Days of Future Past

Just finished the riveting novel The Ezekiel Option, by Joel Rosenberg. Amazing dramatization of the political upheavals and nuances leading up to the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy. I can only agree with Rush Limbaugh's comment that if you're going to read any novel this year, this would be it, regardless of your political background.

Rosenberg is a "Son of Issachar" of our day. He understands the signs of the times and what Israel should do. His first novel, The Last Jihad, practically predicted 9/11: On January 2001, he thought of a scenario of jihadists using planes to attack the U. S. and the 9/11 attacks came the day before his book went to print. His second novel, The Last Days, anticipated the death of Yasser Arafat and the rise of an Iranian dictator, both coming to pass within a year of publication. And now, The Ezekiel Option shows the final showdown between Israel and Russia. It's debatable whether this particular stand-off will happen before the Tribulation or in the middle of it, but it will happen. And if it happens before the Tribulation, that would lend so much credibility to Bible prophecy. Even then, I'm sure not many people will even acknowledge it as God, but merely an "act of God."

To those who don't know, Ezekiel's prophecy mentions Israel being attacked on all sides, mainly from a northern nation. That can be any nation above Syria on up to Russia (Syria won't be part of the attack).¹ But archaeological evidence along with the ancient names mentioned in the Bible, suggests that the nation will be Russia. I used to think otherwise, especially when the Wall fell in the early '90s. Now with this possible alliance between Vlad and Dinny-boy, I'm once again beginning to believe Magog is Russia.²

Either way, it's still good to study eschatology and live life accordingly, as in, be prepared. Haven't studied eschatology much recently, so it's always good to get back into it.

Here's Joel explaining a few things about this:




Sources:

1. Zaspel, F. (1985). The nations of Ezekiel 38-39. Biblicalstudies.com. Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/ezekiel.htm Not Russia, Syria, or Egypt

2. Gospel.com. (2007). Research on the identity of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39. Asian Internet Bible Institute. Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://aibi.gospelcom.net/articles/Gog_and_Magog.htm Different theories, Russia being valid

The Dating Lessons, Part 3

Practical Thoughts

I used to have so many specific definitions for dating and courting and all that's involved. Now, I just have a few ideas to give single people parameters if they want to have a successful dating relationship.

Know your purpose:
You should go into dating with specific ideas of what is expected in the relationship. First and foremost is the given - to see if you're compatible. Not if you like the same kind of food or hobby, but to see if you can communicate well. Ideally, it's to see if your strengths can help the other's weakness and vice versa. Besides compatibility, you should also have an idea of what you want out of life and to see if both of you can blend those ideas in some way.

Know your perimeter:
Your dating relationship should have physical boundaries. This should be acknowledged and set in your mind even before you begin seeking the relationship. Dating is not a permission to be touchy-feely with the opposite sex which of course would lead to petting and inevitably premarital sex. So to help with that, it's best not to find hiding spots to "keep your conversations private." It's good to have privacy, but it's best to be in areas where you know people may accidentally walk in on you. Staying pure is of utmost importance in a dating relationship because it fosters trust in more ways than one.

Know who you're pleasing:
Entering a dating relationship is not about pleasing yourself. It's learning how to please the other person, but in the context of good communication. As previously stated, dating is not license to satisfy physical desires nor is it a place to salve emotional pain. Both lead to false expectations and does not allow for a freedom to leave the relationship if it is not in the best interest of both parties. In effect, the only one you should please in a dating relationship is God Himself. He is supposed to be the tie that binds the relationship, not sex or sexual contact, or even emotional or physical attraction. It is foremost a friendship that helps to develop your communication skills with the opposite sex.

In dating, you are essentially practicing to be married. Develop the habits now to have a healthy marriage instead of what is common in dating relationships these days: broken people who continue to break each other. By developing those good habits now, you will not only help the other person, but you will know how to deal with the challenges common to marriage relationships.

The Dating Lessons, Part 2

Different Views

Matchmaking
This is the ancient way of bringing people together for marriage. It didn't matter whether or not the two even knew each other, what mattered was the agreement of arrangement. There were three main ways:
By their fathers - usually was a business deal.
By the matchmaker - a person, usually an older woman, who arranged the match using their experience and intuition to achieve compatibility.
By pick - the man chooses among eligible women.

Courting
A woman is wooed by one or more men and a man woos one or more women. Their relationship is strictly on a communication basis. There is very limited physical contact, if there is any. When a pick is chosen, there's a familiarity period. If the girl doesn't like the suitor, the family will protect her from him and the suitor must move on. This is not necessarily the "dating" that we understand it.

The whole purpose for the above was to make a match for marriage.

Dating
In the 1930s, with the advent of the car and the telephone, courting and matchmaking began to change drastically. The couple would go out on a date to get to know each other. Then if they begin to date consistently, they are considered "going steady" with the purpose of marriage. That's when the boyfriend/girlfriend terms were commonly used. This definition is still true for older adults these days. But dating changed even more in the 1950s and 1960s, when dating became more of an activity that gave couples opportunities for the physical benefits of marriage while not really being married. From then on, it went downhill. Younger people in this generation generally understand dating as that mutated form, the license to develop a friendship to the level of a sexual relationship with no obligations. The attitude of the 1960s and 70s, with the cultural acceptance of casual sex, brought about this collapse of premarital standards. All is not lost, yet, because we still have the intuitive sense to stay with one person for life. At least there are still boundaries, like "dating" one person at a time, although that's breaking down also.

God created us for relationships, but as fallen people, we corrupt it. We desire the idea of dating because we're made for relationships and dating is the generally accepted way to be married. As people of God, we have to have standards for dating, we have to have premarital behavior that glorifies God. Doing so will please Him and our relationships will be blessed because of it.

The Dating Lessons, Part 1

Historical Context

From the very beginning, Satan wanted us to do our own thing apart from God.

In the 1700s, Kant developed his categorical imperative, the first part being "act only on that maxim that you would will to be a universal law." So even though Kant tried to make a universal law to his theory on morals, he unfortunately paved the way for the rationalizing of relativism. He was one of many enlightenment philosophers who attributed moral development to reason alone and not on absolutes by the revelation of God intuitively known by all human beings. Kant, along with others during that time period, thought humans could set the standard.

In the 1850s, Darwin proposed the idea that humans did not come about the way the Bible described. He believed that we are a more developed animal and that some races of the human species are better than others. He allowed for the idea that God's word is not reliable. Not long after that, Neitzche claimed that God is dead and that man is all there is. His philosophies helped to spawn Communism and the brutality that ensued.

By the 1950s, the existentialists, popularized by the Beatniks, believed that you are what you do, think, and believe. This concept influenced the hippies of the 1960s and 70s. They thrived on their relativism and the belief in "free love."

Excuses

When unbelievers investigate Jesus Christ and the Truth, they should end up at a decision point: accept or reject. I'm not talking about the point where there is still a lack of information, that's usually the excuse of the agnostic or the ignorant. No, I'm talking about the point where unbelievers realize their need for Jesus, understanding that all that was said in the Bible was in fact true, that Jesus is the Son of God. This becomes an existential and personal fork in the road for unbelievers, whether they have all the information or not. C. S. Lewis, who was an agnostic and became "the most reluctant convert in Great Britain", came to that point and knew that to accept was life and to reject was damnation, and yet hesitated because of his sin nature and used the excuse of lack of information. But he chose Jesus, with the Holy Spirit's prompting, of course, and became one of the greatest Christian writers of his century. The amount of information available now to prove the truths of the Bible is staggering compared to what C. S. Lewis had to work with. A good "quick" look into investigating any of these truths is to read Lee Strobel's entire The Case for... series or even Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I say "quick" because the work was already done and summarized and written as fairly as possible (both men were atheists when they started their study), and it's in quotations because those books take a little time to read. At least it's better than researching for ten years.

Some excuses people use when they come to that point of realization:

1) "I don't think I have all the information yet, so I'll hold off on Jesus."
This is usually the sorry excuse of agnostics and maybe some atheists. Most of the time, it's used by evolutionists who, hope against hope, wait for evidence to prove Darwin's theory. This is assuming that the evolutionist realizes there is absolutely no evidence since Darwin's day that proves evolution. Too bad most evolutionists believe there are facts and evidence to support macroevolution. Or that excuse could be used by the agnostic who is seriously seeking, but is deeply programmed by his intellectual laziness that he won't make the decision out of sheer inveteracy, a la C. S. Lewis.

2) "I'm not ready to make a decision because I'm not good enough."
This is the same as "I'm not worthy" or "I don't deserve it." No, kidding, we ALL don't deserve it! And that's why Jesus Christ did all that work for us because we don't deserve it and we can't do anything about it. We deserve only hell and He rectified our situation. Time to decide.

3) "I'm not ready to make a decision because I don't want to give up my lifestyle."
This person doesn't have an excuse. It is merely a pride and selfishness issue. He doesn't realize the power of God's Holy Spirit in changing a person's life and would rather not follow through with the decision. It could be that this person really doesn't have all the information; he could have missed the obvious and important point that there is something better after choosing Jesus. To this person, I can only pray that the Holy Spirit speaks to him and for a brother/sister to step out in faith and explain a few more things to answer any lingering questions. Outside of that, it links to the next excuse...

