Complaints That Prove Life is Good

I'm on my forth cell phone and it's time to renew my contract with Vorizon so I suppose I'll soon be on my fifth. It seems that every phone I've had, has had at least one or two things about it that irritate me. My current phone has probably come as close as possible to keeping those irritants to a minimum. I was working in the back yard yesterday and I could feel my phone vibrating in my pocket about every two or three minutes as it switched itself from vibrate to ring to vibrate to ring and on and on. This is one of the irritants that I have grown use to with my current phone, and it happens because one of the external buttons, when held down, changes the phone from vibrate to ring and back again. I suppose the manufacturer didn't foresee the obvious result from such a button when placed next to a set of keys in ones pocket. My previous phones have had a way to disable those external buttons. I suppose those manufactures did have the foresight.

This feature causes the most irritation when I go through the normal ritual of searching for my wallet, keys, and phone before leaving the house. There's always a fifty/fifty chance when I dial my phone that it will actually ring and give away it's whereabouts, or silently vibrate; which incidentally sounds kind-of like nah na nah na nah nah.

Life is good, when these are our complaints, wouldn't you agree? Before being able to afford a cell phone I probably couldn't have imagined being so easily irritated once I got one. And I can think of a hundred things that could happen that would make these complaints seem not worth mentioning, which of course they are not, even if nothing did happen. So there; have a nice day, and be thankful!

Some Thoughts On The Christian Walk

An all-time favorite book of mine is Pilgrims Progress. For those who might not know, this is a book written mostly in a jail cell by John Bunyon in the seventeenth century. It is an allegory of a young man named Christian and his journey along the path of life from the City of Destruction to the Celestial City. Wikipedia shows this book as number six on the all time best seller list of books. One reason for the book's success, I think, is because Christians easily relate to the story as well as to characters such as Faith, Love, Obstinate, Vein Hope and others which the character Christian faces in his sojourn. Also I think many Christians find the book comforting because the allegory aspect of the book causes its encouragement to be timeless. The reader finds solace knowing that the struggles he is experiencing are no different than those who have gone before him; that he is indeed surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.

My own path out of the City of Destruction began fifteen or so years ago in Nashville, Tennessee. The path seemed like an up hill climb at the time as I studied scriptures, listened to teachers, and attempted to apply what I had learned to life. I had not read Pilgrims Progress at the time, and never anticipated the fact that the journey was just that; a journey. I can remember looking forward to the day when I would become a confident and competent Christian and the path would level out and be smooth and easy. Of course this has not happened, nor do I any longer expect it to. Sure there have been periods of rest just as there were with Bunyon’s Christian, but for the most part this walk has proved to be fraught with traps, snags, and dangers that lurk beyond every bend and crest.

Some might ask, then why take the path at all? To answer I will cite one of my most beloved events in Scripture. It can be found in John chapter six. Jesus was telling a crowd that to have life; they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. These words caused the crowd to disperse quickly leaving Jesus alone with his twelve disciples. Then Jesus asked them, "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Then Peter responded, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Peter’s question is one of my most favorite scriptures of all. I love it because I have asked the same question many times, “to whom shall I go?”

There is one more thing I’ve learned about this path that Bunyon doesn’t’ mention. This is the fact that at each step, the path behind me crumbles away. No matter how many steps I take forward up the mountain, so to speak, it is always only one step backward to the bottom. There are no intermediate destinations along the way where one can drive in a steak and say this is as far as I’m going, and it is far enough. No, the Christian walk is one that is for life, and one that has a destiny that is not of this world. We fix our eyes not on what we see, but what we do not see, a city with foundations whose architect and builder is God himself. But one of the most precious things we can know about this walk, whether it be during a difficult stretch, or a smooth one, is we are not left here to go it alone. The Author and Perfecter of our faith is always there to lead and guide us, and though we may occasionally fall, we are not cast down, for he will always uphold us with his hand.

