republicans Tom Foley and Larry Craig." Again, this argument ignores the groups stance, and its response according to that stance.

Don't Tell Me That You Love Me... II

2011-03-25T23:25:00.000-07:00

Are these children being loved? Is it an attribute of love and mercy to not talk about the political party that is behind this? Is unity so dear that we would willingly sacrifice the minds of these children at its altar? What kind of hell will this morally retarded generation pour out on our children's children in the name of love and social justice? Where are you O church?

Hat Tip Geeeeez

What Is Obama's Libya Policy? That's Easy

2011-03-23T11:39:00.000-07:00

Questions on Obama's foreign policies can be neatly distilled into three words: "I'm Not Bush."

News stories and headlines these days are awash with questions about Obama's doctrine militarily in Libya. There also seems to be plenty of uncertainty as to the end game there. Does he plan to take out Gaddafi, or not seek his removal? What is Obama's end game.

All of these questions point to much uncertainty about America and the world's future and serve to illuminate the importance of electing leaders based on something besides their ability to campaign for office. Robert Redford's character in "The Candidate", a movie about a political campaign, asked the poignant question after winning at movie's end: "Now what do I do?" Obama seems to have answered that question with "I'll do what I do best, campaign!" Since his inauguration, Obama has come off as one more obsessed with blaming Bush than fixing all the things he blames Bush for. Now that two years have passed, and the blame Bush tact has grown worrisome and predictable, he has transitioned to "I'm not Bush."

Nowhere does this mentality glare like it does in Obama's foreign policy. The Middle East is in turmoil as every day brings news of more slaughters and uprisings, and our president becomes the campaigner and chief; sloganeering his way through press conferences by dredging up his predecessor and ensuring all that he is not him.

Living In The Here And Now

2011-03-22T11:16:00.000-07:00

I could complain about my finances to anyone willing to listen. I could blame the limits of freedoms I experience due to lack of funds on the very large corporation that is my employer--complete with very wealthy CEO--if I wanted. But in order to do that I would have to live in the here and now. But I don't, and I'm glad.

You see, the here and now has no history and looks to no future. It's like the young girl clamoring for her right to choose to crush and dismember the growing life within her. She did nothing to bring herself to this point. Yesterday doesn't exist you see. There was no drunken fling, no bad decisions, no nothing. She simply needs to rid herself of the problem that she faces today. Then there's the woman whose husband has abandoned her and their children to fend for themselves. Forgotten are the pleas to the woman by those who loved her to not marry the abuser or philanderer. Those pleas never happened. They have all disappeared in the rear-view mirror of time along with any reason to grow up; become wiser; and escape the here and now trap she and her children are now in.

It is only logical that a here-and-now society will elect a here-and-now government to Lord over itself. Our welfare system is not going broke because of the sexual encouragement that that has been fed to the generations in the bosom of its government schools. There are hungry children who will starve today. The drug and crime problem have nothing to do with the meaninglessness and accountable-to-no-God relativist education it pours into the heads of its youth; an education that would naturally bring about such behavior. That was yesterday you see, and besides, the people need absolution from their sins... today. What better way to go about that than the claim that there is no such thing. We can exchange "sinful" behavior for "inappropriate" behavior. The consequences of this mindset are not important for they never happened, there is no history, no past decisions or philosophies to be reconsidered going forward, no consequences of past malpractice. No, those things are not in the here and now, they do not exist. Only the immediate problems exist and must be fixed by whatever means is "appropriate" in the here and now.

The Church is not immune. The youth are leaving as soon as they are old enough. There was no dereliction of duty to disciple parents, to hold them accountable, to pastor them in raising the next generation Biblically. That was yesterday. Yesterday does not exist. There were no words spoken against the hierarchy of government responsible for the expulsion of God in the institution that was put in charge of bringing up children in the way they should go either. That too didn't didn't happen, only the immediate problem of a shrinking and graying church is, and of course building mortgages.

Set before me have been many many opportunities that would have been paying very handsome dividends today had I taken advantage them. Many... well, perhaps most I threw away of my own free will because I then lived in the here and now. But there and then has given way to a here and now that produced a wish that I had done things different. But it was I, and I alone, who did it. It is part of my history, part of who I am today, and all my fault. On the bright side, I console myself with the fact that I have lived a free life, free to throw away wonderful opportunities in exchange for youthful whims and short sighted pleasures. But I also was able to escape the prison of the here and now by realizing that the there and then has brought me to the here and now that will give way to a future there and then that too depends on this here and now.

Relax, It's OK, Obama Is A Democrat

2011-03-20T17:22:00.001-07:00

If anyone is having difficulty reconciling the war-is-not-the-answer's dream president with Obama's war and his American bombs falling in Libya; don't feel alone. The only thing I can come up with as to how this could be is that he is trustworthy to do such things because he is a Democrat because he is an intrinsically good person. So, being a Democrat, we can trust his bombs will never kill Libyan children with flying shrapnel; or make Muslims want to blow American infidels up indiscriminately. But even if such horrors do happen don't worry, the media will make sure you don't hear about it; and that's the same as it not happening. As they say, you know: ignorance is bliss. Besides, we know he has good reasons in mind for starting a war. How do we know he has good reasons in mind? Because he's a good person because he is a Democrat. That makes it OK. So, we can turn calmly back to our shared American values of community organizing, Capital protests and what ever Sheen'ish scandal the tabloid minions are currently exploiting, confident that all is well.

The Tyranny Of The Times

2011-03-15T15:12:00.000-07:00

In the midst of a recent discussion I was accused of being "behind the times". That was the best argument the person could put forth against my position on homosexuality; that position being that it is sinful. Of course this is but one of any number of hot button issues that we could have been discussing with the same response. But the sinfulness of a particular behavior is not my point here today. Rather my point is the foundations upon which the arguments against these positions are built. Those arguments, boiled down to their simplest terms, are based on the fact that they are simply out of sync with the consensus of our day.

So then, anyone who would openly insist in these days that certain behaviors are sinful is considered to be a bad person simply because that view is not now widely held... that's it. It should be no surprise given the strength of that argument that actual counter arguments mounted in favor of sinful behaviors are usually abandoned in favor of the much easier avenue of name calling. Assigning a derogatory name to someone with whom you disagree, as oppose to say an intellectual argument, is definitely not "behind the times".

This shallowness has its consequences however, one of them being the loss of freedoms. And in the same way that the man who has lived his life free, upon learning that he is now subject to a tyrant, must decide his course as it pertains to his willingness to submit to that tyrant, so too must the contemporary man who holds to the concept of absolute truths must decide his course under the tyranny of these times. Either way there will be a high price of some sort that will be paid.

Update: see also this article posted by Glen.

A Tale Of Two Equalities

2011-03-11T10:28:00.000-08:00

America has always been about equality. The very document around which its birthday revolves introduces the idea "created equal" in its second sentence. Sadly, as is typical for these times it would seem, the very word "equality" has been corrupted so that we now have one word with two meanings.

Due to the education system's programming, most, I would argue, interpret the word "equality" from a socialist's perspective. This means simply that equality is seen through the lens of outcome. Outcome is key. One must realize however that to accomplish the lofty goal of equal outcome, liberty must be compromised, or even abandoned, for liberty by its very nature creates the opposite of equal outcome. Free men simply engage in unequal pursuits.

The equality mentioned in the Declaration of Independence however reflects a different meaning and understanding. This concept of equality simply seeks equality of opportunity. It desires that every person should be born with equal opportunity in as much as a limited government can provide such an environment.

Words have meanings. It is important that the meaning that is attached by the speaker is the meaning that is received by the hearer lest words simply become code talk to differing groups with differing designs. As for equality socialist style, government, limited or otherwise, cannot materially equalize all the inherent inequalities in our human experience. To attempt such is a fool government's errand and folly on a colossal scale. And when it is dispatched on this errand by those with high minded pie-in-the-sky utopian dreams, it will return, having squandered liberty, bereft of equality.

Calling Sin Sin

2011-03-07T12:17:00.000-08:00

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. ...in the Law Moses commanded us to stone [adulterers]. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him... he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her..." At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time...until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir,” she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin." (for the whole story click here.

To examine the idea of how to, and how not to confront sin let us consider Jesus and this adulteress. This is an oft repeated Bible story today, but more times than not some details are left out; either on purpose or unwittingly to propagate the deception that those who confront sin are unloving and Pharisaical. Those who are fund of using Jesus' words: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" ironically are not much different than those who dragged the adulteress into the public square because of the similar motivations of their hearts. The Pharisees did so out of a desire to entrap Jesus. In the same way, our contemporaries drag her again into the courts, not because of their love of those who are destroying their own lives along with the lives of their spouses and children because of a sin they are practicing. No, they do so in the name of love to propagate the thinking that nothing should be said or done in opposition to sin.

Interestingly enough, never is it considered that Jesus never said to not stone the woman. To be sure, if there was anyone there who had the ultimate right to do so it was Jesus. But more importantly, missing is a defense by Jesus of the woman's behavior. On the contrary, Jesus admonishes her to leave her life of sin. The most important attribute of this story for many it would seem is Jesus' words: "neither do I condemn you". We are told that this is the true act of love that we should emulate. The problem with this take is that it is simply impossible for us to emulate Jesus here. WE no more have the power to condemn the sinner than to save her from condemnation.

In John 3:17-18 we find perhaps some clarification on this. Jesus says:

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Jesus points out here that it was not his mission to condemn. One would presume that this woman was just as much an object of that mission as those who were attempting to entrap him. The fact is that all present, including the woman, were already condemned if they had not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Someone might say that Jesus' loving response would do more to draw this woman to a saving faith than the Pharisees' method of simply pointing out with indignation her sin. But the spirit of our age tends to distract us from a very important point here if we go down that road too far without all the baggage with which the text burdens us. I reiterate here that nowhere in the text is there the slightest indication that the woman had not sinned, or that her sin been renamed as not sin, or that Jesus was OK with it. So the fact that the woman was actually sinning must be a crucial part of our interpretation of this scripture. This truth is perhaps even more crucial in our day because there is a very real tendency to simply rename sinful behavior as either good and normal, or not that bad. At the root of the gospel message is not the message that we no longer need the good news because we have not sinned, but rather that we are in a state of condemnation and are in dyer need of salvation AND a changed heart, and that both are provided. Of coarse many interpret the need for a changed heart as "works" dependent salvation. I address this here

Lastly in considering this text I would like to point out the added caricaturisation that is often implied by "you who are without sin..." This defense often times is a an attempt to make those who call sin sin appear as rabid religious zealots with hands full of stones. Christians should not see themselves as being this caracature. In many cases these words are directed at people who are taking a stand; not taking a stand against any one person in particular, but rather are taking a stand, out of the motivation of true love I might add, against the embrace and exaltation of sins like promiscuity, shacking-up, divorce, homosexuality and of course the golden calf of abortion.

As for me I hate all of these things. I hate even worse that my culture is increasingly embracing them and heaping onto itself increased suffering. I hate this because it is ultimately destroying people. But what breaks my heart mostly is the fact that many of my brethren have been deceived into thinking that speaking out against these things that are so destructive is unloving. The way I see it, silence is the most unloving action we can take.

Bob, The Evil Gas Station Owner

2011-03-04T09:24:00.000-08:00

OK, so I'll simply bypass the dichotomy of "people are basically good" and "Bobs everywhere are looking for any opportunity to gouge the poor ol hardworking American at their gas pumps". This post is in defense of Bob. Well... not exactly. It is in the hopes of helping people who unwittingly show themselves to be economic morons in their vocal bemoaning of Bob.

Bob owns a gas station with three $10,000* gallon tanks in the ground. He has to refill those tanks on an average of once a month. It cost him $90,000 dollars to put fill those tanks at $3.00 a gallon. He hopes to sell it with a dime a gallon profit after overhead, taxes, lawsuit abuse insurance, and EPA compliance red tape, all of which effect the price we pay at the pump. That dime a gallon profit is part of his income and amounts to $3000.00. So far so good when we live in a stable world with relatively stable prices.

But Bob gets word that the cost of the gas he will be buying to refill his tanks next month will cost an additional twenty cents per gallon. So Bob is faced with a dilemma. He can raise the price of the gas in his tanks now by twenty cents a gallon and risk being called every name in the book because it cost the average person an additional $3.00 to fill his 15 gallon tank. Or he can leave the gas at the same price even though he would not only have no income that month, but he would also have to cough up another $3000.00 dollars out of pocket to refill his storage tanks.

But who cares about Bob. We all know that profit is evil. Bob should get up early and go to work every day, and he should risk the resources required to start a business, just so people can feel good about the fact that they are buying their gas for the same price that the person incurring the risk inherent in making it available to them is paying for it.

I am always amazed at the contempt and judgementalism that I see in many of the same people who are otherwise all about loving people where they are and raising the banner of grace in just about every other aspect of the world that they observe. The only difference seems to be that, even though it is only three dollars per refill, it is their three dollars. In other words, this is a case in which they are able to connect the sin of others, and the impact of that sin on themseleves... and they are indignant.

*Although I contend that the principals in this post are sound, all of the numbers are a product of my guestemations based on my distant experience working at more than one gas station in my youth back when buying gas was a matter of speaking the words "three dollars worth of regular" out the window.

Pro Life Ad

2011-02-28T11:54:00.000-08:00

A few seconds well spent. Some things embody the weight of truth. This short ad does just that.

H/T Neil

Legalism vs. Legalism, No One Wins

2011-02-23T10:20:00.000-08:00

It has been my experience that there are two kinds of legalism. One kind earned the Pharisees Jesus's most scathing rebukes. The other has pushed many in the modern church to the precipice of heresy... and beyond.

The legalism that made the Pharisees infamous is a kind of pre-salvation legalism and is built on the notion that one can earn his way out of his condemned position before God. It is "pre" because salvation is received only after a completed obedient life of works. However, according to scripture, the law was never meant to make one righteous, nor was it meant to lay out a road map by which one could earn his own salvation. On the contrary, it was meant to show that man is a sinner and is hopelessly unable to live up to the letter of the law. [1](Rom 7:7-13)

The legalism of our day on the other hand is a kind of post-salvation legalism that results in what is known as antinomianism. Antinominanism is based on the idea that once one has entered into salvation there is no moral law, only grace. It qualifies as legalism only in that it outlaws law. Instead of salvation being the result of obedience to myriad laws, it is now predicated on obedience to one: do not put anyone under the law. Not surprisingly, as with all bad doctrines and heresies, both legalisms have similar effects on the people to which they are taught. They both can be proof texted. They both lead to pain and suffering. They both are a result of bad doctrine. They both cause those who preach them to become hypocritical. They are both man centered. They both give their ardent adherents a sense of pride that causes self-righteous anger when challenged.

But possibly the most important similarity between these two legalisms is that they are both issues of the heart. Following Paul's discussion on the matter of legalism vs. grace in Romans 7, we get this wonderful picture of the war that wages in the heart of the true seeker of God. [2](Rom 7:13-25) This act of war raises what I think is a very pertinent question: If we are not obliged to the law, then why bother joining with Paul in his warring against his own members? The answer to this question can only be found by an examination of our hearts.

One of the evidences that the believer enjoys that reassures him that he is in fact saved is the brokenness he feels in his heart when he inevitably breaks the law. But it is in times like this that we discover that the salve of grace is not cheap, as some might suppose, but rather is a genuine treasure. It is through this grace that we experience our greatest joy in the Lord and our greatest gratitude that on account of our lack of ability to follow God's law our eternal fate is not sealed. [3](Phil 4:4-7) The realization of this truth is what transforms our salvation from a free, as in cheap, insurance policy to a priceless gift. But all of this is cheapened when there is no law by which to abide which means there is no threat being leveled against our mind from the members of our own body. [4](Rom 7:23) But there is a cumulative effect that follows this scriptural error as consequence follows consequence. One such effect is the onset of confusion. Jesus lived a perfect life; a life without sin. This necessarily demands that there was a perfect standard by which he was required to live. The confusion comes when we confuse our attempts to live the perfect life Jesus commanded us to live with our salvation. One type of legalism puts our salvation at stake with each failure, the other outlaws the very standard by which Jesus was declared righteous. Further, as consequence continues to follow consequence, it shouldn't surprise anyone that this predominate scriptural error has created, among many things, an environment by which relativism thrives, both in and out of Christendom.

[1] Rom 7:7-13 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

[2] Rom 7:13-25 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do-this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God-through Jesus Christ our Lord!

[3] Phil 4:4-7 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

[4] Rom 7:23-24 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

A Multi-Faceted Beauty

2011-02-19T01:06:00.000-08:00

This was a post I put up in my beginning blogging days (5/21/07). I still see the world through this lens. I just tonight went back and re read it and thought I would repost it.

If asked, I think most people planted near streams of water and bearing fruit would be able to answer this question with little thought: What one word most defines you in the Body of Christ? As I have personally grown in the Body I realized years ago what that word was for me. The realization of it came while listening to R.C. Sproul Jr. speak of his Father. He mentioned that his Father's whole life could basically be reduced to one word; Holiness, more specifically the Holiness of God. Sproul went on to add that his own life could be summed up by the word Kingdom. Hearing this I realized that if one word could summarize my life, it would be "Truth". My wife's occurred to me just as quickly; "Worship".

I like to think of this as a beautiful kaleidoscope picture portraying the Body of Christ. When its just my wife and I interacting together, the Body of Christ represented by that interaction is two colors, so to speak, constantly interacting with each other as our life intersects with circumstances. As I observe my wife, I am constantly challenged in the area of Worship, and she also in the area of Truth. The result of our oneness summed up as a total becomes Truthful Worship. Add to the kaleidoscope another person along with their unique color and giftings and everything suddenly changes exponentially. As more and more are added, the result for those with eyes to see it, is the beautiful and fully functioning Body of Christ.

As it is in marriage with humility being required to meld two different people into one, so it is within the local church as the Body assembles itself into one. The absence of humility could cause me to become upset with my wife about what I perceive to be her inordinate focus on worship as opposed to truth; the same could happen with individuals within the local church as they interact. In a worse case scenario one could become discontent, surround himself with similarly gifted people, move to Tulsa and start a whole cancerous ministry built on that one theme. As for me, it has been my experience that truth by itself doesn't function very well. It needs to be seasoned with mercy and grace. On the same token, mercy and grace don't function very well without truth.