4) "I don't want to decide now because I may make Jesus/God/Christians look bad."
This excuse is similar to #2, except this time, it's based on something outside the unbeliever. It can be tied in with #3 because his bad habits are so deeply ingrained, he doesn't think he can ever be free of them. To this person, I must say that some Christians make Jesus/God/Christians look bad. Well, at least some unbelievers acknowledge the purity of Jesus when they say "I don't think Jesus would have done that". As with the previous excuse, it only shows he doesn't realize the power of God's Holy Spirit in changing a person's life and would rather not follow through with the decision. Those who use this excuse prevent their own change.

Under-fire controversy

At the HUB a few weeks ago, I had a talk with Dave, the new volunteer worker. He found out I taught martial arts and we started to talk about the UFC. He asked me, "What do you think about the UFC and how do you reconcile that to your Christian walk?"
"Great question!" I said to him and proceeded to meander my way through this quagmire of a topic. I thought I had a prepared answer, but I was only prepared for the "How do you reconcile martial arts with Christianity?" question, which I've answered dozens of times before. This was a little bit of a twist. How does a Christian reconcile his walk with the Lord to this brutal looking sport?

For those who know me, I'm very much into watching and following MMA tournaments because of my martial arts background. I don't have cable so I do more following-up than watching. The UFC and MMA is as controversial in the Christian world as any popular secular entertainment.

Here are some of the more popular contentions to MMA and my response:

It's a gladiatorial spectacle.
The sad truth in life is that the only way to grab people's attention is through sex and violence. Splash the front page of the newspaper with a bloody story or strip a model of her modesty, and you've got people lined up to dole out their hard-earned dollars. Pay-per-view does a great job of marketing an honorable sport as a gladiatorial blood-fest, when really it is not a blood-fest at all. There are many rules in a highly controlled environment and several contingencies on hand to keep the fighters from severely injuring each other. In the level of violence, MMA is not too different from a boxing match, except this time the fighters have more options. Boxing, in both amateur and professional, has an incredibly high rate of deaths per million fighters, most in training.^[1] MMA has had only three deaths since 1981.^[2] And it's obvious why that is - in boxing, the target half of the time is the head. Also, boxing gloves, while they provide protection for the hands, actually dish out more damage to the target. So instead of a fist and 4 oz. (weight of a typical MMA glove) hitting you, there's a fist and 16 oz. with a greater surface area hitting you. And because of the rules imposed on the fighters, MMA is definitely not going back to ancient Rome like some fear. MMA of today is actually quite tame compared to the brutal matches of the 19th century and is even more tame compared to other forms of violent entertainment since Rome's decline. The way MMA is marketed as a bloodsport is misleading.

MMA engenders violent and unruly behavior.
Nearly all MMA fighters respect each other or at least each other's skill. Only a few fighters bad-mouth their opponents. Compare this to the accepted fake wrestling shows like WWE and such where bad attitude is the norm. Now THAT engenders violent and unruly behavior. Or certain types of music, movies, and TV shows can influence people to violent behavior, but that is another controversial topic that I won't get into now. MMA is a sport and the players are trained fighters who normally don't commit assault in their daily lives. MMA is actually one of the few sports where its players don't commit assault against any other person outside of the arena. MMA does not engender violent and unruly behavior.

How can you call something a sport when you win by assaulting your opponent?
First of all, many sports are violent. Some may say that football and MMA are different in that football's main avenue to gain points is by scoring touchdowns or kicking field goals, while MMA points are gained by nothing other than brutal striking or submission. Just because the avenues to gain points are different, the simple fact remains - both sports are violent. Football even more so. Points are awarded in touchdowns and field goals but to prevent those things from happening against you, it is necessary in football to violently restrain your opponent. Football's protective gear doesn't always prevent injury, either. Most MMA injuries are minor. Refs know when to stop fights and even then, ringside doctors are used as a second measure to stop fights. Fighters too know when to stop because they know it will affect their careers. They'll live to fight another day. Any permanent injury will only keep them from playing their sport. Sports, as defined by wikipedia and most dictionaries, are activities governed by a set of rules and engaged competitively, where the physical capabilities, mental acuity, or equipment quality of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing)." I think MMA fits that definition very well. And the players are sportsmen who, ideally, play fairly and accept the win or the loss.

How can this be edifying?
This is one of those guilt-trip, oh-so holy comments. Most games, from board games to organized sports will have a winner or a loser. The loser is not always edified. Games can be a platform for the winner to encourage the loser to keep playing and learn to win. Pridefulness comes through in many ways, whether in playing a game or merely talking to another person. It is not the game, then, but the players. It is the attitude of the players that make it edifying or not. If we're talking about games that do not necessarily edify, a good example is Monopoly. It is an innocent game, but the way it is played is definitely not edifying. The goal in Monopoly is to take as much as possible from other players, short of stealing it. If the players have good attitudes, then Monopoly is a nice little game to play with family and friends. But, going into the way it is played, Monopoly is a good way to practice materialism, selfishness, and self-glorification. Not very edifying, is it? So how can a person be edified with MMA? Just like with any sport or game, as a spectator, it is entertainment, it is neutral. I don't expect to be edified when I'm watching a golf tournament anymore than I expect to be edified when I watch a chess match. As a Christian MMA player, or any sportsman, the issue isn't primarily edification but in glorification. It is not who wins or loses or even the type of game, but who is glorified. There are a few Christians I know of in MMA who give glory to God whether they win or lose. The same goes with other sports with Christian players - do they give glory to God for whatever endeavor they are in or not? This is true for every Christian, not just those in the spotlight. Then, when God is glorified, that is when Christians are edified. And, not to get too theologically deep here, I'll simply say that if a fellow Christian is weak and may stumble because of MMA, then I will not watch it in front of him or mention it around him.

How do you reconcile the violence of MMA with Paul's statement to live peaceably with all men?
Living peaceably with all men means to live a life without causing strife and unnecessary conflict. MMA is a sport where the fighters respect each other. Most of them come from a martial arts background where part of training is to have a healthy respect for another individual. A person can easily create conflict apart from MMA. I and my brothers and sisters in Christ who watch MMA (mostly my brothers) do our best to live peaceably with all men.

And talking about men, the reason why MMA is the most popular sport among men between 18-34 years old^[3] is because this type of sport goes to the heart of a man's nature. Men have a battle to fight, as Jonathan Eldredge states in his book Wild At Heart. Men are wired to fight and to compete, there's no doubt about that. And since men are visual creatures, we don't mind watching fights either. Women won't necessarily understand this. Some do and that's great, but for the most part, this is alien to them. As Dr. Eggerich says, this trait in men isn't wrong, it's just different. I hope that Dave's wife and my wife will at least accept this difference.

Sources:

1. Svinth, Joseph R. (2007). Death under the spotlight: The Manuel Velasquez boxing fatality collection. Journal of Combative Sport. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_a_0700.htm

2. Svinth, Joseph R. (2007). Boxing Injury Bibliography. Journal of Combative Sport. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_0901.htm

3. Mohapatra, P. (2007, January 22). One-on-one with UFC President Dana White. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-whiteqa122,0,6561424.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines

IMHO forums stink!

Web forums are the bane of my existence. Political forums were my first foray into this weird and ridiculous virtual world. Yes, politics is weird already and the opinions thrown back and forth might as well be wet cow manure. I've only attempted a few times to get into discussions, especially when Bush was elected the second time. Wasn't worth it. Way too much crap tossed about that the truth was muddled. And Christian/religious debate forums can be just as much a nuisance. Oh my word, I've never seen so many people try their best to outsmart each other, it wasn't even funny. And if they weren't trying to outsmart each other, they were trying to outmature or outwisdom each other!

Forums are like that anyway, people laying out their writing "savvy" to be heard. I admit, I always did my best to sound knowledgeable whenever I was pulled into a commenting tete-a-tete. Thing is, whenever the person I was debating with started to give worthless opinions based on anecdotal evidence just to prove his point, I would stop talking to him. I don't want to deal with simple-minded and unsubstantial arguments. But even with the correct arguments, if I followed through with the conversation to the bitter end, what good would that have done? A man convinced against his will...

Yes, I'm sure there are people who excel at this forum thing - strong, brilliant Christians who do their best to represent Christ well, who have their heads on straight. They do exist; I'm still following the writings of a few of them. There were some great points made on the political forums and I've read incredible discussions on theology in the Christian debate sites where I'm always learning new things.

But what really captures my capra aegagrus are martial arts forums. A few of them in particular.

I trained in Jeet Kune Do Concepts for some time and it helped me to be a more open-minded martial artist. I also came from a traditional karate background so I understand the "my style is superior" mindset as well. Once I understood the martial arts, that it's the scientific analysis and practice of self-defense with the progressive development of an individual, I became even more appreciative of the different martial arts of the world. I even thought I could learn a few things from some martial arts forums and talk to like-minded people. Some martial arts forums are decent. Then there are a few that allow for the most obnoxious people to puff out their chests. Those are intolerable. Three sites are black-listed, and I won't honor them by even mentioning their names. They have some childish punks running their comments off. Yes, they may sound intelligent, but in the end, they don't have the openness and courtesy for me to afford them any respect. In fact, because of their lack of credibility, I have no use for their opinion.

