tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-262354052024-02-18T23:55:44.268-08:00Aslan's Country'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-11922563643724253202020-11-06T04:29:00.004-08:002020-11-06T04:58:02.730-08:00Why I voted for Donald Trump in 2020.<p>I think some people have misunderstood some of the things I've said. Let me be very clear about something. I am NOT a Trump supporter. Like all politicians, I think he is a insane sociopath, and in all likelihood, a full-on son of Belial.</p><p>The problem is that I am very concerned about the political left. Ideologically, they have become radicalized, and with all the riots and violence, it is apparent they have become militarized.</p><p>For modern liberals, it isn't enough for those on the conservative end of the political divide to step out of the way. No. Liberals demand they actually AGREE with them, haranguing dissent with long, hateful lectures, using politically charged titles like "racist" and "homophobe" to paint all dissenters into the same light. It is never enough to allow leftist policies to become reality, but the sentiments must also change. Conservatives must embrace them as the right thing to do, or they, in essence, become enemies of the state. Are you pro-Capitalism? If yes, then you hate the poor in America and want to see them dissolve. Are you pro-life? Then you hate women and want to see the continuation of a corrupt patriarchal society. Are you against the tenants of the Communistic "Black Lives Matter" agenda? Then you are a racist. Do you want migration to only occur through legal channels? Then you are a xenophobe. Does you religion teach that homosexual behavior is a sin? Then you are a homophobe. This is the mindset of the left.</p><p>This type of thinking, the type that wants to control the sentiments and opinions of a nation, and suppresses free-thought, concerns me. And it should concern all who love individual liberty. And it really should concern Christians. Because, in the end, even if you don't take your religion into the courthouses, just the simple fact that a religion merely EXISTS that doesn't embrace these alternative lifestyles as acceptable will eventually become intolerable to them, and will need to be controlled, if not eliminated. Even if only adherents of the religion practice them, the idea will continually grow more and more hateful. It will be be viewed, more and more, as a disease... as a Cancer that needs excised from the nation.</p><p>Also consider that the liberal left want to replace the Electoral College a popular vote for elections. This puts the choice for president in the hands of three or four major cities, essentially silencing the voices of the heartland, farmlands, and forested rural areas on who their choice in President would be based on the ideas and values of their respected communities.</p><p>And of course, consider that the more dependent upon government the people are, the more likely they are to vote for the perceived "humanitarian" candidate that makes the most lavish promises to expand the availability of government subsidies, endowments, and provisions. As government expands these entitlement programs, government grows in size and scope. And, as people grow dependent upon these services, the less viable the reduction of the size of government becomes.</p><p>Not that I think Donald Trump is the answer. Being a Christian, I am full aware that the true issue is sin. Satan is behind it all. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, not a politician, nor a political ideology, is the cure for the nation.</p><p>So, why did I vote for Donald Trump in 2020?</p><p>The polls were showing that the Democrats were likely going to take the Senate in the 2020 election. Combine that with a Biden win, and you have Democrats with unchecked power. Donald Trump's veto power as president would be a check to that power. My political ideology is libertarian. We want a government that is as noninvasive to the individual as possible. Maximum individual liberty, as opposed to the bloated regulatory power the state currently claims. A Democratically controlled Congress with a Republican president is essentially a deadlocked government. This is a temporarily ideal circumstance from a libertarian standpoint. It is what C. S. Lewis colloquially called a "stagnation" scenario. A government that essentially can't do anything, since it is surrounded by opposing ideologies that serve as political brick walls that prevents almost any policy change. When government changes policy, or enacts new policy, it is almost assured that it will grant them more regulatory power to control some aspect of life.</p><p>So, my vote wasn't to throw support to a candidate, but to hopefully promote a governmental structure conducive to impotent government and to prevent further erosion of our individual liberties for at least two years.</p>Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-63390426337967419222020-05-07T07:52:00.002-07:002020-05-07T07:59:24.805-07:00My Thoughts on PPE for COVID19First of all, a disclaimer. It has been decades since I've worked in the medical industry, and it is entirely possible that standards have changed much since my time.<br />
<br />
I admit, I thought it odd when the government started calling for citizens to wear PPE to prevent the spread of the Novel Coronavirus associated with the COVID19 outbreak (SARS-CoV-2). It seemed to contradict what I'd been taught during my time working in the hospital when dealing with contagious diseases.<br />
<br />
Back in the early 90's, our primary worry was Hepatitus, Tubercolosis (TB), Scabies (body lice), and, of course, AIDS. Admittance of a patient even suspected of having any of these would mean putting the patient in isolation. Outside an isolated patient's door would be a cart where healthcare workers could dress out in PPE before entering the patient's room.<br />
<br />
And, there were rules. Of course, wearing gloves and handwashing was stressed for all patient interaction, except perhaps something simple like taking vital signs. But the PPE required for isolation patients included masks, gowns, booties, hair nets, and of course, gloves.<br />
<br />
The rule was simple. If entrance into a room required a mask, it also required full PPE dress-out. The logic was as follows. Masks primarily protects the patient from the healthcare worker, not the other way around. If a patient was immuno-compromised, such as a HIV positive patient, or a patient who had recently received Cancer treatment, it was imperative to protect the patient from outside contagions. But masks were considered fairly useless in protecting healthcare workers from contracting contagious diseases from patients. And if you were caught entering a isolated patient's room wearing only a mask, you would have been, at the very least, laughed at, if not disciplined for not following hospital procedure in dealing with isolation patients.<br />
<br />
Now, I understand the logic that any barrier is better than no barrier. But think about it. If an individual with the Coronavirus sneezes around you, the mask might prevent direct inhalation of the contaminated water vapor, but it will still settle on your skin and clothing. And when you undress for the day, most likely your skin and clothes will touch your face. But, if you were wearing full PPE, you had significantly less to worry about. The virus would have likely settled on the gowns and other PPE worn, which is discarded in a biohazard bin as soon as interaction with the patient is completed.<br />
<br />
Again, my experience was decades ago, and maybe some standards have changed.<br />
<br />
So, that begs the question, if a simple mask isn't as effective as the government would like us to believe, why are they stressing it's use? Well, I can only speculate, but I think it is a psychological ploy. When facing an emergency, the best way to prevent a full-blown panic is to occupy people. The old "go-boil-some-water" tactic that is used on husbands whose wives are in childbirth. People who wear masks BELIEVE they are doing something that is contributing to "flattening the curve" or whatever nomenclature the government wants to give to its efforts to combat the spread of the virus. It is keeping the people busy. They are taking advantage of the fact that we have essentially become a nation of "useful idiots", who have completely lost the ability to recognize when we are being manipulated and exploited.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm not suggesting we don't take these precautions. But I suggest we do the homework. There's evidence that these efforts could prolong the pandemic. What do I fear more than a virus ravaging the world? The answer is simple. I fear an unthinking populace that will blindly follow its government off the side of a cliff like mindless lemmings when they perceive danger.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-73462237704976330332020-03-19T07:10:00.000-07:002020-03-19T07:10:00.566-07:00Alinsky's 8 Levels of Control<br />
<ol>
<li><b>Healthcare</b> - Control healthcare and you control the people.</li>
<li><b>Poverty</b> - Increase the poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.</li>
<li><b>Debt</b> - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.</li>
<li><b>Gun Control</b> - Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.</li>
<li><b>Welfare</b> - Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).</li>
<li><b>Education</b> - Take control of what people read and listen to - take control of what children learn in school.</li>
<li><b>Religion</b> - Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.</li>
<li><b>Class Warfare</b> - Divide the people into the wealthy and poor. This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.</li>
</ol>
Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-25904859409547807792019-10-07T06:21:00.001-07:002019-10-07T06:39:35.715-07:00Only God Can Judge MeA common meme that has pervaded our society is the idea that, "Only God can judge me."<br />
<br />
I have seen this more and more as our society slips from post-modernism, to post-Christian, on into being a fully anti-Christian society. The phrase apparently originated from famous rapper, the late Tupac Shakur.<br />
<br />
While the concept, at its core, is theologically accurate, I would amend the quote by saying, "Only God will judge me." And even that is heavily dependent on how one defines "judge". If, by judging, we are declaring the eternal destination of an individual, that is a right that belongs only to God. However, what most people mean when they say, "Only God can judge me" is that everyone has their faults, and until you are perfect, you have no right to recognize or mention my own sins.<br />
<br />
There are some problems with this.<br />
<br />
First of all, what this statement inevitably leads to is a demand for the opposite of judging. I have discovered that when most people say this, they are actually fishing for affirmation for an activity or circumstance that is contrary to Biblical moral standards.<br />
<br />
Secondly, Christians are instructed to judge, in the proper context. It is what the Bible calls "righteous judgement" (John 7:24). The Greek word there is "Krisis", which means seperation. We have to determine the things God calls sin, and shun those activities. Also, Christ's call to refrain from judgment is not a call to let sin run free. Imagine the disorder it would create. 1st Corinthians 5:11-13 says it better than I could. We are to disassociate. According to Romans 12:9, we are to hate evil, and cling to the good. How do we do that without determining (judging) which is which.<br />
<br />
Also, instead of viewing it as judgment, it is actually a warning. Who wouldn't want to be warned when they are in imminent danger? If a parent has two young children, wouldn't that parent expect the older of the two children to stop and instruct the younger child when they start to do something dangerous, like touch a hot stove? That is what God wants. When a Christian starts dabbling in sin, God expects the older, more advanced, Christians to stand in the way and provoke that Christian back into righteous behavior.<br />
<br />
Another aspect, and this is what grinds my gears more than anything. When suddenly, someone mentions the sin as something beautiful. You see this a lot with sexual sins, like homosexual behavior, or heterosexual behavior outside of marriage. No, it is not a beautiful thing. Sin always hurts God, and with sexual sin, always hurts the one who is doing it (1st Corinthians 6:18). Heterosexual behavior, within a marriage that God sanctions, is the only acceptable sexual behavior, according to Scripture (Hebrews 13:4).<br />
<br />
Lastly... You cannot divorce Christianity or the Gospel from the idea of sin and the demand to meet a Biblical standard of morality. The problem with trying to remove sin from Christianity is that it invalidates the entire message of Christianity. You might as well throw your Bibles away, forget God, forget Church, go and live your life, and hope for the best. You simply cannot say that God sanctions anything He calls "sin" in the Bible. And while I am no fan of litmus tests for true faith, I will always say that a true, born-again Christian will always have a internal conflict with sin. Even when the sin nature prevails, a true Christian will hate the sin all the worse for it, and will certainly never argue that such sin is okay with God, or worse, God's will. Prevalent sin in a true Christian's life will drive them to repentance, begging God for grace and deliverance. Simply living with, or believing it is okay, represents a serious malady in one's spiritual life. Christians are in a war, and if you're not in the war, you're probably not a soldier.<br />
<br />
So, yes, God WILL judge you. And if you have a sin in your life that you don't hate and wrestle with, but allow it to have control, then God's judgment will not be a good one (Ecclesiastes 12:14).<br />
<br />
Just my opinion. My opinions are free and worth every penny.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-45447436255813488102019-03-22T08:36:00.001-07:002019-03-22T09:29:22.679-07:0012 Attributes of a Good Christian Pastor<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Over the years of my Christian life, I’ve learned what I would expect from a pastor. I will share some of my observations with you. These 12
things represent my opinion on what I consider a well-rounded pastor.<br />
<br />
NOTE: This assumes the pastors in question are well-grounded, evangelical Christians. Therefore, I say little about actual doctrine or theological alignments. For example, when I say "salvation", I am not specifying whether a pastor should teach an Arminian or Calvinistic view.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">1. A well-rounded pastor will never discourage
in-depth Bible study.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">2. A well-rounded pastor emphasizes the need for
in-depth Bible study. So even if he doesn’t discourage Bible-study, if he doesn’t
mention the dire need to Biblical study among his congregation, it is a dereliction
of duty on his part. I make this a separate line item because it has been my
observation that most pastors are simply silent on the subject. The Bereans
would be appalled (Acts 17:10-11)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">3. Understand that the pastor’s job is not simply
to preach the Gospel. While there may be occasions where their congregation
NEEDS to hear the simple Gospel only (as was the case in 1</span><sup style="text-indent: -0.25in;">st</sup><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">
Corinthians 2:2), a tuned-in pastor will know when this is the case. His job is
to make disciples, not simply "believers" (Matthew 28:19), which involved more than the simple Gospel. This means
preaching the Gospel of Salvation (Soteriology), the nature of Christ
(Christology), the prophecies, end-times (Eschatology), the moral imperatives
that accompany Christianity, and every other discipline contained with
Christianity.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">4. A well-rounded pastor will emphasize the need to
get alone with God in one’s “prayer closet” (Matthew 6:6).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">5. A well-rounded pastor will acknowledge the need
for spiritual warfare, and not only acknowledge it, but also teach that it is
the job of the whole congregation to engage in spiritual warfare, not just the “Spiritual
Leaders”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">6. A well-rounded pastor is one who has mastered
the Christian disciplines himself, and is a man of prayer and getting alone
with God in worship (Spirit) and a man given to the Academic aspect of
Christianity (Truth) (John 4:23).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">7. A well-rounded pastor is not simply concerned with
attendance numbers, but prefers quality above quantity in their congregation. A
spirit-led pastor would prefer to only have five attendees if those five are
in-touch with God, and genuinely hungry for His Spirit, than to have a house
full of half-hearted “cultural” Christians.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">8. As a tangent to number 7, a balanced pastor will
not necessarily accommodate church growth, and will know when to accommodate
and when not to. Being aware of God’s will in these matters is very important, as
building bigger buildings is not the default position when a Church experiences
growth. Remember Gideon’s Army (Judges 7:4-7). It is a constant temptation to
accommodate rising attendance numbers, as, naturally, more butts in pews
typically means more dollars in the offering plate. However, a spirit-filled
pastor might find that he has to deny his herd instinct. It might be that a
growing church is like a pond. It needs inlets and outlets of
water in order to be able to support life. Without these inlets and outlets, the pond will eventually stagnate and die. So will a Church. When a Church
experiences rapid growth, a balanced pastor will inquire of God what to do. It
could be God wants the pastor to expand and absorb the rising number of attendees, or it
might be that God wants the pastor to off-load some of its more mature disciples to smaller sister churches that might be struggling to find mature
and qualified servants, ministers and leadership. Inlets and Outlets. As I said, finding God’s will in such cases is imperative, and there should never be a default position.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">9. A good pastor will never discourage church
attendance, but will make it a point to teach it in its proper context. Modern
western services have centralized the “Church Service” within Christianity to
the extent that it has become the only “essential” discipline within
Christianity. A good pastor will teach that Church was not always a corporately
owned building where people met a few times a week to worship and hear
preaching. It was an actual community, where familial ties and bonds were
created. Christians protected each other and kept each other up. If you want a
decently accurate idea of what the early Church looked like, watch the recent
movie “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7388562/">Paul: Apostle of Christ</a>”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">10. This is quite possibly the most important one
because it is such a common mistake, and nearly lethal to the spiritual
maturation of the Christian. A good pastor will not side step or fail to teach
eschatology in depth. The promised return of Christ to gather the Church and
take her home to the wedding supper of the Lamb is ESSENTIAL. It is, in my
opinion, 50% of the Gospel. In addition, a Gospel that neglects eschatology is
wildly incomplete. Paul went so far as to call the promise of His coming the “blessed
hope” (Titus 2:13). I think the reason it is so neglected is that there’s so
many theories on how eschatological events will unfold, or even if they’re
going to unfold at all, that he is afraid it will create divisions within the
congregation. Of course, it might, especially if the church rigidly holds to
one theory as its own. Nevertheless, any clear thinking, level headed, spirit
filled Christian who has studied eschatology knows that it is a nuanced and
convoluted subject. Moreover, that it is impossible to know how, and especially
when, eschatological events will manifest. The priority for a pastor is to make
his congregation able to recognize these events should they begin happening in
earnest.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">11. A good pastor doesn’t urge his congregation to
abstain from things such as politics or civic activities, like running for
office, or coaching a rec-league ball team. In fact, regarding politics, a
pastor will let his congregation know that geo-politics is the stage upon which
echatology’s drama will unfold, and should be observed as close as possible
without becoming a stumbling block to one’s spiritual health.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">12. This one is something I have observed
personally, but can find precious few pastors who fully embrace it. A pastor
will endeavor to understand the personality type of every congregant, and not
expect him or her to be something they are not. Being an introvert, this is
something that has become a very real thing to me, as most pastors are
extroverts, and demand extroversion from their congregants. Of course, they
would not use the term “extroversion”, but would opt for a more pious sounding
word like “boldness”. A pastor should understand that every personality type
has strengths and weaknesses, and will learn what to expect from different
personalities within their congregation. The reason I consider this as important is that not all personality types respond to the Gospel the same. For example, an introvert might be more receptive to the Gospel if his contact with the pastor was more one-on-one, and less involved with the "social" aspects of the modern church culture. Introverts, by their nature, cannot handle "groupthink" very well, and will need to feel like their conversion was truly inspired and individualized in nature, rather than joining a herd into a particular worldview. Pastors are shepherds, and should have a shepherd's heart. Sometimes shepherds have to deal with the entire herd, and sometimes they have to deal with individual sheep. Good shepherds know how and when to do either.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<br />
I write this realizing that not all pastoral ministries are alike, and there should be some pliability depending on the nature and location of the congregation. This is a very general rule that I would most rigidly apply to my own demographic of western Christianity. Whereas, a church in, say, China, or Saudi Arabia might need a more "boots-on-the-ground" approach.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-66295825291438321342018-03-10T07:44:00.001-08:002018-03-10T07:44:19.355-08:00A RantI am going to rant a little bit. This is a mashup of thoughts in my mind this morning that are largely incoherent. But if you see what I see, feel free to share.<br />
<br />
This idiotic debate over why our teenagers feel the need to take guns to school rages on.<br />
<br />
The problem is that everyone is looking for the one, single issue, that once resolved, will end the violence. Violent video games. Absentee fathers. The proliferation and availability of firearms. Social status. Economic status. Domestic situation.<br />
<br />
I think the problem is actually a conglomerate of problems that have simmered for decades leading up to this. But I think the main one is that teenagers simply aren't nurtured the same way previous generations were.<br />
<br />
For example, when I was young, this time of year, I might be helping Dad on Saturdays, getting ready for mowing season. During summer, Saturday's were spent mowing, which was an all day job because mowers weren't as big and fancy as they are now. During the fall, I spent Saturdays helping Dad fell trees for firewood, which involved cutting the tree up, busting the wood (with an ax, not a hydraulic log splitter), and stacking it. During the winter, Saturdays were spent getting enough of the firewood and kindling in the house for the following week.<br />
<br />
Could it be that the technological advances that turned our kids into couch potatoes or thrill seekers on Saturdays have had a detrimental effect?<br />
<br />
"But Scott, that has nothing to do with it. These kids are mentally disturbed by their social situation."<br />
<br />
Baloney! If you went to high school with me, you know that I was socially inept (I still am, I am an INTJ). You know that I had a mediocre intelligence, and mediocre grades to reflect it. I hated high school and couldn't wait to get out. More than once, the stress of it produced what could have probably been diagnosed as mental illness (by our modern psychological evaluations, which I consider to be complete bovine excrement as well). Did I ever bring a firearm to school and shoot it up? Nope. Were firearms available? Absolutely!<br />
<br />
See, after the Saturday work was over, Dad and I would sometimes go shooting. He taught me how to hold a firearm. How to load a firearm. How to chamber a round. How to discharge the firearm. And most importantly, how to respect a firearm. Pistols. Rifles. Shotguns. Even muzzle loaders. Heck, even bows and slingshots.<br />
<br />
Something was present during my generation, and previous generations, that is inconspicuously absent from the upcoming generations. I think the thing that is absent is direction.<br />
<br />
Kids need direction. Not just education, direction. I don't mean they should be told what to pursue in their lives. I mean they should be nurtured in such a way that they aren't just floating on the current like rudderless ships during their adult lives.<br />