As we walk humbly before God, these varying gifts become the Body. We are all so dependant on each other, and ultimately it is God who gets the glory as we not only participate, but also experience the beauty of the Body as it functions in a way that is wholly beyond man's ability to orchestrate.

Which Jesus Do They Worship?

2011-02-12T09:53:00.001-08:00

Neil at Eternity Matters asked the question "do they really care what Jesus would do". The "they" here is the apostate teachers: Chuck Currey and Jim Wallis; which incidentally is not an exhaustive list.

Way back in the beginning of the second half of the last century Francis Schaeffer answered this question by showing how a wall had been constructed by man between man and God. He cautioned that the new way of looking at man was as machines. This morphing of man into machine was the result of a strictly material view of man; there is no consciousness aside from that created by the cells and electrical currents in our heads; no soul in need of salvation; only material. With this view man necessarily is only a very sophisticated machine whose actions and decisions are determined by the programming that is the result of millions of years of survival.

This materialistic view of the world found itself in opposition to religion. As a result of the deconstruction of all thinking to preprogrammed electrical currents religion, along with the thinking that life had some eternal meaning beyond surviving for the purposes of consuming copulating and excreting, was expected to subjugate itself to this new thinking. To the extent that Wallis and Currie have been successful, this subjugation has been successful. As the mind of man has effectively closed all knowledge except that gained from empirical evidence has been rejected as "unknowable". "unknowable" is key to understanding the new "post" modern view of religion. More on this latter.

So what is the fallout of this new expectation of religion? The embracing and acceptance of religions that subject themselves to this new view of religion in general proves that the idea of religion is too tenacious to be eradicated from the minds of modern man even in the most materialistic of societies. It appears that upwards of ninety percent of all people are not willing to embrace their own meaninglessness. This brought about two results.

First, a truce was effected between modernism and religion. Modernism set forth the boundaries within which religion had to function and religion agreed to be irrelevant in exchange. Beyond the Prozac effect that comes with the creating of ones own god willing to subject itself/herself/himself to modernism's terms and conditions, religion lost its impact on culture. All western churches are to some degree held captive to these terms and conditions as can be seen by the extreme focus on temporal material, comfort and inner-peace, and the diminished focus on things eternal. Western churches therefore, to the extent they have knowingly or unknowingly bought into this new way of thinking, have been reduced to a Prozac of sorts for the soul. A feminized version of God: He loves you very much, He knows what you're going through, and He cares deeply about you is the central theme it seems these days, a theme that is used as a salve for our deep sense of meaninglessness. Gone are concepts of man's depravity, Hell, God's wrath, and the so-great-of-a-Salvation accomplished on the cross; these are not salve; they are not Prozac, they rightly provide no inner peace for the soul, but they are just as true.

Secondly, religion in general has been used quite effectively in history as a means of accessing power. This is where Christianity stands apart and why Christianity, as opposed to other religions, is attacked daily, and attacked no less from a position of proclaimed ignorance, read we-can't-know. Assertions of truth are made against the unknowable from this position of we-can't-know. But the attacks are not against those that have set of house keeping this side of the we-can't-know Wall like Wallis and Currie. No, the attacks are directed against those who refuse to mind that Wall and thereby deny those who embrace religion for the purpose of access to power the power they desire. In short, it denies political hacks posing as "reverends" of control over the thought life of Christians and their vote. How funny it is that this seems to be the number one complaint against those who have been termed by those who lust for power beyond their grasp using the language of power: "the religious right".

So how do we use this narrative to answer the question posed by the Title: "Which Jesus do they worship?", and Neil's question: "Do they really care what Jesus would do?". In my mind the answer to the first question answers the second. Schaeffer points out in "How Then Should We Live" that since a Wall was erected by man between God and man, anything put on the other side of that wall is only a symbol representing what man desires of the god he has created. This changes our language into babble, for the word Jesus no longer means the same thing to all who use it. For some, like the Wallis/Currie camp who see religion as an access point for political power, the word is symbolic of their Marxist/socialist/communist/leftest/atheistic/material centered redistributive political aspirations. So by pointing out that the Jesus they worship is only a word: "Jesus", that symbolizes anything but the Jesus that was born of a virgin, raised people from the dead, died on the cross to save from the wrath of a Holy and Righteous God those who deserve that wrath--all of which are an anathema for the materialist--we know that it is a different Jesus. So by being a different Jesus; a Jesus conflated into a symbol representing the utopian desires of depraved men, we can truly answer Neil's question with "Yes", they do.

To Believe Or Not To Believe, This Is Not The Question

2011-02-08T08:59:00.001-08:00

Whether intentionally or not our choice of words can be deceiving. Since words are the material out of which we construct our thinking, the facades of our thought life can sometimes hide perspectives and angles that tend to deceive. One such instance of this can be seen in the words we use to discuss the belief, or "un-belief", in God. We tend to categorize people as such:

"Some people believe in God, and some people do not believe in God."

But this is a misleading statement. It leads one to the wrong conclusion that the action, "belief", is the distinguishing characteristic. By the choice of words in this sentence we are misled into thinking that some do believe, and some do not believe. But let us look a little closer at this same statement rearranged:

"Some people believe there is no God, and some people believe there is a God."

This is actually the more correct way of conveying the true thought because the action, belief, remains constant.

So why is this important? Well, for two reasons: First, while I don't think the person making this claim is ever intentionally misleading the hearer, he does unintentionally mislead himself, for this is a negative statement and as such only informs the hearer of what he does not do. It does not address what the person does do. The fact remains that what he ultimately does do is believe; only he believes there is no God. So in the end we are all ultimately "believers"; only some are believers in the existence of God, and some are believers in the non-existence of God.

Second, this statement secretly opens the door for special pleading . Special Pleading is the act of asserting that a certain act is inappropriate while at the same time pleading that that same act is good in ones own case. For example, for me to demand that the death penalty is an appropriate form of justice for murder while at the same time demanding that it should not be carried out on myself when guilty of murder is special pleading. In the same way demanding that society be conducted according to the unprovable belief that there is no God based on the assertion that His existence is unprovable is Special Pleading.

This may seem like a small thing but it by no means is, for it determines who plays offense and defense in the culture wars; with defense always holding the advantage. It determines who must attack the thick-closed-minded walls of academia to exact change such as the inclusion of something so benign as Intelligent Design in the education of children, or even the truth that evolution remains an unverified theory, or who gets to sit on those walls and hurl insults and just-so stories posing as science.

Ephesians 6 admonishes us that we do not war with flesh and blood, but against the powers, the principalities, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Christians should not be mislead into believing that Christianity is not reasonable and cannot stand against the weak faith that there is no God and the just-as-religious belief systems posing as science that are being preached from the pulpits of the so-called institutions of academia.

Wallace/Currie Hymnal Suggestions

2011-01-29T01:38:00.000-08:00

This morning, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, I had the old song "Mercedes Benz" by the late Janice Joplin running through my head. I couldn't remember all the words but it became readily obvious to me that this song might well qualify as a worship song for the materialism-worshiping congregants of the Jim Wallace and Chuck Currie ilk. So... I found the lyrics. You be the judge.

"Mercedes Benz"

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.

Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,

So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?

Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.

I wait for delivery each day until three,

So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?

I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.

Prove that you love me and buy the next round,

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends,

Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,

So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

American History In Black And White

2011-01-27T15:45:00.000-08:00

This documentary from David Barton by Wall Builders is a great find for those interested in a history of black Americans with the modern filters of political correctness and revisions removed. Below is a part of this documentary. It is apropos for these days for it sets the record straight, not as leftest and party-first loyalist "journalists" like Chris Mathews do by name calling and presenting opinion and wishful thinking as history, but by reciting many of the writings of the times. If you are a homeschooler, it is good. If you have children in public schools, it is most definitely a must. I admonish you to equip your children with the truth! It is well worth the money and you'll be glad you did! Also check out David Borton and Wall Builder's web site, and other helpful you-tube clips.

Documentary By The Man Woman Myth

2011-01-21T01:09:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Laura at Full Of Grace, Seasoned With Salt for finding this series of videos on feminism. This one is part three of six. They can all be watched on You Tube. While I don't agree with some of the conspiracy sounding language (click here for an explanation), these clips resonated with me in many ways; like a frog in the pot suddenly feeling some water at a normal temperature for a change and suddenly realizing that the water around him has gotten really really hot. Still, these do not approach the issue from a Christian perspective as much as a materialistic perspective so be warned of some sparse profanity.

Insurance Refresher

2011-01-20T11:02:00.000-08:00

Meet Bob. Bob knows a catastrophe could bankrupt him and he doesn't want to live his life with this hanging over his head. This creates a dilemma for Bob because the very fact that he is alive inherently involves risk, yet Bob wants to somehow reduce those risks.

While Bob knows he can't eliminate his risks entirely, he also knows that the odds of an encounter with that risk is somewhat remote. With this in mind he talks to many people and convinces 100 friends and neighbors to contribute a set amount of money into a pool with the knowledge that the money would be used to help any of them to off-set a catastrophe should one occur. Some, on the other hand, like John who preferred to instead buy a monster truck with chrome rims, forgoes joining in the cooperative effort. More about John later.

With the knowledge of the increasing amount of money in the pot Bob sleeps easier at night knowing that a much larger lump of money than he could possibly save is available should catastrophe strike. Furthermore, with the return they are getting on this pooled money it is grwoing on its on so there is now talk of reducing the required contributions.

Re-enter John. One day Bob gets a call. John has just wrecked his monster truck and wants to begin contributing to the fund in order to gain access to the now sizable amount of money in the fund for repairs.

What is the right thing for Bob and the 99 others to do?

Life Is Indeed Short

2011-01-17T01:00:00.000-08:00

See an interesting video here about a young high school man, Nathan, with a terminal disease. Near the end of the clip He speaks to what looks to be his classmates about the advantage of knowing when he is going to die. As for me the reality of my mortality came relatively early I think. In my twenties I can remember lying on my back looking up at my arm. As I would hold it before me the crushing realization that one day it would rot would settle in on me like a ton of bricks. Morbid I know. I would remember all the milestones of my past that I had waited for so anxiously: a driver's licence, finishing high school, getting out of the military, the first paying job of my profession. These events came... and they went..., and just as certainly, I knew that a date with my last heart beat loomed just as certainly on the horizon.

As a non-Christian this reality would bring on a paralyzing fear. As a Christian it is only oppressive; but it is a reality. Once after attending a funeral I wondered aloud amongst friends what people would say at my funeral. A friend that knows me quite well spoke without hesitation saying dryly: "It finally happened".

Still, even with the seemingly heightened awareness of my mortality I can't help but wonder: am I numbering my days so that I can present to God a heart of wisdom? This short video may guide your thoughts as well to some much needed soul searching.

Don't Tell Me That You Love Me

2011-01-15T09:03:00.000-08:00

At some point in recent history the American Church took the tact that speaking out against laws being passed by the government caused division. It was political and politics didn't belong in the church. (the 5013c impact) There was a move instead to be more "loving". As this thinking increased the salt and light of the church decreased in the public square and the sanctuary. Acceptance has become the tenor as sins are being embraced in some segments of the church, or simply disregarded in others.

This gave those who wrote laws free reign to experiment on society as they wished with all kinds of man-centered philosophies with the promise of utopia . The family is now in shambles, the blood of the unborn cries out to God, and the government is bankrupt as a result of inserting itself between immoral behavior and its consequences. All of this is done under the guise of compassion.

That's OK I guess. It is the way of a society that has casted off all restraints. Just please, don't try to tell me, as the ponzi-scheme that is the morass of "social programs" collapses, as the children are trained to be barbarians and the fruit of the toil of everyone from the aged to those who have yet to survive the womb is being squandered on vain and futile fantasies, that you love me.

A Little More Perspective On Hate

2011-01-12T15:31:00.000-08:00

Given the recent discussion on a certain kind of media causing us to do things that we wouldn't otherwise do, this Video Clip raises the question: do the people writing the tweets in this video listen to that media? If what we are being told is correct, these people would be warm and friendly to everyone to everyone if only they were not exposed to some outside corrupting influences. I say this becuase in this clip you will see not a word associating the man who pulled the trigger in Tuscon to the deaths that resulted.

Will someone eventually kill Sara Palin? I honestly don't know, but even if I had never seen this clip, it would come as no surprise to me if they did. The hatred for her spewing forth has for three years now been as thick as mud.

Here is the clip with a Hat Tip to "John Shuck Made Me Do It".

Warning:
this is a look into the world of those who preach peace and love, though there is no sound, be warned that the language is very foul.

Imagine Consistency

2011-01-11T09:46:00.000-08:00

Imagine that a massacre like the one in Tuscon was carried out by a Muslim. Suppose that that Muslim shouted Allah Akbar the entire time he was methodically picking off his victims? Would the media blame Islam for calling for that very thing out right; or would they defend Islam as a religion of peace and deny the connection? Hmmmmm... didn't something like that happen just recently? Does this event remind us more of that event, or say... an event that Democrats feel they are more capable of churning up political mud? Like say the Oklahoma City Bombing.

If Democrats and their media mouth pieces were consistent and they truly believed what they tell us about Islam, that is that we should not upset them lest they become angry and kill even more of us, shouldn't they try to disassociate as much as they're able the Tuscon Massacre with conservatism?

I'm not conceding that there actually is a connection that needs to be disassociated outside the minds of liberals, but because it does exist in their minds, consistency would demand, one would think, a similar reaction. But then again, it is not unreasonable for a group to treat their true enemies like true enemies.

A Calvanist's Fear

2011-01-09T06:00:00.001-08:00

There has always been scripture that scares me. I know that being afraid as a believer is not a popular doctrine these days but fear can be quite the motivator for self examination. There is the “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it" scripture. Narrow? Well just how narrow? Then there's : "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ ".

Recently I was meditating on another text and the more I did so the more concerned I became: "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son". Now, I take this text to mean exactly what it says realizing that doing so puts me in the Calvinist's camp. The argument is made against Calvinists however that God doesn't want us to walk around worrying about whether or not we have been "chosen" or not, which, as it turns out, the very thing I worry about. But what am I to do? Ignore these kinds of scripture that warn us that our presuppositions might be false? For you see, I know me like no one else, and I know that I am not anywhere near being conformed into the image of His son.

Still, the fear is not my major concern here. I can deal with the fear in this temporal life. What I can't deal with is the eternal consequences of being wrong.

It's A Harsh World After All

2011-01-05T10:55:00.000-08:00

I can't deny that I have loved living in an affluent society. (1) It has truly been a blessing. But I can also see how affluence has skewed my vision and even blinded our society as a whole. We forget that this blessing is not normal in the wider view of history but rather is a deviation from normal. The reality that we live in an inherently harsh world in fact clashes with our life long experience. This experience sets us up for what is called a "Normalcy Bias". A Normalcy Bias is a state of mind that, according to Wikipedia, causes us to assume that "since a disaster never has occurred... it never will". This nothing-really-bad-can-or-ever-will-happen state of mind blinds us to the reality that we actually live in a very harsh world; a world that is way more hostile to our utopian desires than we can comprehend. (2)

While most, it should be safe to assume, have a reasonable understanding of the harsh realities of natural disasters, these disasters are quite tame when compared to the harsher realities of the political and economic calamities brought on by man. Natural disasters brought us building codes for constructing dwellings that could withstand its ire which mitigate the human tole of its wrath. But with all the seemingly randomness of nature's furry, and the unfathomable power it unleashes, its randomness actually becomes our ally for it is indifferent in its furry. Not so with the furry of man. Nature therefore, as it turns out, can't hold a candle to the destruction and suffering brought to bear against man by man.

Another tenet of normalcy bias, according to whoever the writer was on Wikipedia, is: "People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation." It is difficult for anyone who does not participate in an affluent society to take this perspective.

So what does this mean? It means that we can go about our lives interpreting the economic facts that our government is annually spending deficit amounts that are beyond the grasp of the human mind and, in a spiritual sense, that we can institutionalize then teach all our children the idea that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong and that all our lives are the result of random chance and are ultimately meaningless in the most optimistic way possible.

But the reality that we live in a harsh world will not be thwarted forever. Creating "money" out of thin air to built a wall between action and consequence will work only for a little while, but it will have its long term ramifications, and those ramifications will demonstrate the forgotten reality that we do in fact live in a world inherently harsh to our adolescent ideas of a utopian existence.

Notes:

1. Emphasis on "in" an affluent society; and by this I mean Western Society generally and American Society specifically. I am not claiming to be affluent myself, at least not according to the American understanding of that term, but I am able to realize that on a global scale, even in light of all the limitations placed upon me by my economic condition, that I do live an affluent life; and I do so along with the great majority of other citizens of this society.

2. I am a harsh critic of "utopian desires", but still understand all people's, including my own, desire of a utopian existence. The desire is not, in my opinion, the problem, but rather the willy nilly willingness to go on destructive and rage based rampages in pursuit of some future unrealistic and ever elusive state of being.

A Great Football Play

2011-01-03T22:23:00.000-08:00

This is a Middle School football game wherein an on-field lesson was presented to these youngsters that will come in handy for off-field life should they take heed: things are not always as they appear.

51 Ways To Survive

2010-12-29T21:53:00.000-08:00

If any of you who are snow-bound now are also hoarders or collectors of worthless junk, perhaps you might find buried or stashed somewhere this magazine. It offers 51 tips on how to survive.

However I hope its tips on surviving the ice age are more insightful than its cold war prognosis. But then again, perhaps it was the can-do American spirit applied to following those tips that caused global warming. Hey!... it's worth a thought.

The 2012 Obama Campaign Has Begun

2010-12-28T12:41:00.000-08:00

The title is a misnomer really. President Obama is a professional campaigner who seems to always speak as if he is on the campaign trail about what he is going to do to fix the world's problems if ~~elected~~ reelected, and what the evil money grubbing Republicans are doing to thwart his saintly efforts.

But politicians are politicians, and campaigning is what they do... more or less. The campaigning of which I speak is not politicians however. It is being done by the propagandist organs whose continued attempts to pass themselves off as objective providers of "news" has reached the level of eerie.

Looking at the headlines in today's 8 page new's section of USA Today, Obama is mentioned three times. And lest we forget the face of evil, Bush is mentioned once.