In my martial arts development, I'm at the point where the principles of Guided Chaos/Ki Chuan Do is my source of greatest learning. I don't see any other approach to self-defense teaching and practice that is going the direction I'm going - in GC/KCD I found something like the unified field theory of martial arts. There are others I learn from, like TFT and Fast Defense, but Guided Chaos is my bread and butter. There are those in the self-defense community who bad-mouth GC/KCD. Apparently, they've never practiced it and I don't think they ever took the time to even try to understand it. Then I realized, in the self-defense community, there are those who have the "my style is superior" mindset like in the traditional martial arts community. I've learned to leave those people alone. I've also learned to leave those forums alone. If they choose to be close-minded, then I can't do anything about it. I on the other hand will continue to train and keep my eyes peeled so I can learn different approaches. Doing so will only help to develop me beyond the narrow confines of elitist and isolationist thinking.

The main difference between Creation and Evolution

We had our capstone lesson on Creationism by having each person answer questions posed to them using this list of facts. I wanted it to be more like I was playing the evolutionist and they had to respond, but it ended up being more like an open book verbal test.

Creationism
In defense.

"Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays scrabble." - Philip Gold

In the debate between Creation and Evolution, it all boils down to two avenues:

Creation relies on an intelligent agent as its foundation.
This implies that everything came from an infinite source, that intelligence produces fine-tuning, and that information comes from an informer.

Evolution relies on random chance processes.
This implies that everything came from nothing, that randomness produces fine-tuning, and that chaos produces organized information.

One fact point of each area to show evidence of Intelligence, from largest to smallest and from past to the future:

The Galaxy - Our solar system is just at the right spot in the galaxy to have habitable life, between two major "arms" of stars and far enough away from the center with a great abundance of stars, not suitable for life. Any other place would cause tremendous shifts in radiation, gravity, rotation, etc. No other place in the galaxy is habitable because of these factors. We are perfectly placed to be able to see the galaxy and discover quite a lot of it from the safety of Earth.

The Solar System - The sun is a rare star and is just at the right distance. Most stars are red dwarfs. The gas planets are perfectly positioned for protection and all the planets have safely positioned orbits. The biggest clock in existence is the precise balance between the sun, moon, and Earth.

The Earth - Gravity on Earth is just right because if it is too strong, poisonous gases would be pulled closer to the ground, and if it is too weak, most of the oxygen would be released into space. This planet is perfectly designed so that we can discover it. There is just the right amount of all necessary components for life.

The Environment - The distance and tilt of the Earth gives just the right moderate temperature range and it is not as drastic. The amount of water keeps everything balanced. The flow of the molten lava, the ocean currents, and the air currents helps to create an environment well suited for life.

The Human Body - So complex and reasonable in its structure, it is more finely-tuned than the machines we create. Everything, all the different systems, are coordinated with accurate precision.

The DNA - Evolutionists cannot account for its origin and its massive complexity on such a microscopic level. Francis Crick, who didn't believe in God, ironically paved the way for the beginning of scientific thought acknowledging Intelligent Design. If the molecules of DNA were left to combine by themselves, it would turn into a crystalline structure and not life. All the information stored in the DNA betrays an intelligence.

The Molecule - If random, not one molecule would have combined with others to form the way they did. It would take a lot of intelligence to bring atoms together to create simple structures like amino acids that do not even form by itself outside of a biological system. The Miller-Urey experiment, which tried to create life in a test-tube that would've resembled life on an evolution based early Earth, did not demonstrate life coming from random processes. It only showed that life could not have come together without an intelligence intervening in the process (the lab technician who put it together).

The Atom - Unbelievable amount of power in each atom. There is no way the structure of the atom could have been put together randomly. Its very existence owes itself to a power much greater than the power that holds it together.

The Past - Everything in existence came from something! This "something" has an infinite amount of power and intelligence, is outside of our understanding and outside of time, is personal because of the volitional decision to create in the first place.
Evolutionists say that Creationists merely attribute the things they do not know to God, as in, "Since we don't know how the universe came to be, God must have done it." This thinking is called "God of the gaps". But evolutionists have it wrong! We DO know that God created everything and that as we keep discovering more and more scientific evidence, it will only further prove that this universe could only have been MADE. Evolutionists are the ones who have the "evolution of the gaps" thinking, as in, "We haven't found all the evidence, but we know that evolution did it", which is nothing more than circular reasoning. They believe that evolution did it, even without the evidence. That is called "faith" to some people, a wishful thinking, a belief similar to believing in the tooth fairy, which is not Biblical faith. Darwin believed that his case can be disproven if there are no transitional forms. Since the 1850s, when Darwin came out with the Origin of the Species, there hasn't been ANY evidence of transitional forms!

Rethinking Jimmy

What in the world? First, I thought Jimmy Carter was simply a Christian who didn't know how to do his job well, if he is a Christian at all. I spoke with some people, mature Christians who lived through his presidency, and they said Carter lied to them back then to gain their vote. I also read articles saying that he is a Christian and not a liar, but just didn't do what he was supposed to, that he was too weak. Now I'm more sure that he's just a nominal Christian and that he didn't think about the consequences of his decisions, mainly because of lack of knowledge.

What we've learned so far

In youth group, we discussed some of the notes I wrote down from the DVDs we watched these last few months. These were not all the notes I took and I didn't even get to finish, there is just so much information.

From the DVD, A Creation Seminar, we learned that...
Many beliefs are accepted, but there is an undercurrent of bias against Jesus Christ and Christianity.
The Four Great Questions:
1) Who am I? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Why am I here? 4) Where am I going when I die?
The answers are directly related to a person's worldview.
The idea that non-life becomes life is merely belief - anyone can believe that, but it's not true.
Where do we get right or wrong if evolution is true?
Humanist - you are your own god, you have no one to be accountable to.
Creationist - God is the Master Creator and you have only Him to be accountable to.
Satan is the master liar, and he will do his best to lie and let people believe they are their own god.
The devil knows that if Genesis crumbles, Christianity crumbles.
You can take a lie and repeat it for 20 years and it can be accepted as true.
Advertisements shape our buying habits. Evolution is marketed as fact when it is not and yet many people bought it.
Evolution is found in things from kids books to science journals to movies and all touted as true science.
Evolutionists mainly believe their "facts" but these do not fit the evidence.
Evolutionists have a belief system, not a science.
Creation vs. evolution is not religion vs. science but religion/science vs. religion/science.
Science is observable, testable, demonstratable.
God could not use evolution because the mechanism for evolution is based on unintelligent, random chance.
Creation and evolution go in opposite directions. Creation says we were in a perfect state and when sin entered, everything fell apart and continues to do so. Evolution says we were simple organisms and information kept being added on by random chance until we've reached our point and maybe even become as gods.
1st Law of Thermodynamics - energy is neither created nor destroyed (evolution says "nothing" produced "something")
2nd Law of Thermodynamics - entropy, anything in the state of high order will break down (evolution adds information)
Evolution is not just bad science it is NOT science, but a belief system ornamented with scientific jargon.

From the DVD, Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, we learned that...
Many scientists today doubt the validity of Darwin's theory.
Dr. Michael Behe coined the term irreducible complexity, which means that everything in life, no matter how small has an arrangement of different parts that need to work together to function. If one of those parts is missing, it does not function.
A mousetrap is a good example, you need all the parts to catch a mouse.
Simple-celled organisms, like bacteria, are more complex than previously imagined.
The tiny flagellum, which is the bacterium's "paddle", is not too different from an outboard motor. It has a rod with a driveshaft, several cylinders, and a propeller, all ion-driven. It is a biological machine, not just a glob of protein.
Co-option is the evolutionists way to try to get around it, but it is not possible to have any specific part develop on its own.
Simple cells are made up of proteins and these molecular structures confuse evolutionary scientists because they need to be arranged in a very specific way.

Some changes

I'm going to post more than just opinion pieces from now on; I'll be posting lessons I give in youth group and Next Level class. Also, I'll add lessons I may give in the future. I got the idea when my sister Liv and I discussed my blog. She suggested it be more like a lecture. A few days later, I finally filled up the notebook that I use to prepare my lessons. I went to buy another notebook and decided that, unlike the old one, the new one would exclude any mention of my daily life and focus more on deep thought, devotionals, and lessons, along with the opinion. Then I realized, since I already blog for a broad audience, from young teens on up, why not just transfer what I write in my lesson notebook to my blog?

So if any of my writing seemed ground level and basic before, it will be even more so from here on out. But that doesn't mean the reader can't learn something. Sometimes, going back to the basics may bring a person to a greater level of understanding, both of himself and the world around him.

Some of these lesson posts will be back-dated to September, when youth group started for the year.

Back to the Basics

As Christians, we have two jobs and both are done to glorify God: To know Him and make Him known. Everything outside of this is incidental. Make sure you always take this phrase into account and see how it can apply to what it is you are doing - How can I get to know God better through (fill in the blank) and to make Him known through (fill in the blank)? As you read the Bible, you will know more about who He is and what He wants you to do. As you live life in obedience to what He says, you will grow more and see who He is. You may not understand why you did what He told you to do, but that will come in time. All he wants you to do is to obey. As Chambers stated, "understanding comes through obedience."