<br />
What about the Church?<br />
<br />
Well, God doesn't change, so why has our society changed. Personally, I have found that the moral bearing, the direction that society seems to be going, is a good indicator of the efficacy and potency of the Church's presence within that society. I'm no proponent of trying to enforce Christian morality through the legal system, but since the Church has ceased becoming Gospel spreaders and disciple makers, and is instead become a conduit of God's provision and promises of comfort and security for our earthly lives, they have become lethargic and impotent. Think about the spiritual memes you might have seen on social media over the past week. I've seen lots and lots of memes regarding God's blessings and provision. Lots of images of landscapes and butterflies. Lots of prayer requests regarding sicknesses and providing comfort during calamity. And those things are okay. But I simply cannot recall a single meme that address the soteriological or disciplinary aspects of Christianity. Heck, I cannot recall a meme that addressed any theological aspect of Christianity. Just the typical "feel-good" memes. I have not seen a single meme where anyone has recognized their difficulties as God's teachings or discipline.<br />
<br />
Everyone is the innocent victim, and needing God's deliverance and comfort, as if the preservation of our fragile emotional states was the most important thing. I want to read the Facebook status that says, "This hurts like crazy. But if the whip that is producing the pain is being held by the Savior, then please don't stop lashing me until what You desire in me is accomplished."<br />
<br />
But this is really a spiritual post, so back on point... Children need more than a roof, food, iPhone, and a Playstation. They need direction. I think the reason they are doing what they are doing, from eating laundry detergent, to putting their arms on hot stoves, to cutting themselves, to this so-called "eraser challenge", to killing their classmates, is due to a lack of direction. This entails so much more than just the single issue we feel will end the problem once and for all. The reason they have seemingly went wild is a lack of direction, spiritually, morally, socially, and even politically.<br />
<br />
And I don't mean to get too political, but even liberals have to recognize that the young generation seems over-zealous and willing without reservation to sign on to any cradle-to-grave care the government has to offer them, without fear of repercussion. The whole idea that government may come knocking one day, expecting something in return (perhaps more than they will want to pay), seemingly has not occurred to them. The concept that the government can easily turn a society that is even only partially dependent on government provisions, making that society ripe for serfdom, is completely absent from their minds. In my mind, I can connect this to a lack of direction.<br />
<br />
Anyway, rant over, lest I stray too far into politics.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-46295881201958469242016-11-13T07:13:00.000-08:002016-11-13T07:48:05.434-08:00Donald J. Trump, and ChristiansI would like to start with a disclaimer. I am not a supporter of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I did not vote for either of the candidates in the 2016 election. It is public that I voted for the Constitution Party's candidate, Darrell Castle.<br />
<br />
After the election, we see just how divided the nation is. The media, as relentless as it is, is doing its utmost to keep the division ripped wide open, by overemphasizing the various demographics that voted for each candidate, and even calling for states' electorates to disregard the vote and throw the electorate count back to Hillary.<br />
<br />
Violent protests and riots rocked cities. College kids took to the streets.<br />
<br />
But I am thinking about the state of Christianity in the nation.<br />
<br />
Christians were concerned that a Clinton presidency would have a terrible impact on the Church's ability to worship and evangelize. That her presidency would have clamped down on our ability to share Christ outside the walls of our respective churches. The most thoughtful evaluations suggest that Clinton would not have done anything to impede corporate worship... the "Church Service"... but outside the Church, she would have demanded compliance to certain ideologies, even when they fly in the face of the most fundamental Christian principles.<br />
<br />
These astute observers were most likely correct. In fact, in most cases, I think their prediction would have been a little too optimistic. Hillary Clinton has already hinted at the need for Christians to loosen their principles in order to accommodate government and social policies that are contrary to Christianity. Ideas she's hinted at in speeches would have come to fruition in her presidency, in my opinion. There is little doubt that Clinton would have been a disaster on religious liberty, especially for fundamentalist Christians who hold a rigid, biblical worldview. See this video.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lh72xkI3aok/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lh72xkI3aok?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
But, it doesn't really matter. Donald Trump won the presidency.<br />
<br />
What does the Church do?<br />
<br />
Well, I will begin by saying that, as bad as Clinton is, the way the Church has embraced Donald Trump has been troubling at best. If what I see in my Facebook feed is to be taken at face value, their faith and trust in him flirts with having a serious messiah complex. While I think that Trump's presidency, from what I can tell at this VERY early stage, will result in basically lateral results, and maybe some improvement, in the preservation of our rights to be a genuine Christian in this nation. At the very least, we might be spared some of the hateful rhetoric accusing us of being "mysogynist" because we are pro-life, and believe the lives of those inside the womb are just as precious and sacred as lives lived outside the womb.<br />
<br />
But I cannot shake the feeling that, for the overall health of the Church, a Clinton presidency might have been better for the Church.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
Simple. For the reasons I stated above. She would have been an opposing force against Christianity.<br />
<br />
Historically, from the time of Abraham clear through to the Present Day, it seems God's people are constantly looking for a place of rest and comfort. And when it seems like they are close to achieving this goal, God shakes them up.<br />
<br />
Consider Joseph, leading his father Jacob and his brothers into the comforts of Egypt. The purpose was to wait out the remainder of the famine... a mere 7 years. But what happened? They got comfortable. Pharaoh allotted them a parcel of land, called Goshen, for them to make homes in, and they settled in. 400 years, there they sit. The promise of a land flowing with milk and honey, yet sitting on their haunches in the first place they were able to achieve any level of comfort and security.<br />
<br />
God knew this wouldn't do. So he sent a Pharaoh that "knew not Joseph" (Exodus 1:8). He essentially enslaved them, and kept them oppressed. He soured the milk of their comfort and security. So when the time came, there was no debate or dissent. They were ready to put Egypt in their rearview mirrors.<br />
<br />
This pattern is repeated all throughout history. From Israel under King Saul, to the Babylonian Captivity, King Herod, to the Roman Occupation, to the siege of Jerusalem. Evangelicals can even add the Protestant Reformation and the Great Awakening, and all the great revivals to their list. All these oppressive times in history accomplished the same thing. A re-alignment of God's people back to where they should be.<br />
<br />
It is easy, at least it is for me, to see the corruption in our western church. So much is neglected. Most churches neglect the greatest majority of the biblical precepts. The Church is in a rut. They are locked into a status quo. They have exchanged the genuine glory of God for seeking "feelings". They neglect prophecy and the deeper minutia of theological understanding, in exchange for seeking His "presence". Of course, Christians ought to seek His presence. But I have found out that by "His presence", what most Christians mean is the manufacture of a certain feeling or visceral experience they have come to associate with God's presence. Modern Christianity has, in fact, inherited many of the same attributes as some New Age disciplines, but I will save that for later.<br />
<br />
So, what do I think will happen? The Church will remain locked into this status quo. They will continue their lethargic presence in this nation, without any real forward momentum into a deeper, more profound, knowledge of Jesus Christ. As long as Christianity neglects real spiritual warfare, and continually seeks to embrace Hedonism rather than the Asceticism prescribed in Scripture (Matthew 16:24-25), it will remain a pointless entity in western culture.<br />
<br />
But if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, maybe things would have been different. The Church would have met genuine resistance. Yes, a Clinton presidency might have culminated into something similar to what China has, a state-sanctioned doctrine that is a dilution of genuine Christianity. True, Christianity might have been driven underground, the way it is in China and Saudi Arabia, where Christians are forced to meet in secret and hold baptisms under the cover of darkness for fear of their lives.<br />
<br />
But the Church, just like the Hebrews in Goshen, would have grown spiritually. In Goshen, Pharaoh tried to kill the baby boys. But the Hebrews were literally having them quicker than they could be destroyed (Exodus 1:19). Imagine if Christianity was being oppressed, and we found ourselves in the same scenario... People born again into the Kingdom quicker than the government could respond to the growing influence.<br />
<br />
Clinton would have been like Pharaoh. Relentlessly abusive, but ultimately used for God's purposes to bring the Church back into proper alignment. But the Church wanted Trump. Demanded Trump, in some cases.<br />
<br />
So if I am right, and that, for the spiritual health of the Church, Clinton and her anti-Christian policies would have been more beneficial, why did God allow Trump to be elected? First, let me reiterate my disclaimer that I did not vote for Hillary Clinton, nor would have I advised any Christian to do so.<br />
<br />
But, as has been stated, ad nauseum, on social media... God is in control.<br />
<br />
I prayed about this. God led me to 1st Samuel 8. This messiah complex that Christians hold for Donald Trump may very well be the same scenario. We rejected the evil, even though it would have culminated into a spiritually armed and strengthened Church, in favor of our own personal King Saul.<br />
<br />
We demanded Trump, the way Israel demanded a King. And even for the same reason. Israel saw corruption in God's way (the corruption of Samuel's sons - 1st Samuel 8:3-5) the way we saw corruption in Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
And if I heard from God correctly, Trump is God's anointed for this time, just like King Saul, who basically enslaved HIS OWN people (1st Samuel 8:11-18).<br />
<br />
I think God intends to show me more on this as Trump's inauguration nears. But I wanted to share what I believe is God's message to me, and hopefully you. The "take-away", as it were.<br />
<br />
It's one thing to, with God's help, emancipate yourself from a foreign ruler, the way Israel did to Pharaoh in the Exodus, when it is within the constraints of God ultimate design. It is quite another matter to emancipate yourself from the slave-master you pick for yourself, based on fears of losing freedom, comfort, or security.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-22312711413805028572016-08-14T09:00:00.001-07:002016-08-18T06:24:18.199-07:00The Lost Political Ideologies<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAjtmrkfdY7R45FWE5XfJplGmloIImTjU73UqqYu6btm6vfRbbBpm1YFA7v7TMdy795g9HV1wBJuZFVXzd14k59uY9fSwGDbhow8FWuGEYhTsom0_FQhGI7JEcDg2cnZqHqOZo/s1600/Logos.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAjtmrkfdY7R45FWE5XfJplGmloIImTjU73UqqYu6btm6vfRbbBpm1YFA7v7TMdy795g9HV1wBJuZFVXzd14k59uY9fSwGDbhow8FWuGEYhTsom0_FQhGI7JEcDg2cnZqHqOZo/s320/Logos.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">First off, let me begin by saying that, as a Christian, I recognize every Christian believes their faith aligns with their political beliefs. That is a given, and isn't likely to ever change. And, I will begin by saying that Christ never actually defined a Christian political program. But there were points in His ministry where he encountered governmental policy.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Secondly, I am writing this because so many, especially Republicans, have lost sight as to what the ideologies actually mean.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I will start with liberal political ideology. Liberals generally believe, as society evolves, the role of government should expand to accommodate this role. The problem with this in American society is that we have a Constitutional Republic whose government should be operating within the narrow constraints of the Constitution. Since constant expansion of government requires operation outside these constraints, Liberals tend to embrace a fluid Constitutional interpretation method called "Loose Constructionism" or "Living Constitution".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
According to Wikipedia, Loose Constructionism is... "the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases." That is the summary of liberal ideology. Times change, and the role government plays in our lives should change, and expand, with it. This is why liberal ideology is often referred to as "progressive" ideology.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Expansion of government, just like the expansion of anything, requires additional resources. It is for this reason that liberals generally push for higher taxes upon its. In fact, the entire economic system of liberals proposes a complete government regulated economy, eventually trending toward Socialism, the economic model embraced by Communism. The closer a society gets to Socialism, the closer that society will be to putting an end to any free-market Capitalistic enterprise, as well as any private property rights. Everything essentially becomes property of the State, and the citizens are basically wards of the State. This is why Liberalism is called a Collective ideology, as it basically nullifies the whole idea of an individual having sovereign rights to their own personhood.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In America, liberal ideology is most commonly represented by the Democratic Party, and more extreme cases are represented by various third parties, like the Green Party or the Communist Party.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Conservative ideology isn't necessarily the polar opposite of liberal ideology. Conservatives believe in the diminished role of government, preferably to its Constitutional restraints as it was originally written and interpreted it by those who framed it centuries ago. Any expansion of government can be accomplished through Constitutional Amendment, and even that is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. The passage of a Constitutional Amendment is difficult, facilitating its precise understanding before passage. It is for this reason that Conservatives are often regarded as "Traditionalists", contrary to the Liberal title of "Progressives".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In general, Conservatives embrace Capitalism, and allowing the natural mechanisms of a free-market, to run unimpeded by government intervention. While Liberals claim such a system creates massive income inequality and potential class abuse, Conservatives claim that Capitalism drives innovation, controls market prices, and improves the overall living conditions within any given society wherein it is allowed to work. Conservatives generally allow some regulation of the free-market, to discourage both monopolies and injustices perpetrated upon the working class.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In America's past, the Republican Party used to represent Conservatism. But over the last four to five decades, this has changed profoundly. Traditionally, Democrats embrace the expansion of government, while Republicans embrace Conservative idea of reducing the size of government. Today, government expands under both Democratic and Republican government control. The only measurable difference being, with Republicans, it grows <i><b><u>slightly</u></b></i> slower.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Conservatism is more nuanced than Liberalism. With Liberalism, it is far simpler to understand because they will always be for more government control, more government regulation, and more government dependency. With Conservatism, there is always the question, if government is too big, how much fat can we trim before it starts affecting society in a negative way?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Take, for example, Social Security. The Social Security Program was part of Lyndon B. Johnson's, a liberal Democrat, "New Deal" programs, which expanded government exponentially. From a "original intent" Constitutional Interpretation, the whole idea of government taking a portion of your wages (without your express consent) and holding the funds (actually using them to fund other government expansions) until you are retirement age, isn't a enumerated power given to the Federal Government by the Constitution. But today, nearly a century later, the mere mention of ending the Social Security programs will be met promptly with howls of anger. Too many people are now reliant upon the government program to ever allow its demise.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That is the Conservative dilemma. Once an expansive government program has been installed, and a portion of the citizenry has become dependent on it, you cannot repeal it without appearing the "bad guy". It doesn't matter if it passes Constitutional muster from a "original intent" standpoint.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, how does a Conservative reduce government without getting dirty? This is why Republicans have had such a hard time clearly defining a limited-government platform for the last three or four decades.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Libertarians are a different sort. They are usually either anarchist or minarchist. No government, or extreme minimal government. For Libertarians, the choice is clear. The individual takes precedence above the collective. If government is to exist, it isn't to interfere with individuals at all, but to protect individual rights. That is different than protecting individuals. If government properly protects the rights of an individual, the individual can protect themselves. This is why Libertarians are so fond of the Bill of Rights. While most Libertarians disagree on the potency and efficacy of having a Constitution to constrain government, almost all of them see the Bill of Rights as a list of something that should be protected. The Bill of Rights, the right to life, free speech, to bear arms, to private property, to practice, or abstain from practicing, any religion, etc, is natural, paramount, given to us by our Creator, and inalienable. Government, if it exists at all, should only exist to protect these rights. Often Libertarians cite the oath taken by Federally elected officials. They swear to protect and defend the Constitution. Notice, their oath isn't to protect and defend the people, but the Constitution. The Constitution is an ideal.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, most presidents go beyond their oath within a few days of taking it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Economically, Libertarians embrace Laissez-faire. According to Wikipedia, Laissez-Faire is "an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies." In other words, a genuinely free-market, where one individual can enter into a contract with another individual without interference.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Libertarians regard taxation as theft, since it is our money taken without our express consent. They also are against the passage of victimless crimes. Libertarians call this the "Non-Agression Axiom". If an activity does not produce a victim, it shouldn't be prohibited. This is why Libertarians are sometimes seen a being proponents of the legalization of recreational drugs and even prostitution. And once our western mindset can get beyond the cognitive-dissonance of legalizing these things, it becomes easy to see why they should be legal. Sex between two consenting adult individuals isn't illegal, why should sex between two consenting adult individuals for money be illegal? Alcohol isn't illegal, why should the use of any recreational drug be illegal?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Libertarians also believe that any government control is a step toward Authoritarianism, more commonly called Statism. The opposite being, of course, Anarchy. Don't let the westernized images of Anarchy you see on television throw you off. Anarchy of the Libertarian type was best summed up by the famous author of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings", J. R. R. Tolkien, who said, "My political opinions lean more and more toward Anarchy... the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would suggest other works for further study. For Conservatism, my first recommendation is Barry Goldwater's <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Conservative-Barry-M-Goldwater-ebook/dp/B00M1L9MUU/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471190256&sr=1-1&keywords=conscience+of+a+conservative#nav-subnav">The Conscience of a Conservative</a>. For Libertarianism, my first recommendation is Murray Rothbard's <a href="https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto">For a New Liberty</a>.</div>
Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-53566085507157049402016-05-29T08:08:00.000-07:002016-05-29T08:09:26.601-07:00The Forgotten Man<div class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Excerpted from William Graham Sumner's "<a href="https://mises.org/library/forgotten-man-and-other-essays">Forgotten Man</a>", written in 1883 for Harper's Weekly. It eloquently presents the ideas and philosophies that have been completely abandoned by America's modern politicians, but were valued above all things in the 19th century...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
"I call him the Forgotten Man. Perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. He is the man who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator, and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the many burdens which are laid upon him....</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
In the definition the word “people” was used for a class or section of the population. It is now asserted that if that section rules, there can be no paternal, that is, undue, government. That doctrine, however, is the very opposite of liberty and contains the most vicious error possible in politics. The truth is that cupidity, selfishness, envy, malice, lust, vindictiveness, are constant vices of human nature. They are not confined to classes or to nations or particular ages of the world. They present themselves in the palace, in the parliament, in the academy, in the church, in the workshop, and in the hovel. They appear in autocracies, theocracies, aristocracies, democracies, and ochlocracies all alike. They change their masks somewhat from age to age and from one form of society to another. All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow-men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others. It is true that, until this time, the proletariat, the mass of mankind, have rarely had the power and they have not made such a record as kings and nobles and priests have made of the abuses they would perpetrate against their fellow-men when they could and dared. But what folly it is to think that vice and passion are limited by classes, that liberty consists only in taking power away from nobles and priests and giving it to artisans and peasants and that these latter will never abuse it! They will abuse it just as all others have done unless they are put under checks and guarantees, and there can be no civil liberty anywhere unless rights are guaranteed against all abuses, as well from proletarians as from generals, aristocrats, and ecclesiastics....</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