Obama gets in some rainy-day bowling (why he just like you ordinary people)
Obama leads admired-man ranks (proof that figures lie and liars figure. Remember the drum beat on Bush's approval rating?)
Presidents often stiff-arm party loyalists (an everybody does it defense reserved for Democrats)
O.J., George W. Bush make this columnist's bucket list (The Title doesn't say it all... that is unless you don't read the article which winds up being not much more than the author's tooting of his own horn)

It's going to be a long two years of the puffing and vilifying we have come to expect from politicians... and as of late, the so called news media. The question I have is: with the golden ring of Utopia almost within grasp, how far will they go?

Another Arbitrary Law For The Books

2010-12-20T19:35:00.000-08:00

Don't ask don't tell, an interim compromise between President Clinton 17 years ago and a nation of people not yet willing to do such integral tinkering with America's front line defenders, was repealed today. What strikes me most about this decision--and is the point of this post--was its basis in arbitrariness. Now I'm sure for anyone who supports this legislation there is nothing at all arbitrary about it; that in fact it was the right thing to do. For those who think--or perhaps more aptly put, "feel"--this way, it is virtually impossible for them to grasp the fact that it actually was arbitrary.

One example of this can be seen in the next generation of deviancy. Although this particular strain of deviancy is still predominantly thought to be deviant, as we will see, the fact remains for most that the basis of it being considered deviant is still arbitrary.

In December a self published book found its way onto Amazon that caused quite a stir. The name of the Book was: "The Pedophile's Guide To Love And Pleasure". After protests, Amazon removed the book but complained that it did not believe in censoring certain books because someone found the content objectionable. A question that both sides of the "debate" should be asking themselves after making such a moral proclamation, whether to the positive or negative, is "why?". Why is it good to not censor material for example? The answers one gives to himself in such an examination of thought will give insight into whether the stance is arbitrary, or based on an objective value. For teh person who finds that each answer only leads to another "why?", then for him it is arbitrary and his position will either be convinced to change, or will gain or loose ground based on raw power. Such is the way of a world based on arbitrary morals.

One should keep in mind while doing such an evaluation that not only was homosexuality once predominately thought of negatively, but so were other sexual sins like adultery and promiscuity. These sins however have since been removed from their foundation of objective truth then then blown away by the hurricane winds of pop culture. As can be clearly seen in the incremental acceptance of these sins and others, one can only assume the decade of the pedophile is on its way. I can almost hear the scoffs and claims that such will never happen. But I've heard it all before. You'll know it has arrived when you find yourself defending yourself against the label: "Pedophobe".

Imagine No Global Warming

2010-12-15T07:38:00.000-08:00

Found this on FB. It is so appropriate because of Lennon's dream of a world without "religion". I'm not sure if he had in mind the religion of environmentalism... but its fun to imagine, and easy to do when we try.

Flight Delays and Trade Offs

2010-12-11T16:29:00.000-08:00

I was in the process of writing another post on the concept of "Trade Offs" when the News informed its listeners that ALL flights to certain hub cities like Minneapolis and Detroit were being cancelled due to snow. Unless you had an appointment in one of those cities, or other plans, the chances are that this news only invoked a hmmmmmm.

But these cancellations didn't just happen because of a snow storm. There were trade offs involved. This is how it works:

News worthy horror stories spread across the country about passengers held on airplanes for extensive delays. And they are horror stories, but still unlikely to happen to you-- kind of like a terrorist attack--which you shouldn't worry about for those same reasons.
Congress, in its infinite wisdom, finds time between its normal business of ferreting out ever more outlandish ways to spend your money, to write laws making such horror stories illegal.
These laws are passed with the effect of limiting the time that you, the innocent passenger, can be held against your will on airplanes for the purposes of more profit by those evil corporate executives; imposing stiff penalties should they fail to abide.
Evil cooperate airline executives, knowing that Snow+Airports+Air-traffic, along with the the new rules: Delays=Extensive fines, simply cancels ALL flights. Why the same reality of Snow+Evening rush hour=delays does not correlate to air travel in the minds of most, I don't know. (Why Congress hasn't outlawed extensive evening commute times is beyond me, and perhaps a subject better suited for one less informed about the simple realities of twenty-first century life than most)
Bob, who holds a ticket for an important meeting in a city; or Sue, who wants to see her dying mom one last time, suddenly learn that their flight has simply been canceled due to snow.

And there you have it. Bob and Sue's "choice" of making the trade off of incurring the unfortunate extensive delays that are associated by storms in order to possibly make it to their destination has been taken away by those who know better; and America says hmmmmmm... I've never seen the airlines do this before.... I wonder why its different this year?

An Essay On The Argument

2010-12-11T15:48:00.000-08:00

This article is a post copied in it's entirety from The Aristophrenium Blog. My reasons for doing this are two fold: (a)I hope it will be help to others, (b), it is an article that I know I will reference again in the future. The second of those is the main reason. I will know just where to find it when I need it.

An Essay In Strong Arguments

For some of our readers and most of our staff, this argument is not exactly new. It was an argument I had formulated back in May of this year, in support of an article Adam had written against “pro-choice” rhetoric on abortion (Morgan, 2010). After having evaluated this argument from different angles and subjecting it to several tests from critical opponents, it appears that the argument is unassailable. Thus I want to use it as an illustration of what a strong argument is and what goes into it.

The anatomy of an argument

First, a few words about arguments, starting with what they actually are. Most people think of arguments as being a quarrel between two people, such as spouses or siblings, in which heated words are exchanged, voices raised, doors slammed and so forth. While that is the colloquial or informal sense, it is not how the term is used here, which is the formal sense of being a set of propositions intended to establish a conclusion. (A hat tip must be given to Michael Palin for this definition, which he expresses in the comedy sketch “Argument Clinic” in Monty Python’s Flying Circus [Cleese, 1972]. Sure it was comedy, but his definition of an argument was spot on). So to give an argument is to demonstrate the reasoning by which some belief is reached, where the belief functions as the conclusion that is then established by supporting reasoning.

Now there are two tests an argument must satisfy in order to be persuasive: it must be valid and it must be sound. Validity is the primary or most important test because the truth of the premises must logically guarantee the truth of the conclusion, otherwise the truth of the premises is made irrelevant (by failing to justify the conclusion). That is why the other test, soundness, is predicated on validity and thus secondary. In other words: (a) an argument is ‘valid’ if and only if the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; (b) it is ‘sound’ if and only if the argument is both valid and the premises actually are true. Consequently, an argument that is valid and sound should be persuasive. ^[1] (It is worth pointing out that only arguments can be valid or invalid, not propositions, and only propositions can be true or false, not arguments.)

An example of a strong argument

Having said that, I would like to present what appears to be a sound argument; i.e., it is logically valid and the premises are actually true. In the face of critical evaluation by myself and several opponents, the argument holds firm. Even though the conclusion is highly controversial, neither premise can be easily denied.

The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong.
Elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human.
Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong.

It is of critical importance that the propositions and the terms employed are carefully calculated and chosen, so as to garner acceptance by the broadest audience possible. It is easy for people to reject an insular argument; it is considerably more difficult for them to reject one that coheres and is consistent with their view and values. With the argument above, I have framed the propositions and chosen the terms with great care and precision so that the conclusion follows logically from premises whose truth could not be easily denied by most sensible people.

For example, I chose the word “deliberate” to convey the sense of intentionality, that is, killing as a conscious and informed act, premeditated (cf. accidental killing may be argued as not morally wrong); “killing” obviously means to cause death, deprive of life, put to death; ^[2] “innocent” was chosen to distinguish from cases where the deliberate killing of humans might not be morally wrong, for example, soldiers on the battlefield (enemy combatants), the death penalty (convicted felons), shooting someone who breaks into your house (mortal threats) and so forth; “human” obviously should not be controversial, simply indicating any member of the species Homo sapiens; “elective” is used to indicate abortions that are not medically necessary yet performed by the choice of the mother, distinguished from those abortions that are medically necessary, such as an ectopic pregnancy. ^[3]

Why this argument is strong

The argument is perfectly valid; i.e., if the premises are true then it is impossible for the conclusion to not be. ^[4]So the question is, “Are the premises actually true?” The second premise is a concrete matter of fact, semantically and genetically. One would have to be scientifically illiterate to think that a fetus is not human; every relevant biology source one can check, whether textbook or online, describes the biological life cycle ofHomo sapiens as beginning with the fertilized egg or zygote (Saladin, 2001; Browder, 1991; Moore, 1982; see also “Human” in Wikipedia, specifically the biology section describing the human life cycle). And clearly a fetus is innocent, both legally and morally, being categorically unable to violate any law or ethic. And by definition elective abortions are deliberate, given what “elective” means.

That leaves us with the truth-value of the first premise. Is it true that the deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong? Since the range of people to whom this argument can be presented is so broad—from Christians to Secular Humanists, from Wiccans to Muslims, from Scientologists to Hindus and so on—it is almost certain that nearly everyone will bring a unique moral theory to the table (meta-ethics). ^[5] As a result, I designed the first premise to be self-evidently true (which I do not mean in either an analytic or epistemic sense); that is, I am relying on people simply having a morality and accepting the premise as true in light of their morality. Whether Hindu or Secular Humanist and so forth, given their morality they will concede that the first premise is true, allowing for relevant exceptions. In other words, I expect only Nihilists and psychopaths to reject it and assert that the deliberate killing of innocent humans is “not morally wrong.” Most everyone else would agree that it is wrong, minus certain relevant exceptions.

So that raises the important question of exceptions. What circumstance could a person conceive as an exception, under which the deliberate killing of innocent humans is not morally wrong? Some might suggest, “Abortion, of course,” but since that is the very question it cannot be begged (petitio principii fallacy). The only serious proposal I can think of is euthanasia, where a terminal patient is suffering incurable pain or for any reason wishes to have their life end. While that is arguably a good exception, where the deliberate killing of such an innocent human could be argued as a moral good, it is not an effective undercutter to this argument for a couple of significant reasons.

First, it would admit that over 99.9 percent of all elective abortions are morally wrong since (a) a fetus suffering incurable pain has never been cited in the literature as a reason given for performing an abortion, but more importantly, (b) scientific evidence indicates that the neurological pathways that allow for the conscious perception of pain do not even function until the third trimester (Lee, 2005, pp. 947-954), and according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute only 0.08 percent of abortions occur past twenty-four weeks and ninety-two percent of abortion providers will not perform the procedure in the third trimester (Jones, 2008, pp. 6-16). So as an exception, then, it is fairly useless because it leaves the argument with a powerful punch, conceding that 99.9 percent of elective abortions are morally wrong.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, euthanasia as an exception does not include elective abortion within its fold. But in order to show that, a word must be said about euthanasia first. Let it be understood that there are three categories of euthanasia: involuntary, non-voluntary, and voluntary. Given that involuntary euthanasia is defined as ending the life of someone against their will, it is little more than a fancy term for murder (involving the intent to kill or the knowledge that one’s actions would result in death). Non-voluntary euthanasia is defined as ending the life of someone who is incapable of expressing their will; that is, it is neither according to nor against their will. And voluntary euthanasia, the one usually contemplated when discussing the issue, is defined as ending the life of someone according to their will. As an exception that elective abortion can qualify under, both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can be dismissed since a fetus is incapable of expressing any will one way or the other about the ending of his or her life.

So that leaves only non-voluntary euthanasia. In order to have relevance to elective abortion we must suppose a scenario that involves a patient on life support who shows signs of recovery and is expected to come off life support after a few months in good health (analogous to a fetus within the womb). Thus we are presented with a question that practically answers itself: Is it morally wrong to turn off the life support system of a patient who shows signs of recovery and is expected to come off life support after a few months in good health? If it is morally wrong in that case, then it is wrong in the case of elective abortion as well. Every scenario wherein it is arguably a moral good to turn off a patient’s life support involves circumstances that do not apply to a fetus who shows signs of development and is expected to be born after a few months in good health. Ergo, euthanasia fails to define an exception that includes elective abortion within its fold.

Conclusion

There are four things that go into developing a strong argument. First, construct the argument concisely according to the principles of logic and rules of inference; this will allow others to more easily discern and critically evaluate your argument without the need to interpret and unpack what they think your argument might be. Plus it will go far toward teaching yourself critical thinking skills. Second, construct the premises clearly, being careful to avoid ambiguous terms and language; the more perspicuous you are with your argument, the less opportunities others will have for constructing Straw Man versions of it. Third, insofar as you are able, build your argument using terms and language that appeals to the broadest spectrum of audience possible. ^[6] The example argument appeals to the contentious issue of morality, but it does not depend on any one moral theory; it suffices that the reader simply has one, whatever it may happen to be. It is also heavily predicated on scientific and statistical data, meeting its burden of proof and being very difficult to deny. (For example, it forces opponents into either conceding the point or having to claim that a fetus is not of the human species until a certain point of development; i.e., that the biological life cycle of Homo sapiens does not begin at sexual reproduction, in direct contradiction to developmental biology which shows that two members of one species reproduce members of that species. From the fertilized egg onward a human develops.) And finally, a strong argument is one which produces a unique conclusion that advances our knowledge. (Contrast this with tautological arguments, which are valid and sound but have neither epistemological nor dialectal force because they do not impart any new information.) For example, the argument used here reasoned from premises most anyone can accept to a conclusion that is controversial yet logically guaranteed by the premises.

The argument is valid, that is, the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. And the argument is sound, insofar as the premises actually are true (regardless of the moral theory brought to bear). To all those who are against elective abortions, I encourage you to enjoy and use this argument. To all those who support elective abortions, I invite you to submit logically valid and rational objections to the argument; those not already addressed in this article will be published and answered by me below. The comments field to this article will be closed. All submissions must be made to me by email at ryft@aristophrenium.com.

(Click here for a PDF copy of this article.)

Objections and questions

“Why does your analysis of euthanasia say that the fetus is suffering incurable pain? That is not the only reason for choosing euthanasia.”

While that is true, other possible criteria for ethical non-voluntary euthanasia do not apply to a fetus. For example, a comatose patient who, in the judgment of physicians, shows no sign of ever coming off life support could qualify for ethical non-voluntary euthanasia. However, this is inapplicable to a fetus, which is never at risk of staying inside the womb (cf. life support) indefinitely.

“What about patients who qualify for euthanasia because, despite potentially coming off life support, they suffered brain damage that diminishes their quality of life?”

That is a highly contentious and prejudicial issue which lacks any clear scientific and rational justification (Bellieni, 2006, pp. 103-105) and is thus not a credible objection to stand on. The scientific merits of the second premise outweighs the weakness of this prejudiced objection.

“Abortion rights advocates would argue that the fetus is not a human being until it is viable outside the womb.” — “A fetus is not a person.”

This ignores the fact that such terms as ‘being’ and ‘person’ were not invested in the argument; the one is a point of philosophy, the other is a point of law. The argument, however, is predicated on a point of science, that throughout fetal development the unborn belong to the species Homo sapiens.

REFERENCES:

Bellieni, C. (2006). ‘Quality of life’ is a misnomer: the case for neonatal euthanasia. Journal of Medicine and the Person 4(3). (N.B. Given what Bellieni’s paper argues, the title is somewhat misleading. It ought to read “the case against neonatal euthanasia.”)
Browder, L., Erickson, C. & Jeffery, W. (1991). Developmental Biology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Harcourt College Publishing.
Cleese, J. & Chapman, G. (Writers). (1972, November 2). Argument clinic. In MacNaughton, I. (Producer) Monty Python’s Flying Circus. United Kingdom: BBC Television.
Finer, L., Frohwirth, L., Dauphinee, L., Singh, S., & Moore, A. (2005). Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37(3).
Jones, R., Zolna, M., Henshaw, S., & Finer, L. (2008). Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services.Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 40(1).
Lee, S., Ralston, H, Drey, E., Partridge, J., & Rosen, M. (2005). Fetal pain: A systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association 294.
Moore, K. (1982). The Developing Human, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.
Morgan, A. (2010, May 6). How to respond to empty pro-choice rhetoric. [Blog post.] The Aristophrenium. Retrieved fromhttp://aristophrenium.com.
Saladin, K. (2001). Anatomy and Physiology, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sihvo, S., Bajos, N., Ducot, B., & Kaminski, M. (2003). Women’s life cycle and abortion decision in unintended pregnancies.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57(8).
Torres, A. & Forrest, J. (1988). Why do women have abortions? Family Planning Perspectives 20(4).
Human. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. (See "Life cycle.") Retrieved 9 December 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human.

FOOTNOTES:

I say "should be" because an argument being persuasive does not guarantee that everyone will be persuaded by it. While a person might agree that the argument is logically valid and that the premises are indeed true, he may still reject the argument anyway. However, all that reveals is that he values something more than logic and truth, since he rejected the argument at the expense of both.
"Life" is a property that distinguishes between that which has signaling and self-sustaining processes and that which does not, exhibiting such things as cellular organization, homeostasis, metabolism, growth, response to stimuli and so forth. Something does not have life when either those biological functions have ceased (death) or when it never possessed those functions in the first place (inanimate).
The vast majority of abortions performed are "not medically necessary," chosen for reasons such as: not ready for a(nother) child; inadequate finances; would interfere with work or education; do not wish to be a single parent; relationship problems; not mature enough, and so forth. Only seven percent of women cite health concerns for herself or the fetus, one percent cite rape, and less than half a percent cite incest (Finer, 2005, pp. 110-118; Sihvo, 2003, pp. 601-605; Torres, 1988, pp. 169–176).
The argument reduces like so:
1. The deliberate killing of innocent humans (M) is morally wrong (P).
2. Elective abortion (S) is the deliberate killing of an innocent human (M).
3. Therefore, elective abortion (S) is morally wrong (P).
This is a universal affirmatives syllogism:
1. All M is P. (major premise)
2. All S is M. (minor premise)
3. All S is P. (conclusion)
The term meta-ethics refers to the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with identifying and understanding the origin and meaning of ethical statements, concepts, properties, and attitudes. That is, while ethics deals with what is moral, meta-ethics deals with what morality is.
However, it is not necessary to construct your argument using terms and language that appeals to the broadest spectrum of audience possible; an argument supporting some Humanist belief, for example, will obviously use terms specific to a Humanist worldview. But while that is perfectly rational, nevertheless it reduces its persuasive force. It allows others to concede the consistency of the belief but not necessarily accept it as true. (But that only matters if persuading others is your intent, which it may not be. Typically I could not care less if others accept the conclusion that my argument establishes; quite often such autobiographical detail is irrelevant.)