Amen or ouch? Ouch. Man, sometimes I feel that the lessons I give to the youth group are more applicable to me than it is to the kids.

Have a thoughtful faith

What do you think of when you hear the word "thoughtful"? It implies both reasoning and compassion. Our faith in Christ should be reasonable and should show compassion, not simplistic, thoughtless rhetoric and posturing.

Don't be a mindless/thoughtless Christian. You can't claim ignorance in this life; God already gave you His word to understand Him better and to make Him known. The main reason why people don't live a full life, a God blessed life, is sheer laziness, which results in ignorance. Laziness stems from fear - fear of work, fear of effort, fear of failure, fear of being different, fear of whatever. The ignorant Christian only has fire insurance and doesn't live too differently from the worldly, unsaved person. At best, the ignorant Christian, the thoughtless Christian, has the basics and still goes with the flow of his feelings and/or the opinion of the world, and not on obedience to Christ.

Is your belief merely a program in your mind or is it a personal possession? Is your belief real and truly yours or is it no different from the belief you had in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus? My job as your youth leader/teacher is to move your perspective and your beliefs from the point of passive indifference to a passionate reality.

The Bible and your money

Money is talked about in the Bible almost as much as heaven and hell combined. The reason being is that we have to learn how to handle it well and be good stewards of what God gives us.

The Scripture reference: Luke 16:1-13 - "He who is faithful in little will be given much."

1. Use WISELY!
In Gen. 1:27-30, we read that Adam was given dominion over the Earth. Dominion means "to take care of". He had to work! Work is what we were made to do. The more productive the better, and if it helps others, even more so.
Prov. 13:4 and Commandments 4, 8, 9, and 10 in Ex. 20. are good, solid, foundational principles to hold onto. The Proverbs verse talks about not being a sluggard, not being lazy. The 4th Commandment reminds us not to overwork, but to take a rest day. Commandments 8, 9, and 10 are don't steal, don't lie, and don't covet; the first two are usually a little easier to control, but the last one everyone needs to work on. Those three, when broken, are almost always seen together.
Mt. 6:19-21; 25-34 and Prov. 11:28
Don't love money. Doing so would get your focus away from what God wants for you and He wants to bless you beyond anything you can imagine. He will definitely give you what you need. Do not worry about it! When you trust in Christ, you become joint-heirs with Him, and since God owns all, you have inherited eternal life and all the wealth you can imagine. Just because I only have a few thousand in the bank, it doesn't mean I only have a few thousand. The bank statement is not the measure my wealth. The world sees it as such, but by being an inheritor, I have everything. I'm not just talking about spiritual ideas/blessings; this is material as well. Does that mean I can go out and buy a Ferrari now? No, that's out of God's will because I wouldn't be using my money wisely. I may be able to have one down the road, but that's not important. Things do not identify who I am.
Because I am an heir, I can simply ask God to provide something, and I know He will provide. It may not be in my timing and it may not be the amount I ask for, but He provides. There are many accounts of people with this strong trust in God and God providing in just the right time with just the right amount. Sometimes it was more. But it is all given to bring glory to Him.

2) Save well.
Prov. 21:20 - This is part of using your money wisely but I think it's important enough to have it as a separate item. Some Christians think that saving money is selfish and not helping the kingdom. No, I'd have to disagree, saving money is helpful to the kingdom. It's always good to follow all the Biblical principles of money, not just part of it. One way to see how it will help is through interest. Saving money in a bank will help it grow and then use it for a time when you can help someone with it, if you decide to do so.

3) Tithe consistently.
Mal. 3:10 - This is the only time God allows people to challenge Him. This shouldn't be an issue. He gives you everything, He only asks for ten percent back. It's a matter of trust. Once that trust is established, He promises to bless you greatly and in many ways, not just materially. And this isn't to be confused with giving. Tithing is ten percent of your gross pay no matter what. Giving is above and beyond that. One Bible teacher taught that you tithe what is in your heart to tithe. No, this isn't Biblical, tithing is ten percent no matter how you feel about it. It's preferable that you have a good attitude about it because God did give that promise of showers of blessings. He didn't put it in His word for nothing.

4) Give cheerfully.
II Cor. 9:7 - Be cheerful about giving. Paul reminds us to be cheerful because this is already past the ten percent. It's tough enough to let go of a good chunk of your money, so a change of attitude and perspective is necessary. Also, we're reminded in the previous verse of the Law of the Harvest, that what we sow, we reap. We sow a lot, we will reap a lot. That should be ample reason to give with a huge smile in our heart and on our face.

An easy way to remember these principles is to think of the acrostic:
Give
Use
Tithe
Save
As in "it takes GUTS to handle money well"
or TUGS, as in "God TUGS at your heart to be a good steward".

V for Vilify

"After reading the script, Moore remarked that his comic had been "turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country.... [This film] is a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives — which is not what [the comic] 'V for Vendetta' was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]." He later adds that if the Wachowskis had wanted to protest what was going on in America, then they should have used a political narrative that spoke directly at America's issues, similar to what Moore had done before with Britain."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta




There's something just not right about a movie that tries to make a political statement about the US using a fictional British fascist government. As a movie, I liked V for Vendetta for its sci-fi action quality. What I didn't like was its liberal overtones and equating a fascist government with our present Republican-run system. Anyone who has any good knowledge of history will not make such an inaccurate comparison. But, what do you expect from Hollywood, anyway? That's the one advantage movie-makers have - they can sway people's thinking just by entertaining them. It doesn't take much thought to compare the character Lewis Prothero, the Voice of London, to Rush Limbaugh, oft misunderstood controversial conservative. I'm glad the movie wasn't a hit. It definitely left much to be desired.

I'm sure not many people saw the movie because it sucked that much. But maybe they didn't make much of a raucous about it because many already think that they live in an almost-fascist government. What we have in America is nothing compared to a real fascist government. And liberal-minded people think (erroneously) that a Democrat-run America would solve many of today's problems. Or that any party other than conservatives would help to solve today's problems. No, not at all. What liberals don't understand is that government causes many problems. Conservatives want less power given to the government. When Kerry came out with his phrase "A Stronger America," it only made conservatives shudder because, from our perspective, we read "stronger government control over America." We would end up with the very fascist government that no one wants.

Too many of today's generation do not know their history well enough and I'm not about to give history courses on this blog. I used to be more socialist when I was a teenager, but that was because the history I learned in school was very socialist influenced and I was even sympathetic to Communist ideals. When I studied history for myself and had a broader and better understanding of US history in particular (apart from what I learned in college), I realized how much in error I was in supporting socialist ideas. But it took a little effort on my part to learn the truth. I can only hope the same for the next generation.

Fightin' Amish

In Strasburg, PA, a couple of days ago, two men stopped an Amish buggy with a man and two women inside. The idiots demanded that the Amish hand over their buggy (as a trophy, I guess. "Oh, yeah , we'll tow the buggy back to our hide-out"). One of the muggers threatened them with a knife. The Amish wouldn't comply and one of the women kicked the mugger's hand that held the knife. The Amish got out of there with their buggy and the would-be robbers got in their SUV and fled the scene!

Whether or not the account is true, it's still hilarious to think about the new art of Amish-fu.

Wow...

"I would rather see a Muslim become a Christian than a radical Muslim."
- Nechirvan Barzani, a Muslim and the prime minister of Kurdistan Regional Government

That's some good stuff.

Cocaine or Yoga?

I read an interview of a '70s rockstar who said entertainers back in his day were cocaine addicts and alcoholics. He complained that these days, rockstars and entertainers are generally into yoga and health foods and only rarely does he see those people get addicted to anything bad. On the surface, that sounds good. At least those people don't have any egregious habits or do anything that would influence the younger generation to get into bad things. They are in a position to influence people, which is why it's better for them not to do anything that would risk other people's lives.

Then again that may not be good. When people think they are doing all right and have their own beliefs apart from what the Bible says, then it becomes more of a challenge for them to see that they need Jesus. It's easier for people to see their need for God when they know they are doing bad things and admit that they are sinful. God wants them to reach that point. The worst is when a person thinks he doesn't need Jesus because he is already good enough and feels he is righteous and deserving of heaven. He also has his own guidance system to live life fully apart from what God says in His word.

This is true for all of the world's religions in one form or another - your good deeds should outweigh your bad and that is the way to get to heaven. In fact, this erroneous thought process is a common human belief. What is not common is God's command to believe in His way to get to heaven and not on our own imagined way to heaven. A person who believes he's too sinful to get to heaven has taken the first step to understanding what God says in His word. The next step is knowing that God already paid the price for us to get to heaven. This is usually the tricky part. Some just can't believe it because it's too simple. Others can't believe it because it sounds mythological. And others can't believe for the simple reason that they do not want to believe. They think they may turn into a "religious" nut and start doing these "religious" things like going to church and being a goody two-shoe who doesn't know how to party. That just won't be cool to them. They'd rather live in the slavery of debauchery and ignorance. People who think this way are typical of those who are too lazy to look into what the Christian life is all about. They have this false view that they will become part of a brainwashed cult, so they deny the simple truth that God has done all this work for them. They don't understand that He simply and seriously wants to be with them and desires to show His love to them.

