Posts
“The more people learn about Roe v. Wade and what Roe v. Wade has actually done to our country, the more people oppose the provisions of Roe v. Wade... That is the primary reason that groups like Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women and other pro-abortion organizations want to get out this disinformation — they don’t want people to know the truth about Roe v. Wade.”
- Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, in an interview with Family News in Focus
This is Sanctity of Human Life week. To know how to fight abortion on demand, you'll have to know what you're up against. Read up on Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton.
Here is a summary of those decisions included in the explanation of answers from the Roe IQ test:
1. Under Roe, the Supreme Court gave free reign for abortion in the first trimester, but seemed to rule that abortion could be restricted significantly or prohibited in the second and third trimesters. However, the court said that later regulations must allow for abortions needed to protect the woman's health. Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton (issued on the same day as Roe) defined maternal "health" as: "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." These factors are so vague and open-ended that almost any reason can be and is cited to allow abortion in the second and third trimesters. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973); Roe, 410 U.S. at 164; Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-5; Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).
2. A woman can have an abortion for practically any reason during her pregnancy, as long as the abortion is deemed medically necessary as defined by Doe v. Bolton as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973); Roe, 410 U.S. at 164; Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-5; Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).
3. Under Roe and Doe, there were no restrictions on how late into pregnancy a woman could have an abortion or what abortion method could be used. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).
4. Before Roe, the issue of abortion was decided by state legislatures and some states allowed abortion in certain circumstances. A Supreme Court decision overruling Roe would return the legalization and regulation of abortion back to the elected legislatures, as it was before. Prior to Roe, 30 states had laws criminalizing abortion. In 2006, USA Today, using data from Planned Parenthood's research arm, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, speculated that if Roe were overruled; 22 states would impose "significant" restrictions on abortion; 16 states would maintain the status quo of abortion available on demand; and 12 states would impose some restrictions on abortion. Pro-life groups have estimated that abortion would be legal in 43 states if Roe were overturned. (SOURCE: Susan Page, "Roe v. Wade: The Divided States of America," USA Today, April 17, 2006, Americans United for Life, Defending Life 2007, p. 59).
5. While various sources place the number of abortions anywhere between 40-48 million, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would approximate the number of abortions performed since 1973 to be 40,944,029. (SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Abortion Surveillance – United States, 2003, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 55, No. SS-11, November 24, 2006).
6. Although 78 percent of Americans favor parental notification laws and 72 percent support parental consent laws, under Roe, there is no required parental notification, regardless of age. In several cases after Roe, the Supreme Court cited Roe to strike down state laws that tried to ensure parents would be involved if their minor daughters had abortions. (SOURCES: Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991); Opinion Dynamics Poll, April 27, 2005).
7. Under Roe and Doe, there are no apparent restrictions on sex-selection abortions. Instead, Doe's protection of abortion for a woman's health explicitly includes "emotional, psychological, [or] familial" health, which would allow a woman to decide that having a child of a particular gender would be unhealthy for her or her family. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).
8. Fewer than 1 percent of abortions are done because of rape and incest. (SOURCE: A. Torres and J. Forest, "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives, 20:4 (July/August 1988, 169-76; A. Bankole, et al., "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries," Family Planning Perspectives, 24:3 (August 1998), 117-25, 152).
9. None of the founding documents contains the phrase "right to an abortion." The "right of privacy" that was used to justify Roe, came out of the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, when the court wrote: "The 'right' of privacy is based on the Bill of Rights [which] have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." A penumbra is defined by the Encarta Dictionary as a "partial outer shadow that is lighter than the darker inner shadow umbra, e.g. the area between complete darkness and complete light in an eclipse." (SOURCE: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).
10. The answer is Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the court's most liberal member and former counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. (SOURCE: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade," North Carolina Law Review, 63 (January 1985); 375-386, at 376).
11. Finland does not allow abortion on demand but only under certain circumstances such as life of the woman, as well as rape and incest. [including "health" may be confusing in light of Doe; this change is still consistent with the reference graph] Great Britain does not allow abortion on demand, or for rape and incest. Abortions for other reasons such as the life and health of the woman are only legal in the first six months of pregnancy. Ireland only allows abortion if the life of the woman is in danger; abortion is illegal under all other circumstances. Mexico only allows abortion during the first trimester, and then only under special circumstances (life of the woman, rape, incest, and birth defects). Abortion in the United States is legal for practically any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy. (SOURCE: "Summary of Abortion Laws Around the World," www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm).
