Aslan's Country

A Distracted Church

2011-10-23T16:49:00.000-07:00

I 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

Let me be straightforward.

We have one reward.

Let me re-emphasize that...

WE HAVE ONE REWARD!

Jesus Christ, the son of God.

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.

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?

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.

Ten Introvert Myths

2011-10-07T20:38:00.000-07:00

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.

If you are not familiar with the personality traits known as introversion and extroversion, acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia article here. But be sure and finish this blog entry, as it debunks many of the myths that even the Wikipedia article depicts.

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!

Introvert myths...

Myth #1 – Introverts don’t like to talk.
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.

Myth #2 – Introverts are shy.
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.

Myth #3 – Introverts are rude.
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.

Myth #4 – Introverts don’t like people.
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.

Myth #5 – Introverts don’t like to go out in public.
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.

Myth #6 – Introverts always want to be alone.
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.

Myth #7 – Introverts are weird.
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.

Myth #8 – Introverts are aloof nerds.
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.

Myth #9 – Introverts don’t know how to relax and have fun.
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.

Myth #10 – Introverts can fix themselves and become Extroverts.
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.

Witches, Wizards, and Elves, Oh My!

2011-08-28T07:20:00.001-07:00

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.

And yet, every time a good book comes along, Christians always manage to hack it apart and demonize it.

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.

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 real 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 magnum opus of Arthurian Legend, The Once and Future King 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?

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".

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 pharmakeia. 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.

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 "mote and beam" 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?

Of course, the magic in Harry Potter is different than the magic of other books, like The Lord of the Rings and Narnia. 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 The Lord of the Rings, 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.

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.

Sorry if I have gotten your ire up. That might have been a tad too much for the constrained minds of modern Christians.

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.

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.

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.

It is yet more condemning evidence as to the current atrophied and emaciated state of today's established Church.

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. 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.

The Chronicles of Narnia - The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: My Review

2010-12-12T12:18:00.000-08:00

Warning: Spoilers

After a scathing review of Prince Caspian, I didn't really expect this movie to be any better. As it turns out, I was right. I saw exactly what I was expecting, a good movie, a bad adaption.

I must admit, I did approach this movie slightly differently. After reading a few preliminary reviews, the most notable of them being an interview by Christianity Today with the supposed Narnia policeman, Douglas Gresham (LINK), and a scathing review by a Catholic website (LINK), I entered the theater with low expectations.

Unfortunately, even my low expectations met with disappointment.

Call me a Narnia purist, I can live with that title. But I'd rather be a purist than to endorse such a gross perversion of Lewis' story. Just like Prince Caspian, the time line was shredded into confetti, and then put back together in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. Instead of every island being a story in itself, islands were amalgamated, along with their plots. For example, Dragon Island and Deathwater Island are the same island in the film.

And then, the over-arching story the film writers added. A malevolent, unpredictable, and totally random green mist. I am not sure where this idea came from, but it is miles away from Lewis' story.

And then there's the resurrection of the competition between a high king of Narnia, and Prince Caspian. This was overdone in Prince Caspian, and didn't need to carry over into this movie with Caspian and Edmund. Yes, I know there was a little spat in the book about the wealth of Deathwater Island, but it was given far too much credence in the movie.

Every scene was twisted and contorted from the original to the extent that Narnia "purists" like myself did not feel like they were watching a movie about Narnia.

When I first began the movie, the sensation was strange. During the scene with the painting, and on through the slave market on the Lone Islands, I kept thinking, "Okay, this is tolerable, so far." But with the green mist, and using slaves as a sacrifice, I just shook my head. I cannot understand how this is embraced by so many Narnia enthusiasts.

The sea serpent was made into the primary antagonist. Ramandu is never seen. Aslan's table isn't refreshed. Coriakin is portrayed as a stick in the mud. The Dufflepuds are barely seen. The Magician's Book is completely obliterated from the book.

And just wait until you see the abominable way Eustace is "undragoned". If you are a fan of that scene in the book, the way it is done in the movie will tear the skin off of you more than Eustace.

As far as I am concerned, there is one man to hold accountable. Lewis' own stepson, Douglas Gresham. His job was to see that the stories maintained their purity in the cinematic adaption and, as far as I am concerned, he has failed miserably. I do not wish to judge him too harshly, as I know that his hands were tied to an extent. But alas, these movies are hardly recognizable as Narnia movies at all. They were more like movies made using the Narnia theme as a backdrop, instead of an actual Narnia movie.

In my personal opinion, and I say this without reservation. It would have been better to have never had a cinematic adaption of Lewis' Narnia stories than to endorse these perversions of Lewis' vision. These movies are a distorted caricature of their namesake, and are a shame to behold by loyal Narnians. No amount of eye candy and special effects will ever absolve Disney of their sins in making these movies. My favorite of the books, The Horse and His Boy, I hope never has to undergo such distorted cinematic revisionism. And with the mediocre opening weekend, stifled much by tough economic times, and wacky weather covering much of the nation, it is looking hopeful that the franchise will not extend that far.

My advice, do not go see this movie. Rather watch the original BBC version on YouTube (embedded below), which is far superior to the new Disney version. Watch their version of Prince Caspian and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader for yourself...

Come Out of Her, My People

2010-01-31T10:22:00.000-08:00

Revelation 18:4

Recently, e-Harmony was involved in a lawsuit where homosexuals demanded that they be served on the popular "match-making" website.

e-Harmony Lawsuit

This reinforces a distinct trend I am seeing in the political realm. Social liberals never seem satisfied with the rights they've been given. And it will be only a matter of time before Armando and Lucius drive by a quaint little country Baptist church and think, "Awwww. Wouldn't that be a nice place to be married?"

But when the pastor refuses, based on the moral imperatives taught by his respective religion, suddenly his right to adhere to a religious doctrine will not be shown the same tolerance the legal system will have given to homosexuals. He will be accused of discrimination and be forced to acquiesce to the couple's request to use his church, and perhaps even be forced to conduct the ceremony himself.

Yes, I know this may sound far fetched, but so did the whole idea of "gay marriage" a mere twenty years ago. Consider the recent lawsuit against e-Harmony. This lawsuit will certainly be cited in such a lawsuit against a Church and its pastor.

Why should e-Harmony be forced to match up homosexuals? Indeed, why can't some enterprising and creative homosexual create an online dating website explicitly for homosexuals? Because that isn't enough. They want to impose upon our lifestyles with their alternative. They think that by imposing equality through the avenue of the legal system, they will gain the social acceptance of their fellow citizens, in spite of the fact that legislation ( like Prop 8 ) shows that popular opinion still isn't ready for this level of "tolerance". So, they insist on imposing their lifestyle on the community via the legal system.

But it doesn't work that way.

This lesson should have been learned in the 1800's during the emancipation of the slaves. If slavery had been allowed to die out of natural causes, then all the bad juju between the races would have died along with it. Popular opinion, even in parts of the north, was opposed to total emancipation at the time. Even "honest Abe", the great emancipator himself, said, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

But they insisted on driving it home, in spite of popular opinion. The byproduct? Racism is prevalent even now, 160 years later.

So, the homosexual agenda, by forcing this stuff into the political limelight, may eventually get gay-marriage passed on a large scale, but as a byproduct, they are sowing the seeds of hatred and intolerance of their lifestyle that will propagate from generation to generation, very much the same way racism has propagated. And pretty soon, companies will be forced to hire a certain amount of homosexuals, and there will be government, taxpayer subsidized, programs catered to homosexuals, which will only compound the problem. The moral and ethical fabric of such legislation is nigh irrelevant. Simply put, pushing through legislation that politicians feel to be right and moral, but the populace hasn't embraced en masse as such, will create an enduring angst, and will actually slow the social acceptance of the behavior or attribute in question. This angst will exist in spite of the moral and ethical grounds for the legislated legality of the behavior or attribute.

The signal this sends is clear. Now is the time for the Church to seek "separation" from secular society! We need to "come out of her". As a church, we need to identify every area where we have ties in the secular world. We don't need to preserve the sanctity of marriage, we need to restore it. We should adopt de facto marriages, to ensure our definition of marriage stands in sharp relief to the world's. We need to sever all ties to the world's ideology, and return to the Scriptures and trusted writings. It may sound like I am condoning a rigid ascetic Christianity, similar to the monks of the middle-ages, or a communal Christianity like the Amish of the Eastern United States. Perhaps I am. Modern Christianity, especially in the west, disproportionately equates the "joy of the Lord" with the pleasures of the world, and uses such things as spiritual barometers. This ideology is one rooted in secularism, and has been a unseen malignancy in the Church ever since its inception.

I will admit I am very concerned. We don't want to find ourselves so entangled in the secular world that we are unable to extricate ourselves when the time comes that it does indeed become imperative to do so in order to retain even the faintest resemblance of one who is following Christ. Indeed, when the Anti-Christ comes, we've always assumed it would be in such a way that all the world gravitates toward him. But I am beginning to think that his appearance will be to a world already primed for him, so all he has to do is move chess pieces already positioned for a mate. Personally, I believe that the day of a profound separation is already here, but it is obvious that the remainder of the Church does not, or they'd already be taking steps in that direction.

For Christianity to remain in its current state is to conform to a profound description of modern Christianity observed, and penned, by none other than a atheist acquaintance of mine, who called it "A superstitious meme that is spread generation to generation, validated by placebo and confirmation bias, that builds an emotional stake in its hosts by encouraging evangelization and discourages doubt using guilt and social pressure." This atheist was attempting to describe how he felt about Christianity in general, but in so doing, profoundly described modern, pretentious, western Christianity to a tee. We attend church as a cultural nuance. And we go expecting to feel something, instead of eating the flesh and drinking the blood as we're supposed to. We go home and lay our Bibles down until the next service. We pray 5 minute "nighty-night" prayers, that scarcely have any substance, much less prayers that qualify as the "effectual and fervent" prayers urged in the Scriptures. We are Christians who are trained to feel a certain way, and as long as that criteria is met, grace is supposedly established and assumed to exist in the adherent's life. No change required. The stringent requirements of discipleship have suddenly become the foundation of legalism.

But grace and obedience runs together. As James put it, Faith without works is dead.

I recommend reading Part One: Grace and Discipleship of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship, to see how you, and your respective church's doctrine, measures up to what is now widely considered an "archaic", "obsolete", "idealist", and "out of touch" Christianity. One that renounces all forms of secularism and is a stinging and fundamental reminder that secularism and the lack of obedience is incompatible with a real, biblical, Christian disciple.

To whet your appetite, allow me this quote from the book...

"If grace is God's answer, the gift of Christian life, then we cannot for a moment dispense with following Christ. But if grace is the data for my Christian life, it means that I set out to live the Christian life in the world with all my sins justified beforehand. I can go and sin as much as I like, and rely on this grace to forgive me, for after all the world is justified in principle by grace. I can therefore cling to my bourgeois secular existence, and remain as I was before, but with the added assurance that the grace of God will cover me. It is under the influence of this kind of 'grace' that the world has been made 'Christian,' but at the cost of secularizing the Christian religion as never before. The antithesis between the Christian life and the life of bourgeois respectability is at an end. The Christian life comes to mean nothing more than living in the world and as the world, in being no different from the world, in fact, in being prohibited from being different from the world for the sake of grace."

Avatar - My Review

2010-01-02T18:39:00.000-08:00

Facebook readers can read this on my blog here.

To be honest, I had no real plans to see this movie. But after hearing so much about it, very good and very bad, I very much wanted to see what the buzz was all about. All the reviews seem to have no middle ground. It is either regarded as ground-breakingly epic, or a complete political propaganda movie.

In my opinion, it is both.

In a Dances With Wolves meets Star Wars meets Matrix meets Rambo amalgamation, we find our hero, a Marine, part of a research program called Avatar. Humanity has set up residence on a planet called Pandora, and is researching a indigenous, pantheistic tribe by assuming physical control of fabricated bodies identical to the members of the neolithic people. These bodies, called Avatars, are controlled by their host who is jacked in through a computer/cerebral interface. Matrix, anyone?

The tribe itself, the Na'vi, lives life very synergistic with their otherwise hostile environment, making them very similar to Native Americans during the settlement of America. Although essentially religiously pantheistic (where everything comprises God), they still worship an individual deity, called Eywa, who is the equivalent to Mother Earth. But she is more like The Force in Star Wars than a distinct personality.

The movie has a very good, very original premise. But the movie is rife with politically liberal ideology. Our hero, a wounded marine, has become part of the Avatar program only to find that there was an evil capitalistic agenda wanting to mine a precious mineral called Unobtanium, from the planet. Without thought to the implications of what displacing the Na'vi might be, the military stands ready to do whatever it takes to gain access to this mineral.

I would like to point out three things that really angered me. First off, our marine hero had lost the use of his legs. At their level of advancement, the medical procedure to regain the use of them must have been easily within the scope of medical technology, howbeit a procedure that was very expensive, and consequently reserved for an presupposed elite class of people with connections and status. This supposed caveat was an obvious byproduct of healthcare being in the private sector, where it belongs according to conservative ideology, and which is currently under attack in the United States.

Secondly, they depict the Na'vi as being completely in tune with nature. So much so that they share an almost symbiotic existence. When hunting, they address their prey as their brethren, apologize, and then thank them for leaving their bodies behind so the "the People" may subsist. The Na'vi, and subsequently all nature-loving liberals, are verbally martyred in this movie with titles like "tree huggers". The Na'vi are remarkably similar to Native Americans. Their language is strikingly similar, and there is even a scene that is strikingly reminiscent to the "Trail of Tears". In another scene, Na'vi resistance are referred to as "terrorists".

And thirdly, in sharp relief to the Na'vi, the military is depicted as a bunch of superficial, muscle-bound, greasy, cigar smoking grunts whose only ambition is to perpetuate the agendas of evil corporate gurus wanting the precious mineral, Unobtanium. Forget the idea that a national military is a highly disciplined outfit designed to protect citizens from foreign threats. According to this, the military is for just imposing ourselves on other cultures with military force. This is what many liberals think military operations are doing in the Middle-East today. In my opinion, this movie serves as a perfect look into the mind of liberal ideology concerning the military.

Now I take exception to this. I am a conservative, and also I greatly love nature. Having been born and raised in Appalachia, and hiking woods, exploring caves, and feeling right at home with nature since the time I could walk, I am very offended at the depiction that pro-military conservatism is an idea that means ushering in out-of-control urban sprawl and knocking down forests like they shouldn't exist, for some capitalistic agenda. That is pure lunacy. I love nature, and want more than anyone to see it preserved. I hike when I am able, and even harbor jealousy for friends who are now rangers. I am even among the ranks of those who would prefer a more primitive existence over our current level of technological advance. That is why i find the imagery and ideas in works like Narnia and The Lord of the Rings so compelling. Both books, and their authors, regard technological and industrial advances as detrimental to society as a whole. An idea that I whole-heartedly agree with, in spite of being a free-market conservative.

Liberals consistently paint Conservatives as nature hating SUV drivers with no regard for our environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if you look at a map of where concentrations of political philosophies are, you will find the highest concentrations of liberal ideology in urban areas, while the highest concentrations of conservative ideologies are in rural, forested, areas. At least, that is the way it is in America.

So, while the movie was very beautifully rendered, with stunning visual effects and Real D elements, the outlandish political undertones destroys any possibility of real enjoyment. Other reviewers who cite the political motives profoundly understate their position. I suppose they were too mesmerized by the beautiful imagery.

As far as the movie elements go, it is quite status quo of modern science fiction. No real character building, which is typically sacrificed due to time restraints, and due to the elaborate antagonist vs protagonist plots needing to be set up. We learn of the characters in quick, bullet point, snatches. The plot of the movie is certainly original. In fact, I hate that such an original concept is tainted with such overwhelming political propaganda.

In summary, I thought the movie was very entertaining, and will be doubly so for anyone who is politically ignorant, or who is able to ignore the propaganda, or who agrees with the political statements being made. Unfortunately, I am neither able to ignore it, or agree with it.

On a side note, Stephen Lang, who played Colonel Miles Quaritch, is one of my favorite actors. I always thought him able to bring a real organic quality to any role he was in. I could watch Gods and Generals over and over again, based on his portrayal of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in the movie alone. It saddened me to see him play such a prominent role in a movie that paints the military in such a negative light. I hate to see that he was willing to be involved in such a movie, and my opinion of this actor has been greatly diminished by this fact. While I still think he is an excellent actor, and that his role in Gods and Generals is worthy of the highest theatrical honors, my opinion of him has been dealt a severe blow by his incomprehensible involvement in such an prominent political propagandist motion picture. Possibly beyond the hope of fan redemption, at least the redemption granted by this fan.

Another side note, the last movie I saw in Real-D was Beowulf. I must say this rendering is more than an improvement. In a few cases, things appeared to floating right out into the theater itself. Real-D is a new 3D method that is still stereoscopic in nature, but uses light rather than color. Polarized glasses isolates each eye. The projection of the movie alternates, very quickly between each eye. The brain cannot distinguish each eye, so even though each eye is essentially watching its own version of the movie, the brain see one picture with depth. The effect is very profound, and certainly adds dynamic to any film that lends itself to 3D effects. That is, of course, an oversimplification. Unfortunately, at this time, this effect cannot be reproduced on non-projection systems, which means that DVD and Blu-Ray cannot reproduce the effect in home theaters. I am sure this is being resolved in a lab somewhere. Watch, I don't imagine it will be long before it will be available in a home system. If you haven't seen a Read-D movie in a theater yet, I cannot recommend it more highly. It is usually worth the surcharge charged by theaters for the added effect.

Would I support a Proposition 8 in Tennessee?

2009-12-02T16:30:00.000-08:00

Facebook readers may read this on my blog by clicking here.

Today, few issues are so divisive as the "gay marriage" issue. The newly released Manhattan Declaration, as well as the recent defeat of a gay marriage legalization bill in the New York State Senate, has the issue front and center. Both Catholic and Evangelical Christians, as well as social conservatives, nervously await a sweeping stroke from our current administration defining any and all speech against homosexual behavior as "hate speech".

Interestingly enough, my stance on the subject has changed in the last year. Well, that isn't exactly true. I am still a Christian who thinks homosexual behavior is a sin. What has changed is with this whole idea of "gay marriage". I will begin my apologetic by asking a question.

If a marriage, any marriage, isn't holy in the eyes of God, will the state sanction of that marriage make it holy?

Well, the short answer here is no. How could it? Marriage is an institution with divine origins. What business does the state have interjecting its own criteria into it?

Allow me to give you an example. If my wife and I had been told by the state that we couldn't get married, for whatever reason, I would have said, "Fine." I would have then proceeded to purchase the rings, find a willing minister, say my vows before God and man, and introduce her to the world as my wife. And I wouldn't have given a hairy hoot what the government thought about it.

Personally, I cannot understand why homosexuals want state sanctioned marriage. The tax benefits? I would gladly relent any supposed tax benefit if in return they got their grubby paws off my marriage. I find it ironic that they are fighting so hard to acquire something I would willingly jettison if I were permitted. If anything, state sanction taints marriage, which should be holy and untarnished by secularism. I have a hard time believing this push to have gay marriage legalized is motivated by the desire to be in a different tax bracket. Are they fighting so hard so they can use the word "marriage"? What is stopping them from using that word now? State acknowledgment?

Since marriage is a patently religious institution (I have never understand why any atheist would desire marriage by the way. What's the point of marriage if we are little more than a primate?), I think marriage ought to be performed and regulated by the couple's religious order. And various religious orders ought to have the intellectual means to develop criteria and principles in which marriage under their orders are to be implemented.

So I am not "pro" gay-marriage politically, I am gay-marriage neutral. I would not vote on it at all were a gay-marriage bill introduced in Tennessee. The government, in my estimation, has no business telling anyone, through rule of law, whom they can, or cannot, marry. That is between them, their god, and, of course, their intended spouse. To say it is illegal is, in my opinion, not only legislating morality, but it is nonsensical (1). With regards to it being legislated morality, let me explain what I mean by that. Let's assume we say gay-marriage should remain illegal based on the premise of Christian morality, or based on the premise that homosexuality is a sin. Fine. But anger is also a sin. Should we make anger a criminal activity? What should the penalty be, 30 years to life? I didn't go to church Sunday, which in the minds of most Christians is also a sin. Should I go ahead and lay my head on chopping block now or wait until I am officially indicted by the courts? Should adultery be criminalized? What about pride? Covetousness? Lust? Should we slap the cuffs on the next teenager we see oogling some girl? You cannot make something illegal based purely on the idea that it is a sin. In my estimation, you have to prove, objectively, that the act is either a threat to order, or an injustice.

Let me give you another example of the distinction. Let's say some guy stops by the store on his way home from work and picks up a case of beer, goes home, and gets hammered out of his mind. The Scriptures clearly define alcoholic intoxication as sin. By doing so, he has sinned, but he has broken no law. But in this condition, let's say he decided to jump in his car and drive back to the store. Now by drinking and driving, he has become a threat to order, and has consequently broken the law. If he hurts or kills someone in this condition, then he has committed an injustice, and has also broken the law. But just getting intoxicated in your own home is neither a threat to order, or an injustice, and is perfectly legal, though still a sin.

So, do you see the distinction between how laws shouldn't be made based purely on the idea that they are sin. Also, regarding gay marriage in particular, if there is any religion in America that honors marriage between gays (and there is), then making gay marriage illegal is in contradiction to the first amendment, in my opinion. In fact, most of America was populated by immigrants who were fleeing a country where a church was attempting to impose their morality on citizenry through rule of law. That is why we have the first amendment. And that is why it is FIRST, in fact. It was an important aspect to guaranteeing our rights, to not have a church imposing its morals and traditions upon those who did not wish to observe them. Have we become the thing we fled from over 200 years ago?

Now, having said all that, allow me to voice a reservation about my stance on this subject. Being a Christian who believes that homosexual behavior is indeed sinful, I know who is behind this movement to keep gay marriage in the political realm. In fact, it has been an ingenious tactic of Satan to gain the social acceptance of any sinful behavior by merely making it a political issue. When you study Satan, you find his whole strategy lies rooted in appetite. Everything he does to lead humanity astray is found by exploiting one or more of its natural appetites to be used in ways, or at times, or in quantities that are unhealthy physically and spiritually. Remember his attack on Job, first his affluence, then his life, was jeopardized. His first attack was on Job's material and vocational appetites, and the second was on his physical appetites. If money is the root of all evil, appetite is the trunk. Roots feed the trunk. The desire for money stems from our appetites.

So it stands to reason that Satan's appetites are never satisfied either. Thus, he is never satisfied with the ground he will have gained in perpetuating his agendas. He will always want more. I am afraid that if gay-marriage ever becomes socially acceptable, and legal, on a large scale, it will only be a matter of time before a gay couple taking a Sunday drive will spot some nice, quaint, little Baptist church, and think, "Oh, what a nice place to be married." But when the pastor declines the privilege based on the moral grounds of his religion, there will surely be a lawsuit. And we will find ourselves being guilty of a "hate crime" if we say we regard gay marriage as unholy. You can bet the farm that the same first amendment I cited earlier will be totally ignored by the courts when this pastor asks for his religious views to be honored.

One small addendum. If the day comes where simply having the idea, or expressing the idea, that homosexuality is sin, is considered hate speech by secular standards, I will stand my ground. I make no moral justification for homosexuality. I will say that the idea of our government interjecting its views into the holy institution of marriage is a byproduct of a weakening church, asleep in Zion, who has made it a habit of delegating too much of its liberties to the whims of secular government to begin with. A nation whose is Christian Church is where it needs to be will not need social engineering or social programming. By allowing government to inject itself into these areas, we have forfeited many opportunities for blessings. But alas, I fear the day is coming where a Church will lose any tax-exempt status, or worse, for merely saying, "Homosexuality is a sin, and hateful in the eyes of God."

(1) I say it is nonsensical because marriage is more than a ceremony and a union recognized by man's government. If two people join before God in truly holy matrimony, it matters not what any secular institution says. They are married! It only makes sense that the government could outlaw marriage if "secular" marriage was the only thing on the market.

The Confederate States of America - Proposed Declaration of Independence

2009-11-08T08:52:00.000-08:00

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the political and governmental institutions under which they have governed themselves, and institute new government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the institution of the new form of government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their liberty, safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these free citizens and sovereign states; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present United States Federal Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these free citizens and sovereign states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

In 1861, the United States declared war upon the Confederate States of America, a confederation of sovereign states that lawfully seceded from the Union and formed a government to provide new guards for their future security. The Confederate States of America was militarily occupied by armies of the United States and the Union was unlawfully maintained:

Since then the US Federal Government has enacted unconstitutional laws and authorized unconstitutional spending and the creation and funding of unconstitutional Federal agencies. It has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. It has imposed taxes on us without our consent:

The US Federal Government has borrowed so many trillions of dollars that the amount can never be repaid:

The US Federal Government created the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Homeland Security Administration, which are unconstitutional usurpations of the powers of the people and the states guaranteed in the 10th Amendment:

The US Federal Government created the Transportation Security Administration, which is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. The actions of the TSA violate the 4th Amendment, which protects citizens from illegal search and seizure without warrant based upon probable cause:

The US Federal Government created the Internal Revenue Service to enforce the gigantic Federal Income Tax Code, violating Article I of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has violated Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution in which Congress may raise and support an army, but no appropriation to that use shall be more than two years. The US Federal Government has established hundreds of military bases on American soil, quartering large bodies of armed troops among us, violating the 3rd Amendment. Additionally, it has established over one hundred military bases in other sovereign nations around the world:

The US Federal Government is at this time retaining large armies of domestic and foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the lawful government of a civilized nation:

The US Federal Government has deprived certain individuals of the benefits of trial by jury by transporting certain individuals beyond seas to be jailed and tortured for pretended offenses, violating the principle of Habeas Corpus and the 5th Amendment of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has enacted laws infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, an overt violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:

The US Federal Government, through enacting the Patriot Act of 2001, has violated the 4th Amendment’s strictures on privacy and protection against illegal search and seizure. It has violated the 5th Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law:

The US Federal Government, through enacting the Patriot Act of 2001, has violated the 6th Amendment guarantees that in criminal prosecutions, the accused shall the right to a speedy and public trial, be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and be confronted by the witnesses against him:

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the US Constitution:

The US Federal Government established the Federal Reserve, a consortium of private banks, to manage and manipulate the currency of the United States. This violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which provides Congress authority to coin money and regulate its value. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional:

The Federal Reserve has created massive inflation since its inception in 1913 by issuing paper money that has no underlying value in gold and silver. Because of the attempts of the Federal Reserve to manipulate the American economy, it created an abnormal cycle of boom and recession:

In 2008, the US Federal Government approved trillion-dollar financial bailouts to financial institutions and private companies, a clear violation of Article I, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has prosecuted unlawful and unconstitutional wars, including wars in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, violating Article I, Section 8, which grants the power to declare war only to Congress:

The US Federal Government created the Social Security Administration in 1935, a clear violation of the Article I, Section 8, and the 10th Amendment:

The US Federal Government, though its Judicial Branch, has altered legislation and created law, in violation of Article III of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has obligated the United States to membership in the United Nations, and combined with other nations to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and superior by treaty to our laws; giving its assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

The US Federal Government has usurped the powers reserved to the States in the 10th Amendment as it relates to immigration and naturalization. It has obstructed the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and altered the conditions of lawful immigration of foreign persons:

The US Federal Government has altered fundamentally the forms of our government guaranteed to the free citizens and states by the Constitution of the United States of America.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. An institution of government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyranny, is unfit to be the designated and chosen government of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of the United States Federal Government. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their actions to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common citizenship to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt the quiet enjoyment of our citizenship and liberty. They have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the free citizens of the sovereign states of the Confederate States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare, that the Confederate States of America, and all states within is, and of right ought to be a free and independent nation; that it is absolved from all allegiance to the presently established United States Federal Government, and that all political connection between the Confederate States of America, its sovereign states, and the United States Federal Government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that this free and independent Nation has full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

The free citizens of the sovereign Confederate States of America reject and absolve themselves from any and all bonds between themselves and the United States. Those free citizens and their representatives in the sovereign states of the Confederate States of America do now and should immediately cease collecting and forwarding all United States Federal taxes, tariffs or fees of any and every kind to the United States Federal Government in any form whatsoever.