So is it better to have a cocaine addict rather than a practitioner of Eastern spirituality? No, neither one is any good. The death rate of the cocaine addict is significantly higher than that of a spiritualized healthnut, though. But God can work in the lives of both lifestyles. There is no limit to what God can do in bringing people to Him, from the most depraved, to those who think they are highly "righteous."

He got locked up

Moussaoui is finally getting jailed for life. He doesn't deserve the death penalty, meaning he doesn't deserve to be let off easy. With life imprisonment, especially in a US prison, punishment from other inmates and the long wait for death should give ample torture. I'm not gloating over the punishment of an enemy, I'm merely stating the undeniable reality: if you say you want to seriously kill people and even plan to kill people, you must pay the punishment. Capital punishment would have made this mental case into a martyr. No need for that now. And like a villainous cartoon character, the last thing Moussaoui said was "God curse America and save Osama bin Laden. You'll never get him...You think that you own the world, and I would prove it that you are wrong...We will come back another day...As long as you don't want to hear, you will feel, America...America, you lost. I won."

Quite the confident guy. I'm sure he needed to say all that to reaffirm his psychosis. He may have been hiding his fears and anxieties. Well, he's just another jihadist loony. I'm glad he's put away. People like Massaoui should be put away as soon as possible before they hurt or kill anyone. Once they're in jail, they'll need all the help they can get.

Immigracion! Immigracion!

"If only, they say, America would share her wealth, give everyone jobs, open up her borders, offer cradle to grave welfare, free education and healthcare, she will be respected once more. Well I'm sorry but I disagree!!! "Illegal Immigration Protests and Craven High School Principals Posted: April 18, 2006 by Lisa Rahmanan on Alain's Newsletter

I worked for a chemical plant where the majority of the employees were Hispanic/Latino. One day, one of the summer temps, a college student, burst through the cafeteria doors and shouted, "INS! INS! Immigracion! Immigracion!" In an instant, about half a dozen workers got up and walked quickly towards the exit. They stopped when they all heard the kid laugh.

My stance on the immigration issue: enforce the law, kick out the illegals, guard the border. I have nothing against immigrants, I was one myself! My parents had to go through the process; it took them nearly ten years to become American citizens. Amnesty to illegals would not be fair to all of those waiting their turn and it is detrimental to the illegals themselves as well as any potential illegal. They need to be found and they need to be escorted out of this country. If they are that desperate to get into this country, they better use those wits of theirs to find a legal way in. They may have to wait in line for a long time, but at least they'll be going about it the right way. And all this talk about "Immigration reform," as in changing the law to accommodate illegals or changing the law for easier access to the US, is nonsense. The only reform necessary is to actually enforce the present immigration laws. The system isn't broken, it's just been used incorrectly.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Interviewer: "So, what's your response when you hear that a soldier is killed by a roadside bomb?"
Westboro Baptist spokesman: "We rejoice!"

Westboro Baptist Church, what is WRONG with you?! I condemn your actions! I rebuke your approach! How dare you rejoice at the deaths of those soldiers! What unbiblical logic convinced you that it was right for you to start this fatuous nonsense? Fred Phelps, why are you leading so many astray?! I'm not just talking about the people in your church, but those who don't know Jesus Christ yet.

It's horrible enough that someone may have died in their sins, you're making it worse by pushing other people there with your hate. Compel them to make a decision for Jesus, don't confuse them and drive them away from Him!

How dare you call yourselves Christians! How dare you mock the Gospel of Jesus Christ with your hate! Instead of loving them into the Kingdom, you're harassing them into hell! You could use this opportunity to tell sinners about the Truth of Jesus. But YOU ARE NOT! You're telling them lies, twisting God's message! Your actions tell lies about what the God of the Bible and His Son Jesus has done for them, for all of us.

What you tout is NOT Christianity and is NOT Biblical. Do NOT call yourselves followers of Christ with all this protesting, especially the protest of soldiers who have died. Your protest will be nothing but wood, hay, and stubble.

I condemn your actions! I rebuke your approach!

Haters

Intolerance is everywhere. Even Google employees are joining in the anti-Christian, pro-homosexual thought process. I thought Google was about openness and free exchange of information. Guess not. No wonder Google let China's government control its Internet. They like to do the same thing to other people!

Casey at the bat

"The values I live by call on me to fight discrimination wherever I find it." - Bob Casey, State Treasurer of Pennsylvania, at a gay rights gala.

That's right Mr. Casey, the values I live by also call on me to fight discrimination as well.

Let's fight the gay activists who discriminate against Christian values.
Let's fight the abortion supporters who discriminate against life.
Let's fight the secularists who discriminate against God and the Bible.
Let's fight the extremist liberals who discriminate against America.
Let's fight the granola tree-huggers who discriminate against humans.
Let's fight the radical Islamists who discriminate against civilized people.
Let's fight the Darwinists who discriminate against real science.
Let's fight the idiots who think discrimination is bad no matter what it is.

Whoo! That's quite a lot of fighting.

Discrimination is neutral, but it was unfairly given a negative connotation. There is no reason why that connotation should exist. Simply put, people who say they are against discrimination are already discriminating against something. Too bad it tends to be loud-mouthed nonthinkers who want to "fight discrimination."

Oh, by the way, Mr. Casey, may you lose the Senate race against Senator Santorum.

They should quit trying

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons." - Iranian President Ahmadinejad

Quite a creative response to the whole cartoon furor. They created a cartoon contest to see who could make the best cartoon about the Holocaust and challenged European newspapers to publish it. Ahmadinny-boy doesn't believe the Holocaust ever occurred, one of his many delusions. I was as disappointed at that contest as I am to left-wingers who don't understand the true meaning of Roe vs. Wade. Do Muslims in that part of the world know about freedom? Do they even know what freedom of expression is? At best, they have a limited understanding of what it is, as in you can draw cartoons about other people's beliefs, but not about ours.

Yes, I understand that Muslims don't believe in making depictions of Muhammed. But Muslims have made depictions of Muhammed for centuries. And the Danes and most of the West aren't Muslims. So, why should we listen to their demands to stop expression? They should go ahead and kill their own for doing anything against their dear Muhammed, but not the "non-believers."

Here's a good example of what they don't understand. On an Iranian website concering the Holocaust cartoons, there is a note on the front page of the site under a stupid cartoon of Condoleeza Rice:

"Regarding to clarification of the issue of "Holocaust" this website possibly will be closed by United States, in this case please refer to the following addresses..."

I laugh at that simply because they don't know America and they don't know the idea of freedom of expression. There are limitations, yes, like not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Any high schooler in America should know the difference between expression and outright lies, or so we hope. Also, American media should know when not to show something for respect and decency. I wouldn't want to watch a real-life murder nor should I expect to see pornography on major television networks (although it's getting pretty darn close). Because we respect the Muslims living here, none of the major networks showed the cartoons. That doesn't mean we will block or tear down a website just because it expressed someone's dissenting political view.

There's quite a big difference between what the Danes did and what 'Dinny-boy is calling for. The Danes made cartoons based on what the Muslim world have been dishing out: terrorism, extremism, wet-dreams of global domination, discrimination against women, and unparalleled intolerance. And why does 'Dinny-boy want to make fun of the Holocaust? Why does he feel the need to retaliate in an unequal way? Because of the mere existence of Israel! He wants to get rid of Israel because they represent the perennial block to Islam's domination of the Middle East. So, insulting Israel is nothing to him. He could care less for the Jews. And why does he hate the US? Because we support Israel and we don't like dictatorships. So really it's not about expression, is it? The reason all along is to incite conflict in order to take another step to having a world-wide caliphate. He's trying to get his nukes on (which, unfortunately, may happen), so he can gain that "power" to conquer. But there are quite a few nukes from around the world pointing at him, so there's nothing to worry about.

Closer to home, I stumbled onto a video clip and saw a horrible display of Muslim bigotry and chauvinism. In it, a well-dressed Middle Easterner was shouting his mindless bombast about the scourge of America and called on Muslims to stand up. It looked like it was done in a typical American city. This Muslim went on with his tirade while stepping on the American flag. His thugs were around him ripping the flag to pieces. At one point, he said: "Come out of your buildings fellow Muslims and join us. Come out of your buildings! Don't be afraid! This is not like your home countries where you can't say anything on pain of punishment. This is America where women strip themselves of their honor in clubs and you can say anything you want." The protest was done by the Islamic Thinkers Society. I shook my head and disregarded them because of their dissonance. Of course I was offended, they don't seem to know what America is all about. If they were immigrants, they should have known better. Maybe that's why other Muslims didn't come out because many Muslims, especially the newly immigrated, do know better. Those idiots wanted to fight against a government that allowed them to say whatever they wanted. Follow with me, islamic nonthinkers. You want to topple this free country so you can set up your own government based on a culture that won't allow others to say anything on pain of punishment. You should be HAPPY that no one shot you on the spot or gave you a fine. If you don't like our country, why don't you leave? GET OUT! If you say you're not loyal to this country, WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE! Go back to your stinky little havens of dictatorship rule if you prefer that way of life. Leave the innocent alone and go bomb yourselves and your fellow jihadists. Go get your virgins and have fun with the rest of your deluded version of eternity. Warning you now, it may get a little hot for you, and I'm not talking about being surrounded by women.