It is plain enough that the Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman are the very life and substance of society. They are the ones who ought to be first and always remembered. They are always forgotten by sentimentalists, philanthropists, reformers, enthusiasts, and every description of speculator in sociology, political economy, or political science. If a student of any of these sciences ever comes to understand the position of the Forgotten Man and to appreciate his true value, you will find such student an uncompromising advocate of the strictest scientific thinking on all social topics, and a cold and hard-hearted skeptic towards all artificial schemes of social amelioration. If it is desired to bring about social improvements, bring us a scheme for relieving the Forgotten Man of some of his burdens. He is our productive force which we are wasting. Let us stop wasting his force. Then we shall have a clean and simple gain for the whole society. The Forgotten Man is weighted down with the cost and burden of the schemes for making everybody happy, with the cost of public beneficence, with the support of all the loafers, with the loss of all the economic quackery, with the cost of all the jobs. Let us remember him a little while. Let us take some of the burdens off him. Let us turn our pity on him instead of on the good-for-nothing. It will be only justice to him, and society will greatly gain by it. Why should we not also have the satisfaction of thinking and caring for a little while about the clean, honest, industrious, independent, self-supporting men and women who have not inherited much to make life luxurious for them, but who are doing what they can to get on in the world without begging from anybody, especially since all they want is to be let alone, with good friendship and honest respect. Certainly the philanthropists and sentimentalists have kept our attention for a long time on the nasty, shiftless, criminal, whining, crawling, and good-for-nothing people, as if they alone deserved our attention....</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
What the Forgotten Man really wants is true liberty. Most of his wrongs and woes come from the fact that there are yet mixed together in our institutions the old mediaeval theories of protection and personal dependence and the modern theories of independence and individual liberty. The consequence is that the people who are clever enough to get into positions of control, measure their own rights by the paternal theory and their own duties by the theory of independent liberty. It follows that the Forgotten Man, who is hard at work at home, has to pay both ways. His rights are measured by the theory of liberty, that is, he has only such as he can conquer. His duties are measured by the paternal theory, that is, he must discharge all which are laid upon him, as is always the fortune of parents. People talk about the paternal theory of government as if it were a very simple thing. Analyze it, however, and you see that in every paternal relation there must be two parties, a parent and a child, and when you speak metaphorically, it makes all the difference in the world who is parent and who is child. Now, since we, the people, are the state, whenever there is any work to be done or expense to be paid, and since the petted classes and the criminals and the jobbers cost and do not pay, it is they who are in the position of the child, and it is the Forgotten Man who is the parent. What the Forgotten Man needs, therefore, is that we come to a clearer understanding of liberty and to a more complete realization of it. Every step which we win in liberty will set the Forgotten Man free from some of his burdens and allow him to use his powers for himself and for the commonwealth."</blockquote>
Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-34380019911758782372015-06-28T16:47:00.004-07:002015-06-28T17:32:15.385-07:00Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide: My Thoughts.<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0mwz46VgVRrqR3fgzHuaX2Zf4OnSobUG6wXYjKndKJ70cqlPXLwX9NxcqycEANdMOG74S46lhv-Vbu1wY0ff-V1fkrE6aTdIeGe2bZSjjmg0q8Xn4wpZfeSCWnMiUgjA2vBbG/s1600/SCOTUS-SSM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0mwz46VgVRrqR3fgzHuaX2Zf4OnSobUG6wXYjKndKJ70cqlPXLwX9NxcqycEANdMOG74S46lhv-Vbu1wY0ff-V1fkrE6aTdIeGe2bZSjjmg0q8Xn4wpZfeSCWnMiUgjA2vBbG/s400/SCOTUS-SSM.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The White House, illuminated with multiple colored lights, celebrated<br />
the Supreme Court's ruling.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Last Friday (06/26/2015), the Supreme Court of the United States rendered the most controversial ruling in all of American History. By a 5-to-4 majority, it ruled that state-level bans on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and with one sweeping motion, state-sanction of same-sex marriage is now legal nationwide.<br />
<br />
And it ignited a firestorm on social media, whose embers were still glowing over the recent Confederate Battle Flag controversy.<br />
<br />
I have always wondered how the Churches (to clarify, the Evangelical Churches, not the Liturgical Churches, whose reaction is constrained to the reaction of their respective pontiffs) would react to such a sweeping action of government. And for pure entertainment, similar to the entertainment of watching a drunk man attempting to juggle goslings, they haven't disappointed. But, in every other way imaginable, I couldn't be more disappointed.<br />
<br />
Of course, there are the hyper-fundamentalists, firing Bible verses and citing God's holy law as given to and enforced by the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament. Being a fundamentalist myself, I can see their error with 20-20 vision. They simply believe that God's moral codes should be integrated and enforced as national or state laws. And, as is typical, they love to pick their "pet" sins when doing so, forgetting all the other "abominations", like heterosexual activity outside the bond of marriage, adultery, drunkeness, covetousness, etc, etc, ad nauseum (1st Corinthians 6:9-10 & Galatians 5:19-21), all of which are perfectly legal, and as disgusting in the eyes of God as homosexual behavior. Some are even claiming this will be the final straw that brings God's judgment.<br />
<br />
On the flipside, you have "tolerant" Christians who suggest that you cannot love the sinner UNLESS you tolerate the sin. And by not doing so, you presumably become a bigot or a hypocrite, since no one is perfect, and we all have sin in our lives.<br />
<br />
And we have all the non-Christians, doing their best to cite Scriptures and present theological and philosophical views supporting same-sex marriage. Many of which are asinine to the point of hilarious. But as any seasoned Christian knows, the Scripture wasn't written for non-Christians, making their interpretation suspect. Until one has the Spirit of Christ indwelling them, they will never be able to "rightly divide" God's Word. So the only message a non-Christian can hear and understand is the raw Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is pointless to debate Christian theology with a non-Christian. Jesus even went as far as comparing such fruitless efforts to giving precious jewels to pigs and dogs (Matthew 7:6).<br />
<br />
Being a libertarian and a Christian gives me a multi-dimensional, stereographic view of the issue that few Christians (and almost no non-Christians) are able to comprehend.<br />
<br />
First of all, let me start by saying that the ruling given by SCOTUS, as it stands, does NOT make it legally compulsory for any Church, or any minister, to accommodate requests for same-sex weddings.<br />
<br />
That may change. In all honesty, I fully expect it to. It has already happened. (<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html">LINK</a>) It has always seemed to me that with the militant homosexual agenda, enough is never enough.<br />
<br />
From the start, I find that I am amazed at the level of misunderstanding. Same-Sex Marriage has never been the issue. Here in Tennessee, where it wasn't "legal" before this ruling, homosexuals were still exchanging vows, exchanging rings, pledging eternal fidelity, the whole song and dance. Only their marriages were simply not recognized by the State.<br />
<br />
The issue is <b><i>STATE-SANCTIONED</i></b> Same-Sex Marriage. Now, for years, I have been telling the Church that what should happen BEFORE Same-Sex Marriage gains universal acceptance, is for the Churches to tell Christians to withdraw from seeking State licenses for their marriage. I have blogged about my views on this already, and you can read them <a href="http://aslans.blogspot.com/2010/01/come-out-of-her-my-people.html">here</a> and <a href="http://aslans.blogspot.com/2015/06/christianity-and-judgment.html">here</a>. The Church allowed the institution of marriage to be taken over by the Government, in exchange for 501(c)(3), and they complain when our Babylonian Governmental System doesn't treat it with the respect and reverence it deserves. God is not mocked. The Church is reaping what it has sown by allowing the State to usurp our marriages. If you throw your child in a den of hungry lions, don't complain when they devour your child. Strictly speaking, what happened Friday is the Church's fault. Is it any wonder judgment is destined to begin at the "House of God"?<br />
<br />
The State doesn't actually see marriage as a holy covenant between two individuals, where two become one. the way a Christian would. To them, it is, at best, a social convention they can exploit to their own purposes, and at worst, a simple contract between two consenting individuals. That is why I'd be concerned if they'd ruled the other way. It would have been precedent for them to over-regulate contract law. Being a libertarian, I am always suspicious of laws that hold potential precedent for government to regulate aspects of our lives that should be free of government intrusion, like our ability to enter into private contracts with other individuals and, for that matter, our marriages.<br />
<br />
But, my advice went unheard and/or unheeded. And now, the Churches are faced with the prospect of the Gay Agenda poised to expand to the point of becoming intrusive into our religious institutions.<br />
<br />
Some Churches are incorporating, adopting by-laws and policies they believe will exempt them when this comes knocking on their door. As a perpetual student of the Civil War, I have learned that any attempt to claim immunity over Federal laws is a one way ticket to the modern equivalent of William Tecumseh Sherman performing a no-knock invasion in your home. Government could care-less for your "by-laws" when they are not in keeping with their principles.<br />
<br />
Others have, rather presumptuously, stated that they'd walk away from their ministry and padlock the church doors before performing a same-sex wedding.<br />
<br />
But my prescription stands. Let's take our marriages OUT of the hands of the State. When Jim and Fred knock on our Church doors asking for marriage, look at how much trouble it would save if the deacons and elders told them, "We don't perform any state licensed weddings. Only baptized members of our church may marry here."<br />
<br />
The irony is, some States already seem to be taking my advice. Funny how that works. The State has always been smarter than, and one step ahead of, the Church, in both the making of good and bad laws. Alabama and Mississippi have both voted to stop marriage licensing in their State altogether. Interesting... Now why didn't the Church think of that?! Cognitive dissonance to the prospect of doing it differently than it has always been done, I suppose.<br />
<br />
Now, since I know my prescription will once again fall upon the ears of the auditory impaired and the cognitively dysfunctional, I humbly suggest to Christians is simply a sign of the times. Scripture says, "In your patience, possess your souls" (Luke 21:19). We should be patient and in prayer about this. And certainly not let it distract us from our primary mandate of making disciples.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this signals the end for America, a blatant herald of the Lord's return. I'd be more inclined to believe that the Church, at large, embracing homosexual lifestyles as consistent with God's moral code would be better evidence of our Prince's return, or a herald of impending judgment, Certainly more than any action of the State. Governments are inherently evil. Evil entities doing evil things are hardly signals of Christ's return. But when the Bride Herself starts showing signs of infidelity to Her coming King, that is another matter.<br />
<br />
That is why almost all my focus over the next few weeks will be on the Church's further reactions to this. I am not as concerned with the State at this point. I know what to expect from them. But this is a prime opportunity for the Church to hit their knees and get clear, precise directions from God on how to handle this situation. Where sin abounds, grace abounds (Romans 5:20). But grace isn't grace when it is shoved down sinners' throats via State prohibitive legislation.<br />
<br />
And keep praying, "Even so, Come, Lord Jesus!" (The Revelation 22:20)Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-34402132495963672072015-06-13T07:26:00.000-07:002015-06-28T15:21:52.094-07:00Christianity and Judgment<div style="text-align: justify;">
The ongoing war that is occurring right now between believing, fundamental, Christians and the unbelieving world is an interesting cultural nuance. It reflects the changing social paradigm within the country from Christian to post-Christian. And while the nuances are almost too numerous to mention, it does bring up an interesting concept that I think the Church ought to take into consideration.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Where is the fuzzy, fine line between being non-judgmental, and calling sin out.
Let me give you an example.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now we all know that when a Christian says we shouldn't judge, they mean one thing entirely. And that is because we are all sinners, with no right to judge. First, we need to understand the usage and meaning of the word "judge" in its Scriptural usage.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Greek word used in the New Testament is κρίνω, which transliterates into krinō. The definition everyone seems concerned with is the definition that defines "judge" as "to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong". Christians understand that judging is wrong in the sense of declaring moral superiority. The relevant Scriptures are Matthew 7:1, Luke 6:37, John 7:24, and 1st Corinthians 4:3. The John reference brings clarity to the command. After telling them to refrain from judging, he then urges them to "righteous judgment", or "right judgement", according to the ESV translation. What is that? It is the ability... seemingly extinct ability... to call out sin while under the full knowledge and realization that everyone is under judgment. As a side, this is an area where it would pay for any Christian to invest serious study time in, in order to get in its proper scope.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But when a prominent, cultural, non-Christian, personality stands up and presumes to remind Christians about our mandate to abstain from judgment, what they mean is tolerance and acceptance. In other words, to allow cultural and social paradigms supercede Biblical definitions and mandates. And that abstaining from judgment entails the cultural acceptance of the sin. In other words, anything less than absolute silence on the sin issue is "unloving" and "judgmental".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How does the Church continue to spread the knowledge that God hates sin, while at the same time not being perceived as "judgmental" by the post-Christian culture we find ourselves in?
I know all about the "hate the sin, love the sinner" maxim. But anyone who has had dealings with people knows that the unregenerate world does not make that distinction. All too often, people come to allow their sin to become the defining aspect of their lives. We Christians know this is due to the consuming nature of sin. But non-Christians would hardly call it sin at all. They just see it as part of themselves. An extension, if you will. So if you say, "Hey man, I love you, but your drug habit is bad news.", they will likely grow very defensive, as they don't see it as wrong at all. And if you love them, you have to love and appreciate their sin as well, for it is a part of them, from their point of view.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, let's take western Christianity's favorite "pet" sin, homosexual behavior.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is especially true of homosexuality. One thing about homosexuality is that being homosexual becomes the defining attribute of their whole life. And if you attempt to befriend a homosexual (most I know are quite friendly, in fact), you will soon find that refusing to sanction their lifestyle is no less than a slap in their face, in their opinion. And, guess what. If you don't sanction their sin, you're being "judgmental" and they react as if you already tied them to the burning post.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, how is this accomplished? How do you refuse to sanction the sin, while not appearing judgmental? And while I am 100% against the idea of incorporating biblical prohibitions against sin into law, it is the Church's responsibility to define what is and isn't sin to the world. It is through the preacher's pulpit, not the congressman's podium, that the world will be changed. The first step in evangelism is to make one aware of their need to be reconciled with God, and that cannot happen until they come to realize their own sinful state. The Church must identify and define what is sin in order for this to happen. When the Church stops doing that, they might as well close up shop and go home.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is my prediction as to how this will go. And most of you will be able to see the beginnings of this happening already. The Church will split, yet again. Only this time, the split will be along moral codes, and be most emphatic. On one hand, you will have a Church that is politically correct, that refuses to teach or preach against sin. On the other hand, you will have a Church that maintains some sense of moral integrity. It will not be long before the State steps in, and denounces Christian Fundamentalism and being incongruous with the principles of the nation. It will actually be the Fundamentalists that exacerbate the problem by continuing their asinine quest to infiltrate government with Christian ideals. The ignorance of Fundamentalists has always been their downfall.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The ultimate end will be a Church similar to that in China. Where the true Church is driven underground, meeting in basements and caves, and holding baptism under cover of darkness. There will be a visible Christian Church, one who has compromised principles by agreeing not to teach or preach anything against the State, in exchange for the State's sanction and permission to be allowed to exist.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z9dsbbe4zXc" width="400"></iframe>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CkXDcdMNE-I" width="400"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
In fact, this is already happening in the United States, in a de-facto sense. 501(c)(3) status comes with strings. Technically, to be 501(c)(3), the Church has implicitly agreed to not be critical of the State. But let me be perfectly clear when I say this. Most pastors and deacons (or elders) are too ignorant to recognize this. And to suggest that not all is as it seems will only create cognitive dissonance. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And, as the State becomes increasingly tolerant of aberrant behavior, railing on sin will soon be perceived no differently than railing on the State itself.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is my opinion that the Church will soon be constrained to make a decision. They can choose to compromise on their beliefs in order to maintain the status quo of meeting in their steepled building and singing their hymns and doing it like they've always done, absent the moral and ethical integrity and preaching against sin that is essential in the propagation of the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ. Or, they will shut the doors of their Churches, break into smaller groups, and starting meeting for corporate worship in homes. It happened in Nazi Germany, with the State-Sanctioned Reichskirche who agreed to not say anything against Hitler or the Nazi Regime, and the Confessing Church that Bonhoeffer was part of. It is happening in China, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia as we speak. It will soon be happening in the UK, as they are actually ahead of us in their slide toward political correctness. And eventually, it will be here. We will have to choose. Babylon, or the Kingdom of God? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The sooner we get out of Babylon (the world with its systems and mechanisms... Revelation 18, Matthew 24:21), the better the Church will fare.</div>
Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-43452556907218031792014-11-09T08:27:00.001-08:002014-11-09T08:27:34.559-08:00You Don't Want to Live in a Libertarian World?by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/greg.samples.7">Greg Samples </a><br />
<br />
You say you’re happy you don’t live in a libertarian world? You prefer the world you have now?<br /><br />The world that has seen the death of over 50 million people in the last century at the hands of their own government.<br /><br />Oh, you just prefer your own government now, not the whole world?<br /><br />The government that has stolen the wealth of the common man and transferred it to the 1% via a fraudulent, fiat currency?<br /><br />The
government that has sent troops, money, equipment and other support to
aid foreign nations in wars and covert actions without lawful
congressional approval, engaging in non defensive military action in
over 130 countries, often as mercenaries, and killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent humans in those countries.<br /><br />The government
that has imposed a harsh, progressive income tax on the sweat of the
middle class, causing families to work longer and with incomes from both
parents just to make ends meet, and depriving children of parental
supervision at the most critical times of their lives.<br /> <br />The
government that has passed bills in conflict with the constitution, and
they laugh at anyone bringing this to their attention.<br /><br />The
government that has meddled in the internal affairs of foreign nations,
causing their citizens to direct their hostility towards the U.S.<br /><br />The
government that has emitted unconstitutional bills of credit through
the Federal Reserve System, incurring debts for the payment of
unconstitutional activities or expenditures.<br /><br />The government that
has allowed the erosion of individual sovereignty by claiming powers for
the Federal Government not authorized by the Constitution, and strictly
prohibited by the 9th and 10th Amendments.<br /><br />The government that
has invaded the privacy of non-criminal Americans by obtaining and
storing information about them in violation of the 4th, 5th, 9th and
10th Amendments.<br /><br />The government that has confiscated private property for non-public purposes, in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments.<br /><br />The
government that has impaired justice by misinformation and incorrect
instructions to juries. Judges have presided over cases when there was a
conflict of interest. They have defied the 6th and 7th Amendments.<br /><br />The
government that has prosecuted Americans for activities which have no
victims. Prosecutions include activities involving drugs, sex, medical
assistance, taxation and currencies. More than half the prison
population in America is incarcerated for non-violent, non-larcenous,
consensual adult behavior.<br /><br />The government that has prohibited the free choice of medical treatment.<br /><br />The government that has allowed the torture of POWs and criminal suspects.<br /><br />
The government that has protected the infliction of violence on their own citizens such as the transgressions at Ruby Ridge.<br /><br />The
government that has enacted forfeiture laws which take private property
without due process of law, in violation of the 5th Amendment.<br /><br />The government that has assessed heavy fines for minor offenses, in violation of the 8th Amendment.<br /><br />This is what you are asking for with a non-libertarian government.<br /><br />Why?Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-15593167725778335322014-04-20T07:37:00.001-07:002014-04-20T08:15:47.495-07:00Easter Devotional<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn24Zb7cCaKiq-LmdE36Uf6a103gdkgL0ljNnHflBR_rZLgnqN5Ql3S-PITL-uFpDVLDtpMq2724zVqhli59OEKhi0HZSOjt06RDvUqm0gHzsP6ZM18egI3XC1TrjOAiI6inH6/s1600/EC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn24Zb7cCaKiq-LmdE36Uf6a103gdkgL0ljNnHflBR_rZLgnqN5Ql3S-PITL-uFpDVLDtpMq2724zVqhli59OEKhi0HZSOjt06RDvUqm0gHzsP6ZM18egI3XC1TrjOAiI6inH6/s1600/EC.jpg" height="180" width="200" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">I wanted to write a devotional about the origins of "Easter". It would seem most Christians have taken precious little time to research how the day we celebrate Christ's resurrection, the most pivotal aspect of Christ's work on Earth, came to be, and how it became known by the name "Easter". This devotional can serve as a jump-off point for your own invaluable research on the subject. This is Kindergarten level stuff, the </span>h<span class="st"><i>ors d'oeuvre </i>before the entree, and I am sure your own study will take you into much deeper waters. So you will need to do the remainder of the homework yourself. But, being the good Christian you are, I am sure that is not an issue. Right?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">The Roman Catholic Church was very adamant about “Christianizing” the
various pagan cultures surrounding </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Rome</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">. One of their means of doing this was observe
and learn their culture and spiritual traditions. Once there, they would contrive a
means of amalgamating their various pagan observances with some aspect of Christianity as to assist with the understanding of the Christian principle.