Aslan A Representation of Muhammad?

2010-12-06T14:33:00.000-08:00

Aslan is the lion symbolising Jesus in the fictitious land of Narnia from a series of children's books written by C.S. Lewis called "The Chronicles Of Narnia. The symbolism is clear and unmistakable.

Liam Neeson, the voice for Aslan in the Narnia movies, however has been quoted as saying that "Aslan symbolises a Christ-like figure but he also symbolizes for me Muhammad...". As if any more proof was needed that good acting does not equate to good theology.

In Neeson's world I'm sure that's how he sees it, and he is perfectly within his right to make for himself any crutch he feels necessary to make sense of his life. Interestingly however, by doing this Neeson reveals that he lives his life in a world more fictitious than that of the talking lion for whom he provides the voice, for Lewis was not silent in this series on Islam.

Who could read "A Horse And His Boy" and not make the connections between the Calamarines and Islam, Tisrok and Mahammad, and Tash and Allah? Interestingly, Lewis almost prophetically anticipates Neeson's sentiments in his concluding book in the series. In "The Last Battle" A deceptive coup takes place in the land of Narnia while the King is away. The would-be new king, an Ape named Shift, is claiming that he is the new chosen spokes"man" for Aslan, and he claims that Alsan has decreed that he and the Tash are One; that in fact the Calamarines and the Narnians have always served the same deity. Much like Neeson in real life, many of the creatures of Narnia believe this and begin to commit abominations against Aslan. Shift, who in reality has no regard for Aslan but only wants to co-opt his authority to create for himself a life of ease, has no problem publicly making these universal and blasphemous claims. The Calamrines on the other hand are clearly not willing to blaspheme their Tash by speaking their agreement out loud in so many words. They simply play along seeing this as an opportunity to infiltrate and subdue Narnia.

While Neeson sees himself as a Catholic, i.e., Christian, but is yet willing to see Aslan as also symbolic of Muhammad, true to form with relativistic Christians, he forgets one important fact. Aslan was murdered. In fact he willingly gave himself over to be murdered. For the Muslim this is an untenable and blasphemous symbolism. They are not willing to join Neeson and his liberal band of brothers in their fantasy land; especially if it means the death of their profit, symbolic or otherwise.

So we clearly have a case here where the fictitious story of Narnia with its Christian symbolism is more real than the Utopian paradise created in the minds of liberal Christians.

The Run Away Skier's Dilemma

2010-12-06T11:06:00.000-08:00

This dilemma draws its name from the amateur snow skier building speed down the slope with no idea how to stop. He is faced with two bad choices: go ahead and incur the lesser damages of a more controlled crash now, or attempt to postpone the inevitable until all control is lost at a much greater speed.

I coined this dilemma years ago due to some circumstances that then surrounded my life and it has served as a pretty good analogy since. I can't help but think of it now as I look at America's (and Europe's) fiscal woes. Anyone willing to look at the run-away debt, while also daring to take in the steepening grade of looming unfunded Utopian promises of security for all, should be able to relate to this dilemma. As with the skier, the opportunity for choosing the best and least painful choice is running out. Like the skier the natural urge is to forestall the inevitable; to lie to ourselves. This will take place by the suggestion that we can avoid pain by printing money and taxing. But we know this not to be true. Governments' consumption of money are like the grave taking in the dead, or oceans taking in rivers, or fire's consumption of wood. They are never satisfied; they never say that's enough. Such a tact will only ultimately have the effect of deception and increasing our "speed" causing the pain and suffering to be worse when we fall. The best choice is obvious to the sensible: cut spending now.

As we watch the skier barreling out of control down the icy slope, it is easy for us to know what is his best and most sensible choice. But this is not how the true tests of sensibility are presented. It is our circumstances with which we are faced, and within which we must prove ourselves sensible, not someone else's. The bottom line for us at this point of out-of-control taxing/borrowing/printing and spending is that we have accumulated too much speed for a painless resolution. The only question left for us at this point is are we a sensible people? Time will tell; and the next two years of enduring an all out 24/7 attack add posing as "news" will reveal much of that telling.

Unconsidered Luxuries

2010-11-23T12:15:00.000-08:00

Americans enjoy many luxuries; it is true. But what kind of luxuries? The word, "luxury" normally implies something generated by some sort of material wealth, but I contend that there are other luxuries that we have and take for granted that are not associated immediately with wealth. Consider a few of these luxuries:

Not having to bother to vote.
The ability to abandon a wife or husband with ease.
The security, real or imagined, that comes from the government's bottomless bucket of deficit spending and social programs.
Political Correctness
To live and conduct our affairs, official and personal, as if there were no God.
The ability to craft a God that aligns him/her self with other luxuries like political correctness.
The denial of absolute morality.
The reduction of compassion to a biannual trip to the ballot box.
An education system that trashes it's own country and the tax payers who are footing its enormous and bloated costs.
Unlimited access to pornography
Promiscuity
Ignorance of the Constitution
Government dependant security
The denial of the existence of borders.
Ignorance of history.
Pacifism
Liberty
Whacked out environmentalism
Ivy League graduate worship

Of coarse there are costs for these luxuries, including material costs that eventually come due and must be paid... one way or the other. But there are also many ways that the reaper may reap his due beyond just dollar bills that we don't immediately associate with wealth. Here are just a few examples:

Opportunity -Our current opportunity denying economic state is ultimately the result of a collapse of morality. For example: (a) unsavory mortgage brokers, secure in the fact that they would be getting their fees and passing the loans on down the line, writing bad loans, (b) no risk get rich quick schemes of buying houses with the mindset that the houses would either be sold for great profits or would be "given" back to the bank, (c)government compassion of forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers, then soothing the fears of those lenders by ensuring the loans with tax payer funds.

Government Solvency--Our governments, at every level, are bankrupt. We have thus far enjoyed the luxury of passing off much touted compassion to government. But people in the governments are not interested in compassion. What they are interested in is keeping their jobs and foisting their "new" ideas and social experiments in pursuit of their Utopian paradise. The best and easiest way to do this is to give away other people's money--in the name of compassion. These governments are now on a collision coarse with reality. The payday for these "promises" of security is now looming large. Still, any attempts to make a coarse correction or to apply a little common sense are met with howls as we discover that masses of people have become compassionees.

Unraveling of Society--Single parent families, for one, are taking their toll on the social fabric. Social institutions that once provided a nurturing environment for the upbringing of offspring that would be productive members of society have been impugned and dismantled. Now, any insinuation that out of wedlock births, or behavior that leads to them, is a moral issue are met with contempt and the offered solution of killing the child. Suggestions of real solutions to this problem are met with charges of extremism and the imposition of morality. There is however, ultimately, an imposition of morality though that fact mostly escapes notice. This imposition happens by way of payroll deductions as financial payments are made for several of the luxuries listed above.

Violation and Humiliation--While many below the rising water line have already begun payment for our past luxuries, many are still able to enjoy them. Interestingly however, some are being shocked and surprised by the payment due notices they are receiving in an unlikely place..., the airport. Remember that Political Correctness is one of the luxuries that we enjoy, presumably at no cost. But to many's chagrin and surprise molestation is now a possible condition of air travel. It's not completely necessary of coarse, that is unless the luxury of Political Correctness is insisted upon.

There is another luxury that I didn't mention, it is the luxury of expectation. We now have an expectation of these luxuries as a given, along with the luxury of prosperity. The catch phrase of today is "Recovery". There is an almost palpable expectation today that what once was in the realm of prosperity will be again; that life as it was is the norm, and what is now is abnormal. (see no. 15) This brings me to the last luxury worth mention. This luxury will be ever persistent; exacting payment long after the other luxuries have been paid for and are collecting dust on the shelf of fading memories. That luxury is self-delusion.

Some Thoughts On Beauty

2010-11-14T08:08:00.000-08:00

I spend a fair amount of time contemplating beauty. What is it? Why does it draw us and bring us joy? One fruit of this contemplation is the belief that beauty is not in the eyes of the beholder, even though we don't always behold the beauty that is there. The onset of relativism has tried to teach us the opposite. Yet we instinctively know that true beauty IS. Beauty is not relative, even though much of modern art screams in our faces with its ugliness that it is. Interestingly, those screams seem to be in symphony with the "no God" proclamations.

Following are three videos that depict beauty in a unique way known as a flash-mob. Performers are incognito in crowds and present themselves much to the surprise and astonishment of patrons.

The first video ends with a woman wiping tears from her eyes. My sentiments exactly.

The third, and my favorite, has the Philadelphia Opera singing the words "He [Jesus] will reign-forever, forever, forever... King of Kings... Lord of Lords... forever, forever, forever" in Macys. More tears, especially at the conclusion. Judging from the delighted faces, there appears to be a sense of Joy and peace filling the mall. It is spectacular, beautiful and wonderful; mainly I think because of the expressions on the faces of those watching. Ohhh how I wish I had been!!!!

Enjoy

In Antwerp Station Belgium

This one Hat Tip Neil at Eternity Matters.

The End Of The Road Of Envy

2010-11-11T09:58:00.000-08:00

Heather from The Narrow Gate left this comment on my last post concerning the election:

"On the other hand, the exposed root of "leftism" may now be obvious enough to have shaken some out of the virtual coma..."

My hope is that the last two years will have indeed pulled the curtain back and put on display for all to see, not only the connection between the leftist governing "isms" of socialism, statism and communism, and the Democratic party, but more importantly the connection between the Democratic Party, and its Anti-Christ roots in laws and policies.

But when I look at the states that have already been lost to the abyss of envy such as California and Michigan, there is some thinking that seems to prevail over the obvious problems with their current track. That thought can be expressed in one simple statement:

"Better is it for all to be twice as poor than I be half as rich as my neighbor."

STOP!!! or SLOW DOWN!!!?

2010-10-31T09:13:00.000-07:00

It's a good rule of thumb, I think anyway, when everything you are doing only makes the situation worse... just STOP! This coming Tuesday America will, Lord willing, be doing just that. Still, we can only hope that our message will not bear itself out in the final analysis to only being "SLOW DOWN!!!". My hope is that it will be the first installment of "TURN AROUND!!!". If it is to be the latter of the two, then decades of persistent fervor like we've seen this election will have to be the mainstay. The luxury of living our lives paying scant attention to scheming socialists posing as America loving politicians has gone the way of a robust economy, hope, and decency. Does America have the stomach for it? Do those who breath today's air have the will to protect from the ravages of their demands for security those whom have yet to take a breath? The answer to that question will not be decided Tuesday, or in 2012 for that matter. It will be ongoing in answer as it has been. Man has always possessed the desire that others do his will, and liberty. The coming decade will perhaps give way to more insight into which of these two desires is the stronger, but if history has anything to say about it, even recent history, my pessimistic guess is that the message of this election will ultimately be "slow down, you move to fast". Time will tell.

Is Man Basically Good

2010-10-27T10:12:00.000-07:00

Is man basically good? If he were then:

Gun control laws would work, but would be unnecessary.

Welfare would work, but would be unnecessary.

Socialism would be the norm, and it would work.

Separated governmental powers would be pointless.

The military would be unnecessary.

The IRS would be unnecessary.

Deficits would be nonexistent.

Unions would be unnecessary and nonexistent.

A large police force would be unnecessary.

The religion of Environmentalism would be unnecessary.

Criminal rehabilitation would be unnecessary, but if it were necessary, it would work.

Government would only consume a pittance of man's productivity, for it would be cheap; perhaps as cheap as the price of a benevolent dictator and his staff who would earn no more than their fellow man.

Genocide, mass murder, the holocausts, and terrorism would be meaningless words.

Democrat party policies would, for the most part, be good policies.

He would be living in Utopia.

In fact, if man were basically good, he could not be decived into believing that his current existence is the result of the cumulative actions of billions of beings who are basically good.

Juan Williams

2010-10-23T21:41:00.000-07:00

Here is a Victor Davis Hanson article that I think does a wonderful job of laying out the blatant hypocrisy in the firing of Juan Williams. Here are its points:

for NPR to prove that it is even-handed in censuring controversial speech it would long ago have had to fire reporter Nina Totenberg for a long history of venomous partisan slurs (e.g., hoping Sen. Jesse Helms and his grandkids might contract AIDS).
NPR CEO Vivian Schiller herself slanders Williams by suggesting that he talk with “his psychiatrist”—
intolerant hard-driving Fox News has no problem with liberal Williams working for NPR; Fox knows its viewers don’t care whether liberal Williams works at a liberal network; NPR fears mightily that its intolerant audience can’t stand anyone who is associated with Fox?
CAIR, the Islamic advocacy group, pressures NPR on Williams’s remarks, but gives a lifetime career achievement award to the anti-Semite Helen Thomas, who calls for the destruction of Israel by having the Jews “get the hell out of Palestine”
Note the silence of the NAACP, which is usually the first to speak out when some African-Americans are deemed railroaded. By its present vote here, the organization simply gives a green light to go after African-Americans tagged not entirely liberal
They apparently believe that society is inherently reactionary (family, church, community, government, etc.) and so they are not biased by openly advocating liberal positions as “balance.”

Hat Tip Geeeeez

Epithets Galore

2010-10-19T16:50:00.000-07:00

The proverbial cow being birthed in the halls of academia and the media elite over the German Chancellor's words "multiculturalism has failed, has utterly failed" will undoubtedly unleash an increased spewing of epithets. Not the epithets that we are use to seeing swished away by the tail of the mama cow of political correctness mind you. No, I'm talking about the epithets that are as necessary to the survival of this cow as the hate that courses her udders is to the intelligentsia and their clone wannabes that suck there. These epithets are aimed at mostly middle-class conservatives, the most popular of which is either "bigot"--a favorite-- or some other word with the suffix "phobe" attached.

The sad thing about this however is that the PC crowd was at one time correct in their disdain for epithets. This correctness was once drawn from plain old civility, respect, and the deference to human dignity. I guess there is a price to pay for relegating all of humanity to the meaninglessness of pond scum, even if the ones relegating refuse to see themselves, and their corralled ideas, in that light.

Soldiers develop inhuman names for their enemies so that it is easier to kill them. Similarly, the epithets being hurled from on high today make it easier to ignore dissent. These epithets keep opposing ideas and those who hold them pigeonholed as immoral; the ever changing morality of which is drawn from some vacuum somewhere that evidently only the "intelligent" can tap. Better to pigeonhole, I guess, than to defend your argument, or to condescend to the light of critique and reason, or worse yet, to humbly consider the possibility of being wrong.

Things never change, it seems, no matter how smart we are or how much we think we know. Man is ever repeating his errors and proving the wickedness of his heart. What an amazing sight here though: to watch the closed minded who claim to be the most open minded among the peoples; the self-righteous loathers of the self-righteous; the ideologue detesting doctrinaires, glaringly morph into the very thing they so hate.

The Porn Nation

2010-10-10T08:05:00.001-07:00

Northfield Publishing, Chicag0 IL, 2008

America is no longer a nation within which pornography is a seedy industry relegated to the back streets of her cities. It is not even a nation within which pornography is a peripheral kind of entertainment, available for those who want to occasionally stop and take a peek. No, in the words of Michael Leahy (lay- hee), America, is a Porn Nation.

This book is a quick read and well worth a few hours of investment, especially for parents and pastors. It is divided into three parts.

Part-One is basically a brief auto-biography of Leahy's life. He sets the stage in early childhood and then discusses his fist exposure to porn as he was shown a topless woman on the back of a playing card by some peers in his Christian school. He continues his story as it relates to pornography and his increasingly promiscuous lifestyle as he descends, and then spirals out of control. This part of the book reads like a gripping novel that ends in sorrow as Leahy finally looses his family. But it really doesn't end there. Part one sets the table for part two and three before he completes his story at the end.

Part-Two proves to be the meat of the book. Leahy begins this part with a chapter entitled "The Perfect Storm". Here Leahy describes three societal storm fronts of pornographic deprivation now converging on America. They are: The Hypersexual Media, Enabling Technologies, and Sociosexual Pathologies. Leahy looks at the convergence of these three fronts as the desensitizing effects of pornography take an increasing toll on the hearts and minds of society.

To understand Leahy's forecasts, it helps to understand his definition of pornography which is anything that is intended to arouse. Although Leahy's threshold for pornographic is different than current cultural standards, Leahy makes the case that this difference is not based on an objective line, but rather is evidence of a culture's deteriorating standards. This is most evident in TV programing designed to sell advertising, and in advertising itself. The result is an increasingly sexualized society which paves the way for another more insidious threat that has crept in.

To be sure, while the old-line pornography industry, with its seedy venues and residual stigmas, does still exist. This older image of the industry also aids the new industry by creating in the minds of most the illusion that it remains a "dirty old man" kind of business located down town. Yet, the new and real marketplace for the this thriving trade has become the home. It is in this marketplace that Leahy's three "A's" of affordability, availability, and anonymity are made available via the Internet and open the door wide for millions who would have otherwise not entered this world. Gone are the once stifling barriers that kept pornography on the back streets of its cities and out of the lives of families. Here, under the surface and neatly out of sight is a literal flood that has bypassed old barriers and washed away established concepts of decency. This kind of radical change necessarily promises multiplied future ramifications as a sex soaked society, increasingly pathological in its ideas of normal sexual behavior, brings up its next generation. While, to Leahy's credit, he attempts to not be the "alarmist", he does wonder what such consequences of our current path will ultimately be.

Leahy considers himself an icon for sexual addictions who speaks on college campuses across America giving talks as well as participating in formal debates with Ron Jeramey, a porn star. This interaction gives him insight into the sexual attitudes of that next generation, a generation he calls "generation sex". It is in this lot that he is exposed to the cutting edge of new ideas about sex, and where he finds what he calls the "New Pornographers". These new pornographers are young people, even minors, who understand all to well how to use the new and inexpensive technologies and networking readily available to them for the production, consumption and distribution of their own pornography for their own use. Tyler Clementi is a recent example of these new technologies. Clementi earned national attention recently when he jumped off the George Washington Bridge after a film of him having sex in his dorm room was posted to Facebook. Interestingly, unlike the old pornographers who produced their smut for profit, these new pornographers are motivated by other reasons such as celebrity status in their peer groups, or just getting noticed. With the old barriers of modesty, cultural mores, and inhibitions destroyed, the clouds seem to be gathering.