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Reasonable Belief and Reasonable Unbelief: The Proper Application of Christian Faith

2009-10-25T16:09:00.000-07:00

I have heard it argued by certain critics of Judeo-Christian tradition that a God who delivers salvation based on belief is behaving unreasonably, because disbelief in the Christian God is a stance that one can hold in good faith, even after making a serious and honest attempt to discover the answer.

That is a quote from a user on ChristianBoard. I appreciate the honesty of the question, and have often wondered myself, "Can a person be just as faithful in disbelief as in belief?" In one sense, yes they can. Even the Bible agrees. Remember, according to Revelation 3:15-16, God holds settled belief in God and settled disbelief in God as equally noble positions, although only one of those positions will render eternal reward and security. It is the wishy-washy "lukewarm" that will be vomited out.

But, there is more to it than just "belief v. unbelief". Belief is the Christian's apparatus used to see God. And God rewards those who use their belief in this way by revealing more and more of Himself to us. That is why Jesus used our sensory perceptions, metaphorically of course, as descriptions of what experiencing God is like "Taste and see that the Lord is good... He that has ears to hear, let him hear... etc" That is why I have a difficult time believing it when someone says they were once a Christian and now is an atheist. One has to exercise faith in God to become a Christian. And faith properly exercised WILL result in a revelation of Jesus Christ that is impossible to ignore. So for me, when someone says they were once a Christian, and through rational and logical thinking has become an atheist, it is like a man who goes swimming, and then consequently, through this rational thinking, refuses to believe in water.

To be quite candid about it, belief in God is easy for the Christian. Maintaining a perpetual belief that He is ultimately benevolent in all His ways is the Christian's challenge. If I doubted God's mere existence, I would seriously question the state of my own salvation. That is the very first thing God will make clear in the life of any sincere Christian. But He always seems to leave His benevolence open to interpretation of one's own environment and circumstances. The real threat to a Christian's faith isn't the voice that says, "Ah, so God doesn't exist after all.", but the voice that says, in the midst of turmoil and confusion, "So this is what God is like... Deceive yourself no longer."

It is quite natural really. What child, with their limited understanding of their own reality, doesn't not regard the restrictions imposed by adults as mere impediments to their own joy and happiness? It isn't until the child matures that he or she can begin to understand that the reason Daddy wouldn't let them use the mower, or the reason Mommy wouldn't let them use the kitchen knife, was actually to protect the child from a danger they didn't understand. We are in a similar position with God. What we see as God's oppressive hand could very easily be His protecting hand.

So the two compulsory requirements of faith from believers is to believe that He exists, and that He is benevolent. (Hebrews 11:6)

So "reasonable disbelief" is just that... reasonable. God can still use that. The lukewarm are those with a "visceral disbelief", whose belief in God fluctuates with the state of one's circumstances, health, emotional state, or even the state of their digestion. The church sometimes calls these unfortunate Christians, "Fair-Weather Christians". Their belief isn't based on logic, but on an visceral reaction to some circumstance. Whether it is a rejection of God based on a lost job, repossessed asset, or death of a loved one; or whether it is a presumptuous belief in God's benevolence due to currently being "on the mountain", it is precisely the same thing. The balanced, and true, Christian knows that God is still benevolent even when the temporal world is being stripped from them, one asset after the other, and they are also willing to being "pruned" by God when their temporal welfare becomes a little too stable.

So the true Christian knows that when God blesses with temporal security, they should accept the blessings with thanksgiving to God, and pass them forward when their needs are met. They also know, even in their most prosporous periods of their life, that trials are coming that may remove temporal security for a season. In fact, I would be concerned if I never perceived my temporal foundations growing shaky, or if I never experienced God's temporal blessings. A balanced Christian will experience this same balance from God.

Christians also know and understand God's chastisement. In fact, when God brandishes His whip, the true Christian will gladly expose his back, and drink in the pain. Not in some masochistic need to be beat down by God's retributive wrath, but in understanding His purpose. Though the whip's sting is deep, the Christian does not want it to stop until the lesson is learned, thoroughly. God's chastisement is not punitive, it is disciplinary. And when He is disciplining you, He will lay no stripe that isn't necessary. No throb of pain will be without purpose. Christians often pout at God's chastisement, when they should be rejoicing.

No circumstance shakes the true Christian's belief in God's benevolence.

On a side note, and back on the subject of reasonable faith, please keep in mind, the atonement was never meant so we could gain Heaven after we die. Eternal reward is a byproduct of Christianity. The atonement was to restore the fellowship Adam had with God before the Fall. And, as we grow and exercise an ever increasing faith, the restoration of that fellowship becomes increasingly more profound. There are those who achieved that fellowship so strongly, that all the "perks" of being a Christian became truly peripheral, and even irrelevant, to their communion with Jesus Christ. This fellowship with God is the house, comprised of the stones of the atonement, provision, peace, redemption, etc. The writer of Hebrews told us to abandon the elementary principles of Christ, and move on to perfection (Hebrews 6:1). That perfection isn't necessarily accumulating opinions, searching out all the correct doctrines of Christianity, or shaping one's theology. It is fostering an honest, thorough, and meaningful relationship with Jesus Christ. That, to me, is the proper application of Christian faith.

The Story of Stuff: Liberal Propaganda in our Schools

2009-09-26T16:30:00.001-07:00

Facebook users will not be able to see the embedded videos. Please click here to see the videos.

This truly unbelievable video, making Capitalism out to be the prevailing evil in our society, has surfaced, and has apparently infiltrated our public schools as certifiable curriculum. My list of reasons why I detest the public school system is growing day by day.

Anyway, below is the video.

And here is the independent critique of the video.

Political Pearls of Wisdom

2009-09-03T08:29:00.000-07:00

Facebook users can read this entry here.

Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.

— Ronald Reagan

Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.

— Thomas Sowell

Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".

— Thomas Sowell

If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves

— Thomas Sowell

No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

— Thomas Sowell

The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.

— Thomas Sowell

One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.

— Thomas Sowell

Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion.

— Richard John Neuhaus

Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn't needed, and in hell where they've got it.

— Cecil Palmer

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

— Winston Churchill

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

— Winston Churchill

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

— Winston Churchill

No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism.

— Winston Churchill

For socialists, not just the wealth, but the guilt, must be redistributed.

— Andrew Sandlin

The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a higher level.

— Norman Mailer

The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.

— Alexis de Tocqueville

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

— Alexis de Tocqueville

A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.

— Alexis de Tocqueville

A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.

— George Bernard Shaw

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

— Ayn Rand

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.

— Thomas Jefferson

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.

— G. Gordon Liddy

Collectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's 'fair share' of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.

— P. J. O'Rourke

The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

— Margaret Thatcher

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

— Alexis de Tocqueville

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

— Margaret Thatcher

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.

— Margaret Thatcher

Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.

— Margaret Thatcher

To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.

— Margaret Thatcher

To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.

— Margaret Thatcher

You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.

— Margaret Thatcher

We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.

— Margaret Thatcher

As God once said, and I think rightly...

— Margaret Thatcher

If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.

— Margaret Thatcher

And what a prize we have to fight for: no less than the chance to banish from our land the dark divisive clouds of Marxist socialism.

— Margaret Thatcher

Hope is no basis for a defense policy.

— Margaret Thatcher

There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.

— Margaret Thatcher

Many of our troubles are due to the fact that our people turn to politicians for everything.

— Margaret Thatcher

Marxists get up early to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom.

— Margaret Thatcher

The Labour (Democrat) Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners.

— Margaret Thatcher (Modified by LJ)

Good Conservatives always pay their bills. And on time. Not like the Socialists who run up other people's bills.

— Margaret Thatcher

When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty.

— Margaret Thatcher

Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited.

— Margaret Thatcher

In the Conservative Party we have no truck with outmoded Marxist doctrine about class warfare. For us it is not who you are, who your family is or where you come from that matters, but what you are and what you can do for your country that counts.

— Margaret Thatcher

Communist regimes were not some unfortunate aberration, some historical deviation from a socialist ideal. They were the ultimate expression, unconstrained by democratic and electoral pressures, of what socialism is all about. ... In short, the state [is] everything and the individual nothing.

— Margaret Thatcher

Freedom is not synonymous with an easy life. ... There are many difficult things about freedom: It does not give you safety, it creates moral dilemmas for you; it requires self-discipline; it imposes great responsibilities; but such is the nature of Man and in such consists his glory and salvation.

— Margaret Thatcher

...the unconditional supply of social benefits to those who were thought incapable of coping undermined the incentive to work and undercut the family unit. It promoted habits of idleness and delinquency. It permitted single-parenthood to become a financially sustainable, alternative way of life. By undermining the self-respect of so many of the most vulnerable members of society -- the respectable poor struggling for decency against the odds -- the dependency culture weakened society as a whole.

— Margaret Thatcher

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

— Margaret Thatcher

When others spoke of the fear of war, you spoke of the need for warriors and peace through strength. When others bewailed the failure of big government to provide for the collective good, you spoke of self-reliance, of personal responsibility, of individual pride and integrity. When others demanded compromise — when others demanded compromise, you, Ronald Reagan, preached conviction.

— Margaret Thatcher

To maintain the ascendancy of the Constitution over the lawmaking majority is the great and essential point on which the success of the [American] system must depend; unless that ascendancy can be preserved, the necessary consequence must be that the laws will supersede the Constitution; and, finally, the will of the Executive, by influence of its patronage, will supersede the laws ...

— John C. Calhoun (1782-1850)

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it [GOVERNMENT] come to dominate our lives and interests.

— Patrick Henry

In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the CHAINS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

— Thomas Jefferson

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

— Thomas Jefferson

The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

— Thomas Jefferson

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

— James Madison

Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerant one.

— Thomas Paine

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

— Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

— James Madison

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?

— Thomas Jefferson (1801)

“I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag”
— Craig Washington

"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men."
— Samuel Adams

“The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes them”
— Jason Laumark

“Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
— Benjamin Franklin

“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
— James Madison

“I also wish that the Pledge of Allegiance were directed at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as it is when the President takes his oath of office, rather than to the flag and the nation”
— Dr. Carl Sagan

“If the 1st Amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.”
— Thurgood Marshall

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”
— William Orville Douglas

“Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.”
— Hugo Black

“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
— Samuel Adams

“The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.”
— Hugo Black

“If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"
— Frank J

“To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race”

— Calvin Coolidge

“[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us, that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”
— Daniel Webster

The Ant and the Grasshopper

2009-09-01T18:16:00.001-07:00

This was posted by a friend on Facebook. To view the original blog entry, click here.

----------

Ants And Grasshoppers – The Old Version

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY—Be responsible for yourself!

Ants and Grasshoppers – Modern Version:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green.’

Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, ‘We shall overcome.’ Rev. Jeremiah Wright then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY—Be careful how you vote in 2010.

What is Your Political Alignment?

2009-08-13T08:45:00.000-07:00

Facebook Readers can read this on my blog here.

You won't get any argument from me as to whether or not Socialism is better than Capitalism. In my opinion, Socialism is far better than Capitalism. But, it is also my opinion that it suffers a fatal flaw. Socialism requires a mediator. Regular Socialism requires a man, governing a sub group of men, to regulate the Socialistic system. It is a system Obama is putting in place with all his "Czars". He is establishing a "rungs on a ladder" hierarchy of authority. The issue with Socialism is that authority corrupts. There is no one I trust with such a role in society. I would not even trust myself. It is for that reason that I do not consider Socialism a viable option for our society.

Capitalism also has many flaws, but in the end, none of the flaws are fatal, and the Capitalistic system is self-regulating. That makes Capitalism, as imperfect as it is, the only viable option in our society.

But in the end, I am an American, and believe in the U.S. Constitution one-hundred percent. So with any and all the supposed good points of Socialism, there is no provision for Socialism in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for such dynamic government interference into our domestic lives, or into any private industry, whether it be banking, autos, or healthcare.

But if you will notice, not too many Republicans are citing the Constitution as a means of slapping Obama's healthcare down. That is because the Republicans willingly infringe the Constitution just as readily as the Democrats to push their agendas through. The Patriot Act is proof-positive of this.

In fact, the Libertarians are the only voice the Constitution currently has in our government. But most are looked upon as eccentric. Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz, Andrew Napolitano, and Ron Paul are the most notable Libertarians in the eye of the public today, and they are all generally viewed as fringe eccentrics. The only areas where I cannot abide the Libertarians is their view of the military. What little I have heard is that they are adamantly anti-war, isolationists, would practically dismantle our military were they in power. I don't understand this, because the Constitution plainly provides for the Federal Government's involvement into foreign affairs, and even to declare war.

So Socialism simply means government control. So even if the Federal Government was competent (which they are not), I still do not want them to possess that kind of power. Socialism also forces me to contribute to the prosperity of my fellow man. That is something that I think should be one's prerogative, not a mandate, and especially not a government mandate.

On a tangent, this reminds me of a theology/politics/eschatology debate I am had with another friend who is quite Libertarian. You probably know that, in Christian prophecy, it is commonly held that Christ will return to earth to set up a kingdom for one-thousand years. My friend and I constantly debate whether such a rule will be Socialistic or Capitalistic. I firmly believe that the rule under Christ will be Socialism. He believes it will still be a minimal government system, and we'll maintain a "free market" even then.

As I previously stated, I believe the fatal flaw in Socialism is the age-old principle that authority and power corrupts. Christ is immune to such corruption. My argument is that we see a glimpse of the Socialism enacted by Christ in Acts 2:42-47. But that type of Socialism can only work if the Christian principle of "esteeming you brother higher than yourself" has a one-hundred percent participation rate, which can only occur during the rule of absolute Goodness. During Christ's reign, all his citizens will esteem their brethren higher than themselves, making Socialism, or the redistribution of wealth, viable.

Back to politics, there are even some Socialists who acknowledge its flaws. Orwell, who was a Democratic Socialist, believed that a Democratic Body mediating Socialism was the answer. He eloquently defined the issues with the typical mediation of Socialism with his book Animal Farm. With Socialism, it will not be long before the pigs governing us will be behaving just like the supposed tyrants of Capitalism. So, with Socialism, instead of the owner of a corporation gaining power through the accumulation of wealth by enticing Americans to buy their products, politicians will gain power by exploiting citizens with offers of more governmental perks (like a cheap public option in healthcare), making citizens more and more dependent upon government, and creating more and more government oversight agencies and regulatory entities, justifying the imposition of more and more taxes on the people to fund these institutions After all, expansion of government requires the expansion of their ways and means.

How much power are you willing to delegate to the Federal Government before you start having reservations about their intentions? And how do you justify giving the Federal Government any power that isn't delegated to it already by the Constitution?

According to our Constitution, the purpose of the Federal Government, outside of foreign affairs, is to maintain national infrastructure. Of course, that idea has been twisted and perverted until that has come to mean almost anything. During Colonial times, it simply meant maintaining a federal highway system to accommodate the exportation of goods between states.

A few Constitutional experts I have read suggest the founders knew that American society was going to be based on a free market, which is Capitalism with a twist. With raw Capitalism, the fear some folks have is quite correct. There can potentially be companies that can rise to a monopoly, and then on to power where they essentially become a aristocracy, a ruling class of economic elites. But the structure of the American system is one where that scenario is quite impossible, or at least very unlikely. Yes, companies can become large, but there is nothing wrong with that. Anyone providing a product or service that is in demand should not be restricted from success.

Take Microsoft for example. It is a huge company because it offers products in demand. But they cannot shut down any other company through a mere assertion of authority. They cannot stop Apple Computer, or any of the other computer company from competing with them, and Microsoft cannot stop us from buying their competitors' products instead of their own.

Also, as big as a company gets, there success is still wholly dependent upon their patrons. And when you combine a free-market with a free-press who can put their finger on any corruption or shady business practices within a company; alert and decisive patrons can, and will, pull their patronage away from that company, and take their business elsewhere.

For example, should the free-press investigate and find corruption within Microsoft, it can relay that to the people, and the people will essentially boycott them by migrating to the Operating Systems and software offered by other companies. That is why I was against the auto bailout. If the American Auto companies were guilty of half the indictments leveled against them by the press, then they should have just reported it, and let their patrons render judgment. The government should have never been involved. If GM is involved in business that I deem inappropriate, then let me render judgment by not buying their products. When enough people start this, it will affect their bottom line, and they will either change their policies to accommodate their customers, or go out of business. To accommodate demand (of both jobs and products) should they go out of business, new auto companies will arise, and existing one's will expand, and absorb any job loss or product inventory reduction produced by GM's failure. That is how our markets are supposed to regulate itself, and would regulate itself if the government would stay out of it.

Anyway, back to the founders, what they were trying to do was tell the Federal Government, "You're job, domestically, is to essentially grease the path for free trade, without actually interfering with it."

In other words, don't ignore it, but don't interfere either. It is a theme that pervades the cult phenomenon television series, Firefly. The main character, Malcolm Reynolds, says, "That is what governments are for. They ignore, or interfere, equally." And at the beginning of the series' subsequent movie, Serenity, River Tam tells her teacher that the issue with government is that they "meddle". That is precisely what I fear. A government that meddles where it ought not be meddling. But for a reason I cannot grasp, liberals tend to believe the Federal Government has every right to meddle, when according to our Constitution, they do not. They are not supposed to do anything not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

I understand about being political neutrality. But still, one must have an underlying philosophy. I suggest you go to NolanChart.com and take the test.

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

Here are my results...

It seems to be fairly accurate, I am a slightly right leaning Libertarian. I am far right on fiscal issues and center right on social issues. That makes me a solid Libertarian fiscally, and a Libertarian flirting with the Republican Party on social issues.

I am guessing you, my reader, prefers to look at every issue individually. That is fine. I do too. But there has to be a standard upon which you base your judgments. A plum line that remains static, and your judgments are in relation to that. My plum line in making political decisions in the Constitution, as I believe the founders had the absolute correct ideas toward the establishment of our country. The expansion of the Federal Government beyond its Constitutionally defined parameters is absolutely against the ideas of the founders. That is my underlying philosophy.

Here are the underlying philosophies to all four general political alignments. If you think the word "interference" is too invasive of a term, you may substitute the word "involvement" in its place. Having such a strong Libertarian slant in my philosophies, I think the word "interference" is precisely the right word.

1. Libertarian - Minimal government interference with both social and fiscal issues.

2. Liberal (Democrats) - Minimal to moderate government interference with social issue, but moderate to maximum government interference with fiscal issues.

3. Conservative (Republicans) - Minimal to moderate government interference with fiscal issues, but moderate to maximum interference with social issues.

4. Statist - Maximum government interference with both social and fiscal issues.

I have a hard time believing there is any such thing as a honest Centrist. A centrist will essentially believe that the government is doing everything exactly right, and that it has achieved a balance in political ideology. Do you know anyone who believes that?

I am guessing that if you are a part of Generation Y, or any subsequent generation, you will pass on taking the quiz. I have noticed that Generation-Y, and all subsequent generations, do not want a title. It is the earmark of their entire generation to resist being labeled. It makes me wonder what they check on the "race" section of applications. Do they check "other", and then write in, "Depends on the situation"? It is sometimes quite funny to watch them vehemently resist being labeled. I sometimes wonder if they even dare call themselves "human".

I think that generation believes that once labeled, they must adhere and are no longer permitted to think outside the boundaries of that label. That is wrong. I am a Christian, but there are times where its paradoxes and apparent catch-22's makes Christianity seem very fallacious in its ideas. But, when I wasn't a practicing believer, there were times when Christianity seemed very sensible, and contained relevant and the objective truth in matters. Having a title doesn't mean one cannot have an opinion outside the box. It just indicative of what their general underlying philosophy is. Can one have a political alignment without a title to suit it? And will they abandon that philosophy once someone invents a title for them?

In fairness, I will link you to an article called A Statist View of the Constitution, where the opposite idea presents itself that the Constitution is fluid, , not static, and should change. That idea is nonsensical, in my estimation. A Constitution that can be engineered and reconfigured to match current head of state's political views is exactly the same as not having a Constitution at all.

Thank God for Judge Andrew Napolitano

2009-08-11T05:09:00.000-07:00

Facebook readers can read this original blog post here

If ever there was any political commentator who matched my own political philosophies, it is Judge Andrew Napolitano. Here is a speech he gave at a tea party in Ohio on August 1.

Notice the flag, which represents the second U. S. Revolution.

Part 1

Part 2

The Relation of Tolkien's Writings and Christianity

2009-08-06T08:39:00.000-07:00

Facebook friends, click here to read this on my blog.

Yesterday, I visited a local used bookstore. While browsing, I happened across their fantasy section. It was very diverse. The books were arranged alphabetically by their authors. There were a few exceptions. Among these were entire shelves completely devoted to C. S. Lewis, and J. R. R. Tolkien.

Now it is no secret that The Lord of the Rings is my favorite book. I absolutely love it. It is spiced with the flavors of every literary genre, and contains depth of plot not typical in the fantasy genre.

Looking at those shelves, I was amazed at the fantasy literature I haven't read. I have always fancied myself a fan of fantasy. But, in truth, I suppose I am not. I have read more contemporary fantasy in the past, and I think it lacks something that is, in my estimation, a required component in within fantasy. It lacks what I call, "integration". Let me explain what I mean.

Most of today's fantasy books contain simple plots. There is an antagonist and a protagonist, all at odds with each other. The antagonist is usually someone who has turned malevolent from some abuse or neglect of society, and obviously has the stronger influence, making the protagonist the underdog in the conflict. In the end, the protagonist fends off the antagonist through more subtle tactics that involve virtue and strength of character. Such scenarios, thrown into a gothic of medieval environment filled with otherworldly entities, constitutes the status quo of fantasy literature today. The plot is one that can be easily adapted, without much deviation in the actual components or individuals, to primitive society, modern society, or even to the more advanced societies of science fiction.

Tolkien's story is certainly distinct from this. His story does have the proper "integration". His story would be hard to adapt to another genre. His antagonist is a force wholly otherworldly. Reading his book is both entertaining, informative, and a study in sociology. From the organic and primitive hobbits, to Rohan, a culture seemingly stuck at an intermediate stage of social advancement. The elves, who are both powerful and graceful, skilled in all manner of crafts, warriors, and so effeminate in appearance that their males often resemble their females, stand in stark contrast to the dwarfs, who are encumbered by physical limitations, though very strong, and so masculine their females resemble their males. Dwarfs and elves are also at different ends of the spectrum in regards their materialistic ambitions. Dwarfs are greedy, and elves desire only knowledge.

The people of Gondor stand as a neutrality of sorts. Certainly the military force of Middle-Earth, it represents a beacon of light. Their culture is a civilized one, who embraces every technological advance offered to them. Unlike Rohan, Gondor's buildings and society is an advanced one where the primitive is often supplanted by the modern. But it is also the historical center of Middle-Earth, and serves as the culmination of all the culture in Arda.

There are other finer points of interest. Elves, who tend to be intelligent and cultured, also tend to be in tune with their environment. They are friends to trees, and other living things. Orcs, by perplexing relief, are less intelligent and less cultured. Their society tends to be one of industry and competition. This type of society is, by nature, exploitative of the environment. Living primarily in industrialized areas all my life, I can see from whence Tolkien was drawing inspiration when he designed the Orcs as technologically advanced in the implementation of industry. Tolkien disliked the uprooting of the natural landscape to accommodate our industrial needs. Orcs also completely lack finesse, in favor of raw power. And the environment fuels this raw power. It should be noted that Orcs were once elves, corrupted by Melkor, the fallen Ainur who is the original otherworldly antagonist to the entire landscape of Middle Earth.

It is with great interest that almost every Christian book I read today will reference either Lewis' or Tolkien's myth to make a point. Is it because both Lewis and Tolkien were Christian? Is it because of the Christian undertones (which are profoundly more subtly embedded in Tolkien) that lay in both stories.

Living in the Bible Belt, it was generally taught during my adolescence, in my circle of Christians that fantasy literature was off limits to a sincere Christian. Supposedly because it references to many elements expressly forbidden to the ancient Hebrews, and consequently, Christians. Things like wizards, witchcraft, mythological creatures, and the unbridled use of one's imagination. Tolkien steers around many of these reservations by making subtle differences in our definitions and his definitions. For example, wizards, and their "magic", are as integrated into the landscape as humans. Magic isn't some otherwordly, and expressly forbidden, art used to manipulate our reality. In Tolkien's world, magic is just as much part of the landscape as water and soil. In his world, a wizard isn't a human who decides to study magical arts, but a whole race of beings delivered to Middle Earth by its primary deity (Iluvatar), and are known as the Istari. In other words, wizards aren't human, though they share many of the human frailties as well as human in appearance. Regular humans, generally speaking, do not possess magical attributes in Tolkien's world.

I think it is a shame. The cultural and sociological aspects within The Lord of the Rings is one that could benefit Christians if studied. Understanding the diversities within the various societies brings the genius of Tolkien into full light.

How does the elves' synergy with the environment provide a stark contrast to the Orcs who exploit their environment to progress and expand their industrial demands?

How does the primitive society of hobbits continue to flourish in spite of their deliberate naivety and apathy to the troubles beyond their own borders, and in spite of remaining true to the most primordial means of existence?

Does it surprise you that Rohan, who has its own unique culture, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the society of Norse mythology, maintains a strained relationship with their culturally diverse and socially elite neighbor, Gondor?

The idea of good vs. evil in Tolkien's myth is closer to Christianity than most contemporary works of fantasy, in my opinion. The source of evil is otherworldly. It cannot exist on its own, but subsists on perversions of things that were originally good by design. The strategy for overcoming this evil lies in a amalgamation of unity, faith, and the honest efforts of all who hate the evil. It requires believing for the impossible, and placing the outcome into the sovereign will of a divine power believed to be benevolent. It is the story of a king who chose a life of humility and exile in service to his people instead of just asserting power and authority, assuming his throne, and serving transparently from lofty heights.

The character conflicts are too numerous to list here. To name just a few, Boromir's patriotism urges him to assume a power he knows can only destroy, to preserve his nation. Frodo, who refuses to forsake the evil he is sworn to destroy must have the body part the evil is attached to severed before the evil can be completely abandoned. And Gollum, whose natural life is prolonged by assuming possession of the evil, but the prolongation of life only prolongs his misery the evil has produced.

There is much a Christian can learn from these stories, and it is my sincere desire that Christians will acquaint themselves to it more zealously. It is a worthy read. Lewis' Narnia is as well, but it was written for children. Tolkien writes for adults in his myth. You will be surprised at the level of depth into the human condition he explores. Those who really know Jesus Christ, who know what it is like to have your life intrinsically embedded in His, who knows what it is like to have Him wake you in the middle of the night with whisperings in your ear, you will see things in this myth that will amaze you. So, if you are a Christian, after your Bible studies, clear your mind with Tolkien's myth. Start with The Hobbit for necessary backstory.

Engage your mind, and happy reading!

Is God Judging America?

2009-07-16T12:05:00.000-07:00

If you are reading this on Facebook, feel free to read it on my blog here.

That is a question I recently asked a group of Christians on an internet forum. The answers were varied. Some said that God no longer judges nations in a corporate sense. Others say that the physical nation of Israel is the only nation under God's divine protection. And many agree that America is being, or is about to be, punished by God.

Most churches and Christians who believe God is punishing America as a nation believe He is doing so due to the rampant sexual abominations and injustices such as abortion. Others say that even if these sins ceased that we'd still be under judgment since we cannot stand justified before God as a nation with anything less than a 100% Christian population. Others call for the "Ninevah" approach of corporate repentance, but if memory serves me correctly, Ninevah had 100% participation. Is that an intrinsic possibility in America?

Now, while that is very interesting. The only problem is that the percentage of people who call themselves Christian hasn't deviated a great deal in the last 100 years. But society's norms have deviated from the Christian standard to the secular standard in leaps and bounds. Shouldn't society's norms tend to follow the majority of that particular society's religious conviction? It is common sense really, if the majority of society thinks murder is wrong, shouldn't murder really be a non-issue in that society, except for the occasional loony going nuts every so often.