Great Danes

Taken from Human Events. This is one of Denmark's Jyllands-Posten "controversial" cartoons.

"I gotta say it looks to me like evidence of a very weak religion when people somehow can't stand a cartoon." - Juan Williams

Why is the Muslim world in an uproar over stupid little cartoons? They weren't even that bad. Most were innocuous. Man, I've seen worse done against Christians! It's sad that we as Christians don't stand up with as much vigor. And we have the Truth! Some may say, "Christians aren't as courageous in standing up for their beliefs." Yes, many Christians may not be courageous, but we do stand up for our beliefs - just not over cartoons. Why are Muslims upset? Let's go to the root of the problem: theology. Needless to say, there's a huge difference between Muslim and Christian theology. One relevant example is that Muslims believe you can physically fight the enemy, the infidel who does not believe. There are quite a few references to this in the Koran. In fact, there are several parts of the Koran that calls for the killing of those who do not believe. Sura 8:12 is a good example. Head on a platter anyone? It's not just jihad, either, it's just something to be practiced in honor of allah, the oh-so merciful and forgiving one. If they feel persecuted, the Koran calls to fight and kill the persecutor.

Christians, on the other hand, base their bloodless and peaceful actions on Jesus' words - "My kingdom is not from this world. If it were so, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews." Yes, in context, Jesus was referring to what was happening at that point just before the Crucifixion. But if you take what He said earlier in His life, "my followers" is applicable to every true Christian for all time. His Kingdom is not of this world. It goes beyond physical boundaries. Our fight is in the spiritual and it doesn't involve cartoons.

If anything, the Muslim world should have been outraged at Osama-boy. He was the one who made Islam and Muhammed look very bad. The peaceful Muslims should be protesting nonstop against all the killings and the terrorism. Or could it be that their silence is based on their theology? Oh, yeah, Ossie did a good job with those towers. A bit overboard, but I can feel his pain. I mean, Islam is for the world but those darn freedom lovers keep getting in the way. Down with those evil freedom lovers and their Jewish dogs! I mean, let them be subject to allah's will. (I'm aware not all Muslims think this way.)

Or could it be that those protesters aren't aware of a nasty double-standard? Arab media is always saying bad things about the Jews, and to a certain extent, the Christians. (They equate Christianity with the West, which insults me, by the way.) They draw cartoons that make these Danish ones look like Peanuts. One imam said, "Freedom of speech is good but not when it insults people. There should be limits." Yeah, in your little caliphate, but not in the rest of the world. That guy didn't get it. There is always the risk of insult with free speech. Ideally, free speech should be based on truth. But, humans being idiots sometimes, can go on about anything. I hope those Muslim protesters understand that very basic idea. Time for them to lighten up! I hope they also see that they're making it worse for themselves with all this uproar.

Nah nah na poo poo

Hey, Osama! Is that a white flag I see? Aw, poor baby. Did we bomb a couple of important sites of yours? Did we kill one too many of your important guys? You want to have negotiations you say? Too freakin' bad! You sound like a whipped little playground bully, trying to make peace while making threats to the guy who socked you in the face. So you will strike at us if you don't have these "negotiations"? Still think you're on top, trying to save face? Seems to me like you're insecure. You know you're almost beaten and yet you think you have the upperhand through using terrorism. You are too prideful to be in the position you are in. If you want to keep fighting, go ahead. You'll be defeated by attrition or surrender. Either way, it's up to you. And we'll find you soon enough. In the end, God's in control. Not your fake god, by the way. The real God, the one who brought us the Jewish people who you want to obliterate. Sorry Os, your non-Jewish, anti-Christian dreams will never come true. God is just using you for awhile and then He'll toss you in the trash like He did Hitler.

What would you do?

Yesterday was the 33rd anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision. Demonstrations were the order of the day as anti-abortionists clashed with pro-abortionists in front of government buildings and abortion clinics. With all the noise about abortion, have you ever thought about what you would do if you were faced with the decision to abort? If you are a pro-lifer/Christian, are you ready to back what you believe? If you are, then let's present a challenge. Personalize it as best you can:

We have a married Christian couple, both are worship leaders at their church, both growing in the Lord. One night, the husband stays out late in a meeting with the pastor of their church. The wife is at home and is in bed. Not too long after she turned out the lights, it goes back on again. She looks up and finds a strange man standing at her bedroom door. The strange man attacks and rapes her. She is left alive, but now the couple and everyone they know are devastated. She carries the stigma as the worship leader who was raped. Soon, the wife finds that she's pregnant. What would you do in that situation?

The thing about Pat

I don't like to criticize other Christians, but I'll make an exception for Pat Robertson. Can't say too much about him, don't really know him too well. He's a great guy, my brother in the Lord, and quite the influential person. He's the bane of pornstars and liberals, Communists and radical Islamists. Really, I don't mind when liberal minded people get upset over people like Pat. What I don't like is when I start to get upset over people like Pat. It's more like disappointment than anger. I know you can say whatever you want if you have your own TV show, but man, some things he said embarassed me:

On the court case over Intelligent Design:

"I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there. God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

On President Hugo Chavez:

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

On Ariel Sharon:

"The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, "divide my land." God considers this land to be his...And for any prime minister of Israel who decides he going carve it up and give it away, God says, "No. This is mine...And now Ariel Sharon, who was again a very likeable person, a delightful person to be with. I prayed with him personally. But here he is at the point of death. He was dividing God's land, and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations or United States of America. God said, "This land belongs to me, you better leave it alone."

On judicial activism:

"If you look over the course of a hundred years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

I'm not too sure of Pat's motives nor am I sure how God is using him. Pat could very well be a modern prophet. The prophets of ancient Israel didn't have the most popular things to say. Their words were biting, gut-wrenching, and unpatriotic. They called for the judgement of God on an evil nation, a nation that was supposed to be set apart for the Lord. Likewise, Pat doesn't shy away from letting people know what God will do to them. He could have been misquoted by the media and I am aware that non-Christians don't usually understand the Christian worldview. But, assuming that he was quoted correctly, Pat may be one of the many prophets of God in America. (If that's the case, then my criticism is unnecessary.) He just happens to be the boldest and most televised. There may be some truth in what he says, like the Ariel Sharon bit. He didn't have to say it while the guy was in the hospital, though. Truth needs to be delivered with sensitivity. At that point, the "truth" could be withheld for a tad longer. I think it was more a guess on his part than an actual message from God. Don't know. There are no such things as coincidences, but I doubt Sharon's condition is a consequence of his decisions.

The flipside to this is that prophets were part of God's plan only in Old Testament times and only for Israel. Gentiles were mentioned but it always involved Israel and the coming Kingdom. I believe God speaks through some Christians in ways similar to the ancient prophets. I just believe that specific curses, like the Dover bit, do not carry the same weight. God works in ways that are predictable sometimes, so we of incredibly feeble minds can catch what He's telling us. I believe that 9/11 occurred because of the abundant sin in the US. No, it's not that simple, and there's more to it than that, but I won't be surprised if God tells us later that it was a very big part. Pat may or may not be a prophet for the US, but he sure talks like one. Talking about sensitivity, he could have definitely exercised some of it before making the comparison between our country's erosion and 9/11. Both are serious in its separate context. There was no need to make that comparison, saying one was more serious than the other.

Pat doesn't seem to get the idea of suffering and trials. From what he said in these statements, he seems to believe that problems equal God's curse. He of all people should know that the problems of life doesn't necessarily mean the judgment of God or the wrath of God. Most of the time, problems serve to develop people, not punish them. There are obvious punishments, but there are times when it's really shaping and chipping. He has equated natural disasters with God's will. While it's true that God controls everything, including natural disasters, I know it's just part of what Jesus said, that everything will start to go to crap in the last days. Pat can call all the curses he wants and warn as much as he wants. This is all part of what was predicted long ago, anyway, so it's nothing new.

My suggestion to you, Pat, is to read James again and know what to do with your mouth before stuffing it with your foot. You're making us look bad by saying stupid things like taking people out. Yes, I know Chavez is a murdering scoundrel and gasp even worse than Bush! I personally wouldn't mind Chavez "taken out" of office. (Why did Ford have to stop the US government from assassinating people?) You didn't have to go on TV with it; you should've just kept it to yourself. Hold the Gospel out and you'll get enough of the world's vitriol. Since you like to be political, it's best to do it with tact. You can be political without being stupid.

The only other reason I could think why Pat says what he says is simply because he's getting old. He's becoming a curmudgeon. I can only hope and pray that God keeps Pat's mind sharp and his attitude right when he's in front of the camera.

One Of The Greatest Philosophers?

Whenever I talk about philosophy in the martial arts, I always refer to Bruce Lee and Jeet Kune Do (JKD). I usually say that Lee was one of the greatest modern philosophers but that his brilliance was overshadowed by his entertainment career. Any knowledgeable martial artist or martial arts enthusiast would know that JKD is not a system of fighting but rather a philosophy for self-development. A major portion of that self-development, of course, would be in martial arts training, but training in the most efficient and functional way.