Leahy interweaves statistics into this part to demonstrate the seemingly exponential changing of trends in our attitudes toward sexuality so far. There are adequate references for anyone interested in further research.

The first half of Part-Three is dedicated to those who are themselves addicted to pornography. Working from the credibility he has gained by his own recovery path, he offers a strategy to others. He starts by pointing out the necessity, first and foremost, of being honest with self and admonishes the addict to not straddle fences. It is better, he says, to do nothing rather than to attempt to live the lie that is preventing wellness. For Leahy, he fought desperately to have his addiction and his family too, but it was ultimately the loosing of his family, and his serious contemplations of suicide that followed that finally caused him to "choose life" and to, in his words, "get well". It was in his attempts to write a suicide note to his two boys that Leahy made this choice. Leahy points out also that in the recovery process, accountability within a twelve-step program are of prime importance. He analyzes several twelve-step approaches and makes some recommendations.

The last half of this part, is however dedicated to pointing out a life available beyond "the program". As with all such addiction programs, he admits that the program itself can simply take the place of the addiction. He points the reader ultimately to Jesus Christ for a life that extends beyond "recovery" and to abundance. The book concludes with the completion of his biography and his ultimate reconciliation with those he hurt.

My Thoughts

When I purchased this book I was expecting an analysis of America's porn problem. While part two does focus on this, I ultimately got way more than I bargained for. Leahy's story is compelling as he quickly draws you into his own world of sexual addition. I found myself on the verge of tears a couple of times as his story meandered through the book. Unlike most non-fiction books, this style added an element of entertainment (for lack of a better word) that makes it a page turner. It is able to hold the attention of those not normally drawn to non-fiction, as the reader joins Leahy in his journey to redemption and reconciliation. This book, I feel, will give readers insight into the new world being inherited by their children as well as into the temptations and trials that plague most people to some degree living in a sensual society. For a hosts of reasons such as denial, desensitization, naivete, repulsion, embarrassment or shame--to name a few--the right people don't seem to be talking much about this new and intrinsic detrimental element that is upon us in our new nation; our porn nation.

Teach Your Children Well

2010-09-18T17:31:00.000-07:00

As I drove with my family from our homeschool group recently we listened to a few minutes of Sean Hannity. In a discussion with a caller Hannity referenced Jesus and the fact that Jesus spoke and appealed to common folks such as farmers and fishermen. This delighted me because it occurred to me at that moment that that the things that I teach my children were being affirmed.

These thoughts brought to mind the words of a youth pastor recently who lamented to me that even the children of church members in his group were woefully Biblically illiterate. Having taught fifth and sixth graders in church for two years plus myself, I knew his pain. This brought to mind a question. Who is responsible for training our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord? I would contend that it is most definitely not the Church for a couple of reasons.

First, given the fact that parents in general are not Biblically training their children, most of the time spent in Sunday School is spent gaining and keeping control of the class room. There is precious little time left to expound on the great life saving and life altering truths found in God’s Word. To those who think statically that this is simply the way children are I am quick to assert that because very little is any more expected of children they are no longer compelled to offer much. This is a shame; and a crying shame at that.

Secondly, even if the children were all little well disciplined sponges waiting eagerly every Sunday for their hourly portion of deep teaching from the Word, they are no different than their adult counterparts in that they would still live their lives Biblically famished. One hour a week on one side of the ledger with the daily barrage of parent approved, directed, and affirmed Anti Christ secular humanistic government education, and a daily diet of family time consumption of Anti-Christ television programming and advertising on the other, little beyond inoculation against Christianity can ultimately be hoped for. One would think, given that this reality is the norm coupled with the seeming reluctance of pastors and Church leadership in general to call parents to account, that the stakes are not very high… not very high at all. I, for one, beg to differ.

What To Do? Five Suggestions:

1. The stakes are exceedingly high.

2. The stakes are exceedingly high and are in fact eternal. If we say we believe the Bible to be the very Words of God, then we shrink Him, His honor, His glory, and in fact eternity itself by not living out His words in word and deed under grace before them. When they don’t see us loving his Word, we teach them that loving his Word is not important. When they don’t see us pray, we teach them that praying is not important. When we are not being sanctified, we teach them that sanctification is no big deal. In the end, what they learn from us is that, really, God is no big deal. It should be no wonder then that the vast majority of children raised in the church walk away from it when they are older, never to return.

3. The stakes are exceedingly high. Parents who out-source the education of their children must realize this fact regardless of who they out-source it to; whether it be a “Christian” institution or the government. With this in mind we shouldn’t wait for our children to be taught anti-Christ teaching before we attempt to un-teach it. Be the first to teach your children what the lies of the enemy will look like and be, then be the first to counter them. Learn what those lies will be. Be tenaciously on guard for new angles and attempts to subvert and supplant your teaching. Learn learn learn, then teach and live as if your children’s eternal destiny depends on it.

4. The stakes are exceedingly high and your Church should function as if the stakes are high. Remember that you are a living part of the Church. (1) Put away the notion that there is the Church over there, and then there is you over here who attends as a consumer. Prayerfully and carefully choose your Church so that you will fit. Be vigilant against false teaching because you are a living member of that body and in as much are infected by it as well as responsible for its health. In the teaching of your children remember that the Church’s responsibility is to affirm what you teach and not the other way around.

5. The bottom line is that the stakes are high. It is the Western way to work hard and then coast. This is not the Biblical way. Your children are worth fighting for, and that fight begins with fighting for your own devotion. Just as with Paul who at the end of his life proclaimed to his spiritual son, “I have fought the good fight”, (2) so it must be with us also as an example to our children. To this end, the 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards as a young man wrote seventy resolutions for his life. Number 22 says: “Resolved, To endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness, in the other world, as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.” (3) In the same way, it is not because we succeed in hiding from our children our failings and thus present to them a life that appears in our own minds to be exemplary, as if we had at some point arrived at our Christian-ness and that they should endeavor to do the same, but rather that we should live a life that endeavors to honor, glorify and exalt God; all the while knowing, as did Paul, that we will never attain it in this life. (4) In so doing we teach them from a young age that our walk with our Savior is a journey, that we are at times victorious in grace and at others defeated in grace, but still, though we have fallen, we are not cast down, for the Lord upholds us with His hand. (5)

Note 1:
Eph 2:19-22
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
NIV

Note 2:
2 Tim 4:6-8
6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
NIV

Note 3:
The Words Of Jonathan Edwards vol. 16

Note 4:
Phil 3:12-14
12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
NIV

Note 5:
Ps 37:23-24
23 If the LORD delights in a man's way,
he makes his steps firm;
24 though he stumble, he will not fall,
for the LORD upholds him with his hand.
NIV

Twisting In The Wind

2010-09-10T10:33:00.000-07:00

I am nothing short of awe stuck at the world-wide crisis that has ensued after a previously obscure pastor of a church of but 50 congregants in a small Florida town threatened to burn a Quran. I have heard him castigated, called names, belittled, and lambasted over his threats, and that has been from the more conservative of outlets. So, what does this all mean? Six thoughts:

First, the seemingly constant profaning of Christianity not withstanding, people in their hearts I think expect more from the pastor of the little church down the street. After all, they many times call him to speak over their dead relatives he has never known or seen as they stop yucking it up long enough to look their own immortality in the face. Many still go to him to marry their children, or these days their parents, or to perform some sort of meaningless ritual over their newborn children in hopes that the preacher has some sort of special powers to get their offspring safely into the everafter. That only one Quran burning has been mentioned, to a degree I think, is encouraging, all things considered. Think about it, given the multitude of churches in this country, the protracted engagement with Islamic fanatics we are experiencing, the ineptness (don't make them mad) and absurdity (blind and dangerous political correctness)upon which our defense against them is being based, and the rarity, or perhaps more aptly, the absence of such actions as this pastor's speaks highly of the American Church and its standing in the hearts and minds of the citizenry. Ultimately, I think people want to know that the little church on the hill still has the answers to the deep questions of life should they ever feel the need to ask them, and burning another religion's holy book may be quashing that a bit.

Second, and discouraging as can be, is the fact that that same obscure pastor evidently holds the power of life and death, peace and tranquility, and quite possibly world peace itself within the grasp of two match clutching fingers. Aaaahhh am I missing something here? Consider this laundry list:

the Twin Towers bombing
the Millennium Bomber
the 9/11 attacks
the Bali Bombing
the London subway bombing
the Madrid train bombing
the Ft. Hood shooter
the foiled shoe bomber
the foiled underwear bomber
the foiled Fort Dix attack
the oft shouted refrain "death to America"the Pan Am bombing
Egyptian Air 990 tragedy
And many many more

Now what do these all have in common besides the fact that they are massacres or attempted massacres and were carried out in the name of Islam? That's right, they all took place before the Reverend Jones made his threats. What? Are they going to kill people if he does this? How will we know when they start? Now while I don't agree with the pastor and know that he can't back up his actions with scripture, since when does having a boneheaded idea qualified you for such wrath from everyone from the president of the United States to every morning drive time DJ in America? This poor fellow might have just unwittingly set himself up as the administrations George Bush of terror attacks for the foreseeable future. I can hear our president now: "Let me be clear. If Reverend Jones had not threatened to burn that Quarn... why those terrorists would have been home tucking their children into bed instead of slipping through Secretary Nepalitano's elaborate web and blowing people up."

Third, and even more discouraging yet, is America's collective panicked reaction to this man. It does not bode well for us or show insight and leadership that this nation, its president, its news media, and its commanding officer is willing to give away such power to any old hair-brained pastor with ten bucks, ten followers, a match and a penchant for notoriety. Fear appears to be the order of the day with reporters waiting breathlessly, fingers crossed for the good of the world, hoping against hope that this lone Gainsville resident won't exercise his constitutional right and cast us all into mayhem.

Let me proclaim that this is not America! This nation would be doing a great service to itself if it would fear that fear more than it feared threats from wild eyed religious murderers and thugs who are going to carry out thier threats regardless.

Forth, is the misguided contempt born out of fear for anyone who dares oppose anything Islamic. Need we be reminded that this pastor is not going to kill anyone at all? Those who oppose the Mosque do so peacefully. All who resist are accused of being complicit of coarse. But at what point this side of converting does one take a stand? For the fearful, my guess is nowhere.

Such accusations of complicity are nothing new. President Lincoln, told a story in reference to the struggle in which he was engaged of a highway man robbing a traveler. The highwayman warned the traveler that if he did not comply with his demands that the traveler would be complicit in making him a murderer in addition to a thief. This pastor will likewise be accused out of fear as well as those who oppose the Mosque.

Fifth, we are lost. I touched on this in "Religions Rule", but this is another case of a shell culture; one that has no defining element other than its claim to have no defining element; a culture fat on the luxuries of prosperity, drunk on a government playing sugar-daddy god; and a culture that thinks its liberty comes with the air it breathes. It is no match for the struggle that is upon it, and this hyperventilating over the frustrated actions of a previously--and soon to be again--obscure pastor of a small church gives credence to such charges. America needs to be shaken and given a slap across its collective face if it is to rise up and meet the challenges that are before it.

Sixth and last. The afore named Cordoba Center about which this all begun is being billed as an attempt for Muslims and Americans to sit around and sing Cumbaya. It has failed at this, but it has been successful at achieving the opposite as demonstrated by threats of burning Qurans. As far as those who are in favor of it are concerned, no change. They were in favor of appeasing Islamic radicals before, they are now, and they will be after it is built. As for those it was supposedly attempting to reach, they are insulted, impugned, and further alienated and provoked.

So what are we to gather from this besides the conclusion that violence garners the coward's respect? Are the architects of this Center so completely socially inept that they truly thought that this was a good idea, or was it never intended to do any good but is rather achieving its goal of being a victory Mosque by stirring up trouble so the ones stirred up can be blamed? I honestly don't know, but given its proponent's willingness to abandon their purported aspirations of reconciliation in favor of stridently installing it over the protests of decenters does make me wonder if it ever had any other purpose.

(great Christian explanation here from a favorite author of mine on burning the Quran)

That's Not Fair!

2010-09-06T16:20:00.000-07:00

From early in our childhood we seem to be innately incensed when our ideas of what is fair are violated. "He got four cookies and I only got one. That's not fair"! "Hey! He broke in line. That's not fair"! Interestingly, as I have aged I have become aware that the child that was me who yelled those very sorts of protests hasn't really changed that much; only his perspective.

The changed perspective grew out of the grappling with the root of the protest and its implications. Such a root necessarily involves a reference point and an ought. The reference point is normally always self while the ought is an appeal to objective truth in the pursuit of justice. The perceived unfairness of someone else getting more cookies is not what is being challenged. It is the unfairness of someone getting four cookies in reference to the fact that I only got one. Such an injustice ought not be. While, generally speaking, accrued years does not remedy this problem for us, especially as it pertains to our base emotions, they should at least cause us to gain a little perspective. The extent to which this happens would seem to depend on one's worldview. This truth can be demonstrated by the basis upon which one attempts to answer questions like these:

Can a person at once proclaim that there is no objective truth and a thing isn't fair?
What is the base [nominal?] amount of cookies a child receives that qualifies as universally "fair"? Should they both get four cookies? or one? Perhaps, after justly dividing their cookies evenly, they proceed to enjoy them while blissfully ignorant of the great injustice they are incurring because someone somewhere is eating a whole bag.
What about the child to whom a bowl of flour and oil would bring tears of joy. Should he instead feel cheated?
Ought not it also be an ought, in light of an appeal to objective truth in the name of fairness, that the child suffering the social injustice take his appeals for justice to the next level and refuse to enjoy his cookies until everyone has partaken in the just amount of cookies?
What will any of it matter five generations hence or when the sun burns out?

The secular humanist worldview, which is the predominate Western worldview of Christian and non Christian alike, when it makes appeals for justice--and it most definitely does--necessarily must root itself in cognitive dissonance to address these questions. He must, on the one hand, claim that there is no such thing as objective truth; that right and wrong are mere social constructs; that the concept of sin is an artifact of the past; that our very existence is the result of spontaneous and random events, while on the other hand assert that we ought to help the poor; that stealing is not always right; that killing is never right (if the person is born); that we oughtn't lie; that we oughtn't pollute the planet; that we oughtn't torture animals; and so on.

The Christian worldview, on the other hand, can answer these questions without contradictions. It proclaims that, not only is the world not fair, but that there is nothing that man can ever do to change that fact due to his condition brought about by an innate denial of a universal reference point. It also proclaims that, not only is there a source of objective truth that sovereignly decrees and judges what is fair and what is not, the greatest injustice happened when man was redeemed from his injustices. This truth thereby precludes man from making the charge of unfairness based on man's point of reference. It is not obvious in this current age, but there was a time in Western culture that these truths were somewhat universally understood and accepted. They were articulated with words like providence, lot, contentment, and His will; and in a negative sense, covetousness.

It is not my intended point here that the necessity for a logical and consistent worldview proves the existence of God, but rather that the claims for the nonexistence of God renders any cries for fairness and justice as ex nihilo and absurd. It IS my point however that the answer to protests of unfairness, such as those lodged by the current "social justice" horde, is the same as the one I give my seven year old. "You're right... It isn't.... be glad."

On Generalizaitions

2010-08-28T14:00:00.000-07:00

"Those dirty rotten conservatives are always generalizing!"

I am always amazed when I am accused of generalizing; Oh..., not that the accusations are not warranted, for they surely are, but rather that anyone has such a high opinion of me that they think that I can avoid it. In defense against such accusations, and for easy cut and paste purposes, I am posting below another man's analysis on the matter.

The following quote is found in the classic Democracy In America written by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville and published in the 1830's as a contemporary expose of a young United States.

"God is able to see the differences between all individuals so it follows therefore that God has no need of general ideas, that is to say, He never feels the necessity of giving the same label to a considerable number of analogous objects in order to think about them more conveniently. Not so with man who in our impressive limitations need all the help we can get from such general ideas lest we get lost in the dazzling plethora of details that passes in a hazy hurry before us all. General ideas have excellent quality, that they permit human minds to pass judgment quickly on a great number of things, but the conceptions they convey are always incomplete, and what is gained in extent is always lost in exactitude."

Religions Rule

2010-08-18T22:45:00.000-07:00

How can it be that so many who are ardent enemies of religion are now siding with those who want to build a Mosque near Ground Zero? Considering also that those who are the most outspoken defenders of this Mosque are also ardent defenders of abortion and homosexuality. And also considering that the future inhabitants of this Mosque, should they ever gain an upper hand, would have every homosexual stoned; and whose anti-choice stance for women go well beyond the womb, makes it all the more strange. Further, why would Muslims, who look forward to the implementation of Sharia Law, a law that reduces women to chattel, kills homosexuals, and outlaws abortion, ever find itself so allied, both concerning this Mosque and elsewhere, with a political party built upon these three pillows? And in reverse, why would that same political party ally itself conversely?

Most conservatives can kind of see that serious Muslims want to implement Sharia law world wide and that liberals provide quite a useful idiot toward such an end. That part is not confusing. Most everyone also knows that American Christendom is now irrelevant. One only need look at the institutionalized decadence and debauchery to get that. But why the liberal ideologue, riding on the crest of his half-century wave of triumph would side with a culture with which it is so vehemently opposed in every way may present more of a challenge to ones understanding.

With a little thought however, the liberal is not really all that difficult to grasp. Understanding his motives is just a matter of understanding his worldview. In his world one religion is just as good or bad as another and ultimately should be subjected to the liberal's idea of what a religion should be and do. Imagine a flow chart of sorts with one large box on top with lines drawn vertically to a row of smaller boxes underneath. The liberal sees himself in that top box with the lower boxes populated with what ever religion the "bitter clinger" (1) decides to believe in order to better deal with his miserable reality, or in his attempts to achieve some sort of inner peace. Also, with this in mind there should be no wonder why so many "Christians" can sit in churches and listen to a preacher say over and over there is only one way to heaven and not be offended, even though he"knows" it isn't true. That is exactly what he expects to hear from the preacher who holds to that particular truth. The "Christian" simply sees his religion as subject to the liberal's higher interpretation from the upper box. Incidentally, missing from that flow chart is a box for God. This is because there is no difference in the liberal's mind between God and Government when they are in control.