To say we have lost God's favor on our nation assumes that we once had it. We cannot lose something we never had. But I am betting that we never had a nation that was fully, 100% Christian. So, in my mind, that argument breaks down. It is quite apparent with our leadership in the world (and other factors) in the last century that we indeed did have God's favor as a nation. And the dwindling away of our sovereignty and exceptionalism tells me that God is slowly withdrawing His hand of preservation and power. Those two things were, in my view, indicative of God's favor, in the case of Israel in Old Testament times, and indicative of us in the recent past.

When churches claim that our current calamities are God's judgment, the evidence they cite is that America's societal norms are profoundly deviating from God's prescription. Societal acceptance of biblically defined abominations like abortion and homosexuality are their favorites. This acceptance was a dead issue 100 years ago. These sins were, I am certain, still committed in secret back then. But society didn't accept them. Homosexuality, abortion, and even pre-marital sex carried a stygma. Today, society condones such actions.

What changed in the last 100 years that has convinced some Evangelicals and Catholics that God's judgment on America is nigh at hand?

For me, it isn't so much that society accepts, and in some cases condones, such abominations. Sin has always existed. I think it is God withdrawing His hand of protection and preservation because America at large is simply telling God we do not want Him to be part of our corporate society. Even Christians think this. We want Him in our coat pockets so we can take Him out and talk to Him, ask Him for things, and feel good about ourselves. But we don't want His influence in our society as a whole. Taking prayer out of schools is hard evidence of this. God, once again, is no longer the great Orchestrator, and is perceived as the great Interferer.

So part of the responsibility I lay at the doorstep of the Church itself. Judgment begins at the house of God. I think the Church has lost much of her way, and wants an ally where she is offered either a master or a judge. One of the many indictments I have against the church is they all want to cease to be an earthbound entity of strangers and pilgrims whose home lies elsewhere in reality, and they want to establish their own little controlling aristocracy on Earth. It leads to paralysis of free thought, and gradually its adherents become pacified with only the most superficial doctrines, leaving the depths of Christ unexplored and unclaimed. To put it in Scriptural terms, "The salt hath lost its savor." How can any nation maintain the moral high ground with such an impotent Church backing it up?

Ah, but we'll discuss the Church another day. Today we are discussing national judgment. I apologize for deviating from the original topic, but I don't take back anything I said.

I think if there is anything to this, then there has to be a defining standard. We cannot know what is wrong until we know what is right. We cannot call a line crooked until we know what a straight line looks like. And if what is occurring is God's judgment, what is to be done to resolve it? How do we straighten the crooked line?

There is one Scripture that I think applies . The Bible says that when the wicked rules, the people mourn (Ref). I think the implication is fairly clear. I don't believe the wicked mentioned here is necessarily the political leaders. I think it is the prevalent ideologies in a particular society.

Now why would the people mourn if sinful ideologies grants them all the liberties they supposedly crave? Because it isn't about the sin. As I said, sin has always been present. It is when the approval of sin becomes the preeminent philosophy of society. When the previous norm becomes viewed as puritanical, and the perversion becomes the new normal state. I don't want to stray too deep into politics, but unless I am mistaken, there is a bill in congress now that will make it illegal for churches to say anything about homosexuality (s. 1390), and even pedophilia. We cannot call it sinful. Pedophilia will be a valid sexual "orientation". Can you remember when homosexuality was not an "orientation" but a "preference"? I can.

In fact, on this road, pedophilia and bestiality will soon supplant homosexuality as the new societal norm. Sex between consenting adults, regardless of gender, will be considered the puritanical view. I use sex as a means to illustrate, but it certainly goes beyond sexuality. Consider abortion. While pro-lifers fight the battle against late term abortions, early and mid term abortions become acceptable societal norms. Women seeking early and mid-term abortions barely meet with any resistance today. When post birth abortions come on the scene (and as heinous as it sounds, I firmly believe they will), and the pro-life movement gears up to fight that, late term abortions will then gain society's commendation.

The progression is apparent.

Our grandmothers cringe at our young girls' complete lack of discretion and modesty. These girls wear clothing to church that is less modest than what was worn to beaches a few decades ago. Our grandfathers do the same when they see our young boys making babies, but not fathering them except at the order of the courts.

So it isn't really political. It is when the preeminent ideology contradicts God's moral standard, that is when I think a nation loses it's favor with God, and as a consequence, God's blessing. There are many challenges to my view. Feel free to leave a civil comment as to why, or why not, you think much or all of what we are seeing is God's judgment. When leaving a comment, brevity is the key. After all, if the Bard is correct, and brevity is the soul of wit, then it stands to reason that loquaciousness must be the soul of a dimwit.

Happy Birthday America

2009-07-04T17:16:00.000-07:00

It is 8:15 P.M. on July 4, 2009. I am sitting on my front porch, listening to a party three houses down, and another one can be heard from over a ridge at a local motorcycle shop. My neighbor's party must be primarily teeny-boppers, as I have heard nothing but modern pop music, and I can hear a very strange live rendition of "Sweet Home Alabama" coming from the cycle shop.

Another neighbor is lapping their house on a small ATV.

And since it is the fourth, and we are fast approaching dusk, I am hearing fireworks pop all around me, at various distances.

Today's society seems to be a strange one indeed. Being politically informed, I see our liberties being taken away from us little by little by our political leaders. Worse yet, a very select few people seem informed, and even less seem concerned. It is very troubling, because I know that our situation will continue to deteriorate until the masses educate themselves, unify, and mobilize efforts to quell the political wrangling taking place today.

I sometimes wonder what our forefathers would say if they saw The United States today. Would they find it as disconcerting as I do? What would they suggest? So, for her birthday, I am going to make six suggestions as what needs to be done to retain our level of greatness and exceptionalism. These are only six among many potential actions, and I offer none of them as cure-all solutions. I just think these things should happen for the betterment of our society.

Move election day to April 16.
Create and implement a litmus test on the subject of American government one must pass before they can vote.
Implement a flat tax.
Implement honest and true transparency in government.
Make sure the final copy of the full text of new legislative bills are submitted, approved, and posted online where all the House of Representatives, Senators, and the American Public can read, and scrutinize, two weeks before any voting occurs.
Make sure that every federally elected official has, in addition to all his experience and education, held a post-college, blue-collar position for at least five consecutive years, so they may learn to understand the true value of a dollar.

Real America

2009-06-10T14:00:00.000-07:00

I need to rant a moment to Conservatives.

People like us are politically savvy. We understand the apparent dangers of government getting too big. We discuss these things on these forums and on talk radio shows.

But I have made a disconcerting discovery. The average person doesn't care. Political awareness is no longer the norm, but politics has been reduced to a studious hobby reserved only for those who are thus inclined. Voting for the guy who can make the most lavish promises is the new norm. Political awareness and proficiency is no longer required.

Most people are only thinking about their job, and about whether or not they are going to be able to pay their bills and keep their home. If government intervention and regulation means they keep their job, that is what they are going to pull for. They don't understand that such government involvement is a prelude to a Orwellian society. They don't care.

They don't know what the words "liberal" and "conservative" even means. They have no idea what the political spectrum or the Nolan Chart is. It isn't relevant to their lives.

That is why Obama's approval numbers are so high. People have genuine hope in him, and are not concerned with what lies years ahead of us.

You cannot convince these people that our healthcare system being run by a government bureaucracy is a bad, bad, bad thing. They only see how expensive it is right now, along with the idea that some people do not have medical care available to them. They think something needs to be done, and the government is the only one they regard as powerful enough to bring about reform.

You cannot convince them that letting GM fail as any other unsuccessful company will fail is a good thing compared to government taking it over. All they see is that the government will, as supposed, preserve many of the jobs that would otherwise be lost. In vain would you explain to them that GM under government management is like keeping a body alive through life support, that would die otherwise. It may have a pulse, but it won't be a potent contributor to the free market. In fact, it will only make it difficult for other car companies to compete, since they are competing against a taxpayer subsidized company now.

In summary, these people don't care about big or small government. Most have never read the Constitution! They don't understand that the government is supposed to be on a leash, not running loose devouring every corporate entity that suits their fancy.

I guess one of my little quips is still valid. Politics isn't about truth, it is about perception.

Is there any hope of getting conservatism into our government again? Realistically, is there any? Is it even possible at this point to rein our government back in within the bounds of the Constitution?

Would someone please explain to me what exactly we Conservatives are attempting to accomplish? I am not sure any more. There is a divide even among conservatives on how conservative is too conservative. Should modern day conservatism be reduced to what would have been considered centrist views by Buckley and Reagan? Should we, like most of the third parties, stick to our principles, and consequently lose forever the majority, never win an election, and become an impotent force in politics?

The simple fact is that we are not losing elections because the majority adhere to liberal policies. We are losing elections because voters are willfully ignorant of political science, vote based on oration and demeanor of the candidates, and are too lazy to read a book or two to become informed.

Personally, I cannot understand how anyone who is informed about political world history would want to rely on the federal government for anything. We are afraid of our government... But shouldn't that be the other way around.

One last question. Why isn't there uproar and outrage occurring in DC over over this obvious... OBVIOUS... Socialization and Nationalization? I see Conservatives writing books, and giving speeches. Well, NEWSFLASH!!! The voters don't read!!! The voters don't watch speeches!!! They watch Jon and Kate, American Idol, and Dancing with the Stars. They work in repetitive, mundane jobs, and their only concern is their next paycheck. The million dollar question is, how do Conservatives reach these people. It is super easy for liberals to reach them. All they have to do is offer handouts and lavish promises. Problem solved for them. Conservatism faces bigger challenges.

But we Conservatives are faced with the tedious task of saying, in essence, "Elect us, and we will actually do LESS for you.", since diminished government is the core philosophy of Conservatism, and then we are faced with the burden of proving that philosophy is better for the social and financial health of all our citizens. How is this to be accomplished?

Here's to hoping a well bred Conservative here can enlighten me.

Jon & Kate Plus 8 - My thoughts

2009-05-28T10:20:00.000-07:00

I must admit, this is a show I only watched sporadically. Being in the den with my wife while she watches her shows is when I'd usually catch it. I don't understand reality television, so this type of show generally isn't my forte.

But I did get acquainted with the show enough to understand the rub the current season is having on its fans. In four years, fans have essentially watched the Gosselin's young sextuplets go from infancy into almost their school years.

And I must concede, I think Aiden is an adorable child. You can see he is going to grow into a little geek, a title that used to be derogatory, but is now practically synonymous with fame and fortune.

This show did bear some redeeming characteristics from other reality television programs. For starters, the situations shown were not fake or manufactured. They depicted real life. Birthdays, trips to the doctor, trips to the dentist, vacations, picnics, and general domestic situations marked the average episode. No fake drama. No one to vote off the island (Now there's an unfortunate choice of words). No back-stabbing. It was all real.

Regarding the popular scandal associated with the show, in all honesty, I saw something like this coming. One doesn't put their entire family into the public eye without experiencing the cruel consequences of public life. And Jon obviously didn't have the constitution to deal with it. Jon's mistake is obvious, and has been exploited enough by the press. His deed is done. As of now, I can't really blame Jon. He messed up, but Kate is not helping matters. The question I now ask is why Kate is pushing so hard to keep this show on the air? Doesn't she realize her family is in a crisis and needs to deal with this privately? This is what I don't understand. What is she hoping to accomplish in leaving the show on for another season? Hopefully, SURELY, she doesn't regard the show, which was most likely the catalyst in destroying their marriage, as the very mechanism she needs to preserve it. Does she think that Jon will do the right thing on camera, where he might not otherwise? This tells me she does not take Jon's opinion seriously. He has voiced his objection to the show before. What in the world is she thinking by continuing the show through this ordeal?

Another issue I take is that the show has always went out of the way to propound the Gosselin's Christianity. This has become a reproach to the faith. A reproach that could easily be resolved by not continuing the series, and simply releasing a press-conference saying that the show is canceled until further notice. As long as the show is running, they will have paparazzi and tabloid articles to deal with. They need to purge themselves from this and deal with their domestic problems as a family. If they are indeed Christians, they do not need their dirty laundry aired in public. They need to deal with this like Christians, which certainly involves turning the cameras off.

Besides, once the public loses interest, which they will inevitably do after the show is off for a season, the pop-culture's press will too.

What about all the children, young girls with whom, perhaps, Kate was their only pattern for being a mother, or young boys, who was learning from Jon how to be a father? They have destroyed their confidence. Whether this family maintains cohesion, or explodes into a messy divorce, one thing is for certain, it needs to go off the air! We don't need this type of dysfunction perpetuated into subsequent generations, especially under the umbrella of Christianity.

Farm Town

2009-05-18T04:56:00.000-07:00

Note: Facebook readers, click here to read this on my blog.

I have never been a fan of apps on social sites. I tried a few on MySpace, and found them to be more frustrating than helpful or entertaining. I tried YoVille on MySpace, but found that attaining any type of status was very difficult.

But recently, I have discovered a game on Facebook called FARMTOWN. It is a very addictive and very fun game.

You begin the game with a little money, and a little land. The premise is to plow fields and sow seeds, wait, and then harvest when your crop is ready. You gain experience points, which unlocks opportunities to more profitable crops and better structures.

Money is in the form of coins. Plowing costs 20 coins. Various seeds cost different amounts of coins. For example, you plow a field for 20 coins, and then sow grape seeds in that field for 20 coins. You have invested a total of 40 coins into a field of grapes. When they are ready for harvesting, you can direct harvest them and gain 50 coins, store them and gain 56 coins, or hire someone to harvest them and receive 67 coins.

Over time, and as you gain experience, you unlock more profitable crops. Most crops requires waiting 1, 2, or 3 days before they are ready to harvest. And once they are ready for harvest, you have approximately the same amount of time to harvest them before they go bad. Days are based on 20 hours. So if strawberries take 1 day to be ready for harvest, then after they've been ready for 1 day, they will go bad if not harvested. Want to make a little money while you wait on your crops to mature? Simply go to the market (or any area people gather) and allow those who want to hire their crops out to hire you.

Onions are the most profitable, followed by peas and sunflowers. There is a well-maintained "cheat sheet" which can be found on Google Spreadsheets. Click here to see it.

The player can also plant trees, which has a very low profit margin, but once planted, never costs the player another dime. Also, they only bear fruit once every 4 days.

Buildings, animals, paths, and other items currently serve no purpose other than aesthetic, but there are rumors that soon they will benefit the player some way.

The game runs a little slow on older computers, but there are ways to speed things up. In the Preferences menu (the menu marked with a little crescent wrench), You can freeze animals, hide trees, and hide buildings. All three of these options will speed up the process. Also, the game runs in Adobe Flash, so right click on the play area, go to Quality, and go to Low. This helps. One last thing you can do to speed things up is play full-screen. I know this sounds like a contradiction in terms, but there is something about playing in the browser that seems to slow the game down. Going full screen removes the ability to chat with other players' avatars, but that generally isn't an issue. In preferences, there are other options to facilitate your personal taste. There are also plenty of instruction videos here.

Farm Town is not perfect. There are plenty of bugs. Below are some of my recommendations to Slashkey, the game's developers.

At present time, it is pretty narrow. You simply plow, plant, harvest, sell, and then buy. You accumulate wealth and assets, and just continue to plant and harvest. They should look into adding other functions and activities.
Make buildings like barns and houses into their own sub structures with rooms and furniture, like in YoVille or SmallWorlds. Make decorating the inside of your house and barns yet another incentive for players to accumulate wealth in the game. The larger the house, the more rooms to decorate. Make farm equipment (like tractors and plows) available to store in the barn. Make stables in the barn to store livestock when not grazing.
Make a livestock market, where livestock must be maintained and marketed. Mandate that so much grazing space be given per head to maintain the value of livestock.
The avatar makes harvesting an infuriating activity. It walks all over the place attempting to get where it wants to go. And when it gets there, it is usually blocking you from clicking on the next field you want to harvest. Make it where the player can harvest while the avatar stays put in a neutral position, somewhere out of the way. A more intuitive interface is needed.
Harvesting trees that are close together can be tricky. Make an option where only trees that are ready to harvest are visible, and they go invisible once harvested.
Server interruptions are rather frequent, especially if there is a lot going on. This needs to be resolved.
Lots of slowdown on older computers when there is a lot happening. Toggle graphics quality to go even lower until better play control is achieved on older systems.
Allow permanent hires. A list of friends who do not have to be dynamically hired every time, who can go to your farm and harvest your crops at their leisure.
Allow plowing of blocks of fields along with the "1 field at a time" plowing. I am thinking a 2 x 2 plot with spaces between fields removed, that would cost 80 coins. It would cut down down on player time, server workload, and a gaggle of other issues. Also, bulk sewing would be a neat idea too.

Will all these issues, it is understood that this game is still in beta. They are working the kinks. Thus far, they have done a mighty fine job.

This is a screen capture of my farm as of June 7, 2009. The appearance of farms is constantly fluctuating, and I will update this graphic as the appearance of my farm changes. As of June 7, changes were made to FarmTown, with even more upgrades promised. We now have flowers, which must be planted and maintained. It is still unclear how the flowers function or their benefits, but I am sure we will soon be enlightened. We also have RIVERS, which is awesome, especially the water mill. Until structures have a function, there is really no reason to acquire them outside of decorating your farm, which is a blast all by itself, and is much of the reason the game is so addicting.

Happy farming!!! :)

Liberty and Tyranny - My Review

2009-04-23T05:22:00.000-07:00

Tuesday morning, I was sitting at a kitchen table across from one of the most brilliant men I know. He is in his seventies, made his living driving a truck, a military man, traveled all over the U.S. and even internationally, and has read voraciously all his life. He is a staunch Conservative. We were drinking coffee and, as usual, discussing politics.

He asked if I had heard about Chavez giving Obama a book. I told him I had, and that I found it outrageous that Obama would accept a book with anti-American notions in it.

But he raised his finger (as he normally does when he is about to make a point), "It is a diversion. It makes it easy for the big 3 media to report on the contents of this book, and report the fact that it is currently in the number 2 spot, making everyone run out to buy it just so they can read what Obama is reading. That puts the book's ideas fresh in America's mind. That way, the ideas in the book that is currently number 1 are, as they suppose, being diminished."

The number 1 book is called Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin. My friend, whom we will call PJ for the moment, told me that bookstores are having a terrible time keeping it on their shelves. I was intrigued. I had not heard of the book before then, even on talk radio. So I went to a bookstore just to see if what I had heard was true. Sure enough, two unscheduled orders had already been placed to restock the book on their shelves. I bought their last copy myself.

This book is not for fence-straddlers, centrists, or any other with a "middle of the road" political philosophy.

I will not spoil the book for you. What I will do is recommend it.

The book amazed me in different ways. I was amazed at how little Levin used the word "Republican" in association with Conservatism, echoing my own idea that the Republican party is no longer the party for Conservatives (1). Early on, he replaced the usage of the word "liberal" with the word "statist", which I thought was a good move. He opened up with a crash course on American History and the Constitution, which is always a good place to start when expounding Conservative ideology. He hammers especially hard on the idea that Federal Government should be limited.

The only place where I disagreed with Levin was in his affirmation of The Patriot Act. I think the act does forfeit our liberty in the name of security. I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I want Big Brother listening to my telephone conversations or reading my e-mails. For more about his, in detail, I recommend A Nation of Sheep by Andrew Napolitano.

I was also amazed that he said true Conservatives should not want revolution. Levin seems to prefer the word reformation. I can live with that. In religious matters, a reformation generally occurs when the church has become so weighed down with peripheral ideologies that it needs to shake itself free, find again its fundamentals, and reacquaint itself with, to put it in the language of Scripture, its first love.

Isn't that what Conservatism needs? Centrists on both sides have fuzzied the line between Liberalism and Conservatism. Both Clinton and Bush, representing 16 straight years of centrists ideas in the Whitehouse, fuzzied the line. Now, no one knows exactly what being a Conservative means. We need to shake ourselves free and reacquant ourselves with true Conservatism. We better, because you can rest assured that our current president is no centrist. He is far-left, and unless Conservatives rally and remove the democratic majorities in 2010, we are looking at being profoundly closer to Socialism and Globalism before 2012. Obama is massing armies of youth LINK. He is wanting to repeal the 22nd amendment removing term limits on the president LINK. And he has even worked with Janet Napolitano to take foundational Conservative Principles, and associate them with domestic terrorism LINK. I made a funny picture about that. You can see it in My Facebook photos, or here. Dare I mention Obama's threats to revive The Fairness Doctrine or introduce the Freedom of Choice Act? What more should a Conservative need to become motivated?

I think Levin's book is a perfect opportunity to do this. We should essentially unlearn what we have learned the last 16 years, and take it up fresh. Take Levin's book, along with some other research material, like perhaps Reagan and William Buckley, and Conservatism may be able to find its sea legs again.

I want to close on this thought. I love studying the Civil War. My favorite general in the Civil War was General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. When the Confederate Army was beaten down, their Officer was known to direct their attention to Jackson and say, "Look! There's General Jackson, standing like a stone wall. Rally behind the Virginians!" The battered and broken regiment would find new strength, reform their line, and once again become the Greek phalanx they were trained to be.

It could be that Levin is the Jackson of our time. He has provided us with the perfect springboard for such a Conservative Revival.

(1) Footnote - I currently believe that the Republican Party can never fully represent Conservative values, and that a true Conservative revival means the rise of a third political party into political viability. I recommend The Constitution Party. It is already the third largest political party in the United States. At any rate, however a Conservative revival is to manifest itself, I hope it means a return to the U.S. Constitution, in its original context.

Favorite Narnia Quotes

2009-04-20T18:11:00.000-07:00

Below is a small anthology of my favorite passages in The Chronicles of Narnia. Enjoy!

“Son,” said Aslan to the Cabby. “I have known you long. Do you know me?”
The Magician’s Nephew – Chapter 11

“My son, my son,” said Aslan. “I know. Grief is great. Only you and I in this land know that yet. Let us be good to one another.”
The Magician’s Nephew – Chapter 12

“I don't know why it should be me - I'm not a very clever horse.”
The Magician’s Nephew – Chapter 12

“Well, I do think someone might have arranged about our meals,” said Digory.
“I'm sure Aslan would have, if you'd asked him,” said Fledge.
“Wouldn't he know without being asked?” said Polly.
“I've no doubt he would,” said the Horse (still with his mouth full). “But I've a sort of idea he likes to be asked.”
The Magician’s Nephew – Chapter 12

“…But I cannot tell that to this old sinner, and I cannot comfort him either; he has made himself unable to hear my voice. If I spoke to him, he would hear only growlings and roarings. Oh Adam's sons, how cleverly you defend yourselves against all that might do you good! But I will give him the only gift he is still able to receive.”
He bowed his great head rather sadly, and breathed into the Magician's terrified face. “Sleep,” he said. “Sleep and be separated for some few hours from all the torments you have devised for yourself.”
The Magician’s Nephew – Chapter 14

“For the fruit always works - it must work - but it does not work happily for any who pluck it at their own will. If any Narnian, unbidden, had stolen an apple and planted it here to protect Narnia, it would have protected Narnia. But it would have done so by making Narnia into another strong and cruel empire like Charn, not the kindly land I mean it to be. And the Witch tempted you to do another thing, my son, did she not?”
“Yes, Aslan. She wanted me to take an apple home to Mother.”
“Understand, then, that it would have healed her; but not to your joy or hers. The day would have come when both you and she would have looked back and said it would have been better to die in that illness.”
The Magician’s Nephew – Chapter 14

…Polly added, “But we're not quite as bad as that world, are we, Aslan?”
“Not yet, Daughter of Eve,” he said. “Not yet. But you are growing more like it. It is not certain that some wicked one of your race will not find out a secret as evil as the Deplorable Word and use it to destroy all living things. And soon, very soon, before you are an old man and an old woman, great nations in your world will be ruled by tyrants who care no more for joy and justice and mercy than the Empress Jadis. Let your world beware. That is the warning.”
The Magician’s Nephew – Chapter 15

The Queen let another drop fall from her bottle on to the snow, and instantly there appeared a round box, tied with green silk ribbon, which, when opened, turned out to contain several pounds of the best Turkish Delight. Each piece was sweet and light to the very centre and Edmund had never tasted anything more delicious. He was quite warm now, and very comfortable.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 4

“They say Aslan is on the move - perhaps has already landed.”
And now a very curious thing happened. None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do; but the moment the Beaver had spoken these words everyone felt quite different. Perhaps it has sometimes happened to you in a dream that someone says something which you don't understand but in the dream it feels as if it had some enormous meaning - either a terrifying one which turns the whole dream into a nightmare or else a lovely meaning too lovely to put into words, which makes the dream so beautiful that you remember it all your life and are always wishing you could get into that dream again. It was like that now. At the name of Aslan each one of the children felt something jump in its inside. Edmund felt a sensation of mysterious horror. Peter felt suddenly brave and adventurous. Susan felt as if some delicious smell or some delightful strain of music had just floated by her. And Lucy got the feeling you have when you wake up in the morning and realize that it is the beginning of the holidays or the beginning of summer.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 7

“I've come at last,” said he. “She has kept me out for a long time, but I have got in at last. Aslan is on the move. The Witch's magic is weakening.” -Father Christmas
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 10

“Please - Aslan,” said Lucy, “can anything be done to save Edmund?”
“All shall be done,” said Aslan. “But it may be harder than you think.” And then he was silent again for some time. Up to that moment Lucy had been thinking how royal and strong and peaceful his face looked; now it suddenly came into her head that he looked sad as well. But next minute that expression was quite gone. The Lion shook his mane and clapped his paws together ("Terrible paws," thought Lucy, "if he didn't know how to velvet them!")
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 12

“You have forgotten to clean your sword,” said Aslan.
It was true. Peter blushed when he looked at the bright blade and saw it all smeared with the Wolf's hair and blood. He stooped down and wiped it quite clean on the grass, and then wiped it quite dry on his coat.
“Hand it to me and kneel, Son of Adam,” said Aslan. And when Peter had done so he struck him with the flat of the blade and said, “Rise up, Sir Peter Wolf's-Bane. And, whatever happens, never forget to wipe your sword.”
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 12

“I am sad and lonely. Lay your hands on my mane so that I can feel you are there and let us walk like that.”
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 14

And both the girls cried bitterly (though they hardly knew why) and clung to the Lion and kissed his mane and his nose and his paws and his great, sad eyes.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 14

“Let him first be shaved.”
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 14

“Oh, how can they?” said Lucy, tears streaming down her cheeks. “The brutes, the brutes!” for now that the first shock was over the shorn face of Aslan looked to her braver, and more beautiful, and more patient than ever.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrove – Chapter 14

“Oh, children,” said the Lion, “I feel my strength coming back to me. Oh, children, catch me if you can!” He stood for a second, his eyes very bright, his limbs quivering, lashing himself with his tail. Then he made a leap high over their heads and landed on the other side of the Table. Laughing, though she didn't know why, Lucy scrambled over it to reach him. Aslan leaped again. A mad chase began. Round and round the hill-top he led them, now hopelessly out of their reach, now letting them almost catch his tail, now diving between them, now tossing them in the air with his huge and beautifully velveted paws and catching them again, and now stopping unexpectedly so that all three of them rolled over together in a happy laughing heap of fur and arms and legs. It was such a romp as no one has ever had except in Narnia; and whether it was more like playing with a thunderstorm or playing with a kitten Lucy could never make up her mind. And the funny thing was that when all three finally lay together panting in the sun the girls no longer felt in the least tired or hungry or thirsty.
“And now,” said Aslan presently, “to business. I feel I am going to roar. You had better put your fingers in your ears.”
And they did. And Aslan stood up and when he opened his mouth to roar his face became so terrible that they did not dare to look at it. And they saw all the trees in front of him bend before the blast of his roaring as grass bends in a meadow before the wind.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 15

“Who are you?” he said, scarcely above a whisper.
“One who has waited long for you to speak,” said the Thing. Its voice was not loud, but very large and deep.
“Are you- are you a giant?” asked Shasta.
“You might call me a giant,” said the Large Voice. “But I am not like the creatures you call giants.”
The Horse and His Boy – Chapter 11