12. Roe does not specify who can or cannot perform abortions. SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).
January 22, 2008
Answered in Genesis
I was browsing through friends blogs when I stumbled onto this one by Jud N.:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Questions in Genesis
According to Genesis 1, plants were created on day 3, animals on day 5, and man on day 6. According to Genesis 2, man was formed before the plants (and possibly before the animals, too). Genesis 1 makes clear that male and female were both created on day 6 (i.e. before day 7). Genesis 2 seems to imply that Adam lived some time on earth alone, most likely longer than 24 hours. Can anyone help resolve these quirks? You'd think Moses could have gotten his facts a bit more clear, after all, the Holy Spirit was helping him, right?
EDIT: I've enjoyed the bit of discussion so far, and hope to keep it up, so I did a bit more studying over lunch, and the "straightforward / literal" reading of Genesis 2 in the original NASB not only says Adam was created before plants, but before the animals too, and on the same day that God made everything else. Now it seems we're all mixed up with respect to the Genesis 1 chronology. Regarding whether or not Adam and Eve were made within a 24 hour period, I certainly don't want to limit God, but it does seem that Adam would be limited by time, right? If we're to believe the natural, "literal" interpretation of the passage, that Adam actually gave names to all the animals, it's pretty hard to believe such a task could have been completed in a literal day. I'm genuinely curious if there's an answer to these problems from the "literal history" camp. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
There were a dozen commentors before me. I responded with:
"Adam worked for 12 hours with a half hour lunch when he named the animals. He was denied the two 15 minute breaks because the worker's union wasn't invented yet.
Are you seriously asking or are you just asking to spark a discussion? Do you still have the notes from freshman Bible class in Cedarville? You should find the answers there, including Genesis. (But if you're like me, then you threw them away midway through junior year.)"
Today I responded again:
"I guess you were serious. I was half-asleep when I read your Edit. Since you want an answer, here's the quick version:
Foundation: When you read the Bible, always keep in mind "context." That's the very first rule in Bible study as well as learning Biblical languages. Also, since our Bible was split into chapters and verses in the 13th and 16th centuries respectively, you don't want to rely on that to separate thoughts and ideas - an entire book has to be read as one. Next, boring dan was right in saying that Gen 2 doesn't take into account the chronological order because it merely repeats what was written earlier and that now the writer is giving details about Adam and Eve. Finally, with an old manuscript like the Bible, you have to understand the audience: Moses was writing to Israelites during the journey to the Promised Land.
Let's take Gen 2:5: the Hebrew word for "shrub" is siyach. The only other time this particular kind of plant is mentioned is in Gen 21:15 in the wilderness and Job 30:4 also in the wilderness. And, because we don't live in an agricultural society, we tend to dismiss the word "field." "Field" in Gen 2 is associated with "field" in Gen 3, as in a farm field. When those chapters are read together and acknowledge the audience, you'll see that the Israelites heard the account like this:
"God created everything perfect before sin entered. The world was different then, no wilderness shrub to make farming difficult, before we even had the need to farm, like the way you worked Pharoah's fields. Back then a mist was in the air and covered everything, unlike the dry desert heat you feel at the moment. Rain had not fallen yet, because rain is the result of sin, and I'll explain that later as well. The Garden of Eden was created on the third day with the other plants and God put man, who He created on the sixth day, in it to take care of it. Man did not cultivate fields yet because he had the Garden. Later, when man sinned, he had to cultivate the fields in hardship and eat of its fruit."
Same with naming animals - danielmfoster is right to say there weren't as many animals as we see today. Just like there were only two humans in the very beginning, there were only a small number of animals as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it took less than a day to name them all (along with that half-hour break for some non-Tree of Knowledge fruit).
So you see, there's no need to leave the "literalist camp," nor is Genesis 1-11 just poetry and metaphor, nor do we need to disregard or minimize Genesis and Revelation and only "emphasize the middle." Those bookends are part of a very important whole. By disregarding the six literal days of Creation, you disregard Jesus' reference to it in the NT as the self-evidential truth that it is. I agree that there's been too much squabbling over those two books. Revelation has had too many cheesy movies made of it and Genesis is being blown off by the established Evolutionary dogmatists as myth. How unfortunate that those dogmatists are influencing Christian thought. It's important to accept the entire Bible as plainly true because all the themes tie in with the Gospel - both Genesis and Revelation point to Jesus. With a little time and a lot of research, you'll end up with what you knew intuitively in the first place: Gen 1-11 is literal history, part of God's inerrant word."