As the American Church, having been co-opted by this kind of thinking in the upper levels of its denominations and seminaries, has increasingly submitted itself to the upper box, there resulted a Christian retreat of sorts in the public square. Liberals soon found themselves, first in control of educating the children of an unsuspecting Church, then in control of executive offices, both private and public as those children matured. But they are still hindered by Christians. And many Christians and non-Christians alike, still see America as a Christian nation. This will not do; enter Muslims. By helping Islam better establish itself in America liberalism hopes to achieve two goals. One, it hopes to show Islam it means it no harm, that it hates Christianity just as much as they do thereby earning Islam's alliance and favor. Two, place Islam in a lower box next to the other religions and subject it to the rich liberal elite and in so doing further marginalize Christianity as just one of many religions. The New York city Mosque is but one high profile example of many that shows this to be true.

It is my take that civilizations have to ultimately be ruled first in the hearts of its populations by a religion. It is in man's DNA to be so ruled. But the liberal cannot fathom this. Having ridden into power basically unopposed with visions of a Utopian materialistically equal society-except for themselves of coarse-propelled by free hand outs that are bankrupting their Utopia before it even comes close to relegating God to subject, they are completely incapable of grasping the Islamic mind. Instead they project their own ideas of material injustice onto what they see as a people oppressed by their enemy, Christianity. They are completely unable to see themselves as a temporary fill in a vacuum created by the collapse of Christianity as the viable coalescing force required for the existence of a nation. Liberalism itself offers no coalescing values for a nation of people, only for itself in the hearts of the rich, atheistic and self proclaimed intellectuals in the pursuit of their green-hilled Utopia. As cultures go, liberals are no match for a culture glommed onto a violent religion whose adherents are born and bread into a hatred for them so deep that not even the liberal can plumb it. And they will not subject that hatred to a meaningless-floating-in-the-cosmos-I'm-OK-you're-OK worldview. If you do not convert, you are most definitely not OK, and they are most definitely OK with that position, political correctness be damned.

With this understanding of liberalism's worldview, along with the evaporation of any national vision beyond that of a post-nation-and-boundaryless -warless world populated by various belief systems subjected to the Utopian visionaries, every current event from free-for-all immigration to the defense of a murderous and threatening religion, makes perfect sense. But a nation cannot survive off a vision of its own annihilation with hopes that others will follow for altruistic reasons; especially when the very ones calling for it deny altruism's existence. And it is for this reason that the next half century, if it takes that long, will be a war of religions in the hearts and minds of the West. Will it turn again to the gentle religion that it now so hates, or will it be ruled by a murderous and totalitarian religion that will return the meaning of tolerance from its current morphed definition of total acceptance back to its original meaning as those who invited a religion in under the false notion that they would rule over it find out that they instead are being ruled by it? In the end one thing is certain, religion will rule.

(1)President Obama revealed his view of serious religious adherents by using these words to describe them in a speech to like minded rich San Francisco political donors.

Runaway Slave Trailer

2010-08-14T12:19:00.000-07:00

In keeping with the slave theme lately, here is a trailer from the Timothy Matters Blog. A couple of quotes I particularly liked:

"We don't get our freedoms from Republicans! We don't ger our freedoms from Democrats!"

This flies in the face of the seemingly impossible to penetrate binary world of those who love and trust their Democrat party only because of their fear and hatred of what they have been programed to think is their enemy: Republicans. The idea of mistrusting ALL politicians simply because of their proximity to power appears to be wholly alien to them. No... only Conservatives should be mistrusted, compassionate liberals can be trusted with total power. And when total power is obtained, it is never enough. The constant belly aching and blame game currently playing out before us by a group of people who hold wide margins in the halls of power as the nation continues its slide into chaos and poverty is but a foretaste of things to come.

"Tyranny is color blind, white or black, it will control you... Run America!"

Not "run black man" but run America! from socialism. Love it!

Unions And Slavery

2010-08-07T13:03:00.000-07:00

So what is the picture of slavery most widely held by most? Mine is the plantation owner living his life of ease off the sweat of the brows of his slaves toiling in the fields. Noteworthy in this arrangement is the slave's ability to influence his terms; which, of course, is zero.

Unionized government workers present a case for a softer kind of slavery. For one thing, the unionized beneficiaries of the sweat of the tax payer's brow do not usually live in a plantation house, and they are not allowed to flog their chattel. Still there are other ways that soften this slave/master arrangement. One is the the fact that the masters and the slaves normally live in the same neighborhoods and shop in the same stores. The real disparity, as always with slavery, concerns work.

The master must put in his time of work, short though it may be, before he can achieve his "slave owner" status of sitting on the front porch sipping tea. But to be sure, the master has already achieved an elite-ish status even while accomplishing his "time in service" as can be seen by the fact that he doesn't have to worry about about the same things his slave counterparts worry about; like loosing customers due to bad performance. This helps to take the edge off of putting in the work years required before porch sitting, fishing and tea sipping.

Secondly, for the most part, as with the typical master, the master doesn't have to concern himself wtih pesky little annoyances like the risk of being fired or recessionions. His boss, the government, can simply take or print what it needs to ensure that the union worker never has to suffer along side his slave neighbors. His high level bosses as well remain secure in knowing that a sizable portion of the plunder will end up in the right campaign coffers.

The slave on the other hand deals with a completely different reality. He is under the pressure of performance. And even if his performance is top notch, he is continually confronted with the weaknesses of the rest of his team. Recessions are really difficult because he must continue to perform now, not only for himself but also to make up for the losses of his master's lost revenues. This can clearly be seen in this New York Post article where it states that: "Taxpayers' share of [the New York City] pension costs has skyrocketed more than 900 percent in the last decade from $703.1 million in 2000 to $6.5 billion in 2009, according to the city comptroller's annual reports. The cost is expected to hit $7.6 billion this fiscal year and $8.7 billion next year. 'Its a double-whammy for taxpayers, ' said E.J. McMahon, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 'If they're privately employed, they shoulder the risks of saving for their own retirement. At the same time, they have to pay a steadily mounting cost of guaranteed pensions for government workers.'"

So the next time you see your local government thug union worker at a tea party rally keeping the "boys" in line, hearken back to the old south and remember this: some things never change, especially with Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi Eats Her "Words"

2010-08-04T23:59:00.000-07:00

I loved this "split screen" of sorts for two reasons:

No one with any sense on either side of the political isle actually believed her when she uttered these words about her favorite "Word" evidenced by the lack of outrage that normally accompanies a politician saying this sort of thing. It does make me wonder... who was she speaking to?
I can just imagine a twenty-year-old Nancy Pelosi calling some person of authority, over thirty I would presume, to account on some words they had spoken earlier; Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals tucked snugly under her arm.

I love the way she moves right along by quickly calling on another reporter. Just a quick note: she was not in a church in either of the clips.

Taxes And Slavery

2010-07-28T16:49:00.000-07:00

The Volt was introduced today with a price tag of around 40K. But that's ok because you will be supplementing,through compulsory deductions from your paycheck, the person who by free choice decides to buy this vehicle . In otherwords, you will be taxed to make up the difference.

To be sure, conservatives are not against taxes. They know that roads, bridges, law enforcement, and all the other things part and partial to a civil society are not free. But then again, all the things that are part and partial to a civil society are worth the ultimate difference that finds it's way between your gross and take-home pay. In other words it is an equitable transaction.

Having the payment deducted before one ever sees it in this transaction however has a way of causing one to forget that it is in fact a transaction at all. In fact, a transaction where one willingly forfeits the portion of his life that he expended earning the funds he hands over in return for a good from which we benefit. But what of the portion of one's life he expends to gain the funds that are first pilfered then spread about the masses like a thin layer of mayonnaise in exchange for votes, or to another few who buy new cars that will only be seen in the driveways of the affluent? Well, that portion of your life would of course, at least to some degree, qualify one as a slave.

In the sense that slavery is the act of being held in servitude as chattel to another, every hour of life spent for the purpose of supplementing the purchases of cause celebre cars by the wealthy, or buying votes for and enriching politicians, is an hour of servitude.

But it is actually worse than this yet because to some extent we who are now participating in this plundering of others are not necessarily the same ones being plundered. No, that would never work because we would never consent to slavery so glaring, better to pass that off to those who have even less rights than slaves, children. Yep, the real slaves that will be shackled with the expense in heart-beats for the high-minded indulgences of our current lunacy are the young and unborn; and the last time I checked, they ain't got no say in any of this, evidenced by their literal and on going legalized slaughter.

These are all truths that those who threw the tea into the Boston Harbor understood well, and we as Americans would do well to gain a similar understanding before, given that it is not already, to late.

Appeasing Islam

2010-07-23T09:17:00.000-07:00

I'm not the smartest turnip that ever fell off the truck but even I realize the truth about appeasing the Radical Islamist; a truth that seems to have eluded some of the smartest amongst us.

There are exactly two ways to appease them; no less, no more.

Convert
Die

Voters would serve their own self interest to learn this.

On Godwin's Law

2010-07-03T09:08:00.000-07:00

Godwin's Law states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Remaining true to this law, in a comment string I was involved in at 4Simpsons recently I brought up the name of Hitler to which I received the reply: "as a general rule once someone brings up the name of Hitler you've won the argument".

While this was a clever way to avoid the point I was making (it didn't work) it did give me reason to do a little research on and contemplation of this matter. I discovered this "Law". Upon examining my thinking and asking the question as to why we bring up the name of Hitler often enough to warrant a "law" I came to a couple of conclusions:

The prevailing worldview of the West is one of relativism. The very nature of relativism renders words like "good" and "evil" meaningless. Communication, as a result, are now devoid of a means of articulating these concepts without some widely known universally accepted objective means such as an example. Hitler fills that bill for "evil".
Concepts like Godwin's Law either intentionally or unintentionally poison the well. Anytime I find myself increasingly reluctant to do, or especially to say, something, like mentioning Hitler's name in discussions, I am immediately suspicious of this tactic. It is amazing how effective these things are on us.

There is some truth however to the point the blogger made about the use of Hitler's name signifying that you have conceded the argument. The only problem is that he used the wrong name. The correct name that makes this assertion true is George Bush.

The World V Marriage, a comment

2010-07-01T15:04:00.000-07:00

Stan at Winging It did a post on Marriage today that is well worth reading. Following is A well written comment left on his post The World V Marriage that is just as important by Stacey from Scotland.

I live in Scotland. Scotland is a bastion of liberality, total-control politics, and the "nanny state." In fact, the nanny state, while telling us we cannot help our neighbours due to the possibility of a lawsuit, is also the forerunner for government support of all things aberrant (e.g., your tax money paying for the unwed teenage mother to have her baby, get paid for it, and be given a house, to boot). Marriage is completely mocked over here. I live in a village of 1800 people. Most of the adults are "co-habitating." The favourite word here is "partner." Everyone has a partner, but no one has a spouse. People are seriously opposed to marriage here because chances are, they will lose their state benefits. Anyway, in a village this small, everyone is related to everyone else, usually because of sleeping around. They all share mothers and fathers. The school system is a nightmare, trying to keep up with who is related to whom. So, if your commenters think marriage is not under attack -- think again. Europe is usually a bit ahead of America when it comes to all things liberal and bad. The UK, and Scotland in particular, has completely marginalized the Christian faith; churches are empty or up for sale; marriage is a relic of the past; and it is no big deal if a kid has no clue who his father is. Commonplace. And very scary.

My husband and I are Christians. We are mocked all the time. The people in this village are angry at us constantly, and all we are doing is living a quiet life, doing our best to keep marriage sacred. The sad thing is, if we slept around and hung out at the pub "religiously" every weekend, we would be completely welcomed and no one would say a word against us.

Your blog is right on about the ills of society, and my husband and I are living in a society that has long since thrown in the towel. Whatever view of the UK it is that Americans hold, I can tell you, it is antiquated and inaccurate. The UK is a mess. And UK culture is swimming in sin.

One final example: a radio ad for a product called IRN BRU. It is a high calorie, high sugar canned drink. The ad features a young man singing and whistling about his wonderful girlfriend, until she drinks his IRN BRU. Then, he tells us gleefully that she is a "numpty," (American equivalent: moron), but he's okay because now he's "shagging my girlfriend's mother." We complained to the appropriate authority here about this ad, and the response: it is totally in line with British culture and they see no reason to pursue our complaint.

Americans: if you want to see what could become of the country, look to the UK. It's a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Who is it who wants to undermine marriage? Practically everybody these days.

John Piper On The Prosperity Gospel

2010-06-28T19:24:00.001-07:00

On Static Thinking

2010-06-16T16:01:00.000-07:00

"Static Thinking" is a phrase I coined for myself to sum up an explanation for my own personal financial woes. I would come to realize however that it can be applied to many different areas. Today I will apply it to helping the poor, but first a few things in description.

Static Thinking is thinking within a snapshot in time or subject matter; it is static. It doesn't consider history, cause, ramification or consequence. It is the kind of thinking that will cause a person to burn down his barn to get rid of the rats.
Static thinking sees what is and assumes that it is static. Not only were rich people never poor or poor people never rich, but also poor people will never become rich through living as though they are poor, or rich people become poor by living as though they are rich. (rich as defined by Obama as making over 200 or so grand a year) .
Static Thinking is also characteristically stratified or compartmentalized. For example, it does not in any way associate the size of one's house with one's ability to purchase health insurance. Nor, since to do so involves considering the mindset of past generations, i.e. history, does it ask why previous generations lived in smaller houses and paid less taxes, or that government deficit spending is a tax in its own right.

Connecting The Dots of Static Thinking and Helping The Poor

Sue is poor. She is an unaborted single mother with 3 unaborted children from 2 different unaborted dads neither of which live with her in her government provided apartment. Her plight however is not a static one. You see, the idea of a good family home in her world was outdated. June Cleaver and Ossie Harriet as role models had become relics of a bygone era, worthy only of disdain and ridicule. They were replaced by the sensuality of MTV, do what you will, and the materialistic world of feminism. She was educated in a government school where the concept of God was banned and replaced by the meaninglessness of evolution. The intellectuals thought this was best for her.

Her neighborhood is crime ridden. The government - confounded by its self-imposed restraints brought on by liberalism, and a sub-society living according to the standards taught to it by its educational institutions - gave up on trying to control anything but the most violent of criminals.

Sue is unemployed. Businesses that may have employed her, or her husband had she thought it necessary to have one, having given up on doing business in an area where the criminal is the protected one, moved to safer havens; even to other countries where they could escape run away tort law and bureaucratic red tape.

Her neighborhood is drug ridden. Escaping a meaningless and hopeless existence is not achieved by more Godless education on meaninglessness, or nicer digs for copulating. It requires more. Unfortunately drugs are the easiest, and perhaps the only accessible escape.

Her neighborhood is marked by blight. Having been trained that "others" will take care of her, she feels no responsibility for making her neighborhood look nice and desirable. Her peers deface buildings in the same way they deface their own bodies with graffiti and piercings. Besides, to do so would be a Sisyphean task since she would wake each day to find that the graffiti and trash had reappeared.

The liberal intellectuals and "theologians", and the weak minded people who listen to them, look at Sue's plight and see only what their materialistic worldviews allow them to see: a lack of material. So demands that more material be taken from someone else to assuage her situation, and their guilt, are made in the name of "compassion". THIS... is static thinking.

Related Post

Peace and Love, Not To Mention Transparency and Tolerance

2010-06-14T09:25:00.000-07:00

From the Things-You'll-Never-See-On-CNN/MSNBC-repeated-ad-nauseum files, here is a clip of one congressman's aahhhhh... gracious response to the simple question: "Do you support the Obama agenda?". Hmmmm, a simple yes would have probably sufficed, yes?

Hat Tip Carol's Blog.

The 501(c)3, Should Be Reconsidered

2010-06-08T11:01:00.000-07:00

It is time to rethink the 501(c)3 tax exemption for churches. What started as an exemption to encourage charitable giving has since morphed into a gag order on pulpits for the purposes of allowing government to operate without fear of the enormous force for good, resident in the Church. As a result, God has been expelled from our nation at a cost of enormous suffering to its people.

A Brief History

During World War One taxes were raised to new highs. (15% for incomes over $546,500) There were concerns at the time as to whether the wealthy would continue giving to those organizations that depended on philanthropy for their existence, so tax exemptions for charitable giving were put into place. By the 1950's the tax code had morphed into a monster containing about 100 code sections; albeit a baby monster compared to today's 700 or so, but a monster all the same. In the bowels of that monster was a marionette's string waiting for a savvy politician to happen along and put it to use. That politician's name would be Lyndon B Johnson.

In 1954 a section of code of interest to then Senator Johnson was numbered 501 which dealt with exemptions from taxable income. Of particular interest was sub-paragraph (c)3 of that section which exempted certain charitable giving to houses of worship. The reason for this interest? Johnson saw the raw federal power enjoyed by the IRS, and since he was facing an uncertain campaign to hold his ill gotten senate seat, he needed to use that power to squash what was at the time a powerful force, the body of Christ. And he did. Yanking on the string he effectively pulled preacher's mouths shut, as least as it pertains to shining light on government activity.

For several generations now the government, through the IRS, has been supplementing the tithes of the faithful by means of a refund check. But thanks to Johnson, those refunds now come with strings attached; strings that are now accepted as good and right..., even Biblical. As a result of generations living with this "law" there are many who now consider it a sin for a church to venture into the arena of politics, that is, unless that venture involves calling on government to act as an interceptor between sowing sin and reaping its consequences. Now while such activity has proved to be profitable for those seeking gain in the economy of power and guilt assuagement, in the economy of love such ventures are being shown to be bankrupt. For throwing other people's money at symptoms brought about by the Church's retreat from the public square is not an act of love at all, it is idolatry.

Why Did The Church Agree To This Restriction?

Keep in mind that government is responsible for the dual tasks of legislating morality and educating the majority of children according to those morals. Keep also in mind that, being a democracy, the people ultimately have the final say. These realities should bring to our mind a nagging question: Why would the American Church willingly agree to withdraw itself from the arena where the debates concerning the morality that will be taught to the next generation happens?

One sad answer may simply be "mammon". And as could be expected, the Church has been incapable of serving only one master. It perhaps could be said in defense of pastors that they may have rightly assumed that if their congregations, the hook of government refund checks now firmly set, suddenly lost those refunds it would cause giving to wane. This very well may have been a precarious position for the man of God given the debt load that many of them found their organizations struggling beneath. The pastor may have rightly concluded that the congregation was no longer willing or able to withstand the loss of a portion of their tax refund checks in exchange for removing the government mandated restrictions on what is said from the pulpit.