This is the case with Christmas as well as Easter. All the extraneous,
non-religious, aspects of Christmas are crossed over from the pagan aspects,
mostly surrounding the beliefs of Father Christmas, Father Time, or who those
familiar with mythology will identify as “Kronos”. This is why Christmas was
located around December 25, very close proximity to the Winter Solstice. All
the extraneous Christmas observances, like Christmas trees, decorations, and
gift giving, are derivatives of the pagan aspects of the holiday.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Easter, on the other hand, has an even more curious origin than
Christmas. The pagan cultures they were amalgamating with celebrated the Spring
Equinox. As it were, this is when the Jews typically celebrated their Passover,
which as we know, was when Christ was crucified and resurrected.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRzwKLg9B4saQg7VdvsXyF5903LusuxWEq8kkzgmQZ-gsyOye4vWSgGFDC6Qqdl4fVF_mTamCwqodu20fYWM0kl7puBj0RWurAzjLujxbx5e_mqMtkQ2FM4IwOr2D23Yda-gAZ/s1600/Ostara_by_Johannes_Gehrts.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRzwKLg9B4saQg7VdvsXyF5903LusuxWEq8kkzgmQZ-gsyOye4vWSgGFDC6Qqdl4fVF_mTamCwqodu20fYWM0kl7puBj0RWurAzjLujxbx5e_mqMtkQ2FM4IwOr2D23Yda-gAZ/s1600/Ostara_by_Johannes_Gehrts.jpg" height="200" width="135" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Ēostre, with the icons of Easter.</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">The unfortunate aspect is that, in the amalgamation of a pagan feast
with a Christian observance, the name of the
pagan deity which symbolized the pagan observance was retained. Her name was Ēostre, which
is the transliterated name of the Germanic pagan goddess, whose symbols pervade
our Easter observances. The word “Easter” is a variation of the same name. This
goddess was, among other things, a fertility goddess, who utilized symbols such
as rabbits, eggs, fresh green grass, birds, budding trees, and lilies. Other variations
of the name include Austron and Ostara. Ostara is the name recognized by
various New Age disciplines, and you will find this pagan goddess of extreme
importance with those who practice naturalistic forms of witchcraft, like
Wicca.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">A most disturbing association of "Easter" is that this
goddess is also regarded by some as the same goddess known in Akkadian,
Babylonian, and Sumerian mythologies as "Ishtar". Believe me when I
say that Ishtar was bad news. She was a goddess of war, sex, and all things
nocturnal. She demanded human blood sacrifice, and some of the most well-known,
and most effective, means of human torture were devised by her followers. Being
a goddess of night, she was sometimes associated with a Gnostic and Kabbalistic
deity of Jewish folklore known as Lilith, who manifests herself as an<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>owl ( a nocturnal creature ), who, according
to legend, attempted to seduce Adam before Eve's creation. Another legend has
her as Adam’s companion before Eve was created, but refused to yield to Adam as
her husband. She is mentioned once in the Old Testament in<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Isaiah 34:14, which is translated as
"screech owl" in the King James Version. Lilith is keyed to Strong's
H3917.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Both
Lilith and Ishtar, being the same goddess, has her roots traced
all the way back to the pseudopigraphical book of Enoch, when the
Watchers
descended upon Mt. Hermon to have sex with, and bear children with,
human
women, an act that is also recorded in Genesis 6:1-4. In the King James
Version, the Watchers were called "bene ha Elohim" (H1121 and H430)
and is translated as "sons of God". These fallen angels manifested
themselves as "gods", and theological scholars refer to this pantheon as
"The Divine Council". You can do further study at <a href="http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/">The Divine Council</a>. The progeny of these gods and human women, were giants, and are
actually called "Nephilim" (H5303) and were considered to be the
"fallen ones". These watchers are actually the fallen angels, and who
Evangelical Christians commonly believe are demons. This unholy union between
the Heavenly and the Earthly was Satan's attempt to corrupt the seed of men,
from whom Christ was destined to appear. The genetic imperfection, though
preserved in Christ's lineage, somehow passed through the flood, mostly likely
through Ham or his wife, and created the antediluvian giants that are more
common in Scripture, like Goliath, or Og of Bashan. Some legends even equate
Nimrod with Gilgamesh of Sumerian Mythology, who had both celestial and
terrestrial parents, who built whole cities, including the city of </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Uruk</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">, in honor of Ishtar. Nimrod was a
Gibborim, according to Scripture, which is keyed to Strong’s H1368, and is
translated as “mighty one” in the King James Version. Other ancient cultures
regarded Gibborim as a subset of the Nephilim, and believed Nimrod to be just
that, a giant offspring of a fallen angel and human female. Some mythologies,
like Greek Mythology, regard this offspring as “demi-gods”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">In Enoch, upon descending upon </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Mt.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Hermon</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">, Ishtar’s original name was Azazel. And
she was actually a he. HE became transgendered as to better accommodate being a
deity that represented sex. She taught women the art of seduction, including
the use of make-up and the embroidering of hair. She also taught mankind
metallurgy, or how to manipulate metals, which is required to manufacture the
machinations of warfare, like swords and shields. She (or he) was, after all, a goddess of war.<br />
<br />
"</span>And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and
breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of
working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the
beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="8_2"></a>colouring tinctures."<br />
<br />
(1 Enoch 8:1-2)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">That is the background of the name “Easter” and who ancient history
regards her to be. Regarding the inclusion of "Easter" in the King
James Version, it is as follows.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">The New Testament was originally written in Greek, as opposed to the
Old Testament being written in Hebrew. All English versions, including the King
James Version, are translations from either the original languages, as they
have been preserved, and from previous English translations and other
translations, to reflect the changes in languages as they mature.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">For example, two indispensable resources the King James translators
used were </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">St.
Jerome</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">’s
Latin Vulgate translation, as well as previous English translations, such as
the Bishop’s Bible and the Great Bible. The King James Version itself was
translated in 1611 with some minor revisions in the 18<sup>th</sup> century.
The most noticeable of these revisions was the complete removal of the Apocrypha,
the books that was between the Testaments that liturgical denominations still
use.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">In the New Testament, there is the Greek word "<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3957&t=KJV">Pascha</a>". You
may have even heard Jews refer to the "Paschal Feast" or the
"Paschal Sacrifice". This word appears 29 times in the King James
Version of the Bible. In 28 of those occurrences, “Pascha” is translated
correctly as "Passover". This word is keyed to Strong's G3957. Those occurrences
are as follows.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Matthew 26:2, 26:17, 26:18, 26:19, Mark 14:1, 14:12, 14:14, 14:16,
Luke 2:41, 22:1, 22:7, 22:8, 22:11, 22:13, John 2:13, 2:23, 6:4, 11:55, 12:1,
18:28, 18:39, 19:14, 1st Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 11:28</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">However, in Acts 12:4, the King James translators wrongly translated
the word "Pascha" as "Easter". It should be noted that most
of the newer English translations have corrected Acts 12:4 to say “Passover”
instead of “Easter”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">The most troubling aspect in all this is that the Jewish feast of Passover
is the feast that has direct correlation to Christ's atonement on the cross.
Striking the blood on the doorposts is a corollary to being "washed in the
blood of the lamb" or "applying the blood to your own heart".
Eating the lamb, including the organs and entrails (purtenance), correlates to
Christ's command to eat of His own flesh (John </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">6:51</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">). It is quite sad and troubling that the
Church has allowed the inertia of time and tradition to justify calling the day
of our Lord’s resurrection by the name of a pagan goddess. Even Churches that
do not condone the pagan symbols, like eggs, baskets, and rabbits, still insist
on calling this day "Easter", probably never realizing they are using
the name of a Pagan goddess, just because it is falsely translated as such in
the King James Version of the Bible. It probably is hateful in the ears of our Lord
to see His Passover commemorated with the name of another god.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my opinion, we should abandon the name
“Easter” altogether, and start calling this day, “Resurrection Day”, “Atonement
Day”, “Reconciliation Day”, or “Salvation Day”.</span></div>
Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-52281084344312357872014-01-03T12:53:00.000-08:002014-01-03T13:18:33.770-08:00The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - My Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2CFl4cRp1hXN3ENAUReXYvRtBvhZi69nskNIZXoyVcigKpBXKsCYUm5nO4WZ5peiqWNwLGRo9v0J06E2r-p1kr9u-tR5uQfqOzPWAqm4gQrV7d332x-8NrHPtdxIjxiot_v0W/s1600/The-Hobbit-The-Desolation-Of-Smaug-Poster-600x817.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2CFl4cRp1hXN3ENAUReXYvRtBvhZi69nskNIZXoyVcigKpBXKsCYUm5nO4WZ5peiqWNwLGRo9v0J06E2r-p1kr9u-tR5uQfqOzPWAqm4gQrV7d332x-8NrHPtdxIjxiot_v0W/s320/The-Hobbit-The-Desolation-Of-Smaug-Poster-600x817.jpeg" width="233" /></a></div>
WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS<br />
<br />
Bilbo's journey continues in Peter Jackson's second installment of the new "Hobbit" movies, "The Desolation of Smaug".<br />
<br />
Interestingly, devout fans of Tolkien will relish the fact that most of Jackson's "embellishments" are still in line with the main story. With the inclusion of the "Pale Orc" in the the first movie, along with this new elvish character, Tauriel (meaning "Daughter of the Forest"), in this movie, although she isn't in the book, I was apprehensive at first.<br />
<br />
Jackson's inclusions are not invasive to the central story has told in the book... At least not like the atrocious changes to the Narnia stories in their subsequent movie adaptions. Although Disney's and Fox's changes to those stories are blasphemous and perverse caricatures of the original, Tauriel was not an unwelcome addition. We assume, in the book, that more elves than was actually named were present in the scene with the wood elves. All Jackson did was name one, create a three-way love story between her, our beloved Legolas, and Kili the Dwarf, the dwarf that already had female Tolkienians swooning where they stood. Nothing like a love triangle to up the ante.<br />
<br />
See, not invasive at all? But if that off tangent plotline in the periphery of what hard-core Tolkienians regard as "central" did offend you, his inclusion and depiction of "Beorn" more than made up for it. I cannot believe, after his sacrifice of Bombadil and Goldberry from the original "The Lord of the Rings" Trilogy, that such a controversial and minor character would be included. So amazed was I that I temporarily forgot about him being in the book at all. My friend whom I seen this movie with leaned over and whispered, "Ooh, I bet that is the 'Carrock'".<br />
<br />
I said, "The what?"<br />
<br />
He said, "You know... Beorn's house." I knew he was talking about then. Beorn, the skin changer, who could change into a bear... A huge, raging bear, based on Jackson's adaption, who looked eerily like Gmork from "The Neverending Story", when we saw his face pushing through the door.<br />
<br />
In human form, Beorn could have really stood a good eyebrow plucking.<br />
<br />
Leaving Beorn, this movie was the status quo of what we come to expect from Jackson. He excels at taking books that are mainly narrative, and converting them into high-action movies that leave you breathless by the time it is over, without sacrificing much of the depth narrative plots provide. There is plenty of taboo surrounding the Necromancer, but Jackson finally gives us definitive evidence that the Necromancer is actually Sauron, and is setting up for "The Lord of the Rings".<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5NC1BNcWe6skou8SM0THKHuIXxDrRZLqasdRjX8m-khsapvffHNFXkuojyb8pciIynyELixxN-j5jX6Sz6TLnjfF7Pt6ncv5OM1sRBZ4ws2s5kgaxFRLqQ7d_YnhFGLsbYg32/s1600/Sauron.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5NC1BNcWe6skou8SM0THKHuIXxDrRZLqasdRjX8m-khsapvffHNFXkuojyb8pciIynyELixxN-j5jX6Sz6TLnjfF7Pt6ncv5OM1sRBZ4ws2s5kgaxFRLqQ7d_YnhFGLsbYg32/s200/Sauron.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sauron, as he was in Middle-Earth's first age<br />
and how I would have liked to have<br />
seen him depicted in these movies.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I was hoping we'd see Sauron as he was, instead of the veiled and dark Sauron we acclimated to in the first trilogy. From a Christian perspective, Sauron would have been like a fallen angel who served under Morgoth, who would have been Middle-Earth's equivalent of Satan. A fallen "Maiar", in Tolkien's legendarium. I was hoping that Jackson might leave off all the armor and darkness to give us a glimpse of the Sauron as he would appear uncloaked. Beautiful. A icon of perfection. To put it in Scriptural language, Sauron would appear as "an angel of light" (<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Cr&c=11&v=14&t=KJV#s=1089014">2 Corinthians 11:14</a>). No such luck though. We see the familiar shadow of the Sauron we already know. Clothed in darkness, violent, wretched, faithless, and accursed.<br />
<br />
But I don't expect theologically sound heads among most movie-makers. Darkness remains darkness, and light remains light. What will such a preconceived, and well embedded, notion mean to the Church when Satan does decide to come on the scene. With evil so cleverly defined as darkness by our media and culture, what will happen when Satan appears, robbed in white, and speaking only benevolence and who "by peace shall destroy many" (<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&c=8&t=KJV#s=858024">Daniel 8:24-25</a>)?<br />
<br />
But I am not here to preach.<br />
<br />
I was glad to see the thrush was included. Such seemingly innocuous details are very important to us who demand consistency between the book and the movie.<br />
<br />
While the original "Rings" trilogy exploited the symantic and linguistic capabilities of the elves to the fullest, Jackson uses the barrel ride scene to exploit the acclaimed physical dexterity of the elvish race. Watching Legolas play hopscotch on the heads of dwarves was a humorous twist, not to mention seeing more of his amazing talents with a bow.<br />
<br />
Interesting how Jackson is taking the concept that even elves can become greedy and subject to avarice found in the book to extremes. The elvish king comes off as unlikable as any character I've met in Jackson's movies to date, which will come to fruition in the third film, if Jackson stays true to the book in any capacity.<br />
<br />
Smaug was perfect. What else can I say? Voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch, who is quickly rising in my personal ranks as one of the best actors I have ever seen. I first saw Cumberbatch when he played William Pitt in the movie "Amazing Grace". He is also a grand Sherlock Holmes, another literary favorite of mine, and played a much younger Khan in "Star Trek: Into Darkness". He also voiced the Necromancer as well as Smaug, and will reprise the role of the Necromancer in the final installment of "The Hobbit", subtitled "There and Back Again". In fact, if Jackson had decided to depict Sauron in a more demonic, but less familiar, light, why not use Cumberbatch?<br />
<br />
An older title for dragons was the title "Wyrm", which is dragon with four legs, not to be confused with "Wyvern", which is a dragon with two legs. Smaug was a wyrm, and the CG animators have finally nailed how a dragon should move. The thing I thought profound about this depiction of Smaug is that he was EXTREMELY reptilian in this movie. Most movies give dragons scales and reptilian eyes, but still make them very mammalian and rigid in their movement and behavior. Until he took to flight toward laketown, Smaug slithered with very fluid movements like a snake. It might even prove disconcerting to those with a innate fear of all things reptilian to see Smaug on the screen. Very serpentine in its movements. It looked like it could slither right off the screen and into the auditorium. Kudos to the Smaug's conception artists for allowing us to see a glimpse of his fire being generated in his chest before he breathes it. Lots of spiritual allegories and metaphors could be contrived by that seemingly benign detail. Like how fiery and destructive words we breathe find their origin in our hearts. Very well done. Also, Smaug was very verbose, in both the book and the movie, and exudes all the raw malevolence that has become the mark of draconian influences in ancient, as well as modern culture. I think perhaps he has been starved for companionship lying there in the mountain. He certainly loves to talk. I am sure both John Howe's and Alan Lee's artwork, who also depicts Smaug as very serpentine, influenced Smaug's cinematic conception as well.<br />
<br />
What else can I say? The movie was great, and probably Jackson's best adaption to date. It makes me anxious to see next year's final movie.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-57734002145684984302013-06-25T06:34:00.000-07:002013-06-25T11:26:26.506-07:00My Thoughts on Tennessee's Education Dilemma.It would seem that many of Tennessee's public school teachers are upset about recent legislation regarding teacher pay. You can get the details <a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jun/21/board-revises-minimum-salary-scales-for-teachers/">here</a>, and then read my comments below.<br />
<br />
First off, let me begin by saying I am not an educator. I
say this because I myself hold in contempt those who venture to comment on
subjects they know nothing about. I try not to jest at wounds I have never
suffered. If you choose to stop reading this upon those grounds, you are
justified. In the past, I have been, de facto, offered positions in both the
public and private sector to teach the skills of my own vocation (technical
drawing and engineering graphics, like CAD, solid modeling, parametric
modeling, etc) at higher education levels, but I have never actually taught.
The point is, my qualifications for making some of the statements I am about to
make are questionable at best.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Second, let me make clear at once that I am a libertarian
who believes education would be better managed on a local level instead of
being managed under the broad umbrella of State or Federal Bureaucracies.