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Questions in Genesis
According to Genesis 1, plants were created on day 3, animals on day 5, and man on day 6. According to Genesis 2, man was formed before the plants (and possibly before the animals, too). Genesis 1 makes clear that male and female were both created on day 6 (i.e. before day 7). Genesis 2 seems to imply that Adam lived some time on earth alone, most likely longer than 24 hours. Can anyone help resolve these quirks? You'd think Moses could have gotten his facts a bit more clear, after all, the Holy Spirit was helping him, right?
EDIT: I've enjoyed the bit of discussion so far, and hope to keep it up, so I did a bit more studying over lunch, and the "straightforward / literal" reading of Genesis 2 in the original NASB not only says Adam was created before plants, but before the animals too, and on the same day that God made everything else. Now it seems we're all mixed up with respect to the Genesis 1 chronology. Regarding whether or not Adam and Eve were made within a 24 hour period, I certainly don't want to limit God, but it does seem that Adam would be limited by time, right? If we're to believe the natural, "literal" interpretation of the passage, that Adam actually gave names to all the animals, it's pretty hard to believe such a task could have been completed in a literal day. I'm genuinely curious if there's an answer to these problems from the "literal history" camp. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
There were a dozen commentors before me. I responded with:
"Adam worked for 12 hours with a half hour lunch when he named the animals. He was denied the two 15 minute breaks because the worker's union wasn't invented yet.
Are you seriously asking or are you just asking to spark a discussion? Do you still have the notes from freshman Bible class in Cedarville? You should find the answers there, including Genesis. (But if you're like me, then you threw them away midway through junior year.)"
Today I responded again:
"I guess you were serious. I was half-asleep when I read your Edit. Since you want an answer, here's the quick version:
Foundation: When you read the Bible, always keep in mind "context." That's the very first rule in Bible study as well as learning Biblical languages. Also, since our Bible was split into chapters and verses in the 13th and 16th centuries respectively, you don't want to rely on that to separate thoughts and ideas - an entire book has to be read as one. Next, boring dan was right in saying that Gen 2 doesn't take into account the chronological order because it merely repeats what was written earlier and that now the writer is giving details about Adam and Eve. Finally, with an old manuscript like the Bible, you have to understand the audience: Moses was writing to Israelites during the journey to the Promised Land.
Let's take Gen 2:5: the Hebrew word for "shrub" is siyach. The only other time this particular kind of plant is mentioned is in Gen 21:15 in the wilderness and Job 30:4 also in the wilderness. And, because we don't live in an agricultural society, we tend to dismiss the word "field." "Field" in Gen 2 is associated with "field" in Gen 3, as in a farm field. When those chapters are read together and acknowledge the audience, you'll see that the Israelites heard the account like this:
"God created everything perfect before sin entered. The world was different then, no wilderness shrub to make farming difficult, before we even had the need to farm, like the way you worked Pharoah's fields. Back then a mist was in the air and covered everything, unlike the dry desert heat you feel at the moment. Rain had not fallen yet, because rain is the result of sin, and I'll explain that later as well. The Garden of Eden was created on the third day with the other plants and God put man, who He created on the sixth day, in it to take care of it. Man did not cultivate fields yet because he had the Garden. Later, when man sinned, he had to cultivate the fields in hardship and eat of its fruit."
Same with naming animals - danielmfoster is right to say there weren't as many animals as we see today. Just like there were only two humans in the very beginning, there were only a small number of animals as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it took less than a day to name them all (along with that half-hour break for some non-Tree of Knowledge fruit).
So you see, there's no need to leave the "literalist camp," nor is Genesis 1-11 just poetry and metaphor, nor do we need to disregard or minimize Genesis and Revelation and only "emphasize the middle." Those bookends are part of a very important whole. By disregarding the six literal days of Creation, you disregard Jesus' reference to it in the NT as the self-evidential truth that it is. I agree that there's been too much squabbling over those two books. Revelation has had too many cheesy movies made of it and Genesis is being blown off by the established Evolutionary dogmatists as myth. How unfortunate that those dogmatists are influencing Christian thought. It's important to accept the entire Bible as plainly true because all the themes tie in with the Gospel - both Genesis and Revelation point to Jesus. With a little time and a lot of research, you'll end up with what you knew intuitively in the first place: Gen 1-11 is literal history, part of God's inerrant word."
January 16, 2008
Happy Religious Freedom Day!