But a sadder answer yet may be that pastors did not want to delve into the ugly world of politics and this gave them the out they were looking for. Considering that the government had already become a benevolent benefactor in the minds of many in the congregation, politics had become a potential division bomb. Many in the congregation, having adopted a mostly material, as opposed to spiritual, mindset, the bottom line for them had thus become a material one in which goodness was no longer a matter of an adherence to Christ-likeness, but rather based on whether or not one supported government handouts.

Also, no doubt that, for the church especially, politics is fraught with the hazards of the corruptions that are part and partial with the potential of power. But this had always been the landscape in which churches functioned. The haunting fact remains that the church at large made a "social compact" with the government that potentially held the equivalence of shirking its calling; a potential that would ultimately prove to be reality. Worse yet, it accepted money for it's shirk.

Sadder even yet still, many churches, having dumped the concept of a spiritual realm accessible through Biblical truth are now aligning themselves with spiritual forces of evil that are in opposition to God's Truth. Under the guise of so called Social Justice, a justice based on pure materialism and at its core sees is a war with any input from Christianity, this new "church" is more than willing to compromise in exchange for a material pittance for the "poor" drawn from other people's pockets . For these churches there is no discernible difference from them and the government party with which they have aligned themselves. What the party says goes regardless of whether or not it agrees with Biblical teaching. The Bible is simply reinterpreted to suit the fantasies of the willingly blind. How ironic that this same party also finds itself aligned with organizations that are no less than hostile to Christianity. For these churches, there is no fear of division in the congregation. They are clear about the ground, apostate though it may be, upon which they have taken their stand. The potentially "divisive" in their ranks are not tolerated, they are shown the door.

The Ramifications

As a consequence of the Church's withdrawal from the public square, a great light has gone out in the halls of government leaving it to operate at every level without fear that that light will be shined onto its activity. Many Christians are now at best woefully ignorant of a Biblical understanding of government in regards to its function and purpose, or worse, have bought entirely into the social justice lie that sees Government as a God like entity capable of ending the curse, or controlling sea levels and the earth's temperatures. In this darkened state many true Christians also see the murder of millions upon millions of children in the womb as an acceptable price to pay in exchange for a total fixation on these material ends. In this new world the hunger and thirst of the spiritual man is now, by judicial decree, denied when it comes to government help; a denial that all the money in the world cannot overcome in its attempts to alleviate the suffering that occurs as a result, and a denial which the Church currently seems more than happy to accept. Many look back to 1962 as the beginning of our nation's fall. I see that era as merely the first harvest, the seeds of which were planted with the social compact of 1954. The dominoes have been falling ever since.

Now, generations later, as if God gave us the ultimate desires of our heart, we, even in the midst of an economic down-turn, are a wealthy nation oblivious to the fact that we are also spiritually poor, blind, and naked. Our Churches are now either completely apostate, or hospitals dedicated to applying salve to the lives wrecked by a culture that has institutionalized sin and anti-Christianity, content to deal with the symptoms rather than causes of suffering. Or worse simply becoming centers of feel-good-therapeutic-theistic entertainment that have passed the buck of the hard work of caring for the poor on to those who simply confiscate wealth from some sinful men and redistribute it to other sinful men asking only for power in return. And at the center of all this is what has become the Giant Pink Idol that no one wants to talk about standing in the of the middle sanctuary, the Democrat party.

Conclusion

There were attempts a few years ago to change the law to give pastors more freedoms in the pulpit while allowing the congregants to keep their subsidies. But God would not have this. The attempt was thwarted. A bill entitled " Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" was voted down. As one could reasonably expect, the votes were mostly along party lines, the true alliances of the Democratic party in plain sight for all who cared to look. But why should have Democrats voted to let loose of its control of pulpits? Churches that openly endorse those Democrats have pretty much always been exempt from scrutiny.

It should also be remembered that nations which do not enjoy freedom of religion do have their state run churches. They are simply controlled, eerily, through similar restrictions on speech that challenges the state.

America has only ever had one hope, the Church of Jesus Christ. Unless that Church comes to its senses, America will continue its decent into darkness and suffering. Furthermore, all our attempts to alleviate that suffering by mammon will only cause more suffering which will open the door for even more "fixes" and losses of freedoms. Our nation awaits salt for its preservation, and light for its vision. Whether that salt will arise from under the foot of man, or that light will ever shine, remains to be seen.

Jan Brewer

2010-06-03T11:05:00.001-07:00

Brewer is meeting with the president today. And if there is one thing all "conservative" politicians have in common it is disappointment amongst their constituency. In my opinion, Jan Brewer is not necessarily going to be any different. I don't think that she wanted to sign SB1070 but had no choice given the overwhelming support for the bill in Arizona. She was silent, as far as I know, during the debates on the bill, and it was hoped by Arizona leftist that she would veto it. No one knew what she would do, I don't think she did either.

Just so you know, Brewer was not elected but became governor when Janet Napolitano left that post to become Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security. That said, Brewer DID want to become the elected governor of AZ and in the end did sign the bill. I still don't know if she truly supports the bill. I think however that she is relishing her surge in popularity, a popularity that will probably propel her into the governor's mansion come November. But how this will all play out with her as an elected governor is still yet to be seen. I've heard conservative pundits praise her aplenty, but as for me, I'm withholding my praise too loudly for the time being. I prefer instead to be optimistically cautious, and I would suggest to those inclined to lay too much praise on her to do the same. As someone once said, if you don't want to be disillusioned, don't be illusioned.

Profits By Any Other Name

2010-05-28T13:53:00.000-07:00

Whether it's big pharmaceutical, big oil, big insurance, or a small plumbing company, the idea that there are billions of dollars in profits being made in this big government political age is unacceptable. This hearkens back to the Marxist roots of socialism where profit was seen as the unfair taking from the laborer the fruit of his labor that was rightfully his.

For all the caterwauling about this "problem" of profits from the most compassionate amongst us-(whisper)and fabulously well to do too-there seems to be a huge blind spot by those singing the loudest.

Keeping with St. Marx's idea of profit-the difference between the value that the worker has created and the wage that the worker receives from his employer-there is an entity, the same entity in fact that Marx saw as the savior for the oppressed proletariat, that seems to be getting away with a little profit action in their own right. That entity would be the state. And as Shakespeare once alluded, you can change the name of your irk, but that doesn't change the fact that your a hypocrite.

So how is this so? Well consider Marx's definition-that I got here by the way. The next time you look at your pay stub look at the difference in the wealth that you have created by the sweat of your brow, minus of coarse what your employer has taken for himself. That would be your gross. Then look at the amount that you received from your employer. Or the next time you purchase an item that "costs" ten dollars, pay attention to how much of the tender representing your labor you must hand over at the cash register. Upon a little reflection you will begin to realize that your employer is not the only one feeding at the trough of your labor.

Now go home and turn on the TV and watch your president, the most flagrant example of such, living like a king, vacationing, flying to and fro making important speeches, and batting spheres around. His ability to do this comes from non other than the taking of the sweat of your, and millions of other's, brow. While some prefer to call this taxing, according to Marx, it is profits.

The Hypocrite's Hypocrite

2010-05-20T11:56:00.000-07:00

A lady reading a magazine with a picture of the conservative Dr. Laura Schlessinger on its cover was asked about the story. "It says Dr. Laura doesn't practice what she preaches" was the reply. This raises a question, does this lady or the author of the article live up to any kind of standard? The truth is that both might just as guilty of the same sort of hypocrisy for no one really lives their lives without some sort of standard.

The problem arises because Dr. Laura, a self proclaimed Jew, holds up a Judeo Christian standard of morality. But if the foundations of the charges of hypocrisy are analyzed, Christians may actually be the least culpable, and their accusers the most. How can this be?

First, consider that without a standard from which to measure, the word hypocrite is meaningless. Christians not only point to an objective set of moral standards that apply to everyone, they also point out that all fall short of those same standards. So let's consider the Christian standards. But let's not stop there but also examine the standards held by those who are quick to accuse Christians of hypocrisy. The charge cuts both ways.

The starting point of Christianity is the admission of the fallenness and depravity of all mankind, including self. It points to a God who cannot be both just and merciful. God's wrath puts all of mankind in a position of condemnation before Him. But his mercy provides an escape. As an aside, it is in recognizing this that we begin to understand the ire of those who are vehemently opposed to Christianity and relish in debasing it. Who, after all, likes being confronted with the truth that they are condemned?

But this is also why the good news is good news. So, that said, not only does the Christian agree with God that he has fallen short of God's standards, but he also acknowledges his failures before man. That said, anyone who accuses Christians of hypocrisy are actually a little late to the party.

Secondly, what of the standards held by those quick with the Christians-are-hypocrites accusations, and how do they fair in holding to their standards? They have their standards too you know. This is proved by the fact that accusations are being made. If one has no standard then there is nothing for another person to fall short of, and no reason to accuse.

The fact is that no one has no standard. In the same way that it is judgemental to judge someone as being judgemental, it is also hypocritical to judge someone as being hypocritical if the person making the judgement has fallen short of his own standards. And no one has not fallen short of his own standards, no matter what those standards might be. So, in one sense, all people except Christians are hypocrites. Of course I don't buy that. There are clearly glaring Christian hypocrites.

It seems to be a common thing in these acrimonious times for accusations of "does not practice what he preaches". Although such charges may be true, it is also true that the one making them is making them from a position of self-righteousness. In the end it is just as important to realize that everyone has standards to fall short of as it is that all fall short of standards. The teachings of Christianity embrace this reality. The fact that the accusers do not raises the question of who is the more authentic hypocrite?

Poisoning My Children's Well

2010-04-30T01:28:00.000-07:00

The common assertion that "Christians are narrow-minded, or anti-science" is a logical fallacy called"Poisoning the Well". Well poisoning is a preempted ad hominem attack that attempts to pre-program, or especially in this case to embed into society's thinking a predisposition against a particular point of view.

My first exposure to the effectiveness of this tactic-from the outside looking in-occurred during discussions in my home with Jehovah's Witnesses. It was here that I began to appreciate the persuasive power of this logical fallacy, and to develop a similar technique in teaching my own children in ways to help insulate them against this kind of mind poisoning by doing a little pre-poisoning of the well of their thinking myself. I hope to accomplish this by being the first to present the messages of our culture except that I do so under the microscope of scripture, logic, and objective truth. In this way I am the one setting the table, so to speak, for the future discussions my children will encounter involving their worldview.

Not unlike the tactics used by the JW's and anti-Christ cultural apologist, as I teach my children I employ the key concept of "firsts." For example: when an institution or media is the first to present a cultural issue, and also the first to present my response in a "closed-minded", "Christian" caricatured stereotype, followed by their a pithy, high-browed, and cognitive dissonant response to that stereotype, then my children's Well becomes poisoned against my teaching. Everything I as parent subsequently espouse may then be seen through the lens of that stereotype. On the other hand, if I am the first to present the tenets of those opposing worldviews along with a logical and realistic explanation as to why they are flawed, then I will have achieved the objective of firsts.

Francis Schaeffer was attuned to this problem in the early sixties and had this to say in "Escape From Reason", published in 1968:

"The reason we often cannot speak to our children, let alone other people's, is because we have never taken time to understand how different their thought-forms are from ours. Through reading and education and the whole modern cultural bombardment of mass media, even today's middle-class children are becoming thoroughly twentieth-century in outlook. In crucial areas many Christian parents, ministers and teachers are as out of touch with many of the children of the church, and the majority of those outside, as though they were speaking a foreign language."

C.S. Lewis also, in "The Abolition Of Man", spoke of the school boy who had had the seed of indoctrination planted in his mind years earlier:

"It is not a theory they put into [the school boy's] mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all."

Parenting as a Christian in a culture hostile to Christianity requires that one be, among other things, proactive and intentional. If the Christian parent is not the first to introduce opposing views, later, the very act of articulating those views will augment the credibility of viewpoints opposed to that parent's by fulfilling the "prophesy" of what the child was foretold those views would be.

When my children are confronted with such opposition, my hope is three-fold. First, that the issue will already have been settled in their minds. Second, that their father's credibility will be enhanced in hearing the opposing viewpoints instead of weakened. And third, that they will be critical thinkers.

It is naive to think that our children's well will not be poisoned if we do not take action to prevent it. Fallacious arguments against the Christian's worldview, and what he desires to teach his children, are very much an integral part of our culture. Unless something is done to prevent it, those arguments will take hold. The parents one day will simply find that their children have rejected their worldview.

To avoid the poisoning of the hearts and minds of our children consider a few thoughts:

The younger our children are, the more open they are to an adult's teaching. As C.S. Lewis alluded, we must plant the seeds in our children early and be vigilant in guarding against the birds who desire to steal those seeds.
Understand the tools and methods that will be used against your teaching, poisoning the well is but one. To learn how these tools are used, we ought to engage the world; think critically about its messages; and learn to refute the arguments if they are untrue. This will require work and critical thinking on our part. As someone once said, parenting is not for cowards.
There is a temptation to wait until our children are older and will better be able to understand. Wisdom is in order here but do not wait too long. Develop the means early in simplistic forms while they are still open. God did not design them to always be under your protection and roof. They become their own persons much earlier than this culture and society would like you to believe. The world knows this. Think the pro-homosexual parenting propaganda book, "Heather Has Two Moms".

Avoid ad hominem attacks (that is attacks on the character of the opposition as opposed to the merit of their viewpoint) against those who hold differing views. While this is effective with anti-Christian forces (those attacks will be constantly reinforced by culture and society) it is antithetical to a Biblical world view. Moreover, if you are successful in teaching your children to think critically, it will only be a matter of time before they put your teaching under that same microscope. Don't discredit your own teaching in the future minds of your children.
Immunize rather than isolate. Learn to find the hidden messages in entertainment, (Plugged In is an excellent resource for this.) and then teach your children to seek and find the good and bad hidden messages in popular media themselves. Remember one mistake does not determine your child's future, nor does one success. With this in mind, Teach your children to interpret movies and to think critically about propaganda/news stories themselves and to keep their guards up, then challenge them by openly playing devil's advocate.

Bring in real life events and issues as they get older. I have found You Tube invaluable for this. A point can be made and examples can be shown and re shown.
Have fun. Eventually picking out fallacious arguments and assertions can be like egg hunts, and the people who are making them begin to look ever more ridiculous, as they should to thinking, as opposed to an emotional populace.
The truth never hurts the truth. Keep in mind that anti-Christian forces are not the sole proprietors of fallacious arguments. Fallacy and truth are mutually exclusive no matter who engages in them. Truth should reign supreme.
Teach and live scripture. This does not mean teach and live perfection. A common well poisoning tactic is to make a strawman attack on Christians as not living what they preach. The Christian knows that this is impossible because he preaches that everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God. So then, when we as parents fall short, we repent and apologize as necessary, including to our children, and according to how we teach. Point out that any time a standard exists, people who hold to that standard will fall short. Inquire as to what standard the person making this accusation may be falling short of.
Above all, pray without ceasing that our Father in Heaven will guide the steps of our children into His service and into His glory. Pray that He will capture their hearts at an early age. Pray that they would always seek His face, and His will for their lives and that he would make it plain to them what that will and plan is. Pray for wisdom-as a parent-that the wiles and schemes of the Evil One would be plain. Pray for their salvation and for their eternal destiny.

It is my intention with our children to be the preemptive teacher with Jesus as our reference point. We look for teachable moments and object lessons in life, on television shows, and in books. We have discussions about evolution, objective truth, government, our purpose in life, who they are and why they are here, and many other topics in light of what the Bible teaches. It is in these discussions, and lessons, that I try to play Devil's advocate and give them the world's views and answers to these questions, and along with them their associated problems.

Although They Claimed To Be Rational, They Became Irrational

2010-01-31T01:11:00.000-08:00

C.S. Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man of the person who has never been able to conceive of the Atlantic as anything more than so many million tons of cold salt water as he quiped about the person who interprets his world strictly from a material perspective. Any feelings of awe that might be experienced by the small man standing next to such a vast body of water are explained by electrical currents shooting around in the brain. His feelings are then meaningless, just as is his existence.

God has granted man with this ability to reason, but man has taken that ability and applied it in ways that are… well, unreasonable. It would seem that as man’s knowledge about his world increases, so does his willingness to believe that his world is all there is. Using his increased knowledge as a springboard he attempts to make a leap from his increased knowledge about his physical world to determining how man ought to be, but in so doing he falls into the chasm of the irrational, for it does not follow that merely because man learns how his world works, that he also knows why his world works-or why it exists either for that matter-for his conclusions about what he ought to do or be are based, not on what he has learned, but instead on the mere fact that he has learned. It is not reasonable to conclude that "survival of the fittest" would in any way suggest that we ought to “save and protect the weak". It is irrational to be shocked and appalled when, after mandating that “survival of the fittest”, be taught exclusively to the next generation in our educational institutions as the only rationally acceptable bases for our existence, when that generation conducts itself as if it is true.

The irrationality of man's attempted leap can also be seen in what we are told ought to be legislated, educated, and sacrificed in our lives. From seemingly every cultural institution and corner we are flooded with an ever increasing array of causes that involve everything from feeding the poor to saving the planet begging for our participation and the realignment of our society. Never is an explanation as to why we ought to devote and sacrifice our lives to these causes given beyond the end for which the causes exist. All of these irrational causes seem to have one thing in common. They seem to be herding humanity toward some ultimately irrational utopian vision; the hope, one might suppose, being that those utopian ends will one day finally be achieved for some future generation before the sun burns out.

But then the sun burns out.

Yet we are told that belief in the existence of a creator is irrational. But by denying the existence of a creator, we have also denied any rational bases upon which to conclude that man ought to do anything at all except eat, drink and be merry through any means available or necessary during his short time of ultimately meaningless consciousness, for these are the very things his evolved mind tells him to do; and the grave is his reward weather he does them or not. It would only seem rational therefore for the rational mind to say, why not? For this reason, it should be no surprise that man’s “causes” ultimately begin to look and feel more and more like the religions that are so despised for being irrational.