Better yet, I believe that education completely out of the hands of any
government, at any level, and delegated to the private sector (private schools)
would better educate our children. If you’re a proponent of government
involvement in education, if you could kindly explain to me how a bunch of bureaucrats
with I-Phones, briefcases, and Armani suits, typically hundreds of miles away
are contributing to the education of your child, I will be glad to recant my
stance on government regulated education. But until then, I think government
and education make poor bedmates.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In such a scenario, private schools would compete for
children the way private colleges and universities do. Competition drives
innovation. And in order to be competitive, schools would have to have a proven
track record of top-notch education. In such a scenario, there would be no need
for government standardized testing or government regulations. The competition
would keep the stakes high.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For years now… In fact, one can probably trace it all the
way back to Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” legislation, teachers in the public
school system have been plagued with standardized testing. Now while I agree
that teachers do bear some accountability, I think the grades of students are
not good barometers for gauging a teacher’s abilities or effectiveness. Of
course, if education was privatized, as stated in my second paragraph, teacher
accountability would be cut-and-dried. Teacher evaluations would be handled in
the same manner all employees of private companies are evaluated. But as it is,
the majority of our childrens’ education is conducted in the public sector, so
we have the hurdle of how to properly gauge the performance of teachers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me give you my prescription on a possibility of how this
can be done.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I presume every public school has its own autonomous administrative
staff. Why not let the local administrative staff determine how teachers are to
be evaluated? Perhaps it could be done through live classroom monitoring. Or
maybe it can be done through annual teacher evaluations based on parental
complaints. There are myriads of ways for employees to be evaluated, just ask
any company manager.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
True, this opens doors for greasy hands, lecherous liaisons,
and various and sundry other corruptions to take place to preserve one position
in the hierarchy. But hey, you are the one that wanted to work for the
government. Political ousting is a time-honored tradition among the politically
elite. And no government worker is immune. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Think about it like this. How do the cafeteria ladies or the
school nurse get evaluated? Are they graded on how fat the children are, or how
sick the children are? Such an asinine notion, and yet this is precisely what
standardized testing does. Evaluating teachers based upon test scores is like
evaluating the cafeteria ladies on how fat the children are, or evaluating the
school nurse on how sick the children are.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The point being, too much of the result lies beyond the
control of the teacher. A teacher can be the best of the best. But that doesn’t
mean their students will pay attention, apply themselves, or do their homework
at night. This is beyond the teacher’s control.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In some ways, it is ironic. When I was in school, some of
the best teachers were marked by students with low scores. It didn’t mean the
teacher was bad. It meant the teacher was tough. The class they taught
suggested that students that were genuinely interested only need apply. The
classes these teachers taught were not mere time fillers, but required the
whole of one’s intellect.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is funny when you think about it. If test scores
determine a teacher’s performance level, and consequently, their pay level,
what teacher in their right mind would want to teach advanced classes? Couple
this with the fact that the Tennessee Legislature has removed all motivation
for educators to further their job skills by acquiring additional degrees. How
can we compete unless we challenge the students? Challenging the students can
only be done with teachers with high degrees. Now that there is scarcely a
reason for a teacher to pursue education beyond a Bachelor’s Degree, can
students really be challenged?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is one aspect to all this that no one is talking about,
but is actually quite prominent. When I was in school, I could always tell a
good teacher from a bad one. There was something that I can only describe as a
spark. This spark transcended all subject matter being taught. These teachers
had the knack for taking the students beyond the subject material into realms
of understanding that isn’t found on any test. The indomitable, “Why?” and, “What
for?” of education. I had precious few of these teachers during my time in
school (some of whom I daresay will read this), and I thank God for them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In fact, I could write an entire blog about some of them. I
could mention my fifth grade teacher who was the first to undertake reading to
us a little every day from a book. It is doubtful that I have been without a
book on my person since. Or perhaps my freshman English teacher, who read us
Greek Mythology, which nurtured my interest in ancient cultures. Or my Algebra
teacher, who somehow kept me signing up for her classes, even though it seemed
like a perpetual struggle just to get a passing grade. Or the seventh grade
history teacher who brought history to life, instead of just giving us dates
and events to memorize.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have all heard of the phenomenon called “Teaching to the
test”. This is what occurs when a teacher knows their job, and their pay grade,
relies on the results of a test, so they simply emphasize those aspects of the
subject matter to the children they know will be on the test, while leaving
other aspects of the subject untouched, or breezed over. The product of this
type of teaching is children with a head full of facts, but no real
intellectual mechanism to parse and critically analyze those facts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In summary, standardized testing destroys the transmission
of “critical thinking”, which should be an intrinsic aspect of any subject.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You can tell a child that 2+2=4. But what do you tell the
child when he asks why 2+2=4, and what he is supposed to do with it? If you’re
a teacher, and you teach a child that 2+2=4, are you teaching the child in such
a way that he will commit it to memory so that when he sees “2+2=” on a
standardized test, he will know the answer, or are you teaching them in such a
way as to lay the groundwork for higher mathematical and logical reasoning,
which serves as the foundation for what’s to come in higher education and
various vocational fields of study? Are you merely inputting data the way one
might input data in a computer, or are you creating the “spark”?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
None of the books read in the fifth grade, or the Greek
Myths I learned in my freshman year, were on any standardized test. And I could
have graduated just as easily, nay, easier, if I had only taken the required
years of algebra instead of doubling up on it. And I cannot recall ever
answering a question about Longstreet’s march through Bean Station to Knoxville
on a standardized test. I doubt those “long-in-the-tooth” old-fart bureaucrats
know who Lee’s old warhorse even is.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, it is these things that nurtured me. That is because
these teachers were not teaching to the test. They were attempting to create
the spark.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
C. S. Lewis, the famous Christian apologist and literary
author, wrote a small book based upon a series of lectures entitled “The
Abolition of Man”. I highly recommend it to any educator who hasn’t read it. In
it, he outlines the necessity of taking education beyond the mere intellect. He
argues that a proper education must pervade the intellect and the viscera of an
individual. If you’ve never heard the word “viscera”, it simply is in reference
to man’s more instinctive “animal” nature, symbolized in man’s stomach the way
the intellect is symbolized by a man’s head. Lewis argues that education should
saturate and stimulate both the head (intellect) and the stomach (viscera), and
should have open and free commute between the two. The path connecting the two
is through the chest, obviously.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The most troubling aspect of the whole treatise is that he
defines an education system where this isn’t the case, where educators
essentially create “men without chests”, or in other words, where education is
confined, most often in the head, and not permitted to pervade the whole of the
man. No critical thinking. No mechanism for utilizing an education. No way to
incorporate an education into an adult life. A world of “men without chests” is
not a scenario for social stability in a world where education determines your
place on the world’s totem pole. It brings about the true "Abolition of Man".<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What concerns me is that the actions of the past decade in
regards our education is seemingly bringing Lewis’ dystopian predictions to
fruition. Even our institutions of higher education, which must meet Federal
regulations to be “accredited”, seem to be engaged in what I call “shotgun” teaching.
Today’s graduates of both high school and college seem to have heads crammed
with more facts than even the graduates of my own generation had. But they seem
so ill prepared in their proper use. “Outside the box” thinkers are practically
extinct. Critical thinkers are a dying breed. They know 2+2=4, but they don’t
know why and what to do with it. Students are trained to parrot what schools
teach them, and to never even test the tolerances of known rules. This will eventually
kill true innovation. Consider, while we have grown rather adept at improving
existing inventions and ideas, how long has it been since something new came
down the pike? Something like the car, or the computer, or the telephone, or
the light-bulb? Yeah, we have improved our cars and telephones and light-bulbs.
But has there been anything new that isn’t simply an improvement or derivative
of an existing design?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I honestly cannot think of anything.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Are we, perhaps, further into Lewis’ dystopia that even I am
willing to speculate?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To end, I predict that as long as education lies in the
power of government to regulate, things will not change and will only get
worse. And with government, as with all ruling bodies of men, acquired power is
not easily relinquished.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the end, it is up to educators to bind together and make
a change. It may take something radical, like a mass walkout. Or, if principals and administrators are level-headed enough, it might only take a few good,
well-informed, and eloquent people to really outline the problem and how
Tennessee’s prescribed treatment will only perpetuate and worsen the problem.
And then, most importantly, outline the real solution.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I admit I am not hopeful. This transition from educating to
indoctrination seems to be close to complete. At risk of sounding
conspiratorial, and sounding like an outright fruit-loop, it seems engineered.
This erosion in our education seems to be on a fast track, and is a result of
planning and design. I might have just discredited everything I said in saying
that. But I’d rather be honest about how I feel about it.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
But if I am right, the next question will be the
indomitable, “Why?” Why is our educational system being structured in this way? What is hoped to be accomplished? Conspiracy theorists call it the "dumbing down" of America, but I think it goes deeper. Our graduating students have never had more quantified facts in their brains, so you really cannot, objectively speaking, say they are dumber. I think they want people who don't think, at least, not for themselves. They want mainstream thoughts in the minds of people. Constrained thoughts, based on constrained facts. This paralyzes any intellectual dexterity the mind might have possessed. The mind loses its pliability, unable to process information outside the mainstream. Perhaps we have already seen the firstfruits. Creative television programming has given way to mindless "reality telelvision". Interesting and provocative movie plots have been forfeited to "remakes" and "reboots" with more pretty, and less plot. Our culture is giving us all the warning signs of this academic atrophy. But whose able to recognize it?<br />
<br />
It is all somewhat reminiscent of Orwell's "Thought-Police". But will there be anyone around who will be able to ask, "Why?" when the time comes?<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-40845559128379884212013-05-21T09:08:00.001-07:002013-05-21T12:02:08.613-07:00Obama's Chess Game<span style="text-align: justify;">Chess is an ancient strategy game that has been played for
centuries by nobles and peasants alike. I have always loved Chess because of the ability to project its
meanings and strategies upon so many other areas of our lives. I have never been good at it personally, due to my intellectual and cognitive impediments.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For the purpose
of this post, I would like to look at the possible political nuances of the
game. Chess is essentially political, as it represents various wings of
opposing powers struggling to gain total control of the board. Here are my
political interpretations of each piece.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: red;">The King:</span></b> The weakest piece of the board, but also the most
powerful. The King represents the player, and as such, has the power to control
the other pieces in their efforts to protect him and capture other pieces.
Politically, the King represents the concentrated central political authority,
whether it is an actual king, prime minister, president, etc.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: red;">The Queen:</span></b> The most versatile and, rationally, the most powerful
piece on the board, this represents the King’s primary protector and aggressor.
Depending on the political structure, this is the King’s warhorse. This is what
Joab was to King David, or what Longstreet was to Robert E. Lee.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: red;">The Rook:</span></b> Political Power, including legislative, judicial,
and even propaganda machines. Any mechanism a ruling entity can use to control
or suppress their subjects can be symbolized in the rook.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: red;">The Knight:</span></b> The military might of a ruling entity.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: red;">The Bishop:</span></b> The religious power of a ruling entity. Don’t be
too quick to discount this possibility. The inclination to tyranny compounds
exponentially when the ruling entity claims to speak on God’s behalf.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: red;">The Pawn:</span></b> The ordinary people.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Everyone who has ever excelled at Chess has learned a few
fundamental strategies. Chess is not a game of reaction. In fact, if a player
can force his opponent into playing a merely reactive game, their victory is
certain. A good player anticipates many moves ahead, and endeavors to set up a
Chess board with pieces strategically placed and to make their opponent’s King
indefensible. Good Chess strategies cannot be gauged by the mere quantifying of
captured pieces. That is a key fact. Unlike Checkers, where the simple accumulation
of captured pieces is the goal, in Chess, one must capture the right pieces at
the right time, and in such a manner that doesn't jeopardize their own key
pieces, while moving their own pieces into positions that jeopardizes your opponent’s
king, which is a good segue into my next point, which is critical to good Chess
tactics… and that is knowing which pieces to sacrifice, and when. If your own
piece is impeding a setup to checkmate your opponent, you must sacrifice it.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Often, when you allow pieces to be sacrificed, especially powerful
pieces, like rooks and queens, it gives the opponent a false sense of security,
and more importantly, is a distraction from a potential setup to deal the
lethal blow. The ancient Greeks called this forced susceptibility “Hubris”.
Make your opponent think he is winning, causing them to relax their guard. All
the while, you are setting up for the kill. Your opponent will be blinded by
his hubris until you say the word “Checkmate”. Allowing pieces to be captured
can provide adequate distraction from your real strategies.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I would like to analyze Obama’s presidential
administration, what some have called his “regime”, in light of a Chess match.
Obama’s presumed opponent is, of course, Republicans. I don’t mean the genuine,
small-government, conservatives, who believe in individual liberties and a
traditional interpretation of the U. S. Constitution, instead of Loose
Constructionism (a. k. a. Living Constitution). Republicans have done their
best to sever this small wing of their party. In fact, if Republicans had
thrown as much effort into defeating Obama’s regime as they have thrown into
castigating and ostracizing the libertarian wing of the Party, Obama wouldn’t
stand a chance.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Typical of a Chess match, some of Obama’s first moves after
his initial election were pawn movements. He created a cult-like following of
near religious devotion. In the minds of his proselytes, he can do no wrong. These
movements are still happening, and Obama’s Republican opponent is doing little
to neutralize this action.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
President Obama’s first moves on the national stage involved
the economy, and the passage of his healthcare plan. This could be equated to
brilliant moves of his rooks. Countermoves by Republicans to capture or
neutralize the rooks failed, and now the rooks of the economy and government
run healthcare are ensconced in safe positions, ready to be deployed against
Obama’s opponent at a moment’s notice. With institutions like the TSA hiring
convicts to grope our children and grandmothers, with no real action being
pursued to neutralize this threat to our individual liberties, the security of
Obama’s rooks isn't really debatable. Only a scandal could jeopardize them. But
read on.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Also, he escalated existing military deployments worldwide,
while simultaneous promising de-escalation. Truly brilliant moves. Move your
knights around into seemingly innocuous positions. The movements themselves
distract, while other movements are more subtle, and more damaging.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
During the whole of his presidency, it could be observed
that one of his two knights represents a foreign military presence, while the
other knight represents a burgeoning military presence on the home-front
targeting what has become known as “home-grown” terrorists. In fact, the use of
the word “terrorist” has been redefined as anyone or anything that would stand,
not necessarily against America, but against American government. Using the
power of government, he has purchased billions of rounds of hollow-point ammo,
presumably for use in live-fire training exercises. It is difficult to understand why such
high-quantities are needed for training, and why they need be hollow-points,
when full metal jacket cartridges are significantly cheaper, and less lethal in
the case of an accidental hit. And the use of hollow-point ammo is prohibited
by the Geneva Convention in foreign military deployments, so hollow-point
rounds must be used domestically.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Combine this with the added powers given by the 2012 passage
of the NDAA, to the executive branch of government to target Americans for assassination,
bypassing due-process and the Fourth Amendment, and the production and purchase
of armored troop haulers (MRAP) by DHS, which is a domestic security force, and
you will see that Obama is banking hard on his knights.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The question is, has Obama forgotten what every seasoned
Chess player knows… that is your opponent’s pawns are your knights’ biggest
threat. The next question is will Obama’s Republican opponent be smart enough
to use pawns to neutralize Obama’s knights? Yes, Obama knows who the threat is,
which is why he is going after guns. In regulating our Second Amendment rights,
he is using rooks to capture pawns that would otherwise be a threat to his
knights. And no, the Republican Party is playing defensive Chess, and therefore
do not have the know-how to use pawns against Obama’s knights. Expect no Paul
Reveres, Thomas Jeffersons, George Washingtons, or Thomas Paines among today’s
Republican Party.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lately, Obama has played even more brilliantly than ever
before. His administration has caught the full force of various scandals. In
the “Fast and Furious” scandal, the Federal Government was caught selling
firearms to Mexican drug cartels, presumably to track them with tracking
devices in the weapons themselves. This failed, as did their defense. But is he
using these scandals to his benefit?<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately, Republicans failed to push their advantage,
and now only a narrow esoteric group of political junkies even remember Fast
and Furious.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And now, it is the Benghazi Controversy. In a nutshell, the
U. S. Embassy (which is considered U. S. soil) in Benghazi underwent a
terrorist attack, and received no military support from the United States
military, in spite of repeated requests. For reference, imagine your local
courthouse undergoing a siege by Islamic Jihadists, and the Federal Government
doing nothing, in spite of numerous requests for military support. Both Obama
and Hillary were in the spotlight in a bad way. This is all compounded by the
fact that the IRS was recently caught targeting conservative groups for tax
audits, and Department of Justice wiretapping the phones of AP reporters. Such
a scandal should have been near Checkmate for Obama, as it was for Nixon.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have no real advantage in the Benghazi scandal, as their pieces are all bark and no bite, and as most of their pawns probably couldn't locate Benghazi on a map.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what does Obama do?<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He has already proven to be a formidable Chess player. He
sacrifices his queen, Hillary Clinton, and concedes the fact that these slip
ups (if indeed they are slip ups) will compromise one of his rooks. Was this
sacrifice planned? That is the question the Republicans should be asking. In
politics, as in Chess, what’s taking place in the mainstream often is just a
distraction from the real strategy. Maybe the sacrifice of Queen Hillary is a
set up for a possible third term, which would be in keeping with his religion.
With Hillary bidding on a Democratic run in 2016, she was simply an impediment
to this end.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, the board has been set up perfectly in his favor.