Remember the first part of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
No, I didn't know there was such a day either. It's good to recognize it, though. The establishment and free exercise clauses are misunderstood these days, especially with the oft misunderstood unconstitutional phrase "separation of church and state." Jefferson wrote that phrase in a letter to a church, not as a part of our founding documents. It's nice to know his views, although how people read it as separating religion from government so that we live in a secular society free from the Bible's influence is not the correct interpretation of the First Amendment.
Simply put, government should never make a Church of the United States. It shouldn't prefer one religion or denomination over another. The separation of church and state that Jefferson and Madison spoke of in personal letters was so that government will not be able to control churches and vice versa. Like, if Harrisburg controls the funds for the churches in Pennsylvania, collects taxes for those churches, creates its hierarchical structure, makes its weekly teaching schedule, then it violates the establishment clause. Also, government cannot keep its citizens from practicing their religion and expressing what they believe in, on private or public property, or else it violates the free exercise clause. Government should leave the churches alone. Churches shouldn't control government either. A church organization should not run a city or state government or have anything to do with their bureaucracy. But because churches are made up of citizens, they have all the right to be represented and make changes, even Biblically motivated changes, in their government on all levels.
I am glad that I live in a country where I can express my faith with no fear of government persecution. Yes, I may receive social "persecution" but that is nothing compared to what my brothers and sisters face on a daily basis in the 1040 Window, those countries in the world where Christians are constantly harassed and persecuted simply because of their faith. But wherever Christians are persecuted, they grow stronger. American Christians tend to take their freedoms for granted, and many have become weak and shallow in their faith. I can only hope that American Christians will be as strong as those Christians in the 1040 countries. And it's scary to think that the only way Christians in the US will ever be as strong is if our religious freedoms are taken away.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
No, I didn't know there was such a day either. It's good to recognize it, though. The establishment and free exercise clauses are misunderstood these days, especially with the oft misunderstood unconstitutional phrase "separation of church and state." Jefferson wrote that phrase in a letter to a church, not as a part of our founding documents. It's nice to know his views, although how people read it as separating religion from government so that we live in a secular society free from the Bible's influence is not the correct interpretation of the First Amendment.
Simply put, government should never make a Church of the United States. It shouldn't prefer one religion or denomination over another. The separation of church and state that Jefferson and Madison spoke of in personal letters was so that government will not be able to control churches and vice versa. Like, if Harrisburg controls the funds for the churches in Pennsylvania, collects taxes for those churches, creates its hierarchical structure, makes its weekly teaching schedule, then it violates the establishment clause. Also, government cannot keep its citizens from practicing their religion and expressing what they believe in, on private or public property, or else it violates the free exercise clause. Government should leave the churches alone. Churches shouldn't control government either. A church organization should not run a city or state government or have anything to do with their bureaucracy. But because churches are made up of citizens, they have all the right to be represented and make changes, even Biblically motivated changes, in their government on all levels.
I am glad that I live in a country where I can express my faith with no fear of government persecution. Yes, I may receive social "persecution" but that is nothing compared to what my brothers and sisters face on a daily basis in the 1040 Window, those countries in the world where Christians are constantly harassed and persecuted simply because of their faith. But wherever Christians are persecuted, they grow stronger. American Christians tend to take their freedoms for granted, and many have become weak and shallow in their faith. I can only hope that American Christians will be as strong as those Christians in the 1040 countries. And it's scary to think that the only way Christians in the US will ever be as strong is if our religious freedoms are taken away.
January 15, 2008
PMABM Newsletter #4
Hello! Welcome to the new year, another year to be a better martial artist.
For this month, I decided to use two videos representing the two major components of what I teach: self-defense and sport.
Self-defense:
The Dog Brothers have exceptional promotional videos for their product line. This is the promotional for their self-defense video The Interface Between Gun, Knife, and Empty-hand, which shows you how to deal with the knife and the gun. There are several ideas presented that I'd like for you to keep in mind, and I will ask you about them in class. Even though I teach you mainly from John Perkins's approach to the knife and the gun, it's good to be open to other people's views as well. As it says in the beginning of the video, "Research your own experience," and to continue that statement, "Absorb what is useful. Reject what is useless. Add what is specifically your own."
For this month, I decided to use two videos representing the two major components of what I teach: self-defense and sport.