“I do not call you unfortunate,” said the Large Voice.
“Don't you think it was bad luck to meet so many lions?” said Shasta.
“There was only one lion,” said the Voice.
“What on earth do you mean? I've just told you there were at least two the first night, and-“
“There was only one: but he was swift of foot.”
“How do you know?”
“I was the lion.” And as Shasta gaped with open mouth and said nothing, the Voice continued. “I was the lion who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I was the lion who gave the Horses the new strength of fear for the last mile so that you should reach King Lune in time. And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to shore where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you.”
"Then it was you who wounded Aravis?"
"It was I"
"But what for?"
"Child," said the Voice, "I am telling you your story, not hers. I tell no one any story but his own."
"Who are you?" asked Shasta.
"Myself," said the Voice, very deep and low so that the earth shook: and again "Myself", loud and clear and gay: and then the third time "Myself", whispered so softly you could hardly hear it, and yet it seemed to come from all round you as if the leaves rustled with it.
The Horse and His Boy – Chapter 11

Then Hwin, though shaking all over, gave a strange little neigh, and trotted across to the Lion.
“Please,” she said, “you're so beautiful. You may eat me if you like. I'd sooner be eaten by you than fed by anyone else.”
“Dearest daughter,” said Aslan, planting a lion's kiss on her twitching, velvet nose, “I knew you would not be long in coming to me. Joy shall be yours.”
“Now, Bree,” he said, “you poor, proud frightened Horse, draw near. Nearer still, my son. Do not dare not to dare. Touch me. Smell me. Here are my paws, here is my tail, these are my whiskers. I am a true Beast.”
“Aslan,” said Bree in a shaken voice, “I'm afraid I must be rather a fool.”
“Happy the Horse who knows that while he is still young. Or the Human either…”
The Horse and His Boy – Chapter 14

“…Draw near, Aravis my daughter. See! My paws are velveted. You will not be torn this time.”
“This time, sir?” said Aravis.
“It was I who wounded you,” said Aslan. “I am the only lion you met in all your journeyings. Do you know why I tore you?”
“No, sir.”
“The scratches on your back, tear for tear, throb for throb, blood for blood, were equal to the stripes laid on the back of your stepmother's slave because of the drugged sleep you cast upon her. You needed to know what it felt like.”
The Horse and His Boy – Chapter 14

Aslan was gone. But there was a brightness in the air and on the grass, and a joy in their hearts,…
The Horse and His Boy – Chapter 15

“Aslan,” said Lucy, “you're bigger.”
“That is because you are older, little one,” answered he.
“Not because you are?”
“I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger.”
Prince Caspian – Chapter 10

“And now!” said Aslan in a much louder voice with just a hint of roar in it, while his tail lashed his flanks. “And now, where is this little Dwarf, this famous swordsman and archer, who doesn't believe in lions? Come here, son of Earth, come HERE!” - and the last word was no longer the hint of a roar but almost the real thing.
“Wraiths and wreckage!” gasped Trumpkin in the ghost of a voice. The children, who knew Aslan well enough to see that he liked the Dwarf very much, were not disturbed; but it was quite another thing for Trumpkin, who had never seen a lion before, let alone this Lion. He did the only sensible thing he could have done; that is, instead of bolting, he tottered towards Aslan.
Aslan pounced. Have you ever seen a very young kitten being carried in the mother cat's mouth? It was like that. The Dwarf, hunched up in a little, miserable ball, hung from Aslan's mouth. The Lion gave him one shake and all his armour rattled like a tinker's pack and then - heypresto - the Dwarf flew up in the air. He was as safe as if he had been in bed, though he did not feel so. As he came down the huge velvety paws caught him as gently as a mother's arms and set him (right way up, too) on the ground.
“Son of Earth, shall we be friends?” asked Aslan.
Prince Caspian – Chapter 11

“I say, Su, I know who they are.”
“Who?”
“The boy with the wild face is Bacchus and the old one on the donkey is Silenus. Don't you remember Mr Tumnus telling us about them long ago?”
“Yes, of course. But I say, Lu “
“What?”
“I wouldn't have felt safe with Bacchus and all his wild girls if we'd met them without Aslan.”
“I should think not,” said Lucy.
Prince Caspian – Chapter 11

She was at death's door, but when she opened her eyes and saw the bright, hairy head of the lion staring into her face, she did not scream or faint. She said, “Oh, Aslan! I knew it was true. I've been waiting for this all my life. Have you come to take me away?”
“Yes, Dearest,” said Aslan. “But not the long journey yet.” And as he spoke, like the flush creeping along the underside of a cloud at sunrise, the colour came back to her white face and her eyes grew bright and she sat up…
Prince Caspian – Chapter 14

“Welcome, Prince,” said Aslan. “Do you feel yourself sufficient to take up the Kingship of Narnia?”
“I - I don't think I do, Sir,” said Caspian. “I'm only a kid.”
“Good,” said Aslan. “If you had felt yourself sufficient, it would have been a proof that you were not…”
Prince Caspian – Chapter 15

“But what do you want with a tail?” asked Aslan.
“Sir,” said the Mouse, “I can eat and sleep and die for my King without one. But a tail is the honour and glory of a Mouse.”
“I have sometimes wondered, friend,” said Aslan, “whether you do not think too much about your honour.”
“Highest of all High Kings,” said Reepicheep, “permit me to remind you that a very small size has been bestowed on us Mice, and if we did not guard our dignity, some (who weigh worth by inches) would allow themselves very unsuitable pleasantries at our expense. That is why I have been at some pains to make it known that no one who does not wish to feel this sword as near his heart as I can reach shall talk in my presence about Traps or Toasted Cheese or Candles: no, Sir - not the tallest fool in Narnia”…
“Why have your followers all drawn their swords, may I ask?” said Aslan.
“May it please your High Majesty,” said the second Mouse, whose name was Peepicheek, “we are all waiting to cut off our own tails if our Chief must go without his. We will not bear the shame of wearing an honour which is denied to the High Mouse.”
“Ah!” roared Aslan. “You have conquered me. You have great hearts. Not for the sake of your dignity, Reepicheep, but for the love that is between you and your people, and still more for the kindness your people showed me long ago when you ate away the cords that bound me on the Stone Table (and it was then, though you have long forgotten it, that you began to be Talking Mice), you shall have your tail again.”
Prince Caspian – Chapter 15

“I was wishing that I came of a more honourable lineage.”
“You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,” said Aslan. “And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.”
Prince Caspian – Chapter 15

Eustace being undragoned

“Well, anyway, I looked up and saw the very last thing I expected: a huge lion coming slowly towards me. And one queer thing was that there was no moon last night, but there was moonlight where the lion was. So it came nearer and nearer. I was terribly afraid of it. You may think that, being a dragon, I could have knocked any lion out easily enough. But it wasn't that kind of fear. I wasn't afraid of it eating me, I was just afraid of it - if you can understand. Well, it came close up to me and looked straight into my eyes. And I shut my eyes tight. But that wasn't any good because it told me to follow it.”
“You mean it spoke?”
“I don't know. Now that you mention it, I don't think it did. But it told me all the same. And I knew I'd have to do what it told me, so I got up and followed it. And it led me a long way into the mountains. And there was always this moonlight over and round the lion wherever we went. So at last we came to the top of a mountain I'd never seen before and on the top of this mountain there was a garden - trees and fruit and everything. In the middle of it there was a well.
“I knew it was a well because you could see the water bubbling up from the bottom of it: but it was a lot bigger than most wells - like a very big, round bath with marble steps going down into it. The water was as clear as anything and I thought if I could get in there and bathe it would ease the pain in my leg. But the lion told me I must undress first. Mind you, I don't know if he said any words out loud or not.
“I was just going to say that I couldn't undress because I hadn't any clothes on when I suddenly thought that dragons are snaky sort of things and snakes can cast their skins. Oh, of course, thought I, that's what the lion means. So I started scratching myself and my scales began coming off all over the place. And then I scratched a little deeper and, instead of just scales coming off here and there, my whole skin started peeling off beautifully, like it does after an illness, or as if I was a banana. In a minute or two I just stepped out of it. I could see it lying there beside me, looking rather nasty. It was a most lovely feeling. So I started to go down into the well for my bathe.
“But just as I was going to put my feet into the water I looked down and saw that they were all hard and rough and wrinkled and scaly just as they had been before. Oh, that's all right, said I, it only means I had another smaller suit on underneath the first one, and I'll have to get out of it too. So I scratched and tore again and this underskin peeled off beautifully and out I stepped and left it lying beside the other one and went down to the well for my bathe.
“Well, exactly the same thing happened again. And I thought to myself, oh dear, how ever many skins have I got to take off? For I was longing to bathe my leg. So I scratched away for the third time and got off a third skin, just like the two others, and stepped out of it. But as soon as I looked at myself in the water I knew it had been no good.
“Then the lion said - but I don't know if it spoke – ‘You will have to let me undress you.’ I was afraid of his claws, I can tell you, but I was pretty nearly desperate now. So I just lay flat down on my back to let him do it.
“The very first tear he made was so deep that I thought it had gone right into my heart. And when he began pulling the skin off, it hurt worse than anything I've ever felt. The only thing that made me able to bear it was just the pleasure of feeling the stuff peel off. You know - if you've ever picked the scab off a sore place. It hurts like billy-oh but it is such fun to see it coming away.”
“I know exactly what you mean,” said Edmund.
“Well, he peeled the beastly stuff right off - just as I thought I'd done it myself the other three times, only they hadn't hurt - and there it was lying on the grass: only ever so much thicker, and darker, and more knobbly-looking than the others had been. And there was I as smooth and soft as a peeled switch and smaller than I had been. Then he caught hold of me - I didn't like that much for I was very tender underneath now that I'd no skin on - and threw me into the water. It smarted like anything but only for a moment. After that it became perfectly delicious and as soon as I started swimming and splashing I found that all the pain had gone from my arm. And then I saw why. I'd turned into a boy again. You'd think me simply phoney if I told you how I felt about my own arms. I know they've no muscle and are pretty mouldy compared with Caspian's, but I was so glad to see them.
“After a bit the lion took me out and dressed me –“
“Dressed you. With his paws?”
“Well, I don't exactly remember that bit. But he did somehow or other: in new clothes - the same I've got on now, as a matter of fact. And then suddenly I was back here. Which is what makes me think it must have been a dream.”
“No. It wasn't a dream,” said Edmund.
“Why not?”
“Well, there are the clothes, for one thing. And you have been - well, un-dragoned, for another.”
“What do you think it was, then?” asked Eustace.
“I think you've seen Aslan,” said Edmund.
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader – Chapter 7

On the next page she came to a spell ‘for the refreshment of the spirit’. The pictures were fewer here but very beautiful. And what Lucy found herself reading was more like a story than a spell. It went on for three pages and before she had read to the bottom of the page she had forgotten that she was reading at all. She was living in the story as if it were real, and all the pictures were real too.
When she had got to the third page and come to the end, she said, “That is the loveliest story I've ever read or ever shall read in my whole life. Oh, I wish I could have gone on reading it for ten years. At least I'll read it over again.”
But here part of the magic of the Book came into play. You couldn't turn back. The right-hand pages, the ones ahead, could be turned; the left-hand pages could not.
“Oh, what a shame!” said Lucy. “I did so want to read it again. Well, at least I must remember it. Let's see . . . it was about . . . about . . . oh dear, it's all fading away again.
“And even this last page is going blank. This is a very queer book. How can I have forgotten? It was about a cup and a sword and a tree and a green hill, I know that much. But I can't remember and what shall I do?”
And she never could remember; and ever since that day what Lucy means by a good story is a story which reminds her of the forgotten story in the Magician's Book.
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader – Chapter 10

But between them and the foot of the sky there was something so white on the green grass that even with their eagles' eyes they could hardly look at it. They came on and saw that it was a Lamb.
“Come and have breakfast,” said the Lamb in its sweet milky voice.
Then they noticed for the first time that there was a fire lit on the grass and fish roasting on it. They sat down and ate the fish, hungry now for the first time for many days. And it was the most delicious food they had ever tasted.
“Please, Lamb,” said Lucy, “is this the way to Aslan's country?”
“Not for you,” said the Lamb. “For you the door into Aslan's country is from your own world.”
“What!” said Edmund. “Is there a way into Aslan's country from our world too?”
“There is a way into my country from all the worlds,” said the Lamb; but as he spoke his snowy white flushed into tawny gold and his size changed and he was Aslan himself, towering above them and scattering light from his mane.
“Oh, Aslan,” said Lucy. “Will you tell us how to get into your country from our world?”
“I shall be telling you all the time,” said Aslan. “But I will not tell you how long or short the way will be; only that it lies across a river. But do not fear that, for I am the great Bridge Builder…”
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader – Chapter 16

“Please, Aslan,” said Lucy. “Before we go, will you tell us when we can come back to Narnia again? Please. And oh, do, do, do make it soon.”
“Dearest,” said Aslan very gently, “you and your brother will never come back to Narnia.”
“Oh, Aslan!!” said Edmund and Lucy both together in despairing voices.
“You are too old, children,” said Aslan, “and you must begin to come close to your own world now.”
“It isn't Narnia, you know,” sobbed Lucy. “It's you. We shan't meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?”
“But you shall meet me, dear one,” said Aslan.
“Are are you there too, Sir?” said Edmund.
“I am,” said Aslan. “But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.”
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader – Chapter 16

“If you're thirsty, you may drink.”
They were the first words she had heard since Scrubb had spoken to her on the edge of the cliff. For a second she stared here and there, wondering who had spoken. Then the voice said again, “If you are thirsty, come and drink,” and of course she remembered what Scrubb had said about animals talking in that other world, and realized that it was the lion speaking. Anyway, she had seen its lips move this time, and the voice was not like a man's. It was deeper, wilder, and stronger; a sort of heavy, golden voice. It did not make her any less frightened than she had been before, but it made her frightened in rather a different way.
“Are you not thirsty?” said the Lion.
“I'm dying of thirst,” said Jill.
“Then drink,” said the Lion.
“May I - could I - would you mind going away while I do?” said Jill.
The Lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl. And as Jill gazed at its motionless bulk, she realized that she might as well have asked the whole mountain to move aside for her convenience.
The delicious rippling noise of the stream was driving her nearly frantic.
“Will you promise not to - do anything to me, if I do come?” said Jill.
“I make no promise,” said the Lion.
Jill was so thirsty now that, without noticing it, she had come a step nearer.
“Do you eat girls?” she said.
“I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emperors, cities and realms,” said the Lion. It didn't say this as if it were boasting, nor as if it were sorry, nor as if it were angry. It just said it.
"I daren't come and drink," said Jill.
"Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion.
"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream
then."
"There is no other stream," said the Lion.
This Silver Chair – Chapter 2

“One word, Ma'am,” he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.”
The Silver Chair – Chapter 12

“Look here! I say,” he stammered. “It's all very well. But aren't you? - I mean didn't you -?”
“Oh, don't be such an ass,” said Caspian.
“But,” said Eustace, looking at Aslan. “Hasn't he - er died?”
“Yes,” said the Lion in a very quiet voice, almost (Jill thought) as if he were laughing. “He has died. Most people have, you know. Even I have. There are very few who haven't.”
The Silver Chair – Chapter 16

“Sir,” said Caspian, “I've always wanted to have just one glimpse of their world. Is that wrong?”
“You cannot want wrong things any more, now that you have died, my son,” said Aslan.
The Silver Chair – Chapter 16

“Your father and mother and all of you are - as you used to call it in the Shadowlands - dead. The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning.”
And as He spoke He no longer looked to them like a lion;…
The Last Battle – Chapter 16

The Easter Heresy - A Study for Christians

2009-04-11T12:34:00.000-07:00

I wanted to share this with my Christian friends. This is a very informative study on Easter. A special thanks to my good friend, Peter Lounsbury, for doing all the research and compiling all the data. This is his project. All I am doing is simply cutting and pasting... LOL.

If you are reading this on Facebook, it might be better to view my actual blog entry here, or you can download and read the PDF file here.

Read prayerfully.

--------------

Easter 2009 falls on Sunday, April 12th. How do you calculate which day is Easter?

Computus (Latin for computation) is the calculation of the date of Easter in the Christian calendar. The name has been used for this procedure since the early Middle Ages, as it was one of the most important computations of the age.

The canonical rule is that Easter day is the first Sunday after the 14th day of the lunar month (the nominal full moon) that falls on or after 21 March (nominally the day of the vernal equinox). For determining the feast, Christian churches settled on a method to define a reckoned "ecclesiastical" full moon, rather than observations of the true Moon. Eastern Orthodox Christians calculate the fixed date of 21 March according to the Julian Calendar rather than the modern Gregorian Calendar, and use an ecclesiastical full moon that occurs 4 to 5 days later than the western ecclesiastical full moon.

In modern language, this definition is best described as: Easter Sunday is the Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon date. The Paschal Full Moon date is the Ecclesiastical Full Moon date following 20 March and, for the years 1900 to 2199 AD, can be found in Tabular methods.

How “Christian” does that sound to you based on your knowledge of the bible?

What is Easter?

The Authorized (King James) Version uses "Easter" (incorrectly) at Acts 12:4 to translate the Greek word "pascha." Everywhere else in the NT that "passover" occurs, the KJV translates it (correctly) "passover."

Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Etymology of “Easter” in the English language

O.E. Eastre (Northumbrian Eostre), from P.Gmc. *Austron, a goddess of fertility and sunrise whose feast was celebrated at the spring equinox, from *austra-, from PIE *aus- "to shine" (especially of the dawn). Bede says Anglo-Saxon Christians adopted her name and many of the celebratory practices for their Mass of Christ's resurrection. Ultimately related to east. Almost all neighboring languages use a variant of L. Pasche to name this holiday.

Etymology of “Easter” in Acts 12:4

G3957

πάσχα

páscha; neut. noun transliterated from the Hebr. pesach (H6453), to pass over, spare. The Passover, an exemption, immunity (Sept.: Exo_12:11, Exo_12:21). The great sacrifice and festival of the Jews which was instituted in commemoration of God's sparing the Jews when He destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians. It was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan. For the institution and particular laws of this festival see Ex. 12; Lev_23:5; Num_9:2-6. The later Jews made some additions. In particular they drank four cups of wine at various intervals during the paschal supper. The third of these cups, called the cup of benediction, is referred to in 1Co_10:16 (cf. Mat_26:27). In the NT, tó páscha, the Passover, may refer to the festival or to the paschal lamb.

Pascha elsewhere in the bible

The Greek word “Pascha” occurs 28 times in the KJV bible, 29 If you count Acts 12:4.

(Matthew 26:2) Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

(Matthew 26:17) Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

(Matthew 26:18) And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

(Matthew 26:19) And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.

(Mark 14:1) After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

(Mark 14:12) And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

(Mark 14:14) And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

(Mark 14:16) And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

(Luke 2:41) Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

(Luke 22:1) Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

(Luke 22:7) Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.

(Luke 22:8) And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

(Luke 22:11) And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

(Luke 22:13) And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

(Luke 22:15) And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

(John 2:13) And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

(John 2:23) Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

(John 6:4) And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

(John 11:55) And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

(John 12:1) Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

(John 13:1) Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

(John 18:28) Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

(John 18:39) But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

(John 19:14) And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

(1 Corinthians 5:7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

(Hebrews 11:28) Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

What's the big deal?

Jesus died on a very special day that means something more than the significance we currently assign to that day. Even if it is regarded as the most holy day of the Christian calendar year, it is missing the most important aspect of acknowledging the timing that God assigned to this very special day. He, God, chose this day above all others and He had a reason for it that is as much a part of the story as the resurrection itself!

Messiah the Prince (Daniel 9:24-27)

²⁴Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
²⁵Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
²⁶And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
²⁷And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

It wasn't just any Passover

The 69 weeks prophetically speaking are how this is translated in most English bibles, but the truth of the matter is that the words “weeks” is actually “sevens” in Hebrew...

H7620

ָשׁבוַּע

šāḇûa‛: A masculine noun meaning seven; a week, a group of seven days or years. It indicates a unit of seven: a week, seven days (Lev_12:5; Deu_16:9); of a marriage feast (Gen_29:27-28); a week of days (Dan_10:2-3). It is used in a technical sense to name a festival, the Feast of Weeks (Exo_34:22; Deu_16:10). It refers to seven years, a heptad of years (Dan_9:24-27).

Therefore 69 sevens, or 69 X 7 = 483

Let's look at this again...

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks:

Or in other words it would be 483 years from the time the order was given to build Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince. In order to determine this date, we of course need to know when the order to rebuild Jerusalem had occurred.

Background for Daniel's prophecy

The Book of Daniel was written during the Babylonian captivity, and during this period of Jewish history Jerusalem had fallen and was destroyed completely. The time frame for this is from 586 BC when the Kingdom of Judah fell at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, until the year 445 BC when the order was given to rebuild Jerusalem.

We can find the date for this event in scripture as recorded in the 2nd chapter of the Book of Nehemiah, where we see it is Artaxerxes who issues the decree that sets into motion the clock that would measure the time until Messiah the Prince...

Nehemiah 2:1-8

¹And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence.
²Wherefore the king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, seeing thou art not sick? this is nothing else but sorrow of heart. Then I was very sore afraid,
³And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
⁴Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven.
⁵And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.
⁶And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.
⁷Moreover I said unto the king, If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah;
⁸And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.

Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) ruled 41 years from 464-423 BC, the 20th year of his reign would have been the year spanning between 445 and 444 BC. 483 years from the month of Nissan in 445 BC brings us to Nissan 33 AD.

In the year 33 AD the following events occurred during the month of Nissan in real time, revealing Messiah the Prince for all to see that our Savior was indeed the lamb of God:

It was on Nissan 10 that Jesus made His final entrance into Jerusalem. Just prior to His descent from the Mount of Olives into the city, the annual procession of the national Passover lamb was taking place. The lamb, which would be taken to the temple in Jerusalem (to be the public sacrifice on Nissan 14 for all of Israel), was led into the city from the east. The lamb was met by crowds of people waving palm branches and joyously singing Psalm 118 as they remembered God’s miraculous delivery of their ancestors from the clutches of the Egyptian Pharaoh. One passage sung was, “Oh Lord, please save us, Oh Lord, please save us. Oh Lord, send us prosperity, Oh Lord, send us prosperity. Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord,” (1) an expansion of the psalmic verses, “Oh Lord, save us; O Lord, grant us success. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (Psalm 118:25,26a).

Following the procession of the Passover lamb, Jesus came down from the Mount of Olives, riding a donkey (indicating that He was coming humbly, in peace). He followed exactly the same path to the temple that the Passover lamb had just taken. The crowds of people, who previously had witnessed Jesus’ great miracles, placed more palm branches on the pathway in front of Him (thus, the name “Palm Sunday”) and shouted to Him as He passed, “‘Hosanna to the Son of David!’ ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ‘Hosanna in the highest!’” (Matt. 21:7-9). (“Hosanna” or Hoshana means “Deliver us!”)

For four days, the Pesach lamb was kept in public view at the temple for everyone to examine to make sure that it was perfect and without defect. During the same four days, the chief priests, elders, Pharisees, and Sadducees interrogated Jesus; but He always left them speechless, because they could find no fault with His impeccable logic and character (Matt. 21:23-27, 22:23-46). Moreover, after Jesus was arrested, Pilate (governor of Jerusalem) and Herod (governor of Galilee) could find no evidence against Him nor fault with Him (Matt. 26:59,60a, 27:23a; Luke 23:4,14,15; John 19:6c). This is because Jesus was perfect and without defect, just as the Passover lamb was expected to be.

The national Passover lamb for Israel was to be killed in the temple on Nissan 14 at “twilight” (Exo. 12:6), or at the “twain of the evening.” In Hebrew, this is translated, bain haarbayim, or “between the evenings.” The last half of the daylight hours (from about noon to 6:00 p.m.) was further divided into two parts: the minor evening oblation (noon to 3:00 p.m.) and the major evening oblation (3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Thus, “between the evenings” means between these two periods, or about 3:00 p.m. This was the time midway between the beginning of the sun’s descent into the west (about noon) and its setting (about 6:00 p.m.). (2) So the Passover lamb was killed at about 3:00 p.m. on Nissan 14.

According to Bible historian Joseph Good, the Passover lamb in the temple was bound to the altar at about 9:00 a.m. (3) Similarly, “It was the third hour when they crucified [Jesus]” (Mark 15:25); that is, it was the third hour of daylight, or about 9:00 a.m. Darkness came over the land (not explainable by a solar eclipse, because there was a full moon rather than a new moon) from about the sixth to the ninth hour (noon to 3:00 p.m.); and it was about 3:00 p.m. that Jesus died (Luke 23:44,45a,46)—the same time that the sacrificial Passover lamb in the temple was slaughtered. As the high priest killed the lamb, he would have announced, “It is finished.” It is no accident that, on the cross a few miles away, Jesus’ last words also were, “It is finished” (John 19:30a), which literally meant, “Paid in full.”

Jesus was sacrificed on a wooden cross, as was the lamb impaled on a wooden cross to be cooked. Moreover, the blood stains of Jesus’ head, hands, and feet on the cross matched the locations of the blood of the lamb on the doorframe (top, sides, and bottom) of each Hebrew family’s house in Egypt.

Finally, it was forbidden for any of the Passover lamb’s bones to be broken (Exo. 12:46c). After the crucifixion, the legs of the two criminals crucified along with Jesus were broken to ensure that they would die (by suffocation) quickly, as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Nissan 15, was soon to begin. But Jesus was already dead, so they did not break His legs (John 19:31-33). This also was a fulfillment of a prophecy of David that none of the Messiah’s bones would be broken (Psalm 34:20).

It might be added that it often took two or three days for a person to die on the cross. But it took Jesus—a strong, healthy man—only six hours. Besides the fact that he had been severely flogged and beaten beyond recognition, He had more appointments to keep. Jesus had said, “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:18ab). Moments before Jesus died on Nissan 14, He called out, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46a); then He voluntarily gave up his Spirit (Matt. 27:50). He knew He had to keep the appointment of dying at the same time as the Passover lamb at the temple, as well as to leave time to be buried before the Feast of Unleavened Bread began at sunset.

Signs in the heavens

Another event that marks this day chosen by God to reveal His son was a lunar eclipse that was visible from both Jerusalem and Babylon (where Daniel wrote the prophecy). Peter referred to this event on the day of Pentecost as he referenced the Book of Joel to explain to those gathered in the upper room in Jerusalem:

Compare the accounts described in both the Book of Acts and the Book of Joel:

The account prophesied by Joel in chapter 2 of the Book of Joel

²⁸And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
²⁹And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
³⁰And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
³¹The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.
³²And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

The account as told by Peter in chapter 2 of the Book of Acts

¹⁴But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
¹⁵For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
¹⁶But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
¹⁷And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
¹⁸And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
¹⁹And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
²⁰The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
²¹And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
²²Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
²³Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
²⁴Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
²⁵For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
²⁶Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
²⁷Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
²⁸Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
²⁹Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
³⁰Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
³¹He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
³²This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
³³Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
³⁴For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
³⁵Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
³⁶Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
³⁷Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
³⁸Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
³⁹For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

There was in fact a lunar eclipse on the day that Jesus was crucified that would have made the moon appear blood red. I checked the data myself and it is confirmed in accordance with a NASA website that calculated every lunar eclipse in from 1999 BC to 3000 AD in the future. April 3rd, 33 AD was listed on this webpage (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JLEX/JLEX-AS.html) when I entered in the data necessary (location and year).

God's appointment with mankind

The word for feasts in Hebrew is an interesting word, it is moed. We see this word applied to the very feasts that will keep time with Messiah the Prince as he is revealed to mankind in what would probably be better translated as the requirement for men to observe appointments with God...

Leviticus 23:2 “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts. “

mô‛ēḏ: A masculine noun meaning an appointed time or place. It can signify an appointed meeting time in general (Gen_18:14; Exo_13:10); a specific appointed time, usually for a sacred feast or festival (Hos_9:5; Hos_12:9 [10]); the time of the birds' migration (Jer_8:7); the time of wine (Hos_2:9 [11]); the same time next year (Gen_17:21). In addition to the concept of time, this word can also signify an appointed meeting place: "The mount of the congregation" identifies the meeting place of God or the gods (Isa_14:13), and "the house appointed for all living" identifies the meeting place of the dead-that is, the netherworld (Job_30:23). Moreover, the term is used to distinguish those places where God's people were to focus on God and their relationship with Him, which would include: the tent of meeting (Exo_33:7); the Temple (Lam_2:6); the synagogue (Psa_74:8).