I give Lee a lot of credit for revolutionizing the martial arts for the 20th century. He understood the need for a practical approach to the martial arts and questioned the orthodoxy inherent in the more traditional styles. But as I progress in my training, I've come to question whether I'm correct in labeling Bruce Lee with the title "one of the greatest philosophers." Indeed, this may be blasphemous to say around the hardcore Jun Fan JKD practitioner, but then again, I've never been one to be part of a personality cult. Besides, Lee himself advocated a teaching methodology that focuses on individual instruction rather than mass instruction. He espoused an individualist mindset in the martial arts and opposed the idea of a cult around a person, or system, including himself. Likewise he lived what he believed by creating an approach to self-development that set him apart from the martial artists of his day.

The first 25 pages and the last 8 pages of Tao of JKD (Lee's collection of notes turned into book form), gives the essential treatment of Lee's philosophy. He was influenced by both Eastern and Western thought, but JKD is predominantly Eastern. The philosophical underpinnings of JKD is a mixture of Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and Indian mysticism as expressed in Krishnamurti. The Big Three, as I'll call them here, can be debated over for a very long time, but inevitably, when taken to their logical end, they all come up short. They are unlivable as a spiritual foundation, especially Zen Buddhism, with its nonsensical disregard for the Law of Contradiction (which states that something can't concurrently be non-something). Lee was a philosophy major in college so he should have been fully aware of the Law of Contradiction, as taught in Philosophy 101. But his background and the counterculture mileu of his day emphasized the relativistic post-modernist views that relate well to the Big Three.

In his attempt to explain JKD in Eastern mysticist terms, he overcomplicated JKD for what it is - his own personal development in the martial arts. That's it! Nothing else. Lee acknowledged this simplicity, but it was clouded by the mysticism that was part of his thought process. He intended to create a philosophy that incorporated both martial arts and life and was still in the process of doing so when he died. In fact, he was only beginning to develop as a martial artist. Like any good philosoper, he sought correspondence between thought and reality. Because his cultural and philosophical background was steeped in the Big Three, it only made sense that he expressed it in his martial arts.

Should I label Bruce Lee as "one of the greatest" ? Yes, but to be precise, he's a great philosopher in the sense that Ayn Rand or Lao-tzu are great philosophers. They were not necessarily correct in their thinking, but they earned the title because of their honest struggle for coherence and because of the following that resulted from their teachings. In my book, a truly great philosopher earns the title only if he has reached a sensible, livable, holistic, and logical end to his thoughts, and that includes having a following as well. (And to clarify, it's not an exhuastive end to that person's thoughts, but rather acknowledging absolute propositional revelation and to grow in thought and behavior based on that revelation.) Even though Lee used nonsensical philosophies to undergird his message, he was still able to explain truths about the search for martial arts efficacy and that the individual should always be in a state of learning and growing.

My article JKD vs. PMABM (coming soon) summarizes the comparison between the two approaches to the martial arts.

A Letter to Joe

If anyone has any contact with Joe Martorell, please get him to write me or call me.

Dear (former Youth Pastor) Joe,

Where in the world are you? Don't be afraid to talk to me. Why do you hide in the shadows? Why do you avoid me? Don't you know I'm aware of forgiveness? Don't you know I'd rather talk about things than to not talk at all? I'd rather you face the challenge of talking to me again instead of staying under the radar, living in fear. Fear of having to open up to me and admit that you're human.

Yes, I'm very sympathetic to what you went through eight years ago. I can't imagine what it's like to lose your father then lose one of the youth group kids nearly the same time. Please remember that your dad came to know Jesus before leaving this world. I will never forget the glow on his face, and on yours, after he made the salvation decision. And you couldn't do anything about Mike, so don't blame yourself. It was hard for all of us. I'm now a youth group leader as well and I would be devastated if any of the kids under my care took his or her own life. Didn't realize that it wouldn't take long for you to buckle under all the pressure. I don't even know what you did; everyone told me you did something that caused you to lose your ministry, that was it. Whatever you did I only hope you've already placed it under the blood of Christ.

Come on Joe, don't just avoid me because of what happened in the past. Man, the time I needed you most was back in college. Of all things, I barely asked you for help while I was in youth group, but then after youth group was when all the crap happened to me. No, don't stinkin' feel guilty over another thing now. All I want is for you to overcome! And the first step would be to talk to me. Or if you've already overcome, talk to me anyway. You know very well that nothing you did was so bad that God can't forgive you. And nothing you did was so bad that you can't tell me, or at least give me an idea of what garbage you had to go through. Don't think that I don't know about all the corruption and evil in the world. And don't think I don't know what Christians have to face all the time, either.

So stop thinking about yourself and your mistakes. You know what to do already. Yes, that's right: bless others with what you've learned from the past and help others to overcome as well. If it'll make you feel better, you could make up for everything by showing me what it means to be more than a conqueror.

I'll talk to you soon.

mtc,

L

Unintelligent

It is incorrect to say that intelligent design is the same as Biblical creationism. Before I begin, there are three terms that need to be defined:

Intelligent Design (ID) - the idea that a higher power created the universe regardless of religious leanings with scientific research supporting the claim.

Creation Science (CS) - scientific research based on the Genesis account of creation.

Biblical Creationism (BC) - acknowledging Genesis as the true account of the universe's origins with God as the Creator.

So to use these terms in a sentence: Acknowledging ID, CS has made great strides in offering support for BC.

Or it can be understood in a secular sense: Acknowledging ID, the Sci-fi club had more proof of the superior ancient alien race that created the universe.

The latter is crap, but it should be more understandable now.

It's round two for Darwinism vs. Creationism in the court of law, this time in Dover, PA. Americans are presently more brainwashed by Darwinism than in the last battle. The more militant Darwinists think that creationists are sneaking in through the back door with this new phrase "Intelligent Design." The media, and a number of creationists, define Intelligent Design as the universe being so complex that there must have been an intelligent agent behind it. While that's true for the most part, I would define ID even further to avoid misunderstanding. It's not so much the complexity issue, even though the universe is more complex than if it had spontaneously generated by chance. Rather I would say that the universe can be understood through the use of reason and we can learn more about it using the tool of science. The complexity idea then is not so much that we can't understand the universe, but that we can understand it! There is something reasonable behind the material world, everything from an atom to a galaxy. Once a person grasps even a few principles behind the workings of the atom or the vastness of a galactic spiral, it would be utterly ridiculous for that person to think that these came to existence by random chance processes.

I read one article by a well-known op-ed writer who tried to dismiss the creationists in this renewed debate. He insisted that there is a huge divide between science and faith. He defined faith as a hopefulness for something that may or may not be true. The example he used was a person rooting for his favorite sports team. He said that no matter how hard that person puts his "faith" in the team, by putting on their jersey or waving their flag at the right moment, there is no way that person has any effect on the team's chances to win. He started off with a bad example to illustrate "faith" and he was only in the first paragraph! By using that illustration, he erroneously thought that faith was akin to luck and hope. It's apparent the man is ignorant of the various definitions of faith and the amount of scientific evidence supporting creationism. Not only that, but he wasn't aware of the differences in the three terms mentioned earlier that he should have known if he were to be part of the debate. Instead he jumped in and displayed to the world his ignorance of "the other side."

Another piece I read was some local man's opinion on the debate. He was a Darwinist scientist who said that creationists rely on "gaps" in the evolutionary record to prove macroevolution wrong. Well, it seems this man has gaps in his understanding of what creationists use to prove our case. This "scientist" obviously didn't have too many discussions with creationists. Yes, Lyell's geological column has a lot of gaps and the carbon 14 dating methods have gaps also, but "gaps" aren't the big guns in the creationist argument. Those are merely a couple of pieces in the puzzle. There are several hundred more ways to disprove Darwinism and I'm only talking about one branch of science - geology. The picture becomes more clear for evolutionists (hopefully) when you include other branches of science like biochemistry, astronomy, genetics, etc.

It's too bad that popular scientific opinions are more readily accepted by the masses than good science.

Simpson silliness

"Me and my family got out of that and came to L.A...To see all forms of meditation and prayer made me less judgmental."
- Jessica Simpson talking about her Southern Baptist background

"What's wrong with that guy?"
- David Spade, in a commercial talking about Joe Simpson, Jessica's dad


Of all the things I could write about, I end up with Jessica Simpson. I don't even consider myself a fan. In fact I don't even think much of her or her music. She's this blonde chick who gets in front of my view every now and then on TV or in a store's check-out line. I have no real reason why I want to respond to anything by Jessica Simpson, no matter how dumb it is. Maybe I just want to loosen up a bit with this blog entry, not get so serious all the time. So instead of being combative let me simply complain. I could care less about the idiotic rumors about her and Lachey. My beef is with the statement she made. My word, what the heck is wrong with Jessica Simpson? It seemed the moment she donned the daisy dukes, she cut off her Christian roots. I won't even say anything about the Boots video. She was walking all over something all right - she walked all over her Baptist background and Christianity in general. Unbelievers do that already. Don't need any volunteers from our side of the fence.