The Bridge to the 21st Century

When I first heard the news that the bridge had collapsed in Minneapolis my first thoughts were probably pretty normal; what a tragedy, and thoughts of those on the bridge headed home from work. It wasn't long before those thoughts gave way to wondering how this would be parlayed into politics by blaming president Bush. I have been trained by experience to think this way, though It was still a half hearted thought. I have been reluctant to think that everything bad that happens can be blamed on the same person every single time. I mean it's not like we were actually living in utopia before the 2000 elections were stolen. This reminded me of the words of President Clinton and his Bridge to the 21st century. Seems his party has been busy burning and destroying them ever since, this red banner being just one more example of such an exercise. Surly the "people" will eventually see a pattern, and see this incessant blame game for what it is; a shameless grab for power. I have now concluded that to over estimate the lows to which the Democrats will stoop might be quite impossible. Do I hope in vane that the American citizen sees though this charade to what it is, an insatiable lust for power by any means? What will they do with power if they are ever allowed to wield it unimpeded? I shudder to think.

Never-the-less, there they are, on the banks of the Mississippi River proclaiming that if we were not at war, this bridge wouldn't have fallen; and what ever else may ail you wouldn't ail you; and your dog would still be living; and your tooth wouldn't hurt; and on and on and on...... ad nauseam. All the while we hear no ideas, vision or plans, only impossible platitudes such as increasing spending and lowering taxes for the poor; living happily ever after, and oh yea, did I mention bashing president Bush?

The New High Society

I recently returned from the Arizona Family Home Education (AFHE) conference in Phoenix. The concept of a Home education seems to be exploding as the government's attempts at a one size fits all educational institution crumbles under the weight of Godlessness. As this continues I'm noticing some interesting trends in "high society" vs. so called common folk.


While at the conference I picked up a copy of A Bountiful Blessing by the Eden String Quartet. This is a documentary on an ensemble of four sisters raised on a farm near a small town in Illinois who were educated at home. While viewing this film I found myself inspired to be the best Dad I can be, and for this reason I highly recommend adding this DVD to your library if you're a parent, or if you're not. To see previews click here for a You Tube clip. Lest one think that this is a wealthy family, the mom mentions that they had to borrow eight hundred dollars to buy a piano for the oldest girl to take lessons when she was young. The film also attempts to drive home the point that it was never the parents goal that the children reach for fame and fortune. I say all of this to make the case that these ladies are not who they are because of money, but because of what was instilled into them by their parents; namely the fear of God.

Watching this film the family appears reminiscent of nineteenth century wealth and prestige as these girls, dressed in their gowns, preform in some sort of hardwood music hall or church. I think that perhaps during that century, given the same social status, these girls would have probably been relegated to only tending to children and the homestead while such activities as seen on this film would be limited to the privileged and wealthy. What an interesting twist to the modern feminist movement. Meanwhile today it seems that the privileged and wealthy are expending much of their wealth on lawyers and publicist as they attempt to keep their children out of jail and in rehab. Also, honor and duty, once a mainstay of the privileged class, now appear to be foreign concepts for them as well, while it appears to be alive and well in this family.

Of course this is an obvious anecdotal comparison between the likes of Paris Hilton, Lord bless her, and a relatively obscure family of home schoolers from which arose four beautiful and talented musicians. For sure not all homeschoolers grow up to be Ladies and Gentlemen, and not all rich children grow up to be spoiled brats. But it would seem that the current trends beg a question: Do these four ladies and the Paris Hiltons of our age conduct themselves in accordance with, or in spite of, their up-bringing?

Love

This word Love is a word like hate and racist that has morphed. The word love here is translated from the Greek word agape. Agape is a far cry from the modern understanding of the word Love. In the modern vanacular, the word love really means "I love myself too much to subject myself to the discomfort of discussing sin".

A Young Curmudgeon

I asked my four year old son what he wanted to be when he grew up and he answered that he definitely wanted to be a Curmudgeon. I was so proud of him because I have much respect for the only Curmudgeon I know, Dr. Doug Groothuis at The Constructive Curmudgeon. I took this picture a few minutes after I posed the question; wha-da-ya think?

Win Modern Debates, here's how!

In debating modern issues, the first weapon that must be adopted into your arsenal is: "that's just your opinion". This is the nuclear warhead in all informal debates, and some formal ones. Here's how it works: when it becomes obvious you're loosing because your opinion isn't sufficient to carry the weight of your argument; you lob those words into your opponent's camp. He will then spend his time marshaling facts and information to support his position-like you care-thus give you time to advance emotionally based attacks like accusing him of mean spiritedness and lacking compassion. This keeps you on the offensive which is always best in debating.