God did not pick arbitrary dates to reveal His son, but that the events that would mark the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Symbolically each of these appointments had very significant and rich meaning, a meaning that is lost in the celebration of Lent and Easter according to Christian tradition since around the year 325.

Constantine I, Roman emperor, convoked the Council of Nicaea in 325. The council unanimously ruled that the Easter festival should be celebrated throughout the Christian world on the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox; and that if the full moon should occur on a Sunday and thereby coincide with the Passover festival, Easter should be commemorated on the Sunday following. Coincidence of the feasts of Easter and Passover was thus avoided.

This was a very important time in Christian history in that it marked the end of persecution against Christians as Christianity became the official state religion of the roman Empire. It is also the time that some very important issues were being resolved in the church:

1.They dealt with the issue of Arianism and established the doctrine of the trinity
2.They established the Nicene Creed
3.They ruled on the Meletian Schism
4.They changed when Easter would be celebrated from that point on

The reason the Nicene Council changed the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus from Pesach (Passover) to Easter, was an attempt to appeal to the many pagans who had not yet converted over to Christianity. Although I am sure their intentions were good, the same can not be said of the unintended results from putting aside the richness that God intended in the days that He Himself chose for the events aforementioned being fulfilled.

Each of these appointments (feasts) directly point to Jesus, the Messiah

Passover Pesach

Nisan 14

Purpose: Remembering the deliverance from Egyptian bondage. An unblemished firstborn male lamb was sacrificed and its blood poured on the altar. A lamb was selected for each family, and four days before the lamb was to be slain it was brought into the home for a four-day examination period.

Messianic Significance: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb who died for our sins. On Nisan 14 at the exact time the lamb was to be slain, Jesus was slain. Jesus also had a four-day examination period before the religious leaders and was found without blemish.

-------

Unleavened Bread

Nisan 15

Purpose: Leaven symbolizes sin. Unleavened Bread speaks of sanctification. God told the Jews to cleanse all leaven from their homes and eat only unleavened bread, matzah, for seven days, symbolizing a holy walk with Him.

Messianic Significance: Jesus is the "Bread of Life" without sin. Born in Bethlehem. In Hebrew, Bethlehem means house of bread. Just as matzah is striped and pierced, so was the Messiah. This Feast falls on the day Jesus was buried.

-------

Day of Firstfruits

Nisan 17

Purpose: The first of the barley harvest was brought as an offering to the priest in the Tabernacle/Temple. The priest would present the first of the harvest unto the Lord by waving them back and forth. This reminded the Hebrews that God gave them the land, and the harvest belonged to Him.

Messianic Significance: Jesus is the Firstfruits (1 Cor. 15:20-23). Jesus' resurrection marked the beginning of the harvest of souls. John 12:23-24,32 shows Jesus was likened to a grain of wheat falling to the ground and dying to produce a great harvest. Jesus arose on Firstfruits.

-------

Feast Of Weeks

Pentecost

Shavuot

Purpose: Fifty days after the Feast of Firstfruits, two loaves of leavened bread are presented to God. Also a reminder that the Jews were slaves to Egypt (Deut. 16:9-17). The giving of the Torah to Moses on Sinai took place this day. Three thousand were killed that day.

Messianic Significance: Fifty days after Jesus arose, a group of Messianic Jews received the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "Unless I go, the Holy Spirit will not come. But when I go (Firstfruits- His resurrection) I will send the Holy Spirit unto you." God wrote the law (Torah) on the hearts of the believers. Three thousand souls were saved.

Summary

Celebrating Easter to commemorate Christ's resurrection is akin to concluding that Jesus was a prophet, teacher and a good man. Although true that he was all of those things, it is not the entire picture, and the entire picture paints Jesus for who and what he really was and is.

The reason it is important for us to know these things is that we all have an opportunity once a year to witness to two distinct groups of people: Christians who are unaware of the powerful witness that we have all just learned about; and non-believers who see Easter as a Christian holiday and little more than an anniversary celebration of Jesus' death. The story is not just about Jesus dying and the resurrection, but about Jesus being who the bible said he was in both the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy incarnate (literally), and the hope that the Messiah of the bible represents as proven by the same fulfilled prophecy.

As you attend church on Easter Sunday and if the opportunity presents itself as you communicate with friends, family and loved ones, go over this amazing story about Messiah the Prince and share with them the story that God intended we learn and understand. God could have picked any day or any time He so desired, but He didn't. God picked a set of very special days that He chose for very specific and special reasons, and one of the reasons for this was so that we could share the good news, the gospel, of Jesus the Christ!

References on the Internet to assist your further study

http://biblicalholidays.com/Excerpts/holiday_chart.htm
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/daniels_math.htm
http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm
http://www.e-sword.net/
http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JLEX/JLEX-AS.html
http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV4N1A1.asp

Thomas Jefferson said...

2009-04-03T11:44:00.001-07:00

See if any of this sounds familiar...

Thomas Jefferson said...

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Very Interesting Quote: In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

The Brazen Serpent - A Reminder for Christians

2009-04-02T06:08:00.000-07:00

References: Numbers 21:5-9, John 3:14

This is one of those Bible stories with powerful imagery. Much has been written about it, and I don't intend to dispute any of it. I only want people to see the correlation in what this image is saying, and some of what we are seeing in society today.

Some believe that what we are seeing in society isn't God's judgment. Let me begin by saying I do believe it is God's judgment. American society hasn't resisted the free-reign of sin in a long time. And American churches have become impotent and toothless in their defense of the faith. But I disgress on that point. Another day, perhaps.

In this story, Israel was in the wilderness. They had sinned by complaining to God.

As judgment, God sent highly aggressive snakes into their camps.

Now, when judgment falls, people repent. But as is typical, their repentance isn't sincere, but only a pretense to evade judgment. God saw right through the superficiality of their repentance, and refused to remove the snakes. Rather, he offered them a method of preservation. He instructed Moses to create a serpent made out of brass, place it on a long pole, and suspend it high in the air for all to see. As long as people kept their focus and attention upon the brazen serpent, the bites they received weren't fatal.

Therein lies the secret. God didn't end the suffering. God could have just as easily instructed those fiery snakes to become passive and leave the camp, or he could have destroyed them. But he didn't. He let them keep biting.

Perhaps someone reading this is in the same position. You have prayed for financial deliverance, physical healing, or various and sundry other needs with earnest faith, and yet your situation continues to grow worse. In other words, the snakes keep biting. Remember that the brazen serpent is still there for us to gaze upon. And as long as we keep the brazen serpent, Jesus Christ, straight in view, the venom of the fiery serpents will not be lethal.

This is something to be kept in mind in the days ahead. When your circumstances suddenly seem to become hostile, put your mind on Christ. Like the brazen serpent, he was suspended between Heaven and Earth, and was hung there that we "should not perish". I don't think God is as interested in removing the things that torment us as much as he is interested in whether we will maintain our focus on Jesus Christ in the midst of the torment. Remember Paul's thorn (2nd Corinthians 12:7-9)? Christ made no effort to remove it, only to remind Paul that it won't be fatal.

So when your environment does indeed become hostile to you, and the snakes begin to bite, don't waste your time attempting to evade the snakes or trying to fight. Just keep your eyes on Jesus Christ, and you will secure your survival of the otherwise lethal bites of the fiery serpents.

Schoolhouse Rock - Every Episode

2009-03-31T10:14:00.000-07:00

This is a YouTube Playlist of the every episode of Schoolhouse Rock! Enjoy...

Watch now

The Obama Deception - Full Video

2009-03-21T15:16:00.001-07:00

Below is the complete video for The Obama Deception. It is almost 2 hours long, but very interesting. Enjoy!

Government to AIG, "We want it back!"

2009-03-21T04:47:00.000-07:00

Well, I suppose I am in the minority, but I think the AIG executives should keep their bonuses. They are negotiated compensation packages used as enticements to attract employees. They aren't based upon merit, and they aren't "job well done" bonuses, but contractually binding, perfectly legal, contracts guaranteeing these bonuses as part of their employee compensation. They are entitled to this money regardless of the state of the company, unless there was a clause in the contracts that states that profitability had to be up to a specified standard before bonuses were to be given out.

And to me, the whole idea of the government circumventing their own laws by taxing the bonuses away from the employees is nothing shy of stealing. That is the problem with accepting government money. When the government gives you a $1, they want $5 worth of authority in the company's management. Colleges have been dealing with this for years. That is why some colleges, like Hillsdale, refuse to take government money. Government Funds = Government Regulation.

I can't imagine being enticed and agreeing to work for a company for $20.00 an hour, and then that company gets bailed out by the government, only to have the taxpayers demand that my salary be cut to $10.00 an hour.

That isn't ethical on any level, in my opinion. The correct thing to do was to not have the government sticking their noses into private business to begin with. And what we are seeing is just the beginning of what happens when the government gets involved in private industry.

Chris Dodd is the root of the problem. But legally, Dodd is, or rather was, in the right. Just because a company accepts government money doesn't legally free them from meeting their contractual obligations to their employees.

As of now though, Dodd is on the frontlines of the movement to demand payback and forfeiture of the bonuses. Yet another democratic flip-flop. First he adds an amendment guaranteeing employee compensation, and now is saying the employees are not entitled to their compensation.

I think people enjoy seeing rich people suffer. What they don't understand is that the actual corporate entity known as "AIG" and the Federal Government are the real bad guys, and are actually the ones who will benefit from these bonuses being re-possessed. There is nothing to be gained by punishing employees.

It isn't rocket science. Good and profitable companies are comprised of happy and well compensated employees. Just look at Google.

When the original bailout manifested itself, it was given a sense of urgency by our Government with rhetoric like "Emergency". The bill (HR 1424) was 1,100 pages. Scrutiny and debate over the bill was discouraged, which seems to be becoming the normal state of affairs lately.

At any rate, most of the people who voted on the bill had 15 minutes to read, scrutinize, and debate an 1,100 page document. The bill is said to have been posted on the Government's intranet 15 minutes before voting was to take place.

The upshot is, our idiotic government had no idea what was really contained in the bill. They were given 1-line summaries by their advisers, who probably hadn't read the bill either, in regards what the bill would accomplish. They were told, "This bill gives Hank Paulson a blank check to an account with $700,000,000,000.00 in it, to distribute as he pleases." And all our senators and congressmen said, "Cool!"

No one was intuitive enough to see potential problems with this, which is what happens when the government attempts to become a business entity. They establish rules with no ability to adapt to the unexpected.

Polls suggested the general public wanted the bill to fail, so that failing companies would fail, and Capitalism would prevail. But as with all tyrannical governments, our government (notably ungoverned) is convinced it is smarter than the people they are governing.

But, just as it always has been. The people were right, our government was wrong, and Public Law 110-343 is a disaster.

I think much of it was political gesturing. It was during the presidential campaign season that this took place. And people were very curious to see the political parties' reaction to this crisis. So both sides were presumably pandering to their constituents, which proves to me that they do not have the best interest of our country in mind.

Not to spin off into the liberal v. conservative debate, but I would like to mention that this is why I am a conservative. The core foundational principle of Reagan-esque Conservatism is that the government is an entity that is corrupt and incompetent, so the prevailing wisdom is to keep government, and government involvement, as minimal as possible to reduce the problems that will imminently arise out of government interference. That is why I am convinced the Republican Party is no longer the party of Conservative values. George W. Bush led the charge for this asinine legislation last fall, and yet the GOP website continues to deify him as the personification of Conservative values. It is all hogwash.

Great Interview with Art Katz

2009-03-18T13:26:00.000-07:00

I saw this interview recently with Art Katz. He speaks about the pretenses in church, where he debunks the, as he puts it, "certain loudness in our church, in our speaking and our activity, which the naive presume to think is anointing."

Very powerful. Please watch.

Watchmen: My Review

2009-03-07T05:35:00.000-08:00

Warning: Spoilers.

Like most graphic novels, I think much of Watchmen's success is in its refusal to conform to the typical comic-book genre. Neither the graphic novel nor the movie is for the faint-hearted. It explicitly exhibits various and sundry atrocities without any bearing to spare their audience from seeing them. This one is not for the kiddies, that's for sure.

Regarding graphic novels in general, I have always been a fan of Neil Gaiman. It was he who introduced me to the graphic novel with his Sandman series. To this day, Preludes and Nocturnes and Seasons of Mist remain my favorites. In all honesty, I hadn't read Watchmen before seeing the movie, though I got the jist of the storyline from reliable sources before viewing the movie.

As is the case with most graphic novels, the story isn't just about protagonist super-heroes using their abilities to thwart the evil plans of the antagonist super-villains. It goes deeper. Watchmen asks the question, "How far can a hero go down a path of darkness, if that path will ultimately lead to humanity's salvation." This concept has been explored on and off by comic writers for years, the most popular of which is Batman, who inherited the name "The Dark Knight" when he chose to inherit a vigilante persona and become a scapegoat for the police, while secretly helping them and protecting the city. I love this. When any book chooses to address ethical questions, real or hypthetical, it stimulates the intellect.

In the movie, there are a group of superheroes called The Watchmen, who gave up being heroes. One of these, the supposed antagonist of the story, unleashed a plot that killed millions, but in so doing thwarted nuclear war, which would have made the human race practically extinct. Consequently, he made one of their own a common enemy of the global state. Like Batman, the hero he implicated became the scapegoat, and consequently united the entire world in fighting a common enemy.

The hero he implicated is called Dr. Manhattan, an enigma of sorts. He was the only one of them with truly super powers, and really the only one who could defend himself against humanity. Since acquiring his powers, he troubled about losing his humanity, and became very stoic. In the movie (and in the book), he is usually nude, though his powers make him appear blue and luminescent. Disconcertingly enough, he remains male and is depicted, again in both the movie and book, as anatomically correct. It is somewhat humorous at first, but one wearies of it quickly.

The most common hero throughout the movie was one called Rorschach. Dressed like an English gentleman taking a walking tour through the countryside, he is anything but. An older man with murderous tendencies, a vigilante justice code, and the ability to use some really cool gymnastics, he wears some sort of fabric over his face with a constantly undulating pattern. This fabric, he calls his "face" (another Batman alusion, in my opinion, since Bruce Wayne sometimes referred to himself as his mask). He is the coolest hero in the story, hands down. Imagine Wolverine wearing an trenchcoat and a fedora, walking around New York or some such city.

The movie was excellent. And the level of adherence to the graphic novel was truly amazing. Most of the scenes look as if they were peeled right of the panels off the comic. Most of the lines in the movie were verbatim with the book. It was uncanny in this regard. Where were these guys when Narnia hit the big screen?!

The movie takes place in an alternate reality, in the eighties, and with multiple allusions to this era. Modernized eighties music pervades the movie, along with music from earlier decades. In some cases, it is a profound trip down memory lane. I found it interesting that backdrops of the New York skyline had the World Trade Center.

If you can stand the bloody violence, exaggerated nudity, pervasive language, and explicit sex scenes, this movie is a must-see for graphic novel fans. A very real thrill ride into the world of superheroes.

Watching the Church

2009-02-14T23:00:00.000-08:00

These days, no one is safe. Everyone from the basest to the most prestigious are in danger of losing their means. We are all holding our breath while those in power in our Federal government try to wiggle and shake us free from the current economic upheaval.

But there is one entity I am not hearing too much about, nor am I hearing too much from. That is the Church.

By "Church", I mean the living body of believers in Jesus Christ as the messiah and as the means of securing salvation.

I am very interested in watching the church's reaction to these times. Partially, because it is a necessary prerequisite to the so-called "revival" the church has pretentiously been asking for the last fifteen years. And also because the church is partly responsible for the situation.

Let me explain both points.

I will begin with revival. Ever since I have been calling myself a Christian in earnest, I have heard the word "revival" thrown around in the church as a byword. I imagine if any pastor was asked what was meant by "revival", they would say, "A turning of the hearts of the people back to God." Personally, I am convinced what is really meant by this isn't a real turning of our hearts back to God, but simply raising up yet another generation of churchy-wurchies, whose religious convictions are, as I once heard it so amply put, a mile-wide and a inch deep.

Why wouldn't churches want revival? It guarantees their success. Salaried pastors are guaranteed job security when churches are full. Indeed, I think what is meant by revival today is a return, not to God, but to a special form of prosperity. It is a return to a lifestyle where certain moral standards, even Christian morals, are implemented. Where college-educated suburban families buy their Bibles, and tote them back and forth to church in their four-door sedans, listen to a sermon, give intellectual assent to what has been said, and go back to "business as normal" on Monday morning.

I think revival is something much different. And it needs to occur within the church as much, if not more, than outside it. When real revival happens, churches will not fill up. Indeed they will empty. When Christ brings about a revival, it starts by pruning the already existing tree of resource draining, but non-bearing, limbs. This current economic crisis could be a precursor to such an event. Revival erupts, not from prosperity, but from persecution. And right now, the conservative principles upheld by evangelicals and Catholics alike are under scrutiny.

If the church reacts the proper way, then it will tell its people they aren't above suffering. It will tell its people that things may not be okay, and that there may be casualties. An honest and sincere pastor will tell his congregation that there are hard times coming, and that it is a terrific opportunity to seek God, not in the lackadaisical manner we've all grown so accustomed to, but to become proactive in seeking Him. Like an old maxim I heard once, faith isn't faith until it is all you have.

But I imagine that the Church won't react properly. It will claim that they don't have to suffer with the rest of the world. Twisting Scriptures, pastors will say that this affliction has come upon unbelievers, and that Christians are exempt from this type of suffering. Churches will continue to build larger sanctuaries, design elaborate stages, and offer even sillier amenities, to go along with their aerobics classes and social dinners, to draw people in, while the nation around them crumbles and looks in vain for the church to help them in some objective way. They will preach nice principles, like unity and love, but dilute any real theology to the point that simply taking your seat on Sunday morning constitutes real Christianity. So while the rest of the United States faces home foreclosures and standing in soup lines, I imagine the middle class, suburbanite Christians will keep buying bigger and better televisions and computers, have the best cell phones, keep driving their "mobile living room" SUV's, making sure their wardrobes are up to date, and keep on ordering the filet Mignon at their local steakhouses. Business as usual.

In China, the church, the real church, meets secretly at night. They hold their baptismal services in cover of darkness so its oppressive government doesn't find them. Yet, their church is experiencing sincere revival. They are growing to know Jesus in a way that American Christians cannot even imagine. They are paying the price, and they are experiencing revival. They aren't thinking about love and unity. They aren't thinking about themselves at all. They have their minds on Jesus Christ.

So, in short, a full church is not indicative of revival. A church with members who have completely forgotten about themselves and with a mind only for Jesus Christ, is.

Now, regarding why the Church is partly responsible for the economic mess we are in. In the past, the welfare of the people was overseen by the Church. It was a potent ministry that seen to the hungry and needy around them. Today, the Church has foolishly allowed the government to usurp that and take over that commission. As of today, the government is pouring over a supposed "stimulus" package, which will, if passed, slip in all kinds of legislation that will pave the way for Socialism. Once again, the Church sits idly by while they allow a central government rob them of their opportunities to serve God. If someone needs an operation, it isn't for the government to play Robin Hood, and rob, via taxation, from those who have money, and give it to those who have not so they can get their operation. It is for the church to ensure that people receive proper medical care. Caring for the sick and afflicted is supposed to be a church function, not a government function.

Healthcare is only one facet. There are many more. The Church is clamping off a conduit of blessing by delegating these opportunities to the government. I have heard the argument that when the problem got too big for the Church is when the government took it over. But does that sound right? A divine institution, who claims to draw its power from the Almighty God Himself, had to delegate its responsibilities to a man made government, when they became too burdensome?

I am watching the church's reaction. Will it continue to teach what superficial Christians demand it teach, a God who doesn't demand anything, but who is expected to meet their needs in spite of their neighbor's destitution? Will it continue to sit back and allow the government to rob it of all its means of winning the heart of Jesus? Or will it continue as the Ichabod Church, with its daily sacrifice, the priests in their garb, going through all the motions, but no ark... and no shekinah.

The Church is, truly, an Ichabod church. All the functions continue normally, but there's no ark in the Holy Place.

Worship, but no glory.

Opposing Political Views

2009-02-04T13:40:00.000-08:00

I have been thinking quite a lot about politics lately. This election was the first time I voted where my candidate didn't win the election. Of course, I was not seriously entertaining the possibility of Chuck Baldwin winning, but I must vote my principles regardless.

Obama won... But you already knew that. And he is a man whose political stance stands quite nearly diametric to my own. Obama is beyond liberal, he is very nearly a full-on Socialist.

Anyway, it got me thinking about if there are any of the opposing political party's stances I agree with. Being a Republican (until I can get to the courthouse to change it to independent or Constitution Party), the opposing party is, of course, the Democratic Party. In my thinking, I have come up with 6 issues where I can jive somewhat with liberal politics.

I am opposed to the death penalty. Why? I get it from the Bible. Read St. John 8:3-11. One day I was thinking about this scene when it hit me. The Pharisees were right. According to Mosaic Law, which was national law at the time, the woman's penalty was death. Christ essentially circumvented the whole Israeli Justice System. But don't think me completely in line with liberal thought on this issue. I believe prisons should be rat-infested dungeons, not four-star hotels. Why am I against corporal punishment? People who commit crimes forfeit their freedom and liberty, but not their life.
Socialism, or the equal distribution of resources, is by its very nature a better system than Capitalism. Yet I am a Capitalist because I believe Socialism suffers from a fatal flaw. It must have a mediator. Now, is there anyone in this world you would trust to fairly distribute wealth and other resources? I cannot think of anyone I would even remotely trust with this. So I am a Capitalist, imperfect system though it may be, in spite of believing Socialism a better system.
When a doctor sounds competent in diagnosing a problem, is increases our confidence in his prescribed treatment. So it is with Karl Marx. I have read The Communist Manifesto, and I found that I agreed with him in nearly all his critical points against Capitalism. In other words, he diagnosed the problem brilliantly. Where we diagree is in his prescribed treatment. Socialism, and certainly Communism, cannot be a viable alternative to Capitalism.
I believe the presence of social classes is ultimately detrimental to society. Simply because it represents demographics of people absorbing more than their fair share of this earth's resources, while other demographics suffer want for resources. I don't believe social engineering and government programming will remedy this, so I don't completely fall in-line with the liberal politicians on this issue either. Again, as with #3, I think it is a good diagnosis, but bad treatment.
I have never been big on "government programs", but I do believe agree that taxpayer money should be used to maintain the welfare of the retired and the sincerely disabled. I cannot see where such an issue as this can even be debated.
I think Conservatives are too quick to cut Liberal Arts from the classrooms when money gets a little tight. I have no problem with academic and technical education. But it is the Liberal Arts that pours the salt on academia and technology. Without imagination, what good is all the academia and technology going to be. Academia will tell you how to write, but the arts inspires us to write.

In the grand scheme, I am still a true-blue conservative. But it isn't because I believe liberal politics is without some merit. I do not believe liberal politics is viable. Either way, what I believe is of little value, as it would seem that liberal politics is on cue to be implemented across the board without any resistance from conservative influences. John McCain proved that today's Republican Party is no longer the party of Conservatives.

The Constitution Party, however... Well, let me give you a line from their preamble...

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States."

That sounds to me like a wonderful start.

In short, the more I study political science, the more I am convinced we need a viable third party that fully understands both the United States Constitution and is willing to revert back to the old Conservative values. The Constitution Party, being the third largest political party in the United States, seems to stand for that very fact.

Caution: Revival

2008-12-23T08:29:00.000-08:00

This is another e-mail I got that I wanted to retain. It concerns false signs of revival.

Although the biblical hope of corporate revival foresees extraordinary blessings in Christ, there are also serious cautions we must heed, even dangers at certain points. It is best to recognize and clarify them now, to be ready to confront them if and when they surface. Some of the cautions include:

Ignorance: A general misapprehension of how God deals with His people on revival, due to our neglect of biblical and historical study of the topic; or due to our blindness to where and how God is currently granting seasons of renewal and awakening within the church. This could create a temporary climate of confusion, chaos, and division in fostering the message of revival, or during an awakening itself.

Shortsightedness: Limited views of the term revival—such as it being an evangelistic campaign, the restoration of individual backsliders, the refreshing of a local congregation, or a duplication of the outward forms of a previous general awakening. This could lead us to a parochial hope that settles for less than God’s best for our generation.

Fantasies: Expecting God to do more than He actually has promised regarding corporate revival. This might lead us to seek manifestations of revival that have no clear biblical warrant, or to spread reports on revival that exaggerate what really happened. Our hope must be in harmony with what God has said and not our own wishful notions. Similarly, it is unhealthy to expect current out workings of corporate revival to mimic the specific characteristics of some previous revival for another generation. Disappointment is likely.

Superficiality: The temptation to seek revival rather than to seek God; to seek the phenomena rather than to seek His presence. The Scriptures and the Spirit always work together. Sound doctrine will always accompany true revival, helping Christians to engage more fully the manifest presence of Christ as the heart of revival. The revival movement cannot be allowed to become primarily testimonial or story-fed, rather than Bible-fed and God-centered.

Irresponsibility: Seeing revival as a panacea, a magic want encouraging us to excuse ourselves from responsible obedience and follow-through in the day-to-day struggles of the church, whether God grants revival or not. Our seeking revival must be accompanied by daily obedience—whether in love, or worship, or outreach, or ministry to the poor—even as we live in anticipation of more to come. We must do what God has clearly told us to do, even while we pray and prepare for what God has promised He will do.

Negativity: Overlooking all the ways God is blessing now; failing to affirm the positive aspects of current kingdom advances; lacking gratitude to God for how many efforts of the church in our generation have effectively challenged and transformed the culture. Above all, we must avoid the tendency to depreciate current, normal, regular ministries of the Holy Spirit measurable, to some degree, in any believing Christian congregation.

Uniformity: Failure to appreciate the balance between continuity and diversity. The danger of division rests in our attempts to gain uniformity in a season of revival without reckoning with this fact; the outward shape of a reviving work is often based on prior conditions within each community experiencing it. These would include; pre-existing needs, the cultural context, ecclesiastical traditions, the age or temperament of those being revived, their previous spiritual experiences, their collective theological grids, and the extent of their current spiritual malaise. Even though there are common themes in every God-given revival—the centrality of Christ, confession of sin, quickening of the Scriptures, increased love, outreach to the lost—still, diversity of experiences must be expected and not be resisted.

Immaturity: A lack of preparedness for the exuberance, eagerness, excitement, and fresh expectations that normally come in seasons of revival. As was true with the awakening in New Testament Corinth, extraordinary experiences of God’s power and presence run the risk of creating temporary disorder due to immaturity or carnal mismanagement of newly unleashed spiritual gifts. But a far greater danger is that fewer of misplaced enthusiasms will drive people to settle for something worse (in the words of J. I. Packer): “the predictability, unexpecting apathy and tidy inertia of a congregation locked in spiritual deadness.

Elitism: Unconsciously justifying attitudes of arrogance or sectarianism on the part of those claiming to be revived. They perceive themselves to be a select group with special favors from God, spiritually superior to those not experiencing the same phenomena, or emotions, or break-throughs, or reformations. This is another place where consensus and collaboration on revival among Christian leaders before revival comes can pre-empt a deadly trend. Guarding our unity must always walk hand in hand with the reformation of sound doctrine and the revitalization of spiritual life.

Nationalism: Expecting revival to salvage and rescue a whole nation when, in fact, It is a work of God promised exclusively for the people of God. Only secondarily does it impact a surrounding community, and only at times does God-given revival spill over to transform a whole culture or nation (sometimes termed a general awakening). Our motivation must not rise form nationalistic passions, therefore, but from our desire for God to get the greatest glory through His church—even if the nation as a whole rejects this gracious hope and undergoes subsequent divine retributions (as happened with Jerusalem in AD 70 despite a revived church in its midst).

Conflict: Entering into the euphoria and wonders of corporate revival without reckoning with increased levels of warfare with the powers of darkness or with persecution due to the impact of revival on unbelievers. Awakening often brings seasons of conflict and suffering. Out of reformation and revival, the church is drawn more fully into the vortex of Christ’s mission among the nations. By manifesting more of Christ to and through the church, revival arouses the antiforces—both human and spiritual—against Christ’s kingdom. Revival sends the church actively into battlefields and harvest fields as we confront, contest, and displace the works of darkness. Suffering is therefore unavoidable and must be expected.