The only piece Obama hasn't played is his bishops. Being a Sunni Muslim, when
Obama decides to play these pieces, it will be an interesting day for us
Christians. Look at the United Kingdom, which has become almost completely secular,
and the only measurable religious presence in the UK is Islam. The secularization of America is well underway, ahead of schedule in fact.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, the bishops of conservatives were the first pieces
Obama was able to capture, with the cultural perception that Christians, and
the Church, is obsolete, irrelevant, and intolerant (which isn’t too far
removed from the truth). Every single day, the Church grows more and more
impotent. They continue to gauge their effectiveness by how many buildings they
have, and how big they are. They, like the Republicans, have quit dealing with
individuals, and have come to deal with humanity as a collective whole. They
have traded away the Great Commission given by Christ to make disciples, for
the Great Commission given by society to create social change and accumulate “numbers”.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, the Republican bishops were toast before the game
began. There was really no need to bother putting them on the board at all. The
Christian Church in America is a gelding who still thinks it is a stallion. The
salt has lost its savor.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So far, in either of Obama’s terms, Republicans have played
a mere reactionary game. They have simply attempted to parry all of Obama’s
moves. They have no offensive strategy to take the King or to isolate it from
the pieces Obama has so strategically placed across the board. They have done
little to take his pieces from him.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is Obama’s endgame? Well, I have theories, but I won’t
share them. I will let you take all this and form your own ideas as to how this
Chess game will come to fruition in the next few months and years. I will say
this. I think we still are in for a few surprises.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-10081947554593025722013-05-09T13:00:00.000-07:002013-05-12T04:26:32.743-07:00My Early Childhood Memories of my Mother.<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe_AYycI32_ckQuAKqwyv6dQAzSc_LjFsL7wrOKg6WeiOtRT5xFQEnA7cPZ4kztze8H9pIXzh1J4dhIKWuK8pFbEnmmhRPqai_sbimZqraJTYaIL3HqVMZEKkO2N4A2XTiqmBI/s1600/Mother+and+I+on+Star+and+Sierra.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe_AYycI32_ckQuAKqwyv6dQAzSc_LjFsL7wrOKg6WeiOtRT5xFQEnA7cPZ4kztze8H9pIXzh1J4dhIKWuK8pFbEnmmhRPqai_sbimZqraJTYaIL3HqVMZEKkO2N4A2XTiqmBI/s200/Mother+and+I+on+Star+and+Sierra.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mom and I horseback riding<br />
during my early adult years.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
When one undertakes to write down memories of their mother, most often they begin in the early teen years. I suppose this stems from the idea that this is when a mother becomes a resource in solving many of the mysteries that come with adolescence and the transition from childhood into adulthood. I am an exception to this rule.<br />
<br />
My younger brother arrived when I was 9, and at that point, my mother’s attention was split between him and I afterwards, if indeed it didn't favor him most of the time. No doubt, this is why my fondest, and clearest, memories of my mother are actually from those years prior to my brother’s arrival, when I was 3 to 8 years old.<br />
<br />
Let me make one thing clear. I grew up poor. Now don’t misunderstand me, I never went hungry ( I practically lived on Bean-and-Bacon soup and peanut butter sandwiches during those years). But, by comparison to my peers, I was poor. Things did steadily improve after my brother arrived, but until then, Mom became very good at juggling expenses and stretching dollars.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_hvVZ_gjbLTUpw7s7A5FpK7lYz6DVRKY3QxzU9T4ibr2FYhefyM2UvBMHavxAvYlb7k_nXf4zDZUg8V_Yy2EDpuGndvGgPNdb7lLQ6p45sOzlK_3VSUSlyFfnslyhIRmgXQ8u/s1600/scan0014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_hvVZ_gjbLTUpw7s7A5FpK7lYz6DVRKY3QxzU9T4ibr2FYhefyM2UvBMHavxAvYlb7k_nXf4zDZUg8V_Yy2EDpuGndvGgPNdb7lLQ6p45sOzlK_3VSUSlyFfnslyhIRmgXQ8u/s200/scan0014.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The year I got my Fisher-Price<br />
weeble-farm<br />
and a Big-Wheel.<br />
Mom loved extravagant<br />
Christmases and birthdays.<br />
Check out the Christmas morning<br />
bed head!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But one thing remained true. During special occasions, like Christmas and birthdays, Mom loved to splurge on me and my brother, much to Dad’s chagrin. Even during Halloween, she loved dressing us up best she could. I think it was her way of apologizing for not being able to buy me everything that caught my fancy. I soon learned not to request toys during the “off season”, and learned to keep a running list in my head so I could pick what I really wanted when the special occasions became imminent.<br />
<br />
In spite of being financially challenged during those years, one thing my mother never denied me was a request for a book. Literally, as soon as I could read, she showered me with children’s magazines like <i><u>Highlights for Children</u></i> and <i><u>Sesame Street Magazines</u></i>. I never requested them. They just showed up our mailbox every month, and I was more than happy enough to devour them. When the scholastic flyers came around in school, she would always let me buy one book. Even then, I wouldn't press it, and I would often let the flyer come and go without buying a book. I was probably more aware of the burdens of parents than a child should be during that time, and I adapted accordingly. I knew the pain in a parent who has to tell their child, “No.”, so I saved my parents the struggle most of the time. And even though I had an idea that she would scrap until she could get me the book, the very act of scraping tainted the book, and therefore it was very often that I would defer my requests until the next time the flyer was released.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtv-TxBb1LupX5v_5xgSckEFwmAoe0AnkamIOHBCZLIWzpma-YmYZpUBhF06CxWu5SNQa7n9B4kxgNWeMxAgd-4M6SbcSLkK4eKjBVFD4g8v5bcbVwnklcw8cV0wI4CMUx7Hjk/s1600/scan0223.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtv-TxBb1LupX5v_5xgSckEFwmAoe0AnkamIOHBCZLIWzpma-YmYZpUBhF06CxWu5SNQa7n9B4kxgNWeMxAgd-4M6SbcSLkK4eKjBVFD4g8v5bcbVwnklcw8cV0wI4CMUx7Hjk/s200/scan0223.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Taking a nap in my toy box.<br />
(which I still have, and yes, that<br />
is a doll.)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I never understood why Mom was so willing to buy books for me, but not toys. Although she would occasionally read to me before I could read myself, she was not a particularly bookish person herself. She had a few books, most of them unread. She read the Bible quite often; although I never got from her that she had a deep theological interest. She did read it intensely, I recall, for hours on end, as if she was attempting to solve a mystery or engaging in some research where she was just one fact away from a life-changing epiphany. I never questioned her about this.<br />
<br />
Summers were spent at home during those ages of 3 to 8, which would have spanned the late 70’s and into the early 80’s. I never was bored at home. We had family nearby, including a cousin my own age. There were typically enough neighborhood kids to have a game of football, softball or basketball in the evenings. We were surrounded by woodlands and farmlands, with endless streams, sinkholes, and caves to explore. My cousin and I, with shorts, no shirts, and wore-out shoes, were regular Tom Sawyers and Huck Finns.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYLlZ3ib_9KwZHxbMAkAt7zhz6QanSW6w1WmBghrQXAgpiaGgieDyupMBdJ3EA5J1AdijAbLsE8TiTnv4J08AaNfUZO9m_ltIDw76JWSh7c93bmRAG-K941K-G0b9TL4t07MKy/s1600/P1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYLlZ3ib_9KwZHxbMAkAt7zhz6QanSW6w1WmBghrQXAgpiaGgieDyupMBdJ3EA5J1AdijAbLsE8TiTnv4J08AaNfUZO9m_ltIDw76JWSh7c93bmRAG-K941K-G0b9TL4t07MKy/s200/P1.jpg" width="130" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mom and I, getting<br />
ready to go to town.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Mom was at home most of these years. In the summer months, it was a normal occurrence on Friday to go “Yard-Sale-ing”. What that meant was that early on Friday morning, Mom and I would pile into our old Plymouth and head to her mother’s, my grandmother’s, house in Morristown to eat breakfast. From there, we would leave to patrol the neighborhoods of Morristown, and sometimes Bean Station, looking for yard sales.<br />
<br />
These excursions were beyond boring for me. But keep in mind, a young boy with endless energy, cooped up in the back seat of an old car while Mom drives around looking for sales. I am amazed at the details of those years that are embedded in my memory. I have poor recall. I seldom can tell you what I had for dinner yesterday. Yet, I can vividly remember those days. The wind blowing throw my hair through the car window. The smell of the car's hot vinyl. Mom complaining at red lights. Even the nuances of my mother's driving habits.<br />
<br />
Many times my grandmother would go with us. This made the trips much better. Grandmothers tend to be generous with their grandchildren, and I sometimes asked her to buy me things I wouldn't dare ask Mom to buy.<br />
<br />
It was during these excursions that most of my clothing was purchased. I embarrassed my mom to pieces once at my pediatrician’s office. He complimented my shirt, at which point I retorted, quite nonchalant and matter-of-fact, that Mom bought it for me at the “rummage sale”.<br />
<br />
Often, our pilgrimages would lead us into some of Morristown’s more affluent neighborhoods, at that time. It always amazed Mom at how much broken down old junk was being proffered to the public, in exchange for much more money that most items were worth, at these ostentatious homes. I always found this observation to be counter-intuitive. One would think that the rich would replace their junk before it was completely unusable, and sell it at a fair price. But, as it turns out, it is the poor and middle-class that is more likely to do this. She always viewed the rich as a different breed. At the time, I didn't care. I was just wanting Mom to hurry up and get hungry so we’d stop by McDonald’s for lunch and I could get a Happy Meal.<br />
<br />
As we drove through the labyrinths of far-too-complex architectural structures in these affluent neighborhoods, she would always turn to me and say, “Some people get their mansion on Earth. Some get their mansion in Heaven.”<br />
<br />
In spite of my young age, the implication of what she was saying was not lost on me. Seldom, if ever, do people get mansions in both places. Although I never took Mom for a theologian, this precept does seem to have the sanction of Scripture (Luke 18:24). I don’t know if this was even an original thought Mom had, or something she heard someone else say.<br />
<br />
Sometimes, these excursions yielded little fruit, and Mom would then turn to some of the department stores that were around back then. Anyone reading this who is my age (39) or older will remember long gone department stores like Roses, Knox-Williams, Big-K (when it was in what is now HealthStar), and Sky City. Times when we would go to these stores had its redeeming factors for me, for although the toys couldn't be purchased, I could still walk through and look at them. It was a means of staying on top of what was currently popular, along with the wish-books my mother received in the mail from various department stores.<br />
<br />
Mom had a knack for going into a trance in a store, walking in circles, sometimes looking at the same rack two or three times. This often freed me up to roam the store alone, which I whole-heartedly did. I almost always gravitated to the toys or sports section, with longings and wishes. Afterwards, I would end up in trouble, because Mom would not buy a stitch of clothing for me unless it was tried on, and I couldn't try it on if I was absent.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiWHsoe3al9LO-mtCSP6tXK8yPFojLGfZ8H8PUCbb9Xfj8t3zNfw0OoT72qyrvPYnHphaQYSCGnn1bDm8s-uFOyfp2lSrs_8Uhiyz8HV6eKELZlGtMDnYBA5ZFDXPEldvJsXkh/s1600/P3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiWHsoe3al9LO-mtCSP6tXK8yPFojLGfZ8H8PUCbb9Xfj8t3zNfw0OoT72qyrvPYnHphaQYSCGnn1bDm8s-uFOyfp2lSrs_8Uhiyz8HV6eKELZlGtMDnYBA5ZFDXPEldvJsXkh/s200/P3.jpg" width="143" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dad kept me on<br />
motorcycles, even<br />
when I was in diapers.<br />
This was taken by Mom<br />
at the house I spent the first<br />
two years of life in.<br />
Ironically, the house<br />
across the street<br />
(the one in the photo)<br />
is the house I live in today.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
These excursions usually ended with meeting up with Dad at the end of his work shift, and either going grocery shopping before going home, or sometimes meeting family at the campground. We camped a lot back then, and would camp from Friday night all weekend long. Other times, we would visit my grandmother on Dad’s side, and often I would spend the night with her. Sometimes, they would end with us going out for supper, but never at a sit-down restaurant. That was very rare during those years. I remember Mom and Dad once decided to try one of the nicer restaurants in Morristown at the time. One look at the prices on the menu, and we quietly, nonchalantly, walked out. Don't worry, I was too young to be embarrassed.<br />
<br />
As I said earlier, Halloween was a interesting time when I was young. Mom was very fond of dressing me up. Sometimes, the costumes were in very poor taste, and if pictures of them were ever made public, I could forget ever becoming president. But it was her opportunity to let her imagination run completely wild. I never missed a year's "trick-or-treating", and often would be involved in whatever school activity was going on during Halloween. This awkward tradition was passed on to my brother when he arrived, and he caught the brunt of mom's imaginative costumes after that. I was released from that dreadful duty, for although I did enjoy the candy, I was never actually fond of the costumes or trick-or-treating.<br />
<br />
Although times were tough back then, I can say that I remember Mom smiling more back then than any other time in her life after I came along. I would dare-say it had to do with her being young. She was quite jovial and light-hearted back then, before she entered into middle-age.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_rBRJG3-ERsjMHdDyjyS6R6uPch2hnVP9hoaAuxO5oGMp0CaQ-UnaGu4O9uWI0C6hzoSsp0M59MAw-wyF57JJxhoIKxYT8xfvCEBLQvpSAC1U2FWBauJLBryeTqWHw1YD3sy6/s1600/P2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="162" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_rBRJG3-ERsjMHdDyjyS6R6uPch2hnVP9hoaAuxO5oGMp0CaQ-UnaGu4O9uWI0C6hzoSsp0M59MAw-wyF57JJxhoIKxYT8xfvCEBLQvpSAC1U2FWBauJLBryeTqWHw1YD3sy6/s200/P2.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mom loved dressing me up<br />
at Halloween. This was the year<br />
of the clown costume, which was<br />
completely homemade.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So, yes, I can definitely say that my fondest memories of my mother were those times when she actually had the least to give in material things. That is likely another counter-intuitive point to some, perhaps most, modern parents. For parents these days are prone to give their child every little gizmo and gadget and doo-dad coming and going, all in the name of “giving them what I never had”, and leaving their children to be entertained and essentially babysat by whatever gadget they have been given. To be honest, although my mother indeed splurged on my brother and me during Christmases and birthdays, I struggle to remember any of those times, especially during my teen years. But the time spent with her as a younger child come quickly to my mind with startling clarity. It was the time spent with her that made the lasting impression, and it was time spent at a stage of life when one feels they are not making impressions. I wonder if she had any inkling how much I'd remember those years when once I reached middle-age. If she had known, I wonder what she'd done differently.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-34870453135094678102013-04-16T11:09:00.000-07:002013-04-16T19:00:12.889-07:00Exo-Vaticana - My Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1hk1vRVnAYjWBnIDvK6q0pZlkOvmDhlVTVe5ZapjrX6LB894OAOEva0ufvVuq1cLWCufkT5jxus70QjBj96V9blCCPO3x7IUTgsciwdm00qZo5KegzgO2n9_TkO4ljZtxJgVY/s1600/ExoVaticanaNew.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1hk1vRVnAYjWBnIDvK6q0pZlkOvmDhlVTVe5ZapjrX6LB894OAOEva0ufvVuq1cLWCufkT5jxus70QjBj96V9blCCPO3x7IUTgsciwdm00qZo5KegzgO2n9_TkO4ljZtxJgVY/s320/ExoVaticanaNew.jpg" width="212" /></a></div>
I have been a fan of Tom Horn for a few years now. When he brought Cris Putnam on board with the previously released <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Petrus-Romanus-Final-Pope-Here/dp/0984825614/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1366139512&sr=8-2&keywords=exo+vaticana">Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope Is Here</a>, I thought Cris might bring a little more skepticism to the content, as well as more fluid prose to the writing. As it turns out, I was correct.<br />
<br />
I hadn't read the aforementioned "Petras Romanus", simply because I had done enough research on it myself to satisfy me. I thought Malachy's prophecy too narrow to be expounded in 500 pages.<br />
<br />
Not so with "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Exo-Vaticana-Romanus-Vaticans-astonishing-exo-theological/dp/0984825630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366139512&sr=8-1&keywords=exo+vaticana">Exo-Vaticana</a>". The scope of this book is broad. And although Exo-Vaticana is a book of considerable size, I am sure it could have been twice as thick if Horn and Putnam hadn't tempered themselves.<br />
<br />
I noticed that the addition of Putnam has really brought Horn into focus. If you have read some of Horn's other writings, like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Apollyon-Rising-2012-Mystery-Revealed/dp/0982323565/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_z">Apollyon Rising 2012: The Lost Symbol Found and the Final Mystery of the Great Seal Revealed</a>, you have noticed that Horn throws facts, figures, and correlations out there in a more or less machine gun fashion (The incomparable, and late, David Flynn also used that BANG BANG BANG writing style of slinging facts and figures).<br />
<br />
The writing is more refined now, and presented more objectively. Everything is presented as a "could be" scenario, instead of presenting it in the affirmative. Also, Putnam has reined in Horn's zeal. Horn, who seems to have a natural predisposition for the supernatural, sometimes let's his zeal want to confirm what hasn't been confirmed yet. Not too often, I concede, but I have seen it. Of course, Horn isn't nearly as bad as Steve Quayle, who seemingly wants to slap a "Thus saith the Lord" bumper sticker on everything that gives him a goose-pimple. Horn still knows that the end-game is still just speculation at this point.<br />
<br />
I guess that is an over-complicated and roundabout way of saying I think Horn and Putnam are a great team. They seem to keep each other in check. It has been my experience that in friendships, Christian brotherhood, and in accountability, the best pairings are those pairings where one party wants to take the knowledge and epiphanies and run to proclaim it to the world, while the other party, being the more introverted, skeptical, and intellectually cautious, says, "Wait just a minute, let's stop and think this through first." That seems to be Horn and Putnam's relationship. Putnam has brought scholarly respectability to Horn's material, and Horn has given Putnam a medium and platform in which to reach the world. "Iron sharpening iron" is the image that comes to mind when I consider Horn and Putnam's investigative partnership (and friendship).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/ecMkshBqQ9I?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
As to the content, I will not spoil it if you want to read it. But I will say that, like most of Horn's writings (as well as writings in this vein by other esoteric authors like L. A. Marzulli, Rob Skiba, Dr. Chuck Missler and Dr. Michael Heiser), the subject matter is nostril deep in the metaphysical, and as such, probably cannot be properly digested by your average, "Old Rugged Cross" singing, Psalm 23 reciting, bread and milk, modern Christian. I am not saying that only smart people can read it properly (my own IQ is only a mere 80 or so). I am just saying that most of the Church is on intellectual lockdown, and such material is anathema to them. I believe that most Christians will experience "Cognitive Dissonance" if they read this book. That is, they will experience the discomfort that comes when one's beliefs are cast in the sharp relief of an opposing, yet highly compelling, light.<br />
<br />
What Tom and Cris have given us are views that are rarely presented in America's churches. And, since the esoteric nature of subject matter leaves little room (or reason) to continue to grasp existing traditions, predispositions, and preconceptions about the mechanism in which eschatology could potentially manifest, most Christian will reject this book as either, at best, extraneous complexity to what is already a complex subject, or at worst, the deliberate demonizing of the Roman Catholic Church. I reject both notions, on the grounds that the researched material is vetted through the Roman Catholic Church itself, and that if the coming great deception (2 Thess. 2:11 & Matt. 24:24) is to be successful in creating the mass conformance Scripture claims it will accomplish, it MUST be something metaphysical. And yet it must be, as Cris has so aptly said, "clothed in the respectability of science."<br />
<br />
Most evangelicals will likely jettison such material, and choose to believe the paucity fed to them by their church. Of course, that is the disinformation that Christianity no longer has a stake in the metaphysical world. Until you are educated about the nature of the metaphysical, you are susceptible to embracing any exhibition of power that is sourced in the metaphysical, be it Godly, or unGodly. We need to educate ourselves in discerning the difference. After all, the deceiver is scheduled to appear with supernatural acts (2 Thess. 2:9). If he carries a look of benevolence, are you sure you will be able to distinguish him from Christ? Jesus said that His sheep know his voice (John 10:3-5 & 27). This deceiver, perhaps the Anti-Christ himself, will wield the sword of the metaphysical in one hand, and the warhammer of politics in the other. I am concerned for those who refuse to educate themselves, and elect rather to rely on a more "visceral" perception (or "feelings") to keep them during this time, should they enter this time in their lifetime.<br />
<br />
Do you think the devil unable to speak with a voice so similar to Christ's... so tender... so benevolent... so <i>deceptive</i>? The forbidden fruit in the garden had every appearance of being delicious and healthy (Genesis 3:6). It is doubtful that a sweeter fruit has ever touched human lips than the forbidden fruit of Eden. But at what cost?<br />
<br />
Paul chastised the Ephesians for not having "learned Christ" (Eph. 4:20). Have you "learned Christ"? Will you be able to distinguish His voice from other voices if things manifest in a way even slightly similar to the way this book suggests? Or are you content to carry an unstudied flop-eared Bible to Church a few times a week, listen to a diluted sermon, while your spiritual and intellectual acumen erodes? As C. S. Lewis said, "God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers".<br /><br />Apologies for the rant. I am very cynical about the Church these days, and sometimes that cynicism comes to the surface in the most bellicose ways.<br />
<br />
It is really a shame that the Church (as a whole) has largely neglected the metaphysical. There are those of us who recognize the deficiency, and purposefully look for means to compensate for the Church's neglect of these areas. Horn, and authors in this "niche" provides the cure for us. (I affectionately call it the "Nephilim Niche", since its proverbial <i>habitues</i> seem to be highly invested in a more literal translation of Genesis 6 than the more traditional fundamentalist "Sethite" view. Mention the Sethite view to these guys, and they'll likely start casting demons out of you.)<br />
<br />