If your opponent becomes flustered at your emotional attacks, this will provide a wonderful opportunity for retreat with the two of the one-two punch. This is accomplished by accusing your opponent of being a very angry person as you withdraw from the debate with an announcement of your unwillingness to debate such hostility. If there is any sign at all of frustration, this is sufficient for your scheme if you draw enough attention to the frustration.

If this method begins to fail there's a flanking maneuver which I call the "duck and jive". This is where you change horses mid-stream because the horse you're on is drowning. It is accomplished by dumping a previously held position mid-debate, and taking up a new one . You might have seen this in Abortion debates where one suddenly finds himself debating capital punishment, or the virtues of freedom, or some such thing as that.

It is best to never take up a defensive position. But if you actually have a position, and its worth defending, there is a position that appears to be a defensive one but isn't. I call this the "faux defense" and its best employed along side the "fat line center" tactic, which I'll discuss later. This is best used when your own position is being challenged and is accomplished by charging your opponent with being judgemental and intolerant. This causes him to retreat from an otherwise offensive maneuver, and to again take up a weaker position of defending his motives rather than advance a strong argument. In the mean time you continue harassing attacks on his character under cover of a faux defense. You will be aided in these attacks by the notion that your opponent's defensive position implies there is something to defend; all the while portraying yourself as taking a stand against judgemental bigoted attacks. You can catch an example of this on the floor of the Senate or Congress just about any time there's a debate. It's also prevalent in political campaigns.

In conjunction with the faux defense, the so called "fat line center" is a wonderful way of keeping everyone confused. Otherwise know as a faux-neutral, it derives its name from the axiom that there is a line of demarcation delineating positions in a debate. To take advantage of this technique one "fattens the line" so to speak, to enable himself to ostensible position his argument as a neutral one rather than "taking sides". Often labeled "moderate" this gives the appearance of neutrality thus shifting the playing field in such a way to make the opponent's position appear extreme. It also allows one to couch all his arguments from the perspective of "reasonableness". This is a very powerful position from which to better relate to the subjective thinker who has only himself as a reference point; and so is always neutral. This method will draw on his emotions and elitist tendencies proving very effective in the ultimate goal of his persuasion.

For the finishing touches use what I call "ice the cake", so named because it sugar coats what is actually a final jab as you end the debate. You accomplish this by summarizing your position by employing the two words "I Just". This perhaps is the most sneaky little trick that the modern debater can employ, and it's effective too because those two words have a way of armor plating your opinion. It really is quite amazing; you can actually say anything you want following those two words and there can be no response. Take the abortion debate again for example, a final statement could be: "I just don't think its right for an old rich man in Washington to be able to tell me what I can and can't do with my body". On the war in Iraq one could say: "I just think that we should all get along", "I just don't think its right to kill"; or on immigration: "I just think that if someone wants to make their life better, we shouldn't stand in their way, that would be mean".

Once the debate is over always declare yourself the winner. If the matter comes up again, refuse to debate it while claiming that the debate is over then continue to advance your position as if it isn't. Then harp on the need to move forward and stop waisting time with endless debates. Remember that if conventional wisdom-whether real or imagined-supports your position lean on it. If it doesn't, claim it a gray area, and then lean heavily on the argument that "we can't know". It always helps to add urgency to your argument so that you can advance a weak position simply by declaring: "what if I am right?".

One last word of warning. Do not ever engage in private debate, for that would be a waste of your time. To convince an opponent is never the purpose of a debate, but rather to persuade the subjective spectator. You will find all these tactics quiet effective to the end of persuading subjective thinkers, and there is more than an abundance of them to persuade. And you have not won until they are persuaded. Happy debating.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

I am now reading “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins”. Dawkins is a proud atheist and this book is aimed at proselytizing religious people away from their faith in a god to a faith that there is no God. The first chapter takes care of laying some ground work. He begins by making the case, using Albert Einstein, that there are many well know and respected scientist who, when quoted out of context, can sound as if they themselves believe in a god. He points out that this "god" is not a supernatural god. He finds this confusing, and so do I, and I agree with him that these scientist shouldn't do this. He also says that “it is possible that religious readers will be offended by what [he has] to say, and will find in these pages insufficient respect for their own particular beliefs…[and] It would be a shame if such offence prevented them from reading on...[also there is] A widespread assumption…that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect…”(pg23) I scratched my head initially on this one. Then I thought of the respect that one religion is given and I found myself agreeing with him on this as well. He went on to make this same case himself using the recent events in Denmark. The last sentence of the first chapter disclaims “I shall not go out of my way to offend, nor shall I use kid gloves…”. The first sentence of the second chapter he calls the “God of the Old Testament…jealous…petty, unjust, unforgiving, control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticide, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”. For someone to hate the God in which I have faith doesn’t offend me; my goodness how would I make it through the day? But for the people he is presumable trying to enlighten, I wonder why he thinks they will continue to read after a diatribe like that?