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt...for now. She may not be handling the whole fame and fortune thing so well and is in a period of backsliding. Or, it was a statement that was taken out of context. Maybe she is merely less judgmental like she said and that she meant she just got out of the youth group seminar lifestyle of her dad's. Or, (the most plausible reason) she didn't know what it was all about in the first place, thinking she just came from another one of the world's religions. Joe Simpson's ambition for fame and fortune, done vicariously through his daughters, caused him to neglect his first, foremost important job: raising his kids right in the way of the Lord. Yes, Joe, go ahead and exploit them to the fullest! I'm sure Jessica was just one of those kids who wasn't exposed to other points of view and all she knew was the Southern Baptist way. Then came the glitter and the glamour and she never had the chance to really deliberate in her heart and mind what the Truth was all about. I could just hear her say, "Oh, wow, other people pray also? It's not just a Christian thing? Well, then. I guess all roads lead to the same place!" The depth of thought astounds me. And Joe S. was a youth pastor? Sad. I only hope they figure things out about their lives before God does something drastic to them. They're in the position to influence a whole lot of people for Jesus and yet they're only using it to fulfill their desires. Let's see how this all unfolds.

Meaninglessness

"I am in existential depression."
- Garrison Hoffman, using an Arnold accent watching the end of Predator where Arnold sits in the helicopter expressionless after the final fight.

I heart Huckabees is a movie Camus would've loved and hated. I read Ebert's film review and he didn't get it. He had to watch it twice to get an idea of the plot. Of course he wouldn't get it, he's a film critic, not a philosopher. He isn't familiar with existentialism and all its different fractures. The main character in the movie, Albert, was looking for meaning. For about two hours, he goes to and fro finding meaning in life, whether it is in the cause he champions (not allowing a company to destroy a nearby wooded area making way for a mini-mall) or the love he seeks. This was demonstrated in the very first scene when he started to chase someone who looked like himself; he was trying to find himself. The movie was cute and interesting, but wouldn't be something I'd endorse. Way too much cursing and unnecessary scenes; makes something that could've been decent very unappealing. Other than that, I understand the message of the film, which are a series of questions itself, questions any thoughtful person would ask.

When people are unaware of God, or worse, deny His existence, they end up trying to figure out the answers the harder way. There's the hard way and the harder way. Most people live on the surface, as Dustin Hoffman's character says, which is true. They don't want to take the time to answer the hard questions. They live life in ignorance, enjoying it every now and then, working for most of it, then die. Those who do take the time to search for meaning beyond work-play-die cycle will usually have difficulty figuring things out but inevitably, in their struggle, come across God. Then, to deny God will make the questions even harder to answer. They get this muddied thought-pattern/belief-system that even they can't follow. Or those who are brave enough will follow it to its rational end – nothingness. Life becomes a theatre of the absurd (or in this case a movie of the absurd) when man becomes the center of the story. Sadly, our society is heading in that direction in full speed.

Throughout the movie, he didn't seem to acknowledge the existence of God. There wasn't much space in the movie to acknowledge it at all. Albert began his journey and search for meaning through coincidence. There were a few times when Albert randomly came across "the African guy." Because of those chance encounters, he thought there was something that tied them to each other. In the real world, God would've used that thought pattern to lead a guy like Albert to learn more about Him. The sequence would go like this: Albert meets the African guy; Albert thinks his "coincidence" idea; Albert meets up with the African guy and African guy invites him to dinner with his family, who we find are Christians. At least the director makes a brief visit to the Christian experience, even if it wasn't the best example. In the commentary, the director talks about the irony of Christians (and he included most other religions) that they have big, open hearts, but closed minds. How unfortunate that he considered Christians closed-minded. (The different definitions of open-mindedness I explained in "Straight Talk".)

If something like the Christian family dinner scene happened in real life, the idea of coincidence would've been a perfect way to introduce Albert to the subject of God. The director unfortunately portrayed the family as closed-minded in the sense that they were uninformed of the rest of the world's suffering, intellectual and otherwise. Not only that, but he made the father unloving, which caused Albert to run away from a perfect opportunity to meet more accepting, open-minded, and knowledgeable Christians. The director must have had a similar negative experience with the few Christians he's met in real life. I would've loved to have a discussion with Albert and allow him to see for himself the dearth in existentialism. I guess the belief in the ignorant Christian, both intellectually and socially, is still pervasive in this society. H. L. Mencken, the most popular American journalist during the Scopes trial, described fundamentalist Christians as "peasants and ignoramuses" and it seemed to have stuck over a hundred years later. In my experience, when I was younger, I've always seen Christians as highly intellectual and cosmopolitan as any secular person. My dad and my uncles are scholars with intellect and wit that can run circles around anybody. All the pastors I've ever known were very knowledgeable and aware of the world system. It wasn't until I was in my late teens when I met a broader range of adult Christians, from disappointingly dumb to obnoxiously unloving. Just like the rest of the population, some Christians "get it" about life in general and some don't. For those who are seeking the Truth, I only pray that they meet Christians who are aware. No, I don't expect every Christian to be an expert logician and apologist like C. S. Lewis. But it would be nice that they develop themselves. At least C. S. Lewis wrote great books so that we of lesser degree may share with those who are seriously seeking. Those who are truly open-minded will investigate the claims of Christianity and not just regard it as some hokey religion. Some may consider themselves open-minded but are too lazy to follow through with that claim. Then there are those who, when someone says "Christian," get irritated or uncomfortable and it only shows their prejudice and are themselves closed-minded.

In the end, the director dealt with two major approaches to existentialism: looking for meaning through disconnected deconstruction (nihilistic existentialism) or through interconnectedness (Buddhist existentialism). Whether or not I have the correct terms, it's at least a general description of the conflict between Vaubon and the detectives. No matter how much you synthesize (both/and), the human brain will always express its fundamental binary function, seeing antithesis (either/or). By the end of the movie, given the choice between Vaubon and the detectives, Albert synthesizes the two differing viewpoints, as any good existentialist will do. In principle, he created his own new senseless philosophy and Sisyphus is back where he started. Following the synthesis will lead to meaninglessness once again. Take God out and it will lead to nothingness. Start and end with man and life will be absurd.

The Politics of a Hurricane

One thing is sure, Mayor Nagin is no Rudy Giuliani. While Rudy did something during 9/11, Nagin went on radio and bashed Bush and other conservatives saying they aren't helping and practically blamed them for the flood in New Orleans. He should've just kept quiet and helped people instead of turning a tragedy into a political blame game. Helping people would've made him heroic. But his idiotic rant made him look like a fool. Yes, of course people will help, we all see the need. But there was absolutely no need to take this into the political arena. If he needed to say anything, he should've focused on coming together as Americans to overcome the crisis and not let politics divide us.

The leftists will use any means to blame the Bush administration in order to gain the upperhand in US politics. But it was inexcusable for them to use Hurricane Katrina to try to advance their incongruous ideology. They made it seem like Bush himself caused the hurricane. Some have complained that Bush didn't provide the funds to help in building up the levees. The same complainers said there were computer simulated predictions that this very incident would occur and that Bush ignored it. These people do their best to tear others down in imagined and unprovable ways. First of all, if there’s anyone to blame, it’s the laziness of state and local politicians. There is no excuse why it takes so long to build things that can help people. Then again, the reason why the levees weren’t built was because no matter how big the levees, it won’t do any good; New Orleans sits on some really soft ground. Simply put, the bigger the levees, the quicker the sinking of those levees. And there were enough people who knew of the computer simulations to round up the amount of resources to counter this natural disaster. Waiting for the federal government to do anything only shows they don’t know how to help themselves and don’t know the workings of government. Depending on the government for assistance is unwise and inefficient.

So, why did the National Guard come so late? Is Bush guilty of negligence? No, of course not. There seems to be this overwhelming misunderstanding that only the President has all the responsibility of calling in the National Guard to the rescue. Not so. It was Governor Blanco who had just as much responsibility to call them in. She thought the Red Cross and all the other volunteers were already doing a swell job, but she was ignorant to how large a force was necessary to help. Contrary to popular opinion, the LA National Guard, the Coast Guard, the Red Cross, FEMA, and DHS were poised and ready to help before Katrina made landfall. Within a day, several other state’s National Guard were already helping with rescue efforts. The Coast Guard alone rescued a few thousand within two days of the flooding. What we all saw in the news was the National Guard coming in after Nagin told them to help the local and state police. They weren’t late at all, they were already there. There were a few thousand National Guardsmen doing a whole host of things from rescuing to policing. It was Nagin and Blanco who didn’t know how to use the resources efficiently. Besides, with devastation this large, it usually takes time to gather the troops needed and I don’t blame the National Guard for trickling in over the course of the week, all 7,000 and then some. Within four days there were over 10,000 troops helping, not including all other branches of the military. The media made it seem like the National Guard came five days late and that Bush sat on his hands while the Gulf Coast suffered. And they also made it seem like all of our military were in Afghanistan and Iraq while only a few of them were manning the stateside barracks. Some people come up with the strangest conclusions. A few liberal pundits went so far as to call Bush a racist. I shake my head at that because it is so unnecessary. Goes to show the lack of respect these people have for themselves and their country. They also like to make opinions based on a paltry amount of information. I must admit, the entire rescue effort had a lot of errors. Too much happened with inefficient handling of resources. Nagin and Blanco weren’t prepared for the devastation and worse, didn’t prepare the citizens with information acquired from the previous year. They set the stage to play the blame game, but they ended up as the losers.

I'm not a Bush sycophant, but I know when a leader has a good head on his shoulders and a big heart in his chest. He was man enough to take responsibility for the mistakes of others. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.