This may also explain the abysmal success rate for many such causes as well, for staying true to the materialism that animates the causes; success is judged solely by material. Success is seen then as the spiritually-impoverished wealthy successfully mandating that material wealth be taken by force from other spiritually-impoverished wealthy for the purposes of divvying the booty for the exaltation and enrichment of the takers and pittances for the spiritually and materially impoverished. Never mind the long term ramifications of lost dignity, destroyed families, drug abuse, illiteracy, suicides, fatherlessness, hopelessness, lawlessness, and dilapidated and deteriorating inner cities where the recipients of this kind of guilt-assuaging materialistic pittances are retained. That such maladies are the result of spiritual problems that ever more material cannot alleviate is lost on those who are themselves spiritually-impoverished. The rational mind might would want to stop and consider the results of the materialist’s crusade, but then again, that would be a rational thing to do.

So round and round the irrational vortex society spirals in its irrational denial that man is the handy work of his creator God. And with its denial that it is reasonable and rational to think that there is more to life than our small minds can grasp, so goes the denial of our only hope, a hope that can ultimately compel the hearts and minds of men to real and true greatness and goodness, the hope that we were all created for a purpose, and that there is way more to life than mere material gratification can fulfill.

I welcome your comments on this matter, but if you comment it will not appear until the ninth of Feb. If it appears before that it means that I found a terminal long enough to liberate them, but I will probably not be able to respond.

Thanks friends.

Interesting Brown/Coakley Perspective, a must see

2010-01-20T13:32:00.000-08:00

On Conspiracies

2010-01-16T09:18:00.000-08:00

I was talking to a friend the other day who believes these elaborate conspiracies that have been making their rounds for years. A greater exercise in futility and frustration would be difficult to grasp. Just watch the Video, they say. There's only one problem. I have been so subjected to propaganda for so long, I have developed somewhat of a resilience to it, I think.

There has been a You Tube video out for some time called "Small Change" or something like that, that supposedly shows how our government blew up the World Trade Centers. Why they had to employ airplanes and waste American lives to make it look like something it wasn't I can't imagine, but they can. They always have an answer... always.

The outing of the hoax of global warming is a wonderful example as to why I don't believe in these elaborate multi generational conspiracies-someone always talks. But if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would simply say that the conspirators intended for the outing to happen, for nothing happens that they don't intend to, and nothing doesn't happen that they intend to happen. This sounds incredibly close to another entity we know. Many of us will be going to worship Him tomorrow.

These conspiracy theories are kooky, and unfortunately, they are mainly held by conservatives, as far as I know, many of which are Christians. This is befuddling.

All of this said, I do believe in a multi-generational conspiracy in the heavenly realms. I believe that there is an enemy of our souls that is orchestrating the un-renewed minds of men to carry out his elaborate plans. I believe that there is no neutral ground as to which side of the conspiracy one functions on, and I believe that currents events attest so well to this that many are buying into a fleshy shadow of his existence.

Just so all who come by here know where I stand.

When Reality Parodies Comedy

2010-01-14T09:33:00.000-08:00

Below is a clip from the 1979 Steve Martin movie The Jerk. Martin's response to a serial killer trying to kill him in this clip has for years come to mind as I have digested elitist and the media's responses to some of the problems we have encountered.

To set it up, Martin's character believed that a person was a nobody until his name was in the phone book. When he finally got a phone, the killer, who picked his victims randomly from the phone book, picked Martin's name and was trying to kill him.

Martin's response to what was happening was classic. After several misses, he concluded that the killer hated the cans and advised everyone to "stay away from the cans!". His response is eerily reminiscent of the elitist media type's responses to terrorism in particular, and almost all problems in general. But regardless, I am almost daily reminded of this little clip as I watch elites tell us why things happened and what our responses should be.

More Dishonesty

2010-01-09T08:22:00.000-08:00

As the old saying goes, figures lie and liars figure. And so it is with the deficit neutral promise of health care reform.

The deficit neutral promise is a gimmick of looking ten years down a road in which the funds are confiscated for the entire ten and are only given away for the last five; kind of like taking into account only the the running start and the first five miles of an attempt to climb an infinitely high and increasingly steep mountain. A less dishonest look at the bill would consider dole vs. confiscation within a time period in which both are occurring simultaneously, but I guess that's a little much to ask.

One example of the use of dishonest accounting gimmicks can be seen in the myth of Clinton's surplus. Here are the actual numbers from the Obama administration's Treasury Dept. web site showing increasing debt for the entire eight years of Clinton. How can this be? Well, it can be if one closes one eye while journaling about government ledgers to make the journalist's man look better to the willingly duped plebeian.

This is accomplished by taking into account only one of the two ledgers in congress. One shows the money borrowed from our trans-pacific friends and the nation's citizens. The other shows the money the government borrows from itself out of its surplus receipts from the SSI "trust" fund. The link above shows this as debt because it is in fact debt; but more of a Bernie Madoff style debt which similarly allows for the dishonest claim of a "Clinton Surplus".

In a similar tactic, this congress will be passing a huge tax increase for promised free hand-outs that will not come due for two election cycles. During this time, if the tax increases don't damage the economy to the point that a sufficient gain is not seen, the government and its media accomplices might well be able to tout a Clinton/Madoff style "surplus" for a couple of election cycles.

Someone told me during my engagement to my wife to keep both eyes open, then after our marriage to close one. With this in mind it looks as if the media has married the Democrat party. So the real question now is will the democrat party and its husband the media be able to pull off a similar dishonest deception with enough of the politically unsavvy?

Like Warm Jello

2009-12-29T13:00:00.000-08:00

I was just finishing a cup of Starbucks here in San Francisco when I read the side of my cup.

"I wish everyone could see how much we all have in common"

Supposing that we did see our commonalities, then what? Does it remove our wickedness? Supposing that a home invader was getting ready to unload his shotgun into your family. What good would the many ways in which you share common ground with the criminal do you? Or from a global perspective suppose Iran was getting ready to keep its promise to annihilate Israel by turning it to a sea of glass. What good would the things that Israel has in common with Iran do Israel, even though there are probably many times more things both have in common than not?

These little naive idealistic sayings are like jello. They are sweet thoughts, sure, but they don't stand up when the kitchen gets hot.

Dishonesty

2009-12-27T01:49:00.000-08:00

Here is Kathleen Sebelius talking about the end run that will be made around the anti-abortion wording in the so called "health care reform" legislation that the blue dog Ben Nelson fell on his political sword to obtain.

Notice how Sebelius uses the words "accounting ah measure" instead of "accounting gimmick". Well that's nice. I love the "women's health services" code talk that those stupid Bible Thumpers are not suppose to understand. And as a nice icing at the end the other person's response was: "that's very confusing". Hmmmm... you bet ya.

H/T Jill Stanek -where transcrip is available-by way of Eternity Matters

Phoenix Breathes Sigh Of Relief

2009-12-18T09:33:00.000-08:00

Thursday night Phoenix AZ breathed a sigh of relief. Georgia Lynn Baker was not hurt, or harmed, while eluding police in a high speed chase. The chase endangered the lives of many as they were going about their business, and took the life of a 28 year old police officer who was attempting to stop her, but the main thing is is that Baker is OK, and the city of Phoenix and the ACLU can breath a sigh of relief. Our right to go about driving under the influence of drugs, endangering the lives of our fellow citizens and police-should we ever feel the need to do so-without the fear of the police hurting us in their attempts to stop us, was not encroached upon.

The police officer, 28-year-old Chris Marano, gave his life while protecting these rights. Marano leaves behind a wife and four children. What a Christmas present. But hey, as I said, Miss Baker will experience this Christmas completely in tact, and that's the main thing... isn't it?

Finding The Philosophical

2009-12-11T13:49:00.000-08:00

I spend quite a bit of time studying the integral workings of what I have come to know as "Worldview". In so doing, I have studied and marveled over the concept of beauty, philosophy, and the deep questions of life.

This has brought about quite a bit of change in my own worldview. I, for example, no longer look at art as beautiful in and of itself, or the artist as simply talented, although I do marvel over anyone's ability to create. I see the beauty as a the very finger print of God himself manifesting itself through one of his creations for all to see. This video is no different. While watching this, I marveled over what God has enabled man to do, in all its simplicity and humor, and what possible message was being conveyed, if any.

With the onset of the death of man in the sixties, which manifested it self, incidentally, as the death of God, Francis Schaeffer said at the time that "philosophers no longer ask the big questions classical philosophy has always asked", and that "the real philosophic expressions have tended to pass over to those who do not occupy the chairs of philosophy-...[such as] the film producer" (1)

This little cartoon may be such an example. While it does matter what the artist intended, I am not saying that my interpretation is the same. I had quite the laugh watching it, and as always, was struck by man's ability to create.

What I saw in this cute little video was man's desire to rid himself and the world of sin (the cat) without Christ. The more he tries, so he can get back to his own personal pursuits, the worse his life becomes until he is faced with nine times the hell in his after life. President Lincoln accused the South of being willing to burn down its barn to get rid of its rats. Current events and this little cartoon remind me of this phrase as I marvel over the follies being undertaken by our current government in its attempts at creating its Utopian paradise by stamping out, at the price of unfathomable debt, the consequences of sin; the result being the destruction of a nation and its economy.

H/T Casting Pearls Before Swine

(1) Escape From Reason, IVP Classics, pg 74

On Economics, thoughts taken from Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, Chapter 1

2009-12-10T15:30:00.000-08:00

As I considered reading Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell, I anticipated a book about money. I was surprised to learn that "economics" is not about money at all, but about resources. Currency is only a system by which the value of resources is measured.

According to Sowell, economics is defined as:

The allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

This definition can be broken down into three parts:

Allocation
Scarce resources
Alternative uses

Allocation

Allocation is similar to method. Everyone who desires the use of a resource will not be able. This is one of the harsh realities with which we are all faced, and it is unreasonable to deny it, though many do. As the Titanic was sinking, this harsh reality came into play with the shortage of life boats. The modern and popular concept of equality was a foreign one, and absurd too, given the blatant realities on the deck of that ship. In fact, the only way to enforce that reality would have been to deny anyone access to the life boats. Ultimately, we all know how that decision was made, which was that the men chose self sacrifice in favor of the women. In any case, allocation is the method which determines who the beneficiaries of resources for a given society or situation will be, and it will ultimately depend on the governmental/economic system within which the resources are being allocated.

Scarce Resources

The value of a resource will depend on the demand for that resource verses its scarcity or availability. It only stands to reason that the lower the availability of a given resource, the higher the number of people there will be who will be denied its benefit, such as in the the previous example of the Titanic. Scarce simply means that there are limits on the availability of all resources.

Alternative uses

The lifeboat analogy breaks down here unless perhaps we create a hypothetical question of whether the boats might have just as well been broken up and used for a signal fire. But then the question would have been about the alternative uses for the specific resource, wood, as opposed to lifeboats. Would it have been better to use the wood for a signal fire or allow it to continue in its use as a lifeboat?

Wood, as a raw resource can also be used alternately in pianos, or in the construction of furniture, among other things. The question of "which alternative?" is answered by the system within which the question is asked? The goal with any system is to avoid a situation like a warehouse full of unwanted pianos while there is a shortage of wood for building furniture for which there is a demand? Meeting this goal will again depend on the method, or governmental/economic system, and in fact in some systems it may not be avoided at all. In the the old Soviet Union, with its central planners deciding what resources would be used for what, it was common for resources to be miss-allocated resulting in an abundance of things people didn't want while with a simultaneous shortage of things people did want. The thousands of central planners were no match for the allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses that happens daily and automatically in a free market system as millions of private individuals make millions of purchasing choices.

Free market = free choice

The free market describes just that, the freedom to choose. And although the average person living in a free market economy probably doesn't think about it, every time a choice is made to purchase one thing over another, that choice impacts the allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses. If more people want dressers than pianos, the demand for dressers will allow the furniture manufacturer to bid higher prices for the scarce resource, wood, thereby driving up the cost of building pianos as well as the cost of purchasing furniture. As a result of demand the price of the piano and dresser will increase until a sort of equilibrium is reached between supply, demand, and cost. The end result will be that more of the scare resource, wood, will be directed toward dressers as opposed to pianos. But, of coarse, nothing is ever static in an economy. It is for these reasons that no government will ever meet the challenge of managing it.

As Christians

As Christians it is important that we understand economic concepts lest we be led astray by our own envy, or by noble sounding arguments from those who stand to benefit from laws that regulate the economy. All economic systems are ultimately the arrangements of trade-offs. No system will lead us back into Eden and as such there will be faults and problems with any system; the first and foremost springing from man's sinful nature. We are also still under the curse. This means that we have to earn our way by the sweat of our brow; that is, the old adage that you can't get something for nothing, still applies. So when someone promises something different, we should have the discernment to know better.

Note: I have a fear of insulting the reader's intelligence in posting some of my attempts at writing This article was written some time ago and wasn't posted for just such a fear. I have noticed however that many people say that they don't understand economics, so I reconsidered that earlier decision. If you're still reading, I would sure appreciate any feedback on whether or not this article was helpful or informative.

Get Your Children Out Of Public School Now

2009-12-04T22:33:00.000-08:00

I had copied and pasted a pornographic line in the first sentence of this post, then thought better of it assuming that no one but already-shocked-by-what-they-are-seeing readers would ever see it.

Gateway Pundit reported Friday morning that the (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) GLESN, founded by President Obama's current safe schools czar, has a reading list to help students learn to feel comfortable with there own, or accept other's homosexuality. The team at Gateway chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list to read. They were unprepared for what [they] encountered. It was described as thus:

Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren't merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem.

So what we have here is a President of the United States who has an unvetted "Safe Schools" czar, Kevin Jennings, who is the founder of an increasingly powerful organization that promotes pornography for children.

This however is not shocking to me, nor is it scary. There have always been creepy people, some of which have made their way into high and powerful positions. What is scary to me is that this will not reach the level of scandalous as scandalous was once understood. There once was a saner time when the like would have caused an avalanche resulting in the President and his Orwellian Czars in the dislodged rubble at the bottom of the mountain. This will not be the case in these current times. Unfortunately, I'm much more afraid of a society that is OK with these things, just so long as sufficient numbers believe that they will get their precious free heath care, and whatever other impossible Utopian promises are currently coming from on high. This indeed I find most terrifying.

Please visit Gateway Pundit and read the article, even including some of the excerpted passages from GLESN's recommended books.

New World Order American Dictionary additions

2009-11-30T23:24:00.000-08:00

Some additions and one revision to my other blog, a one post blog, the New World Order American Dictionary linked at the right of this page.

Corruption-A label reserved for political law breakers-real, imagined, or accused, who disagree with Democrats.

Fair-A subjectively derived position or point of view mistaken or confused with objective truth.

Government-God

Good-see whatever

Hope- The opiate for the anti-religious masses.

Job Creation-a job shifted from the private to public sector.

Morality- archaic, offensive, The idea of right and wrong based on objective truth. used interchangeably with morality [the idea of right and wrong based on liberals.] Hence, the statement "you can't legislate morality" by those who legislate lots of morality must be interpreted under the archaic meaning.

Patriot- Any person who loves the dream he has for America. example: Army Major Nidal Hasan is a Patriot because he loves the dream he has for an America under Sharia Law. President Obama is a patriot because he loves the dream he has for a communist America.

Whatever- The culmination of liberal thought and theology in a word.

A Cap And Trade Bed Time Story

2009-11-25T09:25:00.001-08:00

As more and more truth leaks out about the supposed ~~global warming~~ climate change "crisis", the commercials from evil corporations-who incidentally stand to make a nice profit from this global hoax, and the"news stories" from the state supporting media, who incidentally seek to gain more power from the same, are looking more and more ridiculous. My bet is that rather than tone it down in light of the piling evidence against this farce, they will ratchet it up by saying "shut up", which will look more and more like this. It is, after all, the communist way.

While we are visualizing world peace, may we also visualize a world in which news cycles report truth, and PSA's look like this:

H/T The Clay Tablet

The Bumbling Genius

Jumping Out Of A Perfectly Good Airplane?

Knowing Jesus + Suffering = Joy

Another Name For Guilt: "A Good Start"

A Horrible God?

confusion, part four

Confusion, part three

Coming To A NEA Unionized, Democrat Controlled Government School Near You

Confusion, part two

Confusion, part one

Love does not envy, it is not self seeking, it does not delight in evil

Green?

Love And 1st Corinthians Chapter 13

Love

The Mystery Of The Missing Comments

Ever Wonder How The Taking Out Of Osama Would Have Been Viewed By The Self Appointed American "Conscious" If Bush Were In Office?

Using Seashells For Money, How Silly

To Clarify

Leaving The Church

Ray Stevens Get's It.

How Do You Know If You're Making A Bad Argument?

Oughts Ex Nihilo

A Juxtaposition Of Sermons

Who Are They Talking To?

Neil's Apt False Teacher Primer

love protects

The One Good Apple Fallacy

Don't Tell Me That You Love Me... II

What Is Obama's Libya Policy? That's Easy

Living In The Here And Now

Relax, It's OK, Obama Is A Democrat

The Tyranny Of The Times

A Tale Of Two Equalities

Calling Sin Sin

Bob, The Evil Gas Station Owner

Pro Life Ad

Legalism vs. Legalism, No One Wins

A Multi-Faceted Beauty

Which Jesus Do They Worship?

To Believe Or Not To Believe, This Is Not The Question

Wallace/Currie Hymnal Suggestions

American History In Black And White

Documentary By The Man Woman Myth

Insurance Refresher

Life Is Indeed Short

Don't Tell Me That You Love Me

A Little More Perspective On Hate

Imagine Consistency

A Calvanist's Fear

It's A Harsh World After All

A Great Football Play

51 Ways To Survive

The 2012 Obama Campaign Has Begun

Another Arbitrary Law For The Books

Imagine No Global Warming

Flight Delays and Trade Offs

An Essay On The Argument

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Aslan A Representation of Muhammad?

The Run Away Skier's Dilemma

Unconsidered Luxuries

Some Thoughts On Beauty

The End Of The Road Of Envy

STOP!!! or SLOW DOWN!!!?

Is Man Basically Good

Juan Williams

Epithets Galore

The Porn Nation

Teach Your Children Well

Twisting In The Wind

That's Not Fair!

On Generalizaitions

Religions Rule

Runaway Slave Trailer

Unions And Slavery

Nancy Pelosi Eats Her "Words"

Taxes And Slavery

Appeasing Islam

On Godwin's Law

The World V Marriage, a comment