Conclusion: Are these cautions permanent obstacles to consensus and collaboration? Quite the contrary. Actually, sincere discussion by Christian leaders can significantly foster the common ground that will help prepare us to fully embrace together corporate, biblical revival as God grants it.

Socialism - Redistribution of Wealth - at a glance

2008-11-23T09:00:00.000-08:00

I saw this on a website and thought I would repost it here so not to forget it... This is a great summary of the structure and intent of Socialism (i.e. Redistribution of Wealth)

Redistribution of wealth

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08" tie, again I laughed–just imagine the coincidence.

Suddenly, it hit me. An experiment is in order.

I asked the server, did he really believe that Obama's platform was a good one? Yes, he did.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept.

He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need – the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10, and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn, even though the actual recipient needed the money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application - at least if it is your wealth that is being redistributed.

Corporate Buyouts

2008-09-21T07:38:00.000-07:00

I do not claim to be a economist. And I certainly do not know everything about government or Capitalism. I just cannot understand how all these corporate buyouts can be productive. In my atrophied mind, it would seem that corporate reliance upon the government will produce the same detrimental effects as domestic government programming. In the same sense that I believe, as a Conservative, that domestic government programming, such as welfare, promotes laziness, a lack of sense of domestic responsibility, and produces a society that is dependent upon government for their domestic commodities, these corporate buyouts will take away what little accountability corporate gurus must practice. As long as corporations can rely on the government to pull them out, they no longer must practice prudence in making corporate decisions. In my opinion, bad management should lead to a closed company. This will allow other, better managed, companies in the same industry to come in and take up the slack and make higher profit, which stimulates the economy and promotes employment.

Think about it on a smaller scale. What if the local McDonald's is having financial difficulty due to bad management. If it is bailed out by the government, or any other entity for that matter, it will still just barely be surviving, with its employees left wondering when their last day will be. But if it allowed to fold, then all the customers will now go to other restaurants, like Hardee's or Wendy's. This will boost their profits, and they will then need to expand their businesses. True, that the employees of McDonald's will lose their jobs. But if other restaurants are diligent in absorbing the business the McDonald's left, then they will have to hire these people.

And of course, there is the seperate issue of them using OUR TAX DOLLARS for this buyout. This infuriates me. Government using our money to help profit-oriented private businesses!? My hard-earned money paying the bloated salaries of the aristocracy or the Bourgeoisie? This is very close to Socialism, and it scares me. Not in the true sense of the word, of course. I am a Christian and I have a profound knowledge of where my future lies. But I still hate to see this society fall over such asinine decisions. Friday, the epitome of Liberal Democracy Nancy Pelosi* gave, not loaned, GAVE the big three automakers 1 trillion dollars. First, Billions to Fannie Mae. Billions to Freddie Mac. Billions to AIG? And now, a cool TRILLION to the big three, no strings attached? Why? If they cannot make it by producing a better product at a competitive price, let them die. Then better managed automakers can come in and claim their customers. That is Capitalism!!!

I cannot articulate this as well as I would like. I only study political science and the economy in a amateurish manner. So I want to post something I think expresses this much better than I ever could. On September 17, 2008, in the first hour of Brian and the Judge, Judge Andrew Napolitano expressed his views, which are virtually identical to my own, very well. I am posting this on this blog entry. It is from their podcast, which may be downloaded at the link above.

Feel free to leave a comment and let me know your thoughts.

Get Your Own Player!

* - Footnote, this isn't an anti-liberal post. George W. Bush's support of these buyouts is equally appalling. It is amazing that not only have Conservatives failed to oppose this, there hasn't even been a call to debate these measures.

The Dark Knight - My Review

2008-07-26T13:22:00.000-07:00

Well, after a week of hearing all the hype, I finally took in a matinee and saw The Dark Knight.

Batman fans struggle with Batman movies. Why is it, DC has such a difficult time translating their super heroes onto the big screen? It doesn't make sense. With the X-men, Spider-man, Ironman, and The Incredible Hulk, Marvel has proven they can seamlessly perform the translation. With DC... Not so much.

Anyway, I thought I'd share my likes and dislikes on various elements of the movie. There will be spoilers.

The Plot: Acceptable. Better than acceptable, actually. Anyone who is an avid fan of the comic book knows Batman was only in cahoots with Commissioner Gordon, not the whole entire police force. The police regarded him just as much of a menace as the fiends he tangoed with. The self-sacrificing transition from the hero of Gotham to the vigilante of Gotham was a welcome sight.

The City: I went with a friend to see this movie, who made the interesting observation that Gotham was actually Chicago. Gotham is supposed to be just that... GOTHam. Dark. Most of the buildings should be stonework, and with a general appearance of dilapidation. But this Gotham looked like... well... Chicago. Also, many of the shots were in the daytime,,, atypical of Batman.

The Joker: Everyone's raving about Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. I must say he did fairly well. He behaved just I imagine the Joker should, and was what I always imagined the Joker being, psychotic. The part I did not like about Ledger's performance... His appearance. Anyone who's read the comic knows the Joker was profoundly vain. The disheveled appearance Ledger provided was not accurate. The Joker was supposed to be clean-cut and very primed.

Commissioner Gordon: Gary Oldman's performance was epic. That is all I can say.

Harvey Dent / Two-Face: Eckhart's performance was leaving something to be desired at the beginning of the movie, but by the time the transition was made into Two-Face, the tone of the character changed so dramatically that I was awestruck. Best of all, he looked like Two-Face.

Batman: Ah, Batman. What can we say? You would think that this franchise handling the current stream of Batman movies would learn from the mistakes of the previous franchise. Why is it they always have to make the asinine progression from a decent outfit to an almost rigidly robotic appearing outfit. I loved the Kevlar appearance from Batman Begins and it was my great hope that the suit would remain untouched. I was disappointed. The "upgrade" brought about the same mechanized appearance the previous franchise was apparently working toward. I hate it!!! The smooth lines from Batman Begins has been replaced by a machine looking batsuit. From Kevlar to a super-soldier.
For comparison, here is the two movies, Batman Begins (left) and The Dark Knight (right), side by side...
I honestly wish someone would explain this need to progress toward a mechanical appearing Batman. They are well on their way to producing the same silly looking black and silver Batman from the previous franchise's Batman and Robin, shiny nipples and all.
Anyway, this seems to be the way it is, for now. I think it is funny how the comic can get away with depicting him in tights all these years, but the movies end up with a mecha-Batman.

And then there's Batman's voice. Just like in Batman Begins, Christian Bale uses a low, growling voice to voice Batman. Now granted, he has to disguise his voice, since the voice of Bruce Wayne is too easily distinguished. But why such a primal voice? In my opinion, the best voice of Batman always will be Kevin Conroy in the animated series (where also the very best Joker will immortally exist as well, in my opinion). He made the distinction in voices without making Batman sound so fake.

The Batmobile: It was the same tank-like vehicle as in Batman Begins, howbeit, it gets banged up pretty bad, from whence emerges the new batcycle, using the tires from the Batmobile. Stupid!

There is one other issue I want to address. There is an political allusion to The Patriot Act, and other highly contested issues occurring in the political realm today. Batman does two things in the movie that the current Bush administration implements that is brought under scrutiny. Firstly, torture. In a scene where Batman is put into a room with an unarmed Joker for the purpose of extracting information, The police attempt to intervene when Batman's rage gets the better of him, but they do not succeed. Also, Batman invades everyone privacy by implementing technology that allows him to spy on every citizen of Gotham via their cell phones, much to the dismay of Lucius Fox, played by Morgan Freeman. Mr. Fox is so put off by this invasion of privacy that he immediately resigns from Wayne's company. Much of what I saw in this echoes the real-world mentality of Judge Andrew Napolitano's book A Nation of Sheep, where Judge Napolitano chides with Americans for standing idly by while the government steals away our civil rights based on the idea of improved security. Whatever your stand on the issues, you cannot escape the allusion in this movie.

So, in the long run, is the movie worth going to see? Yes. It is a great movie. Is it the mega-blockbuster the reviewers say it is, worthy of topping IMDB's best 250 list after only one weekend? Absolutely not!

Going To Bat

2008-07-14T13:08:00.000-07:00

We’ve all heard it, “It is time to go to bat.” The metaphor of the statement is clear enough. It means it is time to get off the bench, walk out of the dugout, and step into the batter’s box. It means it is time to take a proactive stance where one has heretofore taken a passive stance. Consider the entire scenario. At that point, the man in the batter’s box is the only threat to the opposing team. Nine players, scattered throughout the field, exist for no other reason than for neutralizing that threat. And whether the batter is destined to score, attain a position of safety, or strike out, when it comes his turn, he must “go to bat.”

Sometimes life seems like this. We train and wait on the bench for our time. We long for the Coach to turn to us and tell us to warm up, that our time at bat draws nigh. Some of us were taken unawares by our initial time at bat, and struck out without a real shot at even tipping the ball. Now, we feel we are better prepared. Life’s decisions have honed our skills, wisdom, and intelligence, to the point where we are convinced that if we ever get the opportunity to step into that box again, we’ll knock the leather clean off that ball.

So we wait. We work dead end jobs, take under-graduate classes, and learn, learn, learn, so that when our time comes, we want to ensure that the ball is sent clear over the fence. Striking out is not a good experience and we desire to avoid it at all costs.

The terrible part of this wait is the Coach, just standing there, leaning on His knee. He never makes eye contact with us, seemingly on purpose. We know the forlorn look on our face might pull His heartstrings and He will give us another chance. But instead He keeps sending the same players to the box, completely bypassing us. You know these players well. They were the ones who didn’t strike out their first time at bat. Most of them were able to get on base, and some were able to hit a homer their first time. They are the Coach’s favorites.

These people, the brass, the salt of the earth, the bourgeoisie, they infuriate us. They behave as if they were not aware of their prestigious position in society. They patronize us with tones of affirmation, like a mentor speaking with his protégé, pretending like we are destined to be their equal, when in reality they know they are closer to nobility than we could ever hope to be. They have security, while the light of our hopes grow dimmer and fainter with every game we have sat through.

And then there are the others… the lucky ones. The ones who, with absolutely no training and no experience, the ones who slept through Spring-training, and showed up late for all the team practices, was fortunate enough with one wild, flailing swing, to make contact with the ball and get on base. These are worse than the brass, for at least the brass have trained and worked hard to earn their prestigious place. The Coach seems to favor these players arbitrarily, as if discipline doesn’t matter. Does the coach not see that their success was due to a spurious effort mixed with crazy good Karma? Once the wild flailing hit was made and they achieved “safety”, believing they have potential, the Coach then allows them to be sent to the good training houses, and assigns them personal trainers. Their fortune is made. Perhaps they were inadequate before, but the next time they step up to bat, it will be with status attained, and it will be with all the proper training. Training that we; of course, are not afforded due to our initial failure. Blessed with good luck that ushers them into prominence; they now bear the same polished repertoire as the brass.

And worst of all, there are those without any real skill or knowledge of the game, but have attained their status through political means. The Coach knew their father, so the son inherits a place of honor on the team, though their strikeouts is perpetually mounting to greater and greater heights. Ask him to name the accomplishments of Canseco, Jeter, Hernandez, or Chipper Jones, and you’ll only get a blank stare. And yet, the Coach keeps sending him to the box, an act defiant of all logic, yet there it is, right before our eyes.

So, you have the ones who have been given the resources to become successful, and have availed themselves of the priviledge. And then you have those who have become successful through a stint of good fortune, without any credentials to account for their accomplishments. And then those who; with talent hardly comparable to ours, are only deemed worthy through political associations.

And there we sit, still on the bench, right next to these guys. In a sense, you’re on the inside, but still on the outside. We can hear them discussing their methods of swinging the bat, how far apart our feet should be, or how far to choke up on the bat. And sometimes we bravely contribute our opinions, though we can be fairly sure we are not taken seriously. We are feigning dignity. Regardless of what we say, it will never be our signatures people will want on their baseballs. It will never be our names listed in the Hall of Fame. Indeed, we cannot see the day when online bidders scramble on E-bay trying to acquire our rookie card.

Oh, to have one more shot. After every game, we implore the Coach for another chance. We tell Him we have been training, the best we know how, with the resources available to us. He answers you only with profound silence and a completely neutral stare.

We often wonder, “If He isn’t going to use me, why does He keep me on the team?” Then there comes the crushing realization, “Perhaps He wants me to quit and walk away on my own, so it won’t be His responsibility. He no longer desires to be encumbered by an impotent player like myself, but is indeed too noble to kick me off the team. Perhaps leaving the team on my accord is the noble thing.”

But we find we cannot. Baseball has become our entire life. It is all we think about. We have studied it intensely, and we are somewhat renowned for our knowledge of the game. Only, we have never actually been permitted to play the game.

Sitting in the dugout, our thoughts are suddenly distracted by a crack of the bat. Another home run; pounded, of course, by one of the mega-stars. The ball flies over the fence. The scoreboard marquee displays a cute little “He Crushed It!!!” cartoon. The player trots around the bases, and with a look of satisfaction, takes a seat in the dugout right beside us…

Right beside us…

Odd, this is something we’ve never noticed. For all their work, and our idleness, we are sitting on the same bench. We’ve never felt the thud of the wooden bat as it collides with the ball, but we still wear the glove. We have no clue what elation it is to sprint down the stretch of baseline between third and home, but we still wear the cleats. We have never seen something we do trigger the stadium fireworks, but we still wear the team logo. We are still on the same team.

So, in the end, what is the difference between them and us? As long as the Coach lets us remain on the team, what is the attribute that distinguishes them, the team's aristocracy, from us, the dregs, the lower class, the proletariat?

The answer, like the metaphor, is simple enough… The applause.

Prince Caspian, My Review

2008-05-17T04:27:00.000-07:00

(Warning: Spoilers)

Well, I went to see Prince Caspian (PC) last night. My review is simple, good movie, bad translation. If anyone is only a moderate fan of the Narnia books, this movie will suit them. If anyone is a die-hard Lewisian, like myself, he will walk away with his mind in a funk.

Allow me to get started with my litany of goods and bads.

The Storyline: My primary complaint. Imagine writing PC's storyline on a strip of paper, cutting it into tiny pieces, and then arbitrarily putting it back together, eliminating random parts, and adding random parts that weren't there before. The horn blowing, the conspiracy, the battles, and key characters had different placements and durations in the movie as in the book. In this regard, it was a asinine perversion of the book.

The entire war, which presumably lasted years in the book, went a whole week in the movie. The presence of all the various and sundry inhabitants of Narnia uniting to eliminate Miraz was a patriotic scene. I got a kick out of the automatic firing trebuchets used by Miraz's army. It was like a machine gun trebuchet. I chuckled.

I thought the elimination of the post-resurrection romp from LWW could not be topped. But alas, it was. There was no holiday parade and revelry in the movie. Aslan's return should have been a celebrated event! This is a key part of the book, but it was completely skipped. I cannot understand how Gresham could have allowed this. Caspian's nurse has no part in this movie. No mean boys turned into pigs. No Aslan breaking into a house to heal Caspian's nurse. No Bacchus and his madcap girls. No fat Silenus on his donkey. In essence, Adamson has completely eliminated my favorite part of the book from the movie. Yes, he had the river god, but that was just eye-candy.

Peter: As with LWW, Peter's character was tolerable. Adamson did go out of his way to include character traits that weren't present in the book. Peter and Caspian had a falling out, which was never really justified. It rang of the superiority complex he had in LWW.

Edmund: Very good. Having been a primary recipient of Aslan's grace in the first movie, he was a humble and obedient servant to the best interests of the group. He stuck up for Lucy, which is true to the book, and was depicted valiantly in the movie.

Susan: Ug. What can I say? The book made Susan one who was always wanting to be an adult. The movie does the same. You see her in full tilt warrior mode in this movie, which is very good.

Lucy: Ms. Henley is a great Lucy, but my that girl is growing up. They better snap to it in filming VDT, or they're going to have a Lucy that appears very grown up. Adamson did a good job of making her appear queenly in the movie. In fact, all four took on a noticeable air of nobility shortly after they entered Narnia. I liked that.

Aslan: Bigger. More affectionate (finally, thank you Andrew!). But still, where's the green eyes? Like in LWW, very important segments involving Aslan were sacrificed to brevity. The part where he plays with Trumpkin, is reduced to a roar. Honestly, a roar. I just sat there and shook my head. It was embarrassing.

Trumpkin: Not a jolly old cynic like in the books, but a very low key and industrious dwarf. Though not like the books, I liked this Trumpkin, but still would have preferred the jolly old atheist depicted in the books.

Trufflehunter, Pattertwig, Nickabrick: These are adequate. They suffer from diminished roles, but all in all, they are the same as in the book. Trufflehunter is as true as can be, while Pattertwig is rarely seen, but is reminiscent of that silly squirrel in Over the Hedge. Nickabrick is not nearly as over the top violent, and even appears a true friend and ally during most of the movie. The book draws him as malevolent from the start, while the movie gradually reveals his malevolence.

Reepicheep: Good ole Reep. I had some concerns, but he is as noble a mouse as in the book. Very proper speaking, and absolutely a fearless warrior. Adamson nailed Reep! I wish the scene with the wounded Reep would have depicted him a little more... wounded. The book said it was just a heap of fur. But the movie just appeared to have a war weary mouse on a stretcher.

Caspian: Too old for this movie. Too timid. He was cast for the girls. Normally I hate it when characters change between movies but if Barnes is replaced in VDT, I will not complain.

Trees: Well, the trees were almost too much. In the book, the mere sight of walking trees was enough to scare the Telmarines out of their skins. But these trees were in complete war mode. It was honestly almost too much.

Werewolf and Hag: Very good. I liked, but wish the entire scene had it proper place in the story.

Well, that is it. I may post more in the future, I may not.

27 Reasons Why I am a Conservative

2007-10-18T13:31:00.001-07:00

1. I do not believe that Socialism can work in a fallen society.

2. I do not believe the government's IQ is sufficient to operate socialized healthcare, nor is there Constitutional provision for the government to operate healthcare.

3. I believe that Capitalism, though not perfect, is the best system for a fallen society, for it gives everyone the opportunity to succeed, and imposes no mandate to donate wealth to the less fortunate, but still allows for philanthropy out of one's own conscience.

4. I do not believe in the concept of a government mandated and controlled collection and redistribution of resources in a fallen society.

5. I do not believe in imposing higher taxes to fund easily-exploitable government programming that (supposedly) cares for the less fortunate.

6. I believe in limiting the government programming available, except for the sincerely sick, disabled, and for senior citizens.

7. I believe government programs creates as many victims as it helps.

8. I do not believe in governmental interference into private industry.

9. I believe that all civilians have the right to both own, and carry, civilian firearms, including models used by law enforcement as well as obsolete military models, and legally use them in self-defense. I do not believe civilians have the right to own or carry firearms engineered and developed for modern military use.

10. I believe the influx of illegal aliens from our southern borders is forcing more and more U.S. citizens out of work, and gradually into poverty conditions.

11. I believe the influx of illegal aliens is detrimental to the economy since the greater percentage of the earned wages of an illegal alien is contributed to Mexico's economy.

12. I believe the apathy toward illegal immigration by past presidents has resulted in industry's dependence on cheap labor. Consequently, imposing strict laws on illegal immigration now would force more and more industries to seek out cheap labor elsewhere, probably overseas in China, in the form of outsourcing.

13. I believe all borders should be closed and monitored during war-time.

14. I believe those who sneak across our borders, regardless of reason or motivation, ought to be deemed a threat to national security.

15. I believe abortion is murder, and injustice to the unborn, and consequently it is detrimental to the over-all health of our society, and should be illegal on a state level on par with its respective state's murder laws.

16. I believe in imposing a swift, cruel, and lifelong penalty for those who break our laws.

17. I do not believe a single taxpayer dime ought to be spent in attempting to rehabilitate criminals. (I do not believe in the death penalty, which is a non-Conservative position)

18. I believe the government should have very little influence in domestic life.

19. I believe that we should commence with the domestic drilling for crude oil in an effort to wean us from depending on the middle-East for our energy.

20. I believe the government should devote resources into developing a fuel alternative, and then provide their research to private companies, instead of just patting the auto-makers on the back and spurring them on.

21. I believe global warming is speculation at best.

22. I believe the mainstream media spins their stories with political significance so that Conservative policies falsely appear to have a negative impact on American society, and that depicts Liberal policies as the most beneficial to society.

23. I do not believe in student testing as a means of determining a school's efficacy.

24. I believe the way to improve on public education is to demand conformance of the teachers (not the students) to vigorous and rigid standards, and then make them rich by properly paying them the wages they deserve. In summary, good teachers equals good students.

25. I am not a pacifist, and believe war is an accepted and effective way of dealing with the unruly and destructive behavior of another country, after all other diplomatic methods of finding a resolution have been expended.

26. I believe that prisoners with information that can possibly circumvent a destructive attack where multiple lives may imperiled, may be tortured in an effort to extract this information. But the commanding officer ordering the procedure should be held accountable if the information retrieved is faulty or incomplete. I do not think we should have signed the Geneva Convention.

27. I oppose a New World Governance, or the joining of any union, or otherwise anything that threatens United States sovereignty.

5 Christian Paradoxes

2007-07-29T18:30:00.000-07:00

There are a few things in Christianity that I cannot understand. Listed below are five of them.

1. Job’s three friends: One quickly finds that the sin of Job’s “miserable comforters” was their accusations of Job. They wanted Job to confess a sin, apparently a sin heinous enough to warrant such a stiff punishment as Job was experiencing, and then all his trouble would miraculously disappear. When this tactic failed, it switched to accusing Job of being a hypocrite. Job had apparently helped many of the afflicted of his day, and now that he was the one being afflicted, it occurred to his friends that Job might not have the fortitude he had urged from so many others. And then, and this is the stickler, they tried to tell Job that God was God, and that his ways were past finding out, and for him to just sit back and pacifistically take these blows on the chin.

The church is like this. Every time I try to express any trouble I am experiencing to a fellow Christian, their advice is some variation of what Job’s friends said. The problem was sin’s reward, God allowing me to suffer so I could better identify with others in their suffering, or God doing something in me that I couldn’t comprehend, and I should just sit back and let it happen.

So the striking similarity between the comfort of Job’s friends, and the current Christian doctrine for dealing with various trials, prove to me to be mutually exclusive. How can such advice be contemptible in Job’s time, and perfectly orthodox in our time?

2. Job’s answers: God quickly asserted that what Job had said was the truth concerning God (42:7). But deeper study reveals that Job said a few things that the church would reject if a Christian said them today. Consider if a Christian said the following things today…

“I wish I were never born.” (3:1)

“God is trying to kill me.” (6:4)

“I wish I would die.” (6:9)

“Why should my life continue?” (6:11)

“My life is worthless.” (7:16b)

“I cannot find God.” (9:11, 23:8-9)

“The strong hold the weak in contempt.” (12:5)

“God blesses the unrighteous.” (12:6)

“God has given me to the ungodly.” (16:11)

“He has shook me by the nap of the neck and has made me a target to shoot at.” (16:12-13)

“My cries go unheard by God.” (19:7)

“God considers me one of His enemies.” (19:11)

“God blesses with wicked, and there is no benefit in serving God.” (21:7-17)

If Job’s answers, which are paraphrased above, were given by any Christian today in a trial, it would be viewed by the church as a lack of faith in God, and the unfortunate Christian would probably be declared anathema in the hearts of many of their fellow Christians. And yet, God’s own testimony says that Job said what is right about God. This is an irresolvable paradox to me.

3. Sanctification: Another process that has always bothered me is the work of grace that holiness, charismatics, and Pentecostals regard as sanctification. Oh, I believe in it well enough, but the progression, as defined by the church, seems to me out of line.

The church tells us one of the benefits of getting the baptism of the Holy Ghost is that you will receive power to live the holy life demanded of the Christian. Then cometh the paradox. One must be living a holy life before they can obtain the baptism.

Okay, this is similar to the money problems of high school graduates. How does one make money without an education, and how does one get an education without money? From a Christian perspective, how can I achieve true holiness without the necessary power to do so, and how do I obtain that power without achieving holiness first? In the same sense that, in the past, higher education was only available to those young people who were born into financially elite families, it truly sounds as if the baptism is only offered to those who were fostered in religiously elite atmospheres. Of course, today, every child goes to college. Financial means to go without actually paying, like credit, has made it easy. But God isn’t a bank, and he doesn’t give out grace loans. God has requirements, and the fact that these requirements must be met before he actually gives you the grace to meet these requirements is a paradox indeed.

4. Disproportional Teachings: Every church, it seems, teaches certain things disproportionately to other things. Some churches disregard eschatology, and lean almost entirely on evangelism. Some churches are so hung up on eschatology that they neglect to prepare its members for the end-time events they enjoy predicting so much. The same works with Christian disciplines. After eighteen years of church attendance, I just heard last Sunday, for the first time, an entire sermon given on the necessity of intense Bible study. Compare this to the hundreds and hundreds of sermons I’ve heard given on the necessity of church attendance, tithing, and other more “showy” forms of obedience. In fact, of all the disciplines of being a Christian, by far, the ones most emphasized are the ones performed in the corporate sense. Private disciplines, like personal, in-depth Bible study, closet prayer, personal emulations of Christ, sacrificial love for our fellow human being, and personal attempts at piety outside the church, are emphasized far, far less than the necessity of corporate prayer, corporate worship, church attendance, ministry support, and (this is the one that always pushes my buttons) religious extroversion.

And the shocker of it all is the church thinks it is okay in such practices. It leaves me speechless.

5. Without spot: Conservative churches tend to teach that the Christians that will inhabit Heaven will be the ones whose garments are without spot and without blemish. And of course, they dovetail enough scriptures together to assume that this means absolute moral and ethical perfection.

But who can say that? Even those who do seem to live such holy and pious lives around us, do they never have an evil thought, or an evil desire. Is every ambition and agenda in absolute perfect alignment with God’s perfect will? If not, behold, a spot, a blemish.

I cannot understand how a preacher can stand in the pulpit and say that God requires holy and perfect people to inhabit his land, and then fifteen minutes later say, “I’m not perfect, none of us are.” It is yet another paradox.

7 Illegal Immigration Arguments

2007-06-14T14:37:00.000-07:00

These are various arguments put forth to support illegal immigration here in the United States, along with my personal counter arguments. The illegal aliens in question are primarily Hispanics immigrating across the U.S. / Mexico border, but could be applied to any nationality immigrating to the U.S. illegally.

Illegal-Immigration Argument: Illegal aliens are doing jobs that citizens do not want and are not willing to do.

Counter-Argument: There are two counter-arguments. First, anyone who lives in industrialized areas know that only a small percentage of illegal aliens are working in third-rate jobs and they are, in fact, seeking out temporary employment agencies that will place them in factories, which were previously filled with hard-working American citizens before the offer of cheap labor by these temp agencies.

Second, if these jobs were left vacant, and the criteria to qualify for government programming were more stringent, it would amaze us at how many citizens would “want” and would be “willing” to fill these jobs. When we get hungry, we’ll do these jobs. American Citizens were doing these jobs in the seventies and the eighties, and if we desire to eat and have any kind of quality of life, we can do them in the twenty-first century. Where did we get the idea that these jobs were beneath our dignity, only to be delegated to illegal aliens? “Pride goeth before destruction…”

Illegal-Immigration Argument: Illegal aliens provide cheap labor for America’s industries, reducing their production costs and increasing their profit margin.

Counter-Argument: And who is going to purchase the products produced by the cheap labor? American citizens are the primary patron of America’s industry. Industries that put citizens out of a job in favor of cheap labor are taking money out of the pockets of those purchasing the very product they’re producing. If Jim, who works for GM, is replaced by an illegal alien because the illegal alien is willing to work for $3 per hour less than Jim, then Jim will not be able to buy a GM vehicle, and the illegal alien who displaced Jim will most likely not be interested in buying a new vehicle at all. This will lead to decreased sales of U.S. made products and will eventually lead to the abolition of the American middle-class; consequently all legal American citizens will either be financially secure (a.k.a. rich), or living in poverty.