Incidentally, I found myself as a Christian agreeing with him more than I ever thought I could. This is so because his arguments are, by his own admission, against religion. This makes sense because as an atheist that’s all that remains. I am not an atheist and I don’t have respect for religion, so I’m sure as an atheist he has even less.

I've only read two chapters but there’s nothing surprising so far. All such books, as far as I can discern, are about the same thing: power. The main thrust is that religious people should not vote because they are deluded. I think it was Voltaire who said “if there is no God, all things are permissible”. If there is no objective basis for morality, then the only question that remains is'n't what is right and wrong, but rather who gets to decide? The secularist then finds democracy problematic because of what he sees as the deluded ignorant superstitious religious voter imposing his beliefs of right and wrong onto society. In the end it all comes down to amassing raw power. While reading this book I put letters in the margins to aid in later research; P for power, R for religion, and E for evolution. The P’s already outnumber all the other letters put together, and I suspect this trend will continue because P is all that’s really left if there is no God.

Tagged!

OK so I’ve been tagged by Pat J. Here are seven things about me

1. I went scuba diving on a coral reef off of Cat Island in the Bahamas. I didn’t know they were fragile and probably killed a half mile of it.

2. I did four static line skydives in Jackson GA.

3. I lived on a houseboat for a year and had a sail boat on the same dock.

4. I lost the sailboat off the coast of Georgia when my mask broke after capsizing. The coast guard came out and hovered over my friend and I for awhile, and I could see the rescuer looking down at me shaking his head like I was a moron. Then they flew away and we washed ashore.

5. I spent a month living on San Pedro Island in Belize where I volunteered for an organization called Wings of Hope. while there I had only one free day and I sailed a catamaran from San Pedro Island to Caye Caulker and back. I thought I wasn’t going to make it back before dark and was contemplating beaching on the south end of San Pedro.

6. I flew a Cessna 172 down into and out the side of Mt. St. Helens, and a Piper down into the Grand Canyon before doing so was outlawed.

7. The most wonderful thing I’ve ever experienced is being married to my wife and watching my children grow up!

To Suffer Loss, or Gain Suffering?

A house in our neighborhood burned down today. I was alerted to the fire by my wife who, while out running errands, saw the smoke and phoned. Curious I stepped out the front door to check it out, and sure enough there it was. A plume of smoke was rising out of the neighborhood near by, and I watched for a moment before returning to the air-conditioned comfort of my living room. I was convinced there was nothing I could do.

But my heart hearkened back to an era when the smoke would have elicited a different response from me. A time when the smoke would have drawn me to the scene, not as a sight seer, but as a much needed hand in fire fighting, or to assist in some other way. After extinguishing the fire there would've been an opportunity to assist in other ways and there would have probably been a house raising as well. Today if I had gone to help I would've been told by the fire department professionals to stay behind the yellow tape. The house will more than likely be rebuilt by an insurance company, so there won't be any house raising. That will be done by the professionals versed in construction and the myriad details of building code. So ultimately I can happily go about my business without having to be bothered by it at all.

Such is the luxury of living in the modern world in a modern culture. As a society, for the time being anyway, we have successfully put suffering at arms length. But I can't help but wonder if the price humanity has paid to avoid suffering is not higher than the price of suffering itself. Even as I consider this article, my honest response is telling. I cringe and recoil at the thought of being bothered and imposed upon by my neighbor's woes, and I have no youthful fantasies about suffering with my neighbor either. I also know enough about suffering to understand that there's a reason why modern man goes to great lengths to eliminate it from the realm of his existence. But still this event has given me cause to feel somewhat plagued by the loss of something; something that can only be gained, I fear, through suffering.