At bottom, I highly recommend the book. I am neither condoning or condemning the proposed viability of the book's subject matter. I am saying that the evidence Horn and Putnam provides is difficult to refute.<br />
<br />
The book reads differently in different areas. At some points, it seems to retain Horn's original style of popping off researched facts and correlations like a automatic rifle. At other points, you feel like you've dived into a scholarly dissertation. In other places, it seems like you are reading history. And, in some places, you even feel like you are reading a written sermon.<br />
<br />
I will say that this book, like "Petras Romanus" before it, seems to be simply a book to make us cognizant of the diabolical forces at work. Technically, if true, the events that may occur isn't something that can be avoided. Not like a political book that might say, "If you elect so-and-so, this is what will happen, so let's work hard to ensure so-and-so isn't elected."<br />
<br />
As Christians, all we can do is pray about it, build up our spiritual constitution, and make our peace-calling and election sure during the times ahead of us. I am not sure how much, if any, we should work to resist such evil from coming to fruition. For it is when this evil comes to fruition that the "Blessed Hope (Titus 2:13)" is supposed to manifest.<br />
<br />
Scripture says to WATCH, and this book is a great way to gauge the spiritual and metaphysical climate of our society. By reading this book, I think one is essentially "watching". At least, you are learning what types of things to watch for.<br />
<br />
Here is a 3-hour interview on the <a href="http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/">Hagmann & Hagmann</a> show with Tom Horn, Cris Putnam, and Steve Quayle that was done on February 14, 2013. Keep in mind, this was after Pope Benedict's retirement announcement and before Pope Francis' election. Apologies in advance for Quayle's self-promoting and cavalier demeanor and zeal.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y01LDOq7ePw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
More links...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.pidradio.com/2013/02/11/p-i-d-radio-21113-next-up-peter-the-roman/">PID Radio - 02/14/13 - Next Up, Peter the Roman</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YempIlpd1EQ">Prophecy in the News - 04/04/13 - Gary Stearman, Tom Horn, and Cris Putnam</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SaHH_pA7PU">Prophecy in the News - 04/16/13 - Gary Stearman, Tom Horn, and Cris Putnam - Part 2</a>Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-68814179026127269822013-01-23T12:45:00.001-08:002013-01-23T12:45:25.053-08:00The Libertarian Dilemma<br />
I will convert the political principles to mathematics, to simplify it for those inclined to mathematics, but not inclined to political science.<br />
<br />
Danny says 1+1=4<br />
Ralph says 1+1=3<br />
Larry says 1+1=2<br />
<br />
Danny has, through mostly nefarious means, convinced the majority that his answer is correct, and therefore 1+1=4 remains the reigning philosophy of the day.<br />
<br />
Ralph knows he needs Larry in order to create the majority needed to dethrone Danny.<br />
<br />
Larry acknowledges that Ralph is closer to being correct than Danny, but still wrong in actuality. Larry's cruel dilemma is that he knows most people will refuse to believe 1+1=2. Should he concede and unify with Ralph and those who believe 1+1=3, in order to create a unified majority against Danny, or should he stick to the truth of the matter, that 1+1=2?<br />
<br />
If Larry concedes:<br />
<br />
Ralph and Larry might eventually dethrone Danny, but Ralph and Larry will inevitably disagree about what the truly correct answer actually is, and a fragmentation of the unity will repeat itself, likely with more resolve to remain seperate entities than before. Every effort on Larry's part of convincing Ralph that his answer is still wrong falls victim to the "majority" argument. Ralph strongly suggests that a division based upon the dogmatic idea that 1+1=2 equates to a rigid belief that 1+1=4.<br />
<br />
If Larry does not concede and sticks to his idea, that 1+1=2:<br />
<br />
No majority occurs, Danny's answer remains the reigning philosophy, and then Ralph accuses Larry of being the reason Danny's idea remains prominent, and in some cases, even accuses Larry of believing 1+1=4.<br />
<br />
Now, to convert this back to politics.<br />
<br />
Danny = Danny the Democrat<br />
Ralph = Ralph the Republican<br />
Larry = Larry the Libertarian<br />
Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-82521438264631476792012-12-27T13:49:00.001-08:002013-01-01T17:44:05.224-08:00Why I am a Libertarian<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_V_vfOo3bIlVzL5LObOqa1sITjPjabmgCDwmWRxHbaGLAA6BjXEP9_8V0PA03zUHQDuzrk8FICvlFmBEE41BAnirowFnSgIQ4XY7w96NhNJjLbQOVkVahmgegzhGnyt35EzMA/s1600/Nolan-Chart-libertarian-statist-freedom-77344084597.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_V_vfOo3bIlVzL5LObOqa1sITjPjabmgCDwmWRxHbaGLAA6BjXEP9_8V0PA03zUHQDuzrk8FICvlFmBEE41BAnirowFnSgIQ4XY7w96NhNJjLbQOVkVahmgegzhGnyt35EzMA/s320/Nolan-Chart-libertarian-statist-freedom-77344084597.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Nolan Chart, showing libertarians believe in maximum<br />
economic and personal liberty.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
This will be an evolving list...</div>
<br />
1. Because other people ARE NOT my property.<br />
<br />
2. Because I do not believe in forcing people to ascribe to a religion worldview, adhere to a religious doctrine, or practice a religious discipline, through rule of law.<br />
<br />
3. Because I believe that any activity, so long as it doesn't create immediate disorder, incur an injustice, or rob another of their liberty, should be permissible and not prohibited by law.<br />
<br />
4. Because I believe in a rigid interpretation of the Constitution, based upon the founder's original intent, contra the Loose Constructionism or "Living Constitution" theory of interpretation. And the Federal Government should be FORCED to adhere to their Constitutional constraints.<br />
<br />
5. Because I believe it is cheating for any religion to impose its disciplines, doctrines, or morals, through the rule of law, instead of changing people from the inside out and allowing them to convert through their own volition.<br />
<br />
6. Because I believe government, even the best government, trends toward malevolence and incompetence, and therefore should be rendered as ineffective and unobtrusive as possible before this trend comes to fruition.<br />
<br />
7. Because I believe the individual is of more value than the collective. Societies come and go. People live forever.<br />
<br />
8. Because I believe taking responsibility for all the aspects of one's life is more effective than public options that takes the responsibility away from us.<br />
<br />
9. Because I believe a truly free-market, laissez-faire capitalist system provides for the prosperity and welfare of the people better than a government managed, taxpayer funded subsidiary welfare system and a government regulated capitalist system.<br />
<br />
10. Because I believe all taxation is theft.<br />
<br />
11. Because I believe hostile nations fear an armed citizenry infinitely more than they fear the most powerful and technologically advanced military a country can contrive.<br />
<br />
12. Because I believe, given enough time, even the citizens of a free nation will find themselves defending themselves against their own government.<br />
<br />
13. Because I believe the distinctions between the two modern political parties are barely measurable, and that both are motivated by power.<br />
<br />
14. Because I believe a fiat currency system places our livelihoods at the whim of private bankers, and cannot ever be a permanent currency system.<br />
<br />
15. Because I believe that, while I may not agree with the moral choices of homosexuals, the activities of gay couples, including state-sanctioned marriage, neither breaks my legs or picks my pocket, and therefore, I am indifferent to their activities, insofar as I am not negatively affected by them. See #1 and #2.<br />
<br />
16. Because I believe that if the Church truly believes in being separate from the state, they should withdraw from seeking state-sanction for their marriages, per the Biblical mandate to be "separate".<br />
<br />
17. Because I believe privately owned companies should be able to hire whom they choose, disallow patrons for any reason they choose, and not be forced to offer, and subsidize, benefits that is contrary to the company owner's moral convictions.<br />
<br />
18. Abortion, is, in my opinion, contrary to the principles of the sanctity of life, and therefore robs the unborn of their life, and consequently, their liberty, and should be legally prohibited.<br />
<br />
19. Because our elected officials do not take oaths to protect us. They take oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. When that is done, the Constitution empowers us to protect ourselves.<br />
<br />
20. Because I never signed any "social contract" that mandates I behave in certain, socially acceptable, way.<br />
<br />
21. Because I believe banning guns only take guns away from law-abiding citizens, and will not take them away from criminals.<br /><br />22. Because restoring America's financial solvency involves massive spending cuts, and minimal, if any, increases in revenue.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-34091894379563982262012-12-16T09:22:00.000-08:002012-12-18T17:23:16.037-08:00The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey... My Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilggiI1ry4IjezYs4vHvqp6gjr9hyhWfblOjntzPwf_fOGGYbGas4T1aBTuJ7MHpDaKL6tzA7gYHR48taXAMmCi8R_fpD3Nv5oeFMdBAvMT_r0pTkq_eIyOxMZe6U_B7DBA9fe/s1600/The-Hobbit-Dwarves-poster.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilggiI1ry4IjezYs4vHvqp6gjr9hyhWfblOjntzPwf_fOGGYbGas4T1aBTuJ7MHpDaKL6tzA7gYHR48taXAMmCi8R_fpD3Nv5oeFMdBAvMT_r0pTkq_eIyOxMZe6U_B7DBA9fe/s320/The-Hobbit-Dwarves-poster.jpeg" width="219" /></a></div>
I have been asked to write a review on the new Tolkien based movie, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey". This will be an easy task, as the movie was spectacular. Be forewarned, there will be spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen the movie.<br />
<br />
This movie was excellent. They even got the 3D right, which is rare for a live action movie. As you might expect with a bunch of dwarves, there is plenty of comedy relief in this film.<br />
<br />
Regarding the splitting the story into three parts, I am glad Jackson chose to do this. The Hobbit is a book that contains a lot of scenes, and to condense them into one movie would have forced a shotgun (BOOM BOOM BOOM) transitional effect to the film. As it is, Jackson has slow and smooth transitions, laced with beautiful imagery, a remarkable score, comic relief, and wonderful character development.<br />
<br />
One walks away with the distinct impression that Peter Jackson wasn't attempting to translate a novel to the cinema as much as he was wanting to transport people to Middle-Earth to experience the adventure first hand.<br />
<br />
The movie begins slightly before Gandalf's arrival for Bilbo's birthday in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". As you can imagine, the whole of the story is more of a recollection on Bilbo's part of his adventure. This is as it should be, as Bilbo's book, "There and Back Again" is more of a memoir than anything.<br />
<br />
Elijah Wood makes a short cameo, reprising his role as Frodo for these brief scenes. Jackson does a decent job at preserving the continuity between "The Lord of the Rings" and these scenes.<br />
<br />
If you are reading this review, you have probably read the book. It is interesting to note that <u>The Hobbit</u> was more of a hobby for J. R. R. Tolkien that his magnum opus, <u>The Lord of the Rings</u>. <u>The Hobbit</u> was written for his son, Christopher Tolkien. Although the story's whole cloth was gaining cohesion in his mind, he had no real intention to write or publish it. Only after the whole story was written, much to the credit and delight of C. S. Lewis, the author of <u>The Chronicles of Narnia</u>, did it occur to Tolkien that <u>The Hobbit</u> was an essential aspect to the whole story, as it tells the story about how Bilbo came into possession of the Ring of Power. It also tells how Bilbo and Gandalf meet, how Gandalf came by his sword, Glamdring, how Bilbo became rich, and how Bilbo was able to live such a long life. It is said that had it not been for Lewis' constant nudging for Tolkien to complete <u>The Lord of the Rings</u>, bringing the story to its epic conclusion, Tolkien might have never published the books.<br />
<br />
Tolkien is a writer of an older tradition. As such, he scatters lyrics throughout his books, in a Celtic tradition. In the theatrical releases of "The Lord of the Rings", the lyrics are barely present at all. This element of the previous movies turned off many die-hard Tolkien fans, in spite of the lyrical aspect being better preserved in the extended editions of the movies.<br />
<br />
If you are among these disenchanted Tolkien fans, rejoice. The merry, jolly dwarves in "The Hobbit" are a singing folk who sing every chance they get. And yes, you get to hear a very well performed version of "That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates", complete with entertaining choreography. Of course, my favorite was "Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold", which was featured in the trailer. And I am sure there is more to come in the subsequent movies, as well as the extended editions.<br />
<br />
The dwarves appearance was spot-on. Just the right amount of eccentricity and diversity. My favorite was Bombur, whose braids connected at the peak of his giant belly. They are first rate warriors in melee combat. I was thoroughly impressed with their design.<br />
<br />
While the movie as a whole held remarkable continuity with the book, a few cinematic liberties were taken. The biggest addition is the presence of a "pale orc". Please understand that while this pale orc, also known as Azog, was part of the whole legendarium, his presence wasn't in this particular book. I suppose Jackson's reasons for Azog's inclusion is similar to his inclusion of "Lurtz" in "Fellowship". Smaug, <u>The Hobbit</u>'s primary antagonist, has not yet made a full-bodied appearance in the first movie, and people need an antagonist to project their hatred upon. Enter this "pale orc". Although a minor character in Tolkien's legendarium, this "pale orc" is all manner of bad. Having his arm severed in a previous encounter with Thorin, he has jammed a metal spike in his arm to use as a prosthesis. Since his presence didn't really take away from the central story, his inclusion did not bother me.<br />
<br />
I will not say anything about the Goblin King scene, except that it was awesome. To tell more is to give away its details which must be seen to be appreciated.<br />
<br />
The "Riddles in the Dark" scene, in my opinion, felt forced and lacking in certain ways I cannot articulate. It just felt very inorganic. I wish it had been rendered differently, with Gollum being more shadowy and malevolent. This is all my opinion, of course.<br />
<br />
The troll scene was exceptional, howbeit I would refrain from eating popcorn or candy until after the scene.<br />
<br />
One thing that I found interesting about the movie that might escape those who have not read <u>The Silmarillion</u>, is how they play out the idea that the Necromancer is Sauron, and has possibly returned in ethereal form. In <u>The Hobbit</u>, it is never clearly defined who the Necromancer is. For readers only, you must read <u>The Silmarillion</u> to discover the Necromancer is actually Sauron. Unlike the book, the movie drops hints that the Necromancer is actually Sauron. Interesting that Jackson would do this. I suppose he is catering to those who haven't read further into the books that <u>The Hobbit</u> and <u>The Lord of the Rings</u>.<br />
<br />
One final thing. My favorite line in the whole book, where Thorin says, "...this most excellent and audacious hobbit - may the hair on his toes never fall out! - all praise to his wine and ale!" was omitted. At least, I didn't catch it if it was spoken. But there is always the extended edition. I hope it is included in it.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-34367917382394047052012-11-07T13:48:00.000-08:002012-11-07T14:07:27.427-08:00Election 2012 - Did Third Party Candidates Give the Election to Obama?Over ten years ago, I woke up from anesthesia after having what was supposed to be a minor surgical procedure. I woke up to Cancer.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
For the first few months after the shock, there was a deep, impending sense of uncertainty that hung about the air. Difficult to describe. But in contrast to those times where the future looks fairly bright, and one feels optimistic, this was basically the opposite sort of feeling. Partly due to the stigma of the word "Cancer", and partly due to the major lifestyle changes and acclimation to lower energy levels, I was in a unfit state of mind. Everyone who has had Cancer in any form can immediately relate to this.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This morning, November 7, 2012, I awoke to a similar feeling. President Barack Obama was re-elected for a second term. I have to remind myself that God is ultimately in control of our authority figures, not man, and certainly not the votes of men (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1-7&version=ESV">Romans 13:1-7</a>).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In listening to commentary all day, I have heard every excuse under the sun as why Romney lost. Lack of media attention. Too many voters on government assistance. Voters didn't know what they were voting for (This is actually believable, since I saw an Obama supporter complain when her state of Tennessee went to Romney, and then ask what that meant. Litmus test for voting privileges anyone?)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But there is one theory that I want to try to debunk right away. There has been a lot of lashing out at those who voted third party. Some have even used the word "treasonous". I think that, in the minds of many Republicans, third parties robbed them of this election.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
I would like to start by saying I have no intention of divulging whom I voted for. I may have voted third party, I may have not. I may have written in, I may have not. Do not glean anything from this that suggests I voted one way or another.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My Republican friends tried and tried to convince me that this election wasn't about principles, but about the numbers game. About garnishing votes for a candidate we didn't like.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, since the Republicans want to play games with numbers, and apparently have the time to do so, since they've been doing it for the past six months, here's a little numbers game for them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In determining whether third party votes swung the election, one must ask if just looking at the popular vote numbers will determine this. The answer is no. Take a blue state (a state that Obama won the Electoral college votes in) and look at a blue county within that state. One must look at the third party votes within that county and determine if it would have swung the county to a red county if the quantity of third party votes had been given to Romney instead. And then, you must go through this exercise with every blue county within that state to determine if enough counties would have turned red to render the state a red state.<br />
<br />
And then, you must repeat the whole process for every blue state.<br />
<br />
And if this tedious exercise wasn't enough, even this data will only be accurate if one is able to safely assume that third party voters would have voted Republican otherwise. Is that the case? The answer is no. Admittedly, one of Romney's major problems was that he was a R. I. N. O. candidate (Republican In Name Only), with a rather liberal record in politics, which lost him a good many potential voters to more conservative third-party alternatives, like the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. But there were plenty of disgruntled Democrats out there too, who do not feel Obama to be little more than a moderate liberal who could have done more in his first four years. Undoubtedly, many of these Democrats also swung their vote to third parties like the Green Party or Justice Party, or to a lesser degree, The Libertarian Party.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So you cannot just take a county's lump sum of third party voters and add it to Romney's vote count to see if he'd taken the county from blue to red. You have to segregate those who would have voted Republican from those who would have voted Democrat, before you can give the vote count to Romney.<br />
<br />
And furthermore, the odds of it changing the outcome in states where Obama won by a large margin are minuscule. The change would only take place in states with close elections, which are generally more rural, low electoral count states, anyway.<br />
<br />
So, if it were possible, and practical, to crunch the numbers, county by county in the blue states, to determine if enough would-be Republican voters voted third party, weeding out the potential Democratic supporters who also voted third party, to turn enough blue counties, in blue states, into red counties, changing the state to red as a whole, would it have made a difference in the electoral vote count?<br />
<br />
I don't see how it could.<br />
<br />
But rest assured, when you see someone throwing a hissy fit and slinging popular vote counts at you, blaming Romney's loss on the third party voters, you may not convince them of their error, but you know the truth. And if you are a third party voter, I imagine that, as a principle, you are a student of political philosophy beyond the likes of Mark Levin or Alan Colmes, and certainly, you hold the Truth in higher esteem to overzealous political junkies prone to react viscerally to those who would withstand their politics on principle.<br />
<br />
At any rate, if someone wants to undertake this project, maybe just in one state for an experiment, I would be interested in the results. I have no idea how one determines if a third party vote would have went to the Democratic or Republican candidate, had the voter voted mainstream. But I am sure you political geniuses out there can conjure up some algorithmic or mean average to determine it. Just because the answer eludes me doesn't mean it need elude you. My meager 80 IQ has its limitations. After all, if my Republican friends are correct, I am a unintelligent, unpatriotic, treasonous, idealist who thinks 9-11 was American's fault (how the militaristic idea of "blowback" equates to this, only God and Rudy Guilliani knows, but I digress), and wants us to build a mile high wall around our nation's borders.<br />
<br />
All I really want is for America to retain its sovereignty, which doesn't look too promising at the moment.</div>
</div>
Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-2117907754617263142011-10-23T16:49:00.000-07:002011-10-23T18:04:23.428-07:00A Distracted ChurchI hesitate to write this, for I know what people will say. They will say all I can do is rant about what I believe is wrong with the modern western Christian church. Who knows, they may be right. But I cannot help it. Especially when the solution is so simple.<br /><br />A month or so ago, I was reading my Bible when I believe the Lord showed me a clear picture of the Church. It was in a common passage, and yet, I had never seen it this way before. The passage was John 5:1-15. You may want to reacquaint yourself with the story before continuing.<br /><br />I admit, after I read it, I was incredulous. It was beyond belief that so many who had needs, so many of "God's people" would congregate around a pool where God's power was in operation in a benevolent dynamic that was so seldom seen. And I can just see them. The waters stir, and no one looks around to see who is in the most need. They all just surge forward to try to grab the blessing first. I don't know what amazes me most, the selfish nature of these good church-folks, or that God would perpetuate this display of what I deem blatant humanism. Did their parsimonious approach to God's grace stem from a lack of divine demonstration in their day? And yet, the person, regardless of motivation, would splash into the water and be healed.<br /><br />Sounds like Church, doesn't it. I cannot deny that good things are happening in Churches. But what is the peoples' motivation? The fact is, when preachers preach that in God, there is provision for all one's needs, and that God's thoughts toward us are only benevolent, are met by His grace, he is essentially preaching a truth. It is bait to attract a crowd of people who want God's benefits, but not God Himself. It is humanism. Even the Churches that do not buy into the prosperity bit, but who emphasize the benefit of going to Heaven after they die might be guilty. I know it is truth. But its emphasis is out of proportion. One is saying, in essence, "God exists to make you happy on earth." while the other is saying, "God exists to make you happy after you are dead." Both appeal to the thread of humanism that exists in us all. The desire for happiness. The desire for security. That is Satan's ploy. Shuffle the truths of Christianity where what is central is pushed aside for more superficial aspects.<br /><br />C. S. Lewis got it right. In the same breath he used to describe God as good, he said, "He isn't tame". That means, he isn't safe. He isn't a domesticated God. His interaction with humanity is more profound that meeting needs and answering prayer. We are His bride. He is our husband.<br /><br />Indeed, we are like the wife that is devoted to her husband as long as he is working and providing a good living. But let that flow of provision become jeopardized, and the wife's loyalties begin to waver.<br /><br />Think back to the pool of Bethesda. Christ... the very God who was responsible for the stirring of the water, walked right in among them, and no one recognized Him. EVEN THE MAN HE TOUCHED AND HEALED DID NOT KNOW WHO HE WAS.<br /><br />Would we, with all our alter calls, tears, and going-through-the-motions, recognize Christ if He were dynamically in our midst? Is our purpose in all our Christian activities (Church attendance, prayer, study, etc) to apprehend His benefits, or to apprehend Him?<br /><br />All the past rhetoric about streets of gold and walls of jasper, and seas of crystal, should all be in the periphery of our Christianity. Even more recently, all the temporal "name-it, claim-it", "purpose driven", "your best life NOW" benefits of being a Christian, are all a ploy by Satan to get your sights on the benefits, and get them off Christ. Satan is not threatened by our temporal prosperity, or by your eternal security, especially if that prosperity and security renders us spiritually lazy and consequently impotent (and it does).<br /><br />Let me be straightforward.<br /><br />We have one reward.<br /><br />Let me re-emphasize that...<br /><br />WE HAVE <span style="font-weight: bold;">ONE</span> REWARD!<br /><br />Jesus Christ, the son of God.<br /><br />If all our mind is on is answered prayers on earth, and mansions and precious metals in Heaven, then there is no Heaven for us. No reality, no existence, can provide the euphoria that Heaven contains. We need to rearrange our priorities, and let everything aside from Jesus Christ, even the precepts and truths of Christianity, become, at best, an ancillary, or better yet, a mere related aspect.<br /><br />If our focus and desire is not for Jesus Christ, can there be a Heaven for us? All the good things God does for us, or that we do for God, could be the very things that keep us away from Christ. Remember Martha, who was too busy to sit with Mary at Jesus' feet (Luke 10:38-42)? And the good church folks to whom Christ claimed to have never known (Matthew 7:22-23). When I drive through town, and I see all these churches building gymnasiums and annexes, my questions becomes clear. Why? Will all these amenities contribute to one's spiritual life? I wonder if the recent explosion in Church attendance that presumably has created the need for all these buildings would exist if the humanism was trimmed away from the version of Christianity presented, and Christ, the bare Christ, in his person, walking in the midst of a people whose eyes are glued to the pool waiting for a stirring of the water, was presented in these churches?<br /><br />The point is clear, although the allegory is easy to miss. Take your eyes off the pool, whatever that is in your Christian walk. Scan the horizon for Christ in His person. Quit rocking on go to splash into the pool when it stirs, and find the most infirm, and least likely to benefit from the stirring. Chances are, when Christ does show up, that will be who he gravitates toward. Take action to know Him, not the perks, even the eternal perks. All the perks, both temporal and eternal, pale before the privilege of knowing Him.Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-91799081473342012542011-10-07T20:38:00.000-07:002014-05-01T08:00:34.412-07:00Ten Introvert Myths<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB-zfgX86cJDtMspqxSYDD80LUaI98vyEVzv7ZnXkMkb4sKHRDQlTSHDEZvC56cn3zbLIarn3n3EWiMdgxXfyHbJoEK8N25EvsGb6Jw6dwYscFaMm-_U53d10fV7Mt6O6WzTeu/s1600/Introvert.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB-zfgX86cJDtMspqxSYDD80LUaI98vyEVzv7ZnXkMkb4sKHRDQlTSHDEZvC56cn3zbLIarn3n3EWiMdgxXfyHbJoEK8N25EvsGb6Jw6dwYscFaMm-_U53d10fV7Mt6O6WzTeu/s1600/Introvert.png" height="640" width="168" /></a></div>
I saw this on another website the other day and thought it was very interesting and staggeringly accurate. I have always thought extroversion makes it easier to acclimate to society, while introversion kept its victim at a distance from the variables society thrusts upon us. Being a introvert myself, I always thought it strange that I could sit back and study the social habits of others, especially extroverts, and naturally diagnose the underlying causes of their behavior. This became very apparent in high school, where teens are just learning how to grasp and adapt to the ever changing social atmosphere and adjust their position in the social hierarchy accordingly. Watching all the peer groups and like-minded ones congregate in their respective corners of the social spectrum was an interesting experiment that I enjoyed back then. Even today, I can tell when someone is genuine, and when they're patronizing.<br />
<br />
If you are not familiar with the personality traits known as introversion and extroversion, acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion">here</a>. But be sure and finish this blog entry, as it debunks many of the myths that even the Wikipedia article depicts.<br />
<br />
So, here's to living in a world where society, the Corporate World, and even (and this is profoundly unfortunate and pathetic) the Church, values extroversion more than introversion. Even so, I thought this might bring clarity to our recondite ways. Enjoy!<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Introvert myths...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth #1</span> – <span style="font-style: italic;">Introverts don’t like to talk.</span><br />
This is not true. Introverts just don’t talk unless they have something to say. They hate small talk. Get an introvert talking about something they are interested in, and they won’t shut up for days.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth #2</span> – <span style="font-style: italic;">Introverts are shy.</span><br />
Shyness has nothing to do with being an Introvert. Introverts are not necessarily afraid of people. What they need is a reason to interact. They don’t interact for the sake of interacting. If you want to talk to an Introvert, just start talking. Don’t worry about being polite.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth #3</span> – <span style="font-style: italic;">Introverts are rude.</span><br />
Introverts often don’t see a reason for beating around the bush with social pleasantries. They want everyone to just be real and honest. Unfortunately, this is not acceptable in most settings, so Introverts can feel a lot of pressure to fit in, which they find exhausting.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth #4</span> – <span style="font-style: italic;">Introverts don’t like people</span>.<br />
On the contrary, Introverts intensely value the few friends they have. They can count their close friends on one hand. If you are lucky enough for an introvert to consider you a friend, you probably have a loyal ally for life. Once you have earned their respect as being a person of substance, you’re in.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth #5</span> – <span style="font-style: italic;">Introverts don’t like to go out in public.</span><br />
Nonsense. Introverts just don’t like to go out in public FOR AS LONG. They also like to avoid the complications that are involved in public activities. They take in data and experiences very quickly, and as a result, don’t need to be there for long to “get it.” They’re ready to go home, recharge, and process it all. In fact, recharging is absolutely crucial for Introverts.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth #6</span> – <span style="font-style: italic;">Introverts always want to be alone.</span><br />
Introverts are perfectly comfortable with their own thoughts. They think a lot. They daydream. They like to have problems to work on, puzzles to solve. But they can also get incredibly lonely if they don’t have anyone to share their discoveries with. They crave an authentic and sincere connection with ONE PERSON at a time.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth #7</span> – <span style="font-style: italic;">Introverts are weird.</span><br />
Introverts are often individualists. They don’t follow the crowd. They’d prefer to be valued for their novel ways of living. They think for themselves and because of that, they often challenge the norm. They don’t make most decisions based on what is popular or trendy.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth #8</span> – <span style="font-style: italic;">Introverts are aloof nerds.</span><br />
Introverts are people who primarily look inward, paying close attention to their thoughts and emotions. It’s not that they are incapable of paying attention to what is going on around them, it’s just that their inner world is much more stimulating and rewarding to them.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth #9</span> – <span style="font-style: italic;">Introverts don’t know how to relax and have fun.</span><br />
Introverts typically relax at home or in nature, not in busy public places. Introverts are not thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies. If there is too much talking and noise going on, they shut down. Their brains are too sensitive to the neurotransmitter called Dopamine. Introverts and Extroverts have different dominant neuro-pathways. Just look it up.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth #10</span> – <span style="font-style: italic;">Introverts can fix themselves and become Extroverts.</span><br />
A world without Introverts would be a world with few scientists, musicians, artists, poets, filmmakers, doctors, mathematicians, writers, and philosophers. That being said, there are still plenty of techniques an Extrovert can learn in order to interact with Introverts. (Yes, I reversed these two terms on purpose to show you how biased our society is.) Introverts cannot “fix themselves” and deserve respect for their natural temperament and contributions to the human race. In fact, one study (Silverman, 1986) showed that the percentage of Introverts increases with IQ.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>CARING FOR YOUR INTROVERT</b></i><br />
<br />
<b>#1</b> - Respect their need for privacy.<br />
<br />
<i><b>#2</b></i> - Never embarrass them in public.<br />
<br />
<b>#3</b> - Let them observe first in new situations.<br />
<br />
<b>#4</b> - Give them time to think. Don't demand instant answers.<br />
<br />
<b>#5</b> - Don't interrupt them.<br />
<br />
<b>#6</b> - Give them advance notice of expected changes in their lives.<br />
<br />
<b>#7</b> - Give them 15 minute warnings to finish whatever they are doing.<br />
<br />
<b>#8</b> - Reprimand them privately.<br />
<br />
<b>#9</b> - Teach them new skills privately.<br />
<br />
<b>#10</b> - Enable them to find one best friend who has similar interests & abilities.<br />
<br />
<b>#11</b> - Don't push them to make lots of friends.<br />
<br />
<b>#12</b> - Respect their introversion. Don't try to remake them into extroverts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>30 PROBLEMS THAT ONLY INTROVERTS WILL UNDERSTAND. (#17 IS SO TRUE IT HURTS).</b></i><br />
<br />
1. Practicing conversations with people you’ll never talk to.<br /><br />2. When you want to cut all ties to civilization but still be on the internet.<br /><br />3. When your friend wants to invite more people over, and you don’t want to sound like a bad person by saying no.<br /><br />4. When spending a heavenly weekend alone means that you’re missing out on time with friends.<br /><br />5. And you fear that by doing so, you are nearing ‘hermit’ status.<br /><br />6. When your ride at a party doesn’t want to leave early, and no one seems to understand your distress.<br /><br />7. Trying to be extra outgoing when you flirt so your crush doesn’t think you hate them.<br /><br />8. That feeling of dread that washes over you when the phone rings and you’re not mentally prepared to chat.<br /><br />9. When you have an awesome night out, but have to deal with feeling exhausted for days after the fact.<br /><br />10. People saying “Just be more social.”<br /><br />11. When you’re able to enjoy parties and meetings, but after a short amount of time wish you were home in your pajamas.<br /><br />12. Staying up late every night because it’s the only time that you can actually be alone.<br /><br />13. People making you feel weird for wanting to do things by yourself.<br /><br />14. Having more conversations in your head than you do in real life.<br /><br />15. The need to recharge after social situations.<br /><br />16. People calling you out for day dreaming too much.<br /><br />17. Carrying a book to a public place so no one will bug you, but other people take that as a conversation starter.<br /><br />18. People interrupting your thoughts, and you get irrationally angry.<br /><br />19. Having to say “I kind of want to spend some time by myself” when you have to deal with that friend that always wants to hang out.<br /><br />20. When you’re asked to do a group project, and know that you’re going to hate every minute of it.<br /><br />21. When you hear the question “Wanna hang out?”, and your palms start to sweat with anxiety.<br /><br />22. When you hear, “Are you OK?” or “Why are you so quiet?” for the umpteenth time.<br /><br />23. Having visitors stay with you is a nightmare, because it means you have to be on at ALL TIMES.<br /><br />24. When people stop inviting you places because you’re the one that keeps canceling plans.<br /><br />25. Being horrified of small talk, but enjoying deep discussions.<br /><br />26. When you need to take breaks and recharge after socializing for too long.<br /><br />27. The requirement to think introspectively rather than go to someone else with your problems.<br /><br />28. Not wanting to be alone, just wanting to be left alone. And people not understanding that.<br /><br />29. When people mistake your thoughtful look for being shy, or worse, moody.<br /><br />30. That people need to know that you aren’t mad, depressed or anti-social. You just need to not talk to anyone for a while. And that’s okay. Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26235405.post-77238850671735099242011-08-28T07:20:00.001-07:002011-08-28T07:20:55.401-07:00Witches, Wizards, and Elves, Oh My!<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNZBx4Lkl9xLQl3zJ5gWOZptuUtbyKFDTN5_b77JVnqNiXM3nrmKWwGRrteoxQZC3YJS8jWC6z1RHspulpeAu3IXPlinN6P6jgL26Z4LWNwpaqDD4uss3T0qSX8FV975005NXO/s1600/HP-atDH.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 132px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNZBx4Lkl9xLQl3zJ5gWOZptuUtbyKFDTN5_b77JVnqNiXM3nrmKWwGRrteoxQZC3YJS8jWC6z1RHspulpeAu3IXPlinN6P6jgL26Z4LWNwpaqDD4uss3T0qSX8FV975005NXO/s200/HP-atDH.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5645882627681595330" border="0" /></a>We are a literary people. We are this way by design. For whatever reason, God designed us to have a written version of our spoken languages, and subsequently to use that medium to publish thoughts, ideas, and even stories for our fellow man to use. Why else would God have used the medium of a book to propel His Word down through the history of mankind, if we were not meant to be readers.
<br />
<br />And yet, every time a good book comes along, Christians always manage to hack it apart and demonize it.
<br />
<br />I am speaking of the Harry Potter book series. I recently completed it and loved every minute of it. But with the final movie adaption about to exit theaters and move on into the local Red Box, the religious publishers are still taking pot shots at it. I find this irritating and disrespectful. And it also reflects the state of the Church in its current understanding of Satan's tactics. Allow me to explain.
<br />
<br />Obviously, the Church's objection is the idea of wizards, witches, and the use to "witchcraft". The problem I have with this is that the depicted magic in the Harry Potter books bears little to no resemblance to <span style="font-style: italic;">real</span> witchcraft. In fact, the closest it comes is Divination, which even the primary characters of book condemns as bogus. Rowling loosely based the magic of Harry Potter on magic as it is depicted in the Arthurian legends. In fact, the interjection "Merlyn's Beard" is often heard, as well as prominent characters are often members of the "Order of Meryin". Arthurian magic is based on the idea that the magic of one generation is the science of another. For example, in both Harry Potter, and the assumed <span style="font-style: italic;">magnum opus</span> of Arthurian Legend, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Once and Future King</span> by T. H. White, there is a satchel that has had a charm put on it so that it can contain a room full of items in spite of its small size. Sound outrageous? My Amazon Kindle, smaller than a single book in itself, contains 500 books, which is 20% of its claimed capacity. Doesn't sound so outrageous anymore, does it?
<br />
<br />In Arthurian legend, Merlyn lives backwards, from future to the past. He had already seen things like airplanes and trains, and was mesmerized by them. Rowling continued this with some characters' fascination with what they called "Muggle artifacts".
<br />
<br />This depiction of magic in Harry Potter bears no resemblance to true magic, as is condemned in the Scriptures. It is far too pedantic. Witchcraft is often defined as an art that any human can undertake to learn, that uses the power of a supernatural entity to perform in the real world actions that would otherwise be impossible within the parameters of our normal physical laws. Real witchcraft is coercive and controlling. A smooth tongue that can use words to manipulate a person to do one's will. And just to further show how hypocritical the Church has been in condemning these books, the transliteration for the original Greek word for "witchcraft" in Galatians 5:20 is <span style="font-style: italic;">pharmakeia</span>. That is the same root word from which we derive our word "Pharmaceutical", "Pharmacy", and "Pharmacist". That's right folks! If you want to see honest and biblically condemned witchcraft, one really needs to look no further than their own medicine cabinet.
<br />
<br />Of course, no one wants to hear that. Everyone likes to think that they are immune to the really heinous sins. They enjoy believing that the sins God hates the most are the ones most distant and foreign to their very lives. Ever notice how most Christians strongly condemn the sins they themselves are not generally tempted to? We need to honestly reread the "<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=7&t=KJV#comm/3">mote and beam</a>" story in the Scripture again. We love defining our point of reference for moral fidelity in such a way that puts us in good moral standing with God. How quickly we forget that our moral standard, the epitome of holiness, is Christ. Who can measure up then?
<br />
<br />Of course, the magic in Harry Potter is different than the magic of other books, like <span style="font-style: italic;">The Lord of the Rings</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Narnia</span>. In those two books, firstly, it is an entirely different world. Magic comprises part of the natural landscape to those worlds. It is as commonplace as the Sun and Moon. Second, not just anyone can undertake the learning of magical arts in those stories. Either you are, or are not, a being who can use magic. For example, the wizards in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Lord of the Rings</span>, like Gandalf and Saruman, are not human, but rather, they are the Istari, or divine beings sent by Iluvatar (the world's deity) for a particular purpose. The elves are also magical, but not in the same way as the Istari. In Narnia, the magic was there, almost a person in itself, defined and written by that world's deity. In fact, Narnia, being patterned after Christianity, one might say that the magic that pervades the book is the Narnia version of the Holy Spirit. The atonement of that world is called "Deeper Magic". The magic of Narnia are the governing laws of the world, including the laws that govern Aslan Himself, written by Aslan's father.
<br />
<br />In fact, consider this. If magic can indeed be defined as the presence of a supernatural power performing actions that would otherwise be impossible within the parameters of our physical laws, then wouldn't some of Christ's actions appear as magic to those who had no theological background? Raising the dead could be construed as necromancy, Turning water into wine could be construed as transfiguration. And obviously, there had to be a transcendence of our physical laws that made Christ buoyant enough to walk on water.
<br />
<br />Sorry if I have gotten your ire up. That might have been a tad too much for the constrained minds of modern Christians.
<br />
<br />I suppose this has turned into a rant. But magic, as depicted in literature, equals power. And too much power always defines a good antagonist for the protagonist, typically outgunned and weaker, to overcome. In other words, magic makes a good story.
<br />
<br />Finally, having said all that, do I think Harry Potter is the work of the Devil? Well, probably so, but not for the same reasons the Church is popularizing. Growing up around raccoon hunters, I learned a little about it. The only defense a raccoon really has against the sensitive noses of the coon hounds is the clever tactic of throwing them off the scent. Use rivers, creeks, and trees and march them north while the raccoon is safely heading south. That is precisely what Satan has done with books like Harry Potter. As long as the Church is looking for children playing Quidditch or taming Hippogriffs in an enchanted forest, the real witchcraft continues unchecked and unchallenged by the Church.
<br />
<br />Honestly, when was the last time you saw a fourteen year old buzz down the street on a broom, or brewing polyjuice potion in their basement, or sending friends messages by using an owl? And yet, these innocuous activities, only found in literature, and foreign to those who practice genuine witchcraft, are ripped apart from pulpits and Christian publications as if they were fundamental dangers to our societies. The Devil laughs at the Church's utter lack of understanding. The hounds are heading north, while their quarry heads south.
<br />
<br />It is yet more condemning evidence as to the current atrophied and emaciated state of today's established Church.
<br />
<br />My message to the Church is, leave good literature alone. Know what you're talking about before chopping away at it. It is not the time to go on a demon hunt where no demon exist.<em></em> There are more pertinent things out there. Outside the Church, pornography has become rampant and easily accessible. Divorce rates continue to climb. Joblessness is on the increase, and people are hurting now more than ever. Within the Church, rampant humanism continues to pervade the doctrines and orders, seemingly without resistance, continuing to erode the fundamental truths of Christianity. In truth, all you really have to do is preach the Gospel... The GOSPEL!!! You do not really have to worry about keeping the moral alignment of the Church in tow if the genuine Gospel is preached with the unction of the Holy Ghost. Christ said that He would draw all men to Him if He is lifted up. If men are drawn to Him, and are standing at his feet, moral misalignment becomes a moot point. Stop trying to define what has already been defined. Quit attempting to fit people into your moral molds. Take people by the hand, and lead them to Jesus. Not much can go wrong after that.
<br /><em></em></div>Son of Aslanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14199431820949547416noreply@blogger.com2