Illegal-Immigration Argument: Illegal immigration can be humanely curbed by enforcing the laws already in place on the companies hiring the illegal aliens.

Counter-Argument: This is what I call the “sour-the-milk” strategy. Eliminate the reason illegal aliens are immigrating to begin with and they will stop on their own. The theory is, if companies are faced with real, substantial penalties for hiring illegal aliens, they will stop wanting to hire illegal aliens, and the immigration will eventually stop. This has been circumvented in the past with the idea that illegal aliens were hired through a temporary employment service, making the temp service, not the company actually working the illegal aliens, liable. With such a demand for cheap labor by America’s industry, the intuitiveness and intelligence of the companies will perpetually be able to find ways to stay under the government’s radar and will continue to hire illegal aliens. Souring the milk is a good idea in theory, but would be difficult to implement in the objective as there are always legal analysts working on ways for companies to evade liability.

Therefore I believe the enforcement of stringent laws with stiff penalties on the illegal aliens themselves, not the companies hiring them, is the only viable alternative. It is only when the risk of penalty outweighs the benefit of illegally immigrating to the U.S. will the incursion of illegal aliens be slowed or stopped. Once they realize that a company’s supposed promise of immunity from more stringent laws (and their enforcement) is only rhetoric laid out as bait to attract them, and that the bureaucratic nature of the American company has little interest in the well-being of any particular employee, especially those that are a liability and very expendable to begin with, will Hispanics who are considering immigrating illegally no longer see the risk worth the benefit.

Illegal-Immigration Argument: Illegal aliens are acting out of desperation and on their natural self-preservation instincts, since they are leaving a nation stricken with poverty and a low quality of life compared with the U.S.

Counter-Argument: Very few illegal aliens flee their country to work in the U.S. based true poverty conditions in their own countries. Most realize that a month’s wages in the U.S. will feed and clothe their families in their native country for a year or more. They are essentially making their native families rich by wiring most of their income back to their native home. Many illegal aliens who have been here working for years are happy to be deported, since the money they’ve sent home will sustain them well into the future.

Illegal-Immigration Argument: The presence of illegal aliens in our work force stimulates our economy.

Counter-Argument: Illegal immigrants tend to hoard or electronically export their money to their respective native homelands and with the exception of the purchase of minor trivialities (i.e. clothes, food, jewelry, or used vehicles), and usually make few or no substantial purchases on U.S. soil. This transfer of money into their native country stimulates their native country’s economy, and contributes near nothing to our own economy.

Illegal-Immigration Argument: Illegal immigration is only a misdemeanor, and should only be treated as such, therefore more stringent efforts to curb it, including making it a prominent political issue, greatly suggests racism against the Latino population.

Counter-Argument: This is spin. Most spokesmen against illegal immigration have friends and acquaintances that are of the Latino race. An act of immigration law enforcement against an illegal alien is no more an act of racism against the Latino race than the arrest of a Caucasian criminal is an act of racism against the white race.

Illegal-Immigration Argument: We do not need to exhibit animosity toward illegal aliens within our borders.

Counter-Argument: If someone breaks into my home in the night without my knowledge or permission, regardless of his circumstances which may indeed be desperate, I am going to regard the intruder as a threat, and take every action and precaution to neutralize that threat, even if it necessitates the use of physical force, before they can bring their intentions (whatever they may be) to fruition.

If federal law restricted me (and all homeowners) from being able to neutralize that threat, and we were forced to welcome with open arms those who have broke into our homes, the natural human emotion from homeowners would be animosity towards those who exploited such relaxed laws (as well as toward such asinine lawmakers).

What is taking place on our southern border is the same scenario taking place on a much larger scale. The U.S. is our home, and outsiders are sneaking in. The U.S. wants us to lay down our arms and welcome them. What can we exhibit other than animosity towards illegal immigrants, as well as toward our lawmakers who are introducing glorified amnesty bills that are in direct contradiction to the desires of the majority of the American population?

In conclusion, when our lawmakers enact laws that are contrary to the opinion of the majority of the citizens, is our government still to be considered a democracy? The popular (and excellent) novel by George Orwell, Animal Farm, suggests that laws made under such conditions indicate a Communist society where the government officials, instead of a “public servant” installed to enact the will of the people, consider themselves to be “elitist” who understand the issues better than the general public, and enact laws contrary to the opinion of the nation.

Small Biography

2007-05-07T15:47:00.000-07:00

Like Hawthorne, I am disinclined to talk overmuch about myself. And yet, again like him, I feel compelled to lay down a simple, to the point, biography. It isn’t that I believe that my life is something one might find interesting, but rather I feel that I am always on the threshold of losing the memory of my childhood. And though many woes and sorrows that have plagued me would cease with a loss my childhood recollections, I find myself reluctant to let go of those memories. There were numerous happy times, but I am not convinced that a desire of their memory is the source of that reluctance. And of course, nothing brings memories to the forefront like attempting to put them on paper in written form.

Please, you would be wrong to think me introspective. I am not. Though analytical beyond what is healthy, I am not one to sit and analyze my own life. There were, and are, lives out there more worthy of analysis than my own, and it is inadvisable for anyone to waste their mental facilities in trying to draw conclusions from a life so impotent and lived so superficially as my own.

I was born in 1974, and like most, I do not remember my infancy or early childhood years. My parents informed me that I spent the first two years of my life in a small suburb in Morristown. They financed a new home and moved in upon its completion. They have photographs, so I suppose it must be true.

Ironically, upon moving out in my adult years, I have moved into the house adjacent to this home, directly across the street. But that comes later.

My father apparently became weary and rather bored of the near maintenance-free life in the suburbs, and wanted to live where he could expend his aptitude for the mechanical and the arduous. So when I was two, my mother and father bought an old, roughly 500-600 square foot, four room house in Rutledge. The home had no bathroom, and limited indoor plumbing. There was an outhouse in the back yard, adjacent to an old storage barn, about one-hundred feet from the house. This house was extremely old and drafty. My mother used to tell me stories of drinking tea or coffee in the living room on cold winter evenings, and the liquid freezing right there in the cup.

Shortly after moving in, my father and some uncles built a bathroom and rear porch on to the house. The bathroom was a welcome addition, but the house’s floorplan necessitated that one must walk through my parents’ bedroom to get to it. My father also built a quant little workshop in front to work to store his tools.

My father didn’t enlist me to help with any of the potentially dangerous chores until I was near a teenager, but I did what he thought I was able. The winter was the worst. We heated the home with a small, Warm Morning stove. Every fall, he would fell one or two of the many tall pines surrounding the house and cut them up into small logs. He would then bust it with an axe and I would help stack it. He wouldn’t let me bust wood myself until I was nearly a teenager. Every Saturday, we carried adequate wood in to heat for the entire week. My primary job was to re-fill the kindling box with kindling. My father worked at a furniture factory and brought home a truck load of ply-wood scrap during the fall of every year to replenish our kindling bin in preparation of winter. We also burned coal on occasion.

The house’s front porch was wood and terribly deteriorated. My father set to work and replaced it with a concrete front porch within the first few years.

My mother worked off and on. I remember distinctly that the domestic financial situation, though never completely sound, was always more tolerable when she was working.

I remember hot summers and cold winters. As a child and young adolescent, I frequently spent every daylight hour outside wearing only shorts and shoes during those hot summer days. Living in the country was a sheer delight for me. And though, at the time, I often envied some of my city dwelling cousins of the temporal conveniences that city life affords, I am thoroughly convinced that I was the more fortunate. I had acres and acres of clear, rolling hills and woods to tromp through. Much of the cleared land was set-aside for cattle grazing, so after their morning feeding, these fields seldom saw human activity. In fact, during my childhood, I’d wager these fields saw me more than their owner. I was moral about it, and never did anything to harm the cattle that grazed the hills.

I remember catching minnows, tadpoles, and crawdads in the creeks. I also enjoyed watching the Terrapins soak in little pools of the creek on the hotter days. I came in contact with nearly every type of wildlife that can be found in Appalachia.

I did not always enjoy these amenities alone, however. I had a first cousin very nearly my age that lived directly across the old gravel road. Though he was more inclined toward materialism, for I knew any materialistic inclinations on my part would be profoundly futile and consequently resolved that fact early in life, we shared the same love for the freedom associated with living in the country. We initiated community softball and football games in various neighbors’ yards. We rode our BMX’s up and down the gravel road. And we trampled through the woods together, in search of anything of interest. Outside the obvious inclination for mischief, which I myself did not have, we were a picture of old Tom and Huck themselves.

In fact, curiously enough, my cousin and I were never really competitive until we started gaining more and more neighbors. And, of course, the competitiveness stemmed from the fact that some of these neighbors were girls our age. We were both to young to really experience physical or even emotional attraction to the opposite sex, but we intellectually comprehended that girls and boys were meant to share some type of exclusive relationship, and that for the boys, this relationship sometimes denoted status definition. So when the local girl was courting me, I was consequently the proverbial alpha-male of the neighborhood, and likewise my cousin, when said girl undulated away from me and conspired with him, assumed the crown and all the rights and privileges thereof, though I cannot recall what those rights and privileges were exactly. I will digress here, for I do not wish to badger you with the details of this undulation. Suffice to say that it often drove wedges between my cousin and I, and it wasn’t until she moved away that our friendship regained some of its former glory.

My cousin and childhood friend was killed in 1993 in a head-on collision with a drunk driver. He had driven his girlfriend home late one night, and was killed on the return trip. He would have been 21 the following December.

Quite often, I would spend time with my grandmothers in Morristown where I would interact with some of my other cousins. Here, I tapped into the inferior joys of city life. We attended a public swimming pool within walking distance. Things like stores were well within walking distance too. Being from the country, I foolishly thought that they had it all with so much close at hand. Both my grandmothers had cable television, which produced a clear, color picture that made the black-and-white picture from our old antenna look pitiful. I was amazed and envious at the conveniences city life offered.

School days were extremely torturous for me. I suffered tremendously from “Tom Sawyer” Syndrome, where I longed to be running outside, and was locked indoors for the majority of the usable daylight hours. School recess brought some relief, but ultimately only whetted an already bloated appetite for freedom. To add to my frustrations, I frequently forfeited my recess time through mischief, though I myself will admit that my mischiefs were not really malicious, but the result of a young boy who was used to unencumbered freedom trying to adapt to 6-plus hours of being cooped up in a room and being made to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do.

During my early childhood, neither of my parents was religious. My father frequently drank alcohol, and though my mother seldom took part in his indulgences, she did nothing to deter him. My earliest memories of my parents are not fond ones. In the summer, we frequently spent the weekends camping with my father’s family. I enjoyed this, for I was with my city cousins in a more primitive country setting. We swam in the lake, sat around the campfire, fished, boated, and basically did everything one typically does when camping. At the time, I was just at home in a tent on the lake as I was in my own house. I miss camping, and wish that it could be done today the way we did it then.

I was around 7 when my parents succumbed to the evangelistic efforts of my cousin’s father, who pastored a Baptist church, and we, seemingly overnight, became faithful, church-going people, and though I myself never developed a fondness for corporate church experiences, my father advanced to leadership positions within the local church and was eventually ordained as a deacon. This meant that Sundays typically spent on the lake were now spent in church. For a young boy whose only ambition was to be under the big blue sky, this was a serious problem. I equated it with making me go to school on the weekend. This probably contributed to my surviving distaste for church, as well as nearly all things corporate.

Around 9, I perceived and comprehended most of the principles of the Gospel and was consequently saved. But retarding the influential “Tom Sawyer” Syndrome proved impossible. I was saved during a revival service, and went to school the very next morning. I, being then extroverted beyond what I had any right to be, walked right up to my third grade teacher and announced, rather loudly, that I’d been saved. I had also resolved to give a bloody nose to the first person who said anything condescending about the whole idea. To this day, I am not sure how the Lord would have felt about my following through with this resolution, for in the scriptures, pedantic zeal of that sort is regarded as both virtue and vice, but I digress, yet again.

My fourth grade year was my most trying. Corporal punishment in schools, in the form of “paddling”, was then permitted. And my teacher was the one with the notorious reputation of over-using the freedom. This was also the first year I was introduced to the cruel punishment of “writing sentences” as well. Every offense, regardless of how trivial, provoked him to mentally flip a coin whether to deliver a paddling, or to assign the redundant writing of sentences. I received at least two paddlings a week throughout that entire school year, and I was forced to write innumerable sentences. Sometimes just merely looking at the student beside you would incur this teacher’s wrath. He was a hard man, and he stifled what little motivation I had to learn at that age. This is why I am against whippings in schools, though I am stringently for it in the home. I have never been able to adequately shake the feelings of betrayal by my parents for not taking some type of action to condemn this man, who was known to have received threats, even death threats, from other students’ parents. If a teacher treated my child the way I was treated during that year, I would have been in school board meetings breathing fire and brimstone.

Sadly, I never fully recovered from that experience, and though my desire to learn has recovered, my ability to learn and retain knowledge suffered irreparable damage during those formidable years.

The year after that was a welcome one, but became the first full year of school where I became acutely aware of the presence of peer groups and the establishment of status within those groups. Since I had no ambition to impress my peers, I quickly became a loner, with usually only a single, patronizing friend. But, to some extent, my fifth grade year also became my salvation. Though I had a television at home, and understood the idea of storytelling, I had never read a book. Hence, the only time I’d spent in the school library was when there were group activities that I was part of going on there.

That year, my school teacher read to us Where the Red Fern Grows out loud for the first 15 minutes of class. I was amazed. I looked forward to that time every day. After she read that book, I promptly went to the library and checked out another to read for myself. I couldn’t believe it. For so long I had missed being outdoors, and with this little item, it mattered not whether I was cooped up. With books, I could run through the forests again, or sail the open seas, or I could even interact with mythical creatures right there in the confines of the classroom.

A world was opened up to me that I never knew existed. Occasionally, we had a RIF day. RIF was an acronym for Reading Is Fundamental, and RIF day meant we could attack a table full of books and pick out one we wanted to keep. Needless to say, RIF day was joy unspeakable to me, who was unable to buy books then. We also had a flyer that circulated that allowed students to buy books fairly cheap. Sometimes, my parents would hesitatingly permit me to buy books from it. But we never had much money, so I wouldn’t approach them about this often. I was content to borrow books from the library.

Through my remaining school years, voracious reading was my primary pastime, especially during my free time at school itself. And to this day, that teacher stands as my favorite teacher for this simple reason alone. In fact, only one other teacher read to us, but made the critical mistake of reading us Greek mythology, which is a no-no in a small town comprised mostly of conservative Baptists. She was terminated shortly after I graduated high school, much to my dismay. But alas, it was my fifth grade teacher that fostered in me an undying love for books, for which I am eternally indebted.

In the fourth grade, I tried out for football, but quickly realized the discipline that would be required to be a competent player was more than I wanted to invest in such a whim. I decided to quit, and I regret that decision. I would give anything to have played football from my first opportunity to my last. I did play 2 ½ years of baseball. I say ½ years because halfway through my third year, my team had not yet even acquired uniforms, and I grew weary of their neglect and quit. The very next year and I would have started high-school baseball, had I stuck it out.

I have nothing significant to say in regards romance during my high-school years. I was thoroughly convinced girls did not like boys who did not have money, nor were they interested in boys whose company could not contribute to their own public image, and since I had neither money nor eminence, I didn’t bother trying. In spite of several advances by various girls, I was convinced that no girl would enjoy my company due to my financial shortcomings, my obscure interests, and my total inability to assimilate, so I either ignored them, or, politely as possible, turned them down. I was rather soft-hearted during my high-school years, and some of the more popular girls exploited that attribute to get me to give them rides home from school to avoid riding the bus. Since the area was primarily rural, bus rides were terribly uncomfortable due to poor road conditions. And, like everything else, whether or not a student was constrained to ride the bus became one of the many criteria that defined status and popularity, thus girls had no problem approaching me with their ardent requests of getting a ride home. The one time during my entire high-school era that I attempted to woo a girl was met with the predictable rejection I’d anticipated, so I suppressed any romantic notions until my mid-twenties.

Though I remember not having much money, when I was around nine or ten years old, my father was able to trade around and commandeer a dirt bike for me. I ripped woods up with that thing, and it too fostered in me a thriving love for all things racing, particularly motocross and supercross.

As I said earlier, during my fourth grade year, my academic constitution suffered irreparable trauma and crippled my ability to learn. But in my high school junior year, I was strangely faced with the sobering reality that my livelihood could be affected by this, so, all too late, I started to be more diligent in my studies, at least, as diligent as I could be. But even my best efforts only returned failing, or barely passing grades.

A close personal friend of mine was active in a local rescue service. He petitioned me to join and I did. After taking the first of the required classes, and realizing that advancement in this field did not necessarily require academic proficiency, I chose this field. I wanted to be an Emergency Medical Technician, and hopefully go on to be a Paramedic. During my senior year, I heard about a scholarship where two students were going to be sent to E.M.T. school. I did everything I could to earn that scholarship, and lo, I did. It wasn’t until years later that I found out that the awarding of that scholarship had nothing to do with merit, but rather was to be awarded to students whose family was too financially encumbered to pay for the class on their own. I was most displeased, for I had done much, believing I was meriting the award instead of simply being patronized for being “poor”.

In fact, during my entire stint in high school, the only honor I was able to achieve was that of being featured in the paper when supposedly “outstanding” students were honored. I generated a 10-page computer program on an Apple IIe that would perform linear programming, a concept taught in what was then their Algebra II/trigonometry class, in less than 2 seconds. This was pretty impressive since it took your average high school student 3-5 minutes to complete the same problem on paper. My algebra teacher, another one of my favorites, noticed this and was mesmerized. A typed manuscript of the code revealed that hundreds of calculations had to be made and maintained in order to complete this. She never understood how I could do something seemingly so advanced, but barely pass her class in spite of hours and hours of tutoring.

This honor was quickly offset by the school mandating me to attend another class. When I walked into the class, I saw my thoughts written on the faces of every student present. Apparently, students had been evaluated, and the ones that were high risk to be “blue collar” factory rats were all huddled into this class to learn about work ethic and how to perform when doing non-skilled labor. Ironically, they removed me from my computer class, a class I was genuinely interested in at the time, to attend this utterly useless and boring class.

At any rate, after high school, when I started attending E.M.T. school, my curse returned in all its original fury. E.M.T., like nursing, is a course requiring state licensing. At the time, to qualify for state license testing, one had to average 69.5% or greater on four tests given throughout the course. Surprisingly, with my inability to learn and retain knowledge, I was able to score in the high 70% to the low 80% margin on the first three tests. These test scores may seem mediocre to my readers, but to me, they reflected hours and hours of diligent study. But when I should have been studying and preparing for the fourth and final test, I suffered a car wreck, and was also visiting both my grandmothers who were hospitalized at the same time. And their hospitals were on opposite ends of Knoxville. And I also lost my job at this time.

I knew I was going to blow this test, and I did. But I didn’t figure it would be low enough to knock my average below 69.5%. It did. I averaged an even 69%, and the instructor was adamant about not letting me make up that other ½ point required. He said there was nothing he could do, that the state defines the criteria and he could not deviate from it.

I was devastated. Everything I had invested in the last five years was gone. There was no way neither I nor my parents could afford the $500 required to re-attend the class.

My work life continued to be unending frustration as well. I had acquired a job in a local hospital during my senior year of high school as an orderly. Money, though a nice perk, was not my primary motivation for getting this job, but thought this job would contribute to my getting the scholarship. Soon after graduating, and over ¾ into E.M.T. school, I lost my job at the hospital, as I mentioned before. So my current job was lost and my hopes for a job were also lost. I had to work temporarily at a Farmer’s Co-Op during that following summer, still in shock from having my entire future stripped from me.

From there, I fulfilled my school’s prophesied destiny for me, and got a job in a furniture factory. I worked there not long and moved to another, much larger furniture factory, where my father worked in fact. In nine years, I worked my way up to being in their design and engineering department. But I hit the ceiling of any advancement. So I went to trade school to learn technical and engineering drawing techniques. I had briefly worked with AutoCAD before and found the program interesting. I earned four technical certificates in drafting, AutoCAD, 3-dimensional drawing, and Parametric modeling techniques in Autodesk Inventor. I am currently working for yet another furniture factory as a CAD technician.

In the mid ‘90’s, I met a man who was a Pentecostal preacher. In appearance and attitude he was everything I did not like in a potential friend. He was stringent, dogmatic, disciplined, and worst of small, extremely intelligent. I was not in the will of God at the time, and did not want to be around him to remind me of that fact.

Well, God must have had other plans. At the time, the department I was working in had people working in teams of two. My partner and this preacher’s partner conspired and went to the boss wanting to work together. He agreed and the preacher and I wound up a team. The man I was working so hard to avoid became my working partner for a full eight-hour day, or rather night, since we worked third shift at the time.

To make a long story short, without sounding judgmental or condemning, this Pentecostal preacher led me back to God’s grace, and subsequently became my best friend. We have spent numerous hours together helping each other through some of life’s most trying times. He has since moved to Texas, but we still talk on the phone and e-mail.

I became a little narrow-minded early after my rededication, and soon saw this as an impediment of Christian maturity. So I asked God to lead me to teachers that would impart, not just doctrine, but His very heart to me. As a result, I found myself saturated in Puritan and Fundamentalist teachings, including John Bunyan, A.W. Tozer, T. Austin Sparks, and David Wilkerson. I also found myself deeply attracted to C. S. Lewis’ writings and philosophies, and esteem him as my father in the faith to this very day, following the pattern of Paul and Timothy. I own over thirty of his books. Through him, I was introduced to the intellectual feast contained within Christianity, and I became a student of allegory and metaphor, and enjoy this over all types of Biblical interpretation and study.

I began re-reading some of the books I had read as a young man, but this time with new eyes. In a Lewis documentary I watched, they said Lewis thought that the literature he read as an atheist was read, “…with the point left out.” the point, of course, being Christ. Was it coincidence that the mythologies and literary works of nearly all cultures involved a god becoming incarnate and dying, only to conquer death in the end? I wondered if I was guilty of the same mistake. And indeed, I discovered that I was.

I began asking myself, “How did I miss it before?” I took books like The Lord of the Rings, a personal favorite of mine, and thought, “No wonder the hero of the story just happens to be physically the weakest character (2^nd Corinthians 12:10b). No wonder I enjoy the story of a man who was King by hereditary right, but chose instead a life of humility to fight and prove his place on his throne (Phillipians 2:7-11). ” I had met these elements before in the pages of Scripture. I will certainly digress on the profound metaphor given to me in Narnia, and its primary character, Aslan. I haven’t the room, and the reader probably hasn’t the time for that lengthy discourse. Suffice to say a door that was already open was re-opened for me.

In late 1999, my mother approached me about meeting a girl that she knew. My mother was working at a bank at the time, and this girl came to her window on regular occasions. This girl had reluctantly agreed to meet me, but now getting me to jive with this conspiracy was going to be the tough part for my mother, for no man wants to be fixed up on a blind date by their mother. I had nearly written off women at that point, though not willingly, and flat denied my mother’s request. Then she said something that changed my mind. It turned out this girl my mother wanted me to meet attended a church in Morristown known for its rigid disciplines. I found this curious, and I had always wanted to meet the man who served as her pastor at that time. This man and this church were notorious in the community as hard-nosed, long-faced holiness. The pastor was always on the front-lines fighting to oppose the legalization of liquor-by-the-drink when it was on the ballot. He never hid behind the walls of his church, but stayed in the community eye as an ambassador for Christ. I was an admirer from afar.

Long and short of it is that this girl and myself met November 5, 1999 and married May 5, 2001. I admit that this girl was exactly what I wanted in a spouse, but was unsure about the ethical ramifications of it. Should I introduce to someone else the misfortune that has plagued me all my life? Do I really want to ask someone to suffer my curse with me for the rest of my life? These reservations made me delay my proposal for months. I knew I loved her, but was having a hard time justifying this move. Ironically, I am now having the same reservations about having children, for my greatest fear is that they inherit this dysfunction. Before I finally gave in to these reservations and proposed, I made her aware of fate’s vendetta against me. We married and purchased the house directly across the street from the house I was born in, and to this day, she is still beside me… suffering.

Interesting note, the preacher who married us was the man who built the house in the 70’s, and is also the man our street is named after. He also happened to be the pastor of the church I was attending at the time.

Finally, in 2002, after throwing my shoulder out paying softball, lab work revealed I had too much calcium in my blood. My doctor wanted to remove two of my parathyroid glands in order to regulate the calcium metabolizing in my body. When they performed the surgery, they discovered a tumor that had consumed most of my thyroid gland. They removed the tumor and the entire thyroid, and I was diagnosed as a Thyroid Cancer patient that day. Residual thyroid tissue, along with any remaining molecular Cancer cells, has since been ablated using radioactive iodine, and this procedure constitutes a radiation treatment. I have now had three radiation treatments and am hoping and praying that Cancer will no longer rear its ugly head in my life.

In 2005, I lost my mother to Lung Cancer. She had always been a heavy smoker, and I knew that her years on earth was purely God’s grace as it were, so it was somewhat expected. But that made it no easier. My father has since re-married, moved out of the little house he and my mother bought when I was two years old, and has sold it.

For the sake of brevity, I have omitted most of the minute details of my past. The task of recounting those would be tedious, and far too boring to justify the effort. There are both happy and sad times to be recounted, but would require a much larger medium than can be found here. I am not even sure I could recall all the events.

Eternal Security

2007-04-02T13:25:00.000-07:00

Among the many disputes between Christian denominations throughout the years, there has been one that has superseded all others as the primary dispute. It isn’t eschatology or ecclesiology, but rather salvation that I speak of. The endless debate on whether one can forfeit their salvation through neglect, after it is once attained.

Many evangelicals, such as Baptists, hold that eternal security, the idea that salvation once attained can never be lost, is the correct idea. While the more conservative evangelicals and protestants, like Pentecostals and Holiness, as well as many liturgical churches, like Catholics and Episcopalians, and some Independents maintain that if salvation once attained is neglected, and one does not exhibit the necessary disciplines of a Christian, then the person in question stands in danger of forfeiting their salvation.

When I am asked this question, my answer often takes my inquisitor off-guard. I remain unconvinced on either side of the debate. You will excuse me if this sounds like a rant. This will not be in-depth, and strictly speaking, is only my opinions, humbly offered, of course. I just want to bring some clarity as why I do not yet swing to one side or the other regarding the argument.

I will start with idea of eternal security being true, and that salvation cannot be lost.

Anyone who knows me personally knows that I was raised in a denomination that believes in eternal security. While in attendance to this church, I noticed a great discrepancy, and indeed what some might call hypocrisy, regarding the idea of eternal security. When the subject came up, and examples were set forth of those who once lived a life of faith, but now walked in their own ways, the church’s explanation was, “If they were truly saved, then God will bring them back at some point.”

Now in principle, this makes total sense. What father, if he was able, wouldn’t make his child aware of the vice associated with abandoning family, and make pellucidly clear the consequences of such actions? Therein lay the problem. In the real world, this doesn’t always take place. I know people who were saved, backslid, and were killed in that condition. And any belief that they came back to God’s grace before their death is pure speculation, and certainly had no external reflection if they did. The formula failed. They weren’t brought back. They died in a backslidden condition, apathetic about God and his ways.

The odd thing is that as soon as this happens, these churches go back on their previous statement rather quick. I have seen the, as supposed, “backslidden” on their death bed tell visiting deacons and pastors that they were saved when they were a child. There was no inclination on the dying person’s part for renewed repentance or rededication, only an assertion that they prayed the sinner’s prayer in their adolescence. Amazingly, this gives the deacons and pastors a sense of comfort that they promptly pass along to the dying person’s family, usually with the statement, “They said they were saved, and that’s all we need to know.”

Even only a child, I stood appalled. What father is such a pushover to let someone trample his name during their entire lifetime, and then allow them into his inheritance without any question, based on the actions done during their adolescence? Would God hold him in no way responsible for this person’s lack of dedication given to the God they now professed to worship?

In fact, I have known many people personally from churches where eternal security was taught. These people were partaking in some gross sin, and when confronted the response was, “God knows my heart.” As if the effects of the sin doesn’t contaminate the condition of the heart, and that the heart remains pure and sincere in spite of gross sin on the behalf of the individual. Of course, this cannot be, for the heart is intrinsically combined with the soul and the body, and what one components does effects the other two components.

Many of these churches will also use the rationale that God will take their lives early if repentance is not demonstrated by the backslidden. Of course, this makes no logical sense to me. Paul makes it clear that, to a Christian, death is gain. So if backsliding brings about an early death without fear of additional consequences, then let’s all backslide. To suggest that the backslidden still go to Heaven, but shortens their earthly life, then it is exactly the same to me as God saying, “You have dishonored me. You have trampled my name and my grace. So as your punishment, I am going to give you your inheritance and reward early!”

That’s truly asinine.

Now many of these denominations will also say that if one’s salvation doesn’t bring about change, then salvation was never imparted to begin with. But if so, then that is, in essence, exactly the same as believing that salvation can be forfeited, only asserted differently. This also fails the “real world” test. For I have seen with my own eyes, those who come sincerely to God with a broken, repentant heart, maintain a standard of Christian discipline for decades, only to fall away at the end.

So, to summarize how I feel about the idea of eternal security being true, the answer is an emphatic “I cannot believe it.” I can never believe that God would save a child of seven years of age, watch this boy grow into a man who lives their life doing what they want to do, giving no thought to God or His ways, never practice any spiritual discipline, never take part in the Church sacraments and ordinances, never study Scripture, never exhibit restraint from sinful inclinations based on the fact that such activity hurts God, and still expect him to waltz into Heaven, no questions asked, upon his death. I could never believe that. In fact, if ever I thought this to be true, I would cease to be a Christian…

I wouldn’t want to worship a God that is such a pushover.

Now onto the idea that eternal security is not true, and that salvation can be lost.

Many conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, and liturgical churches believe that salvation once attained can be lost. Very few of these churches would agree as to how salvation would be lost. Many of the more conservative churches would say that unresolved sin upon one’s death would forfeit salvation, while many liturgical churches, like Catholicism, would maintain that leaving the church itself is synonymous with forfeiting salvation.

Ironically, among the churches that believe that a certain standard must be lived in order to procure salvation, if asked, each one would probably give you a different standard of living, under the pretense, of course, that their own standard is the Biblical prescription, and that looser standards means a loss of salvation, and that a tighter standard is fanaticism akin to cultism.

And besides all that, what standard? The only standard defined in the New Testament is in the person of Jesus Christ, and if our salvation if dependent on living just like Christ, then Heaven will be a lonely place indeed. How many people you know who can say that they, “knew no sin”?
Even the churches disagree on what the salvation-forfeiting sins is? These churches are quick to point out that Christ’s bride will be without spot or wrinkle. But are they aware that this not only includes sins that manifest, but every thought, every motivation of every activity? If anything is done for selfish gain, SPOT. If any attraction is acquired for anyone except one’s spouse, SPOT. Merely thinking of something ungodly, SPOT. If not only can you say that you have no sin, but you can say you have no inclination to sin, then you can say you are without spot, and only then can you say it.

This doctrine hardly holds theological water as well. Does it really make sense that salvation would be attained through grace and faith, without works, but retained and maintained through works and merit? If the acquisition of salvation isn’t through works, then how can the retention of salvation be through works?

Now if you not only never let sin manifest through your body into physical action, but are also never inclined to sin, are only motivated by the purest motivations in everything you do, aren’t prone to humanism, never hold angst for anyone, even for those that are trying to hurt you. If you only think of Christ, and how you can benefit His kingdom, if you are never anxious about circumstances surrounding you, nor are you ever depressed, but are always jovial and kind to your fellow man. Unless you completely lack worldly ambition, and you’ve completely dissented from everything even potentially evil in this world, which includes practically everything surrounding us, unless we have completely separated ourselves from the world we live in, with never no hope of anything ever laying hold of our heart and claiming the area of it that rightly belongs to Christ alone, we are then, and only then, without spot and without wrinkle.

How many people can say that? Not I, and at the risk of sounding judgmental, anyone bold enough to say they are truly morally perfect, I am betting that a little introspection into their life would reveal a spot. No one on this side of the grave has “arrived”. Even Peter had to be rebuked.

Now there are those that say whether or not salvation is forfeited has to do with the heart, and that whether or not salvation is forfeited doesn’t really depend on the sum of sins committed, but the level of sincerity in the heart of the person in question. That the actual sins aren’t what’s measured, but the sincerity and resolve in the heart of the convert. But in my view, this is exactly the same as what I said earlier about salvation bringing about change. Different linguistics used in an assertion of the same principle. Either the bride is, or isn’t, without spot. If I am dirty due to an activity conducive to getting dirty, regardless of my sincerity and resolve to get clean, I am still dirty.

Now regarding these two extremes, there is also a type of relativism to take into consideration. We have to consider what kind of raw-material we are saddled with before passing judgment. It is easy for a preacher who grew up in a wholesome Christian atmosphere to condemn alcoholism as a soul-damning sin. But the man who grew up in a domestic atmosphere ravaged by alcoholism may be exhibiting more restraint by restricting himself a single drink every night in the name of Christ, though he still gets hammered out of his skull, than the preacher has ever exhibited in his lifetime. In this case, based on merit, who is more worthy of Heaven? As Lewis said, if a man has an irrational fear of spiders, letting a spider crawl over his hand may require more courage than shown by many Medal of Honor recipients.

This relativism translates into the fact that the wino who acts based on a spark of conviction may be exhibiting more holiness and merit in the eyes of God than a preacher or elder who is never tempted to the vices that tug so hard at the heart of the wino.

So, for far more fundamental reasons, I must also reject the whole idea that salvation can be forfeited based on a lack of merit by the convert.

So where do I stand? Well, until I get clear revelation regarding one or the other, I am going to live somewhat more stringently than what is considered normal by most Christians today. The conservative view is always the safest when trying to protect long-term investments (but even that reasoning sounds disconcertingly humanistic, which, of course, disqualifies me for salvation, according to some, since humanism is indeed a “sin unto death”).

And besides that, I am nearly certain I will not receive any type of enlightenment as to which
argument is correct, since I am convinced by plain reason that neither idea is correct. I am sure the objective truth lies hidden between these two extremes. As Lewis said, Satan always sends doctrinal errors in twos, and will use your biases against one error to swing you into making the opposite error on the other end of the spectrum. Remember Luther's story about the drunk who fell off the left side of his horse. When he got back on, he tried so hard not to fall off the left side, that he fell off the right side.

Why There Must Be a Hell

2007-02-26T14:00:00.001-08:00

This was a question I was curious about as well until I got into a debate about God’s “benevolence” with a Zoroastrian on a message forum once.

He believed his God, Ohrmuzd, was a truly benevolent God because their doctrine taught everyone makes it to Heaven in the end. Nobody has to undergo what he called, "The Christian idea of eternal punishment."

I asked this Zoroastrian, "If I have spent my entire life rejecting Ohrmuzd, essentially sending Him the message that I do not want anything to do with Him, then how is His forcing me to spend eternity in His perpetual presence a reward and a sign of benevolence?" I do not want to spend eternity in the presence of Ohrmuzd. So how shall his forcing me to do so considered Heaven?

Keeping my reply to the Zoroastrian in mind along with thinking about the predicament the God of Christianity was in when the angels, and consequently, humanity rebelled, it is no wonder He created a Hell. One-third of the angels made it clear that they didn’t want anything to do with God, outside of usurping His throne, of course. So our God, in his benevolence, essentially gave them what they were asking for. He gave them an existence where they ruled and that was completely absent from God’s presence or influence.

And of course, we call it Hell, which term also bears strongly the weight of an undesirable circumstance "Out of the belly of Hell cried I...". But, as been stated before, any existence void of God or His influence will not have a source for joy or happiness or contentment of any kind. For God is the source for all these good things. That is why Hell is associated with pain and suffering. Outside God, that’s all that can exist.

Now, as to the question of why humans who reject God must go there, there are logical answers. First, Heaven and Hell are the only two places one can spend eternity. There is no third place. There can only exist two places. A place where God is, and a place where God isn't. Second, humans who reject God are essentially telling God they do not want anything to do with Him. God is essentially giving them what they’ve spent their entire life asking Him for, that is, they’ve been asking Him for separation from Him. The fact that Hell contains pain and suffering is a corollary. It is God’s benevolence that proves to be reason people go to Hell. Yet, ironically, agnostics and non-Christians say that, according to Christian doctrine, God’s lack of benevolence is the main reason people go to Hell.

So Heaven and Hell aren't defined by the level of hostility, or euphoria of the environment. And on a subjective level, how can any place which has God's presence not be Heaven? How can any place that lacks God's presence not be Hell? I think, as Lewis did, that those that go to Heaven will find they've always been in Heaven, and those that go to Hell will have always been in Hell.

So, in concluding, God sends no one to Hell. God gives everyone exactly what they want. If you spend your life longing for God and wanting to be in His perpetual presence, then that’s what you get. If you spend it rejecting God and wanting an existence where He, or His influence, is completely and utterly absent, then that's what you get.

That’s true benevolence.

Morality, but not Righteousness

2007-02-24T16:53:00.000-08:00

I would like to start with a small introduction regarding “feelings” and their obvious over-emphasis in the contemporary church.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not one to emphasize feelings when it comes to our Spiritual walk. I have many reasons, but the primary one is that I’ve seen many well-meaning Christians do some seriously damaging, and even ungodly, things based on the whole ideology of having “felt” led of the Lord.

But on the whole, I think any practicing Christian can and will understand that feelings do indeed have their place in a Christian’s life. My sentiment is for those who make feelings their divine guidance system for their Christian life. The Scripture and the clear, precise leading of the Holy Spirit are the only two things that can be used for that. And incidentally, The Holy Spirit will never ask anything contradictory to the Scripture.

Now, I am as close to being as Stoic as a Christian can safely be without denial of the grace of Christ. I take Jeremiah’s Proverb very literally when it says that the heart (the emotional center of one’s life) is very deceitful and wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). And I have to question anyone’s sincerity who bases something as important as their salvation on something they claim to “feel in their heart”. For feelings are very fickle, and one’s salvation must based on something much more stable than feelings.

Indeed, the place for feelings in a Christian’s life is the understanding that faith may (or may not) produce feelings, but is not a feeling in and of itself. I mention this because the devotional feeling of faith makes an intrinsic part of the subject matter of what I want to write about.

Now I want to address an issue that has bothered me for some years.

When I first gave my life to Christ in my early twenties, I soon stumbled across a series of sermons by Pastor David Wilkerson from Times Square Church. The messages were ideal for my current season of spiritual growth, which urged me to search out more of his sermons. For around five years, I essentially saturated myself with this man’s teaching. And in spite of the majority of sermons I heard from him being about having faith during various trials, that really wasn’t the thing that drawn me to this man’s ministry. It was, for a complete lack for a better word (and believe me, I’ve searched for a better word), the feeling this man’s ministry instilled during his “hard” and “fiery” sermons.

I remember the first time I heard Pastor Wilkerson preach a sermon on sin and repentance. I had been putting it off for a while. And I was intimidated before I pressed Play on the tape deck. I had heard so much about how Pastor Wilkerson was one of the few preachers left that wouldn’t hold anything back during a sermon on righteousness and holiness since the sermons of the old Puritans and Fundamentalists who led the great revivals. I thought, “Well, I expect to walk away from this sermon with only intimidation and thinking that God despises me.”

He took the stand and apologized.

I was beside myself. He openly admitted to coming to this sermon prepared to, to use his own word, “lambast” the congregation with a strong message against sin. And when he took the stand, was firmly rebuked by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Rest assured he still delivered a strong message that didn’t back down from God’s standard one iota. But for the first time ever, I sat through a message, was thoroughly convicted, and perceived an urge, a “challenge” if you will, to repent, not because we serve a judgmental God ready to fling lightning bolts at us for stepping slightly out of line, but because we serve a Savior whose heart is broken with every disobedient act we commit. By the end of his sermon (and every Wilkerson sermon on righteousness since) I could dynamically sense the pain my sin was inflicting on Christ.

I submit to you that this is rare. I do not wish to stray across the fine-line that makes me guilty of glorifying Pastor Wilkerson beyond that of glorifying God, for I have already mentioned how Pastor Wilkerson was within minutes of making the same mistake the vast majority of ministers make, when the gentle rebuke came to him from the Lord as he took the stand. Were it not for this divine rebuke, no doubt Pastor Wilkerson would have hammered on his congregation so strongly that many might have been permanently lost that night.

But even this isn’t what I want to write about. I want to write about what seems to me an even more dangerous by-product of this “hammering” type of preaching that intimidates church-goers into a moral code rather than leading them to a weeping shepherd who’s heart is broken that a sheep has strayed a little too far from the fold. I submit that one leads to righteousness, and the other leads to legalism.

Though I do not believe in following the feelings produced by our faith, I sometimes enjoy critiquing these feelings and seeing what their implications are. Often, I find myself approaching ministry with a price on my head. The Devil, for whatever reason, has seemingly made me a prime target, and I have caught what seems to be the full blunt of numerous and various attacks by his forces. Ministry ought to be a safe-house, a refuge, a place of rest and recuperation.

But too often, if I feel like Satan’s established enemy walking into church, walking out of church, I feel as if now I have neither God nor Satan as an ally in the great battle. That I am caught in the crossfire, and that neither side desires me as an ally, but just wants to neutralize me as fast as they can as not to be an impediment to their respective side in the war.

This is a source of despair to any who has felt this way. What does a Christian do when they feel God and Satan has their number?

Therein is the danger. A good humble Christian, unless he or she is completely aware of this device, will fall into a moral lifestyle that has nothing to do with righteousness. They do all the right things, not because they love the Lord and acknowledge His love for them, but because they are afraid of judgment. This is plain legalism, and even a special type of Humanism, since the end of this conformance to the Christian moral code is motivated by the Christian’s inclination for self-preservation, and not from a sincere love of Christ.

Sometimes even the preachers are sincere and well-meaning, often even asserting that the use of such tactics is not the way to get Christians to live a separated life. But in the next breath you find them slinging threats of God withholding His blessings, provision, grace, strength, and sometimes even forfeiting salvation if every component, even the minutest, of your life isn’t in perfect alignment with the will of God. The result is a flock of intimidated Christians whose only motivation for pursuing the perfect will of God is either the acquisition, or retention, of the divine benefits associated with being a Christian.

This should not be. Our motivation should be only to please Jesus Christ.

It reminds me of a story. My friend and I were discussing this in some detail years ago. We both confessed of being guilty of the same crime. When we found that we were seemingly losing ground with God, it never appeared to us that it might be God “pruning” his vineyard. We both assumed we were being punished for some monstrous, yet mysteriously unrevealed, sin that has provoked God’s anger causing him to remove blessings from us. So we both went on a demon chase. We went through every possession we had and trashed everything that even might displease the Lord. CD’s, movies, books, all were scanned through, and every one that could even potentially be considered sinful was disposed of.

Demon-hunt over, guess what? Apparently we must have missed something because the “pruning” didn’t cease. God had not revealed to either of us what the problem was, or even that there was a problem, so the clearing away was all guesswork. Books that were just vain works of fiction were trashed, CD’s where perhaps one song was candid enough not to be considered gospel was trashed. Every secular movie, gone.

But look at what we were doing. We were afraid of God. This isn’t what He wants. He wants us to fear Him, in the context of respect. But no father wants his children to be scared of him, and neither does God.

No, I imagine we hastened not our deliverance from the proverbial pruning. We probably didn’t save ourselves one single second of pain by our little house cleanings. In fact, it is conceivable that we prolonged the pruning, since the whole idea that God is like a Greek god ready to relentlessly and mercilessly trample the wicked, is probably not the point He was attempting to communicate to us through the pruning.

So there is a form of godliness that denies the power. A pious life lived by a heart-broken saint and a pious life lived by one who just wishes to meet a bunch of requirements, may look very nearly alike on the outside. But God chooses not to see the outside, but looks on the heart. And He sees that if you are trying to live the life of a saint because you are trying to escape judgment and that this is the divine currency used to buy God’s favor and benefits, I am afraid you are trapped in legalism. But if you are trying to live the life of a saint because you know that you have a savior, a friend, a confidant, and an advocate in Heaven who loves you and whose heart is broken with every sin you commit, then you are closer to Him than you yourself can ever perceive on this side of the great river.

Industry, Education, and the Work-Ethic of Upcoming Generations

2007-01-31T13:11:00.000-08:00

In every production-type corporation, there is a small buffer between the development of a product and the production of a product. This buffer consists mostly of costing-engineers, machine programmers, and draftsmen. I am a member of this little group who lives in this tight area. I help bridge the gap between engineering and production.

This position gives me an interesting perspective when viewing subsequent generations of workers. I am constantly hearing the complaints of managers that younger workers are not driven to excel the way workers of past generations were. My own generation seemingly lies right on the threshold of this dysfunction. It seems that those who graduated high school before 1990 are not as susceptible to this attitude.

But I am not sure that all my sympathies lie completely with the industries who are trying to find and separate the wheat from the tares in regards acquiring good employees. Please allow me to explain why.

Growing up, many of us watched our parents roll out of bed five, sometimes six days a week and make their way to their respective jobs. We watched as our parents dedicated themselves to the moment, and gave themselves to their employers. Most of us also watched our parents receive layoff slips from remorseless employers when orders were low. My own generation has watched employment benefits dwindle into almost nothing; even now we are forced to take retirement into our own hands with IRA’s and 401K’s, with no promise of ever getting a return on what we currently pay into Social Security. Health Insurance benefits require 3 months of work at most places now, while more and more companies are adopting the idea of a year’s service before health benefits are offered.

In short, where is the motivation for our rising generations to adopt the work ethic of our forefathers? General laborers now face the daunting task of competing against the low wages drawn by illegal aliens, along with the constant threat of oversea production services promising cheaper labor costs forcing our general labor jobs to go to other countries. This in itself is detrimental, because even though companies pay foreigners less to do the work, domestic citizens are still their primary patron. And by giving the job of manufacturing a product to a foreigner, we take the means of buying our product away from our primary patron. We castrate, and bid the gelding to, “be fruitful”.

I’ve noticed another disturbing by-product of this. In the past, college educations were fairly rare, at least much rarer than they are today. Contemporary high school students all know that the ability to earn, not even a substantial amount of money, but merely enough to survive, is greatly impeded by a lack of a formal education beyond that of high school. A much larger percentage of high school graduates pursue at least an associate’s degree after they graduate.

This influx of college graduates has forced both high schools and colleges to adopt the practice of “drilling” instead of “educating”. When I attended Drafting school, my teacher told me that acquiring the ability to draw was only part of the course; he wanted to instill something else along with it. A good drafter has the ability to effectively communicate with engineers, who often unknowingly communicate nearly incomprehensively to anyone’s intellect but their own.

Higher education shouldn’t involve the mere cramming of one’s mind with facts, but also should mold the young mind to think a certain way. Colleges today are failing to do this, and I think the horrendous influx of students, produced by the dwindling incentive to become part of the industrial world is the cause. We have exchanged quality of college graduates for quantity of college graduates.

Think about it, in the past, only the truly gifted and intellectual superior among us were given the resources to attain higher education. This was no disparagement to those unable to attend higher education, as the means to acquire a decent living was there for the less educated. Professors did not have a “check-off” list to teach by. They taught their students how to think, and consequently the students settled into the area of expertise that seemingly suited their strengths best. For example, everyone knows I am a big fan of C. S. Lewis. Based on all the biographical details of him that I have come across thus far, none of his teachers pushed him toward studying Medieval and Renaissance Literature, but merely taught him how to read and appreciate the literatures of many cultures and eras. His own inclinations and biases drove him to specialize in Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Today, his observations on that literary era are still renowned in the Oxford literary community. This is such a high contrast of what’s being done today.

Everyone who knows me knows that I have kept my political leaning no secret and that is toward conservatism. It is equally known that I would only call our current president a conservative by the loosest definition of the word I can conjure. His endeavors toward making our schools better have only perpetuated said dysfunction. Instead of government involvement, individual schools should be responsible for hiring teachers that will bring more to the classroom than a mere curriculum, and not be forced to hire teachers who will just ensure good test results. Tests are a farce. The president’s “No Child Left Behind” has put out a test that students must pass, forcing our teachers to alter their curriculum, under the guise of “accountability”. Now our students are being taught what to think, instead of how to think. Our teachers, instead of creating citizens who are culturally aware and flexible to the world’s changing attributes, are simply “teaching to the test” in order to avoid reprimands. Drilling, instead of teaching, is the better word for what’s being done in our public schools today.

These dysfunctions are creating generations of people who want their endeavors, and their consequence to be cut-and-dried. They want their jobs to be on their terms, and the first thing they do when implanted in new positions is to re-wire the job to suit them, instead of adapting and endeavoring to give their superiors what they want. Potential employees want their employment to be on their terms to the extent that few, if any, employers can completely comply. Instead of producing quality, talented workers with the constitution, motivation, intelligence, intuitiveness, and skills to adequately perform their duties, we are creating employees who are self-absorbed and just want to know how their employers can benefit them. The responsibility of this dysfunction lies squarely on the shoulders of the public school system, in my opinion.

When the job market and education learn to disassociate from one another, and when higher-education establishments teach students the art of thinking, instead of just cramming facts into their heads so the next benchmark test will reflect favorably, most of the problem will leave us. Otherwise, things will continue to progress the way they are now. Bob, whose job is now being performed by a Chinaman 7,000 miles away, will not have 5 bucks to buy a gallon of milk, putting Charlie, who works at the dairy farm, out of a job. So now Charlie, who needs a new car, will not be able to go to the Buick dealership and buy new, putting Rick, who works for GM, out of a job. The dysfunction is progressive. The actions of industry, coupled by the inclinations of the public school system will determine the outcome. America’s industry will soon suffer tremendously for it. In my opinion, the cessation of outsourcing for price purposes, along with the constraints imposed on our unskilled laborers produced by this outsourcing, combined with a cessation of government interference into our public schools is the only cure.

Restoring the Ichabod Church to its Former Glory

2007-01-29T13:24:00.000-08:00

Genesis 28:10-21, 35:6-7 & 1^st Samuel 4:3-5:2

Jacob had already experienced God. Like many of us, he grew up with a religious upbringing. And he even knew what it was like to experience God for himself. As he lay on the stone, he saw the vision of the angels ascending and descending. Awake and trembling, he dubbed the place “Beth-El” which means, “The House of God”. He was, as of this moment, a church-goer, who was acutely aware of the presence of the church. He was no longer just coat-tailing his father’s and grandfather’s legacy. He knew that a supernatural Providence had crashed in on his reality. But he still needed another experience.

Many of us are tempted to let the church be central to our Christian lives. We are especially susceptible to this if fellowship and corporate worship are the things we are naturally inclined to. And to be honest, most Christians are inclined thus. Most Christians place faithful church attendance as a higher priority than regular, in-depth Bible study and quality, isolated prayer-time. Most Christians chisel out adequate time to attend at least one weekly service and the majority of true born-again believers attend every service their respective church offers. And yet, the vast majority neglect to spend quality, and quantity, of time in prayer and the studying of Scripture.

Preachers today even focus on the necessity of church-attendance at the expense of other Christian disciplines. Pulpit rebukes for being inadequately fluent in the scriptures are getting rare, as is reprimands for neglecting to get into the presence of Christ daily. But the quantity and vehemence of rebukes for neglecting church attendance are still strong. But this over-emphasis can lead to something dangerous.

Jacob knew the House of God, but he did not yet know the God of the House. Granted, they are located in the same spot, but different actions are required to acquire the apparatus to see each. The vision of the ladder gave Jacob the understanding to recognize, “… this fearful and wonderful place must be none other than the house of God.” simply because he saw celestial creatures about their business. But when he was fleeing Esau, he called the very same place, El-Beth-El, “The God of the House” in Genesis 35:7 because, “there God appeared unto him.” It is not enough for Christians to see The House of God, they must see the God of the House. You see, the current disproportionate emphasis on the church that is prevalent today can cause what I feel is the largest case of idolatry among contemporary Christians, Worship of the Church.

Before you snap to disagreement with me, ask yourself these questions. How do I inquire if someone is in the will of God or not, or if they are saved or not? Do not most Christians ask, “Are they in church?” as if being “in church” automatically made them in alignment with Heaven’s agenda? But this is not the case. Church attendance, and church participation, is not what makes a man or woman in the will of God. Church attendance is a mandated, and good, practice for Christians. It is the over-emphasis that I hold disdain for.

Jacob’s case is the most direct example I can find in scripture, but there is another that is more subtle. It is in the story of Eli the priest just before the reign of King Saul. Eli neglected to foster discipline and order in his sons, who perpetually plagued him with their indiscretions. Being a priest, he knew the Ark of the Covenant was the manifestation of God’s presence and that when the Ark preceded the army to war, the army couldn’t lose. One day, in Eli’s old age, the dreaded thing happened. The candle (representing the Holy Ghost) went out, and The Ark was taken by the opposing army. At the shock of the news, a blind and elderly Eli fell dead, and a child was given a very morbid name, “Ichabod”. Ichabod essentially means, “The glory of the Lord has departed.”

Shortly after the ark was taken, Saul was instilled as king. Saul obeyed God at first, but never asked God about the ark. He never thought, “Well, now that I am king, perhaps God wants the Glory to come back to Israel. Maybe the first thing God wants me to do is reclaim the Ark and bring the glory back to Israel.” Instead Saul sought the prestige and the reputation commonly associated with being king. He was more worried about feeding his men than obeying God. He let Agag the king of the Amalekites live, and allowed some of the cattle to live in order to feed his army. Those who have sympathy for Saul’s plight must realize that his heart wasn’t right in the first place. He wanted the prestige, and missed the principle.

Keep in mind that in the camp, the sacrifice didn’t cease. The Levitical priesthood went along just as it always did since being instilled by Moses. All the priests did the sacrifices and wore their ordained garments. They washed their hands and feet and burnt the fat. They dipped the blood and carried the coals from the sacrificial alter to the incense alter. But there was no Ark. There was no glory. It was the vain observance of ordinances. All the obedience in the world is useless unless the Ark is in the tabernacle.

This is a remarkable picture of the today’s church. To watch the church, it looks very much the same. Songs are sung, preachers preach, and people go through all the motions. But where is the glory that followed the original church? Appearance-wise, it looks the same, but where is the impact? I do not necessarily mean miracles. When Elijah passed Elisha, he merely got a touch of Elijah’s mantle, and it whetted Elisha’s hunger for righteousness so much, that it led him to ask for a double-portion in the end. Why isn’t the world being touched with our mantle, why aren’t they saying to us, “If I could get a double-portion of what you have, I’ll be satisfied.”

King David had the right idea. As soon as he assumed the Kingdom, he wasn’t concerned right away with conquering kingdoms and acquiring the land promised to his forefathers the way Saul was… No… He wanted the glory back. His priority was getting the Glory of God back into the camp. He knew that Beth-El needed to be El-Beth-El again. He needed the God to be in the House of God again.

Next time you are in church, do this. Look around and ask yourself, how many of these people have a real, vibrant, dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ? How many are here based on a sense of obligation or at the urging of family tradition (I was raised in church) How many see this place as Beth-El and how many see this place as El-Beth-El. Don’t do this long, since church is the place where you are supposed to focus on man the least. But take a little time and ask yourself these questions, then ask the question regarding yourself. Why do I go to church? Why do I really go to church? Routine? Family? Friends? Looking for a mate?

Bring the glory back into the camp. The sacrifices and obedience will have no meaning unless the God of the House is in the House of God.

My Library

2007-01-14T07:52:00.000-08:00

This is my library.

An actual listing of my books can be found here.

Here are ten random books from my library.

My apologies

2006-04-22T07:32:00.000-07:00

My sincerest apologies for my blog being down. The Fellowship Hall unexpected ceased hosting blogs, which left me with not much choice except Blogger, which is more than adequate.

At any rate, Rick was wise to backup my blog into an RSS file, and I am working on forwarding many of the posts into this new blog. I am sure you have already noticed the name change as well. Instead of "Aslan is on the Move", it is now "Aslan's Country".

Anyway, I will post again when I have more time. Thanks again for visiting Aslan's Country.