Self-defense:
The Dog Brothers have exceptional promotional videos for their product line. This is the promotional for their self-defense video The Interface Between Gun, Knife, and Empty-hand, which shows you how to deal with the knife and the gun. There are several ideas presented that I'd like for you to keep in mind, and I will ask you about them in class. Even though I teach you mainly from John Perkins's approach to the knife and the gun, it's good to be open to other people's views as well. As it says in the beginning of the video, "Research your own experience," and to continue that statement, "Absorb what is useful. Reject what is useless. Add what is specifically your own."
Sport:
The History channel show, Human Weapon, has segments where computer generated figures are used to demonstrate various martial arts techniques. The two I've included use the same principles - the juji-gatame, also known as the armbar. We have to get you guys back on the mat to practice this basic technique while in full sparring mode. Not only that but we also have to continue practicing how to get out of the armbar as well.
Juji-gatame:
Armbar:
January 11, 2008
Time to pick the donuts
The Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries are over, but I'm still in the process of researching the candidates and figuring out which one best represents me. I'm a values voter and my spiritual values are the basis for which all the other issues are decided - domestic policy, foreign policy, economics, and various others.
For example, in economics, I am a compassionate capitalist. Here is a quick progression of thought as to why: I base this on the idea that God provides. Man is free to make his own choices and build his wealth the way he sees fit according to God-given laws, yet he is inherently sinful. God instituted government to protect man from other sinful men. Because man is flawed, government should not have too much power. With that basis, we move to the U.S. specifically - The U.S. was formed with Biblical principles as its foundation. The Founders knew man was inherently sinful and would take advantage of other men if given power, which is why they created a limited representative government with checks and balances. The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is found in the Declaration of Independence and explained in the court case with justices Harlan and Woods1. As US citizens, we are allowed to pursue whatever we want financially, making sure it doesn't infringe on someone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Government's job is simply to make everyone play fair in this pursuit. Government should help the poor, but in the sense of encouraging citizens to give. Since the Bible doesn't use government as the intermediary to give to the poor, it is not government's job to take from those with more to give to those with less or none. There are those who legitimately need aid, but if unchecked will allow (has allowed) many to relinquish their personal responsibility and neglected the principle of "gleaning from the corners of the field."2 The poor have the responsibility to do what it takes (legally) to provide for themselves. The rich have the responsibility to give to the needy out of their abundance. And anyone who makes any sort of income in the US should give to those in need. So one solution would be tax breaks for those who give which is a great incentive for helping the poor.
I'll just stop there, even though I can keep going. With this progression, I've touched on several topics like welfare, big business, taxes, healthcare, and incentives for giving. I'm sure you can gather what my position is on those issues.
The liberal media make some candidates look more Christian friendly, especially those with no hard stance on the issues. Here is a video that explains this lack.
I'm looking for a candidate who will stand up and strongly declare his position and be willing to follow through on his promises. I'm aware that the candidate will be challenged greatly on those promises if ever he's elected president. The worst would be if he is one way now and then betray his voters by doing an about face during his presidency. I'm looking for someone who will offer a healthcare plan with minimal government interference, who will cut back on government spending, who will put an end to Roe vs. Wade, who will continue to cut taxes, who will hold to the true definition of marriage, who will actually enforce immigration laws, who will win this war, etc. We do not need another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. We do need a more conservative GW, or maybe even a new Ronald Reagan.
Sources:
1. Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City CO., 111 U.S. 746 (Supreme Court 1884).
2. Leviticus 23:22
For example, in economics, I am a compassionate capitalist. Here is a quick progression of thought as to why: I base this on the idea that God provides. Man is free to make his own choices and build his wealth the way he sees fit according to God-given laws, yet he is inherently sinful. God instituted government to protect man from other sinful men. Because man is flawed, government should not have too much power. With that basis, we move to the U.S. specifically - The U.S. was formed with Biblical principles as its foundation. The Founders knew man was inherently sinful and would take advantage of other men if given power, which is why they created a limited representative government with checks and balances. The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is found in the Declaration of Independence and explained in the court case with justices Harlan and Woods1. As US citizens, we are allowed to pursue whatever we want financially, making sure it doesn't infringe on someone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Government's job is simply to make everyone play fair in this pursuit. Government should help the poor, but in the sense of encouraging citizens to give. Since the Bible doesn't use government as the intermediary to give to the poor, it is not government's job to take from those with more to give to those with less or none. There are those who legitimately need aid, but if unchecked will allow (has allowed) many to relinquish their personal responsibility and neglected the principle of "gleaning from the corners of the field."2 The poor have the responsibility to do what it takes (legally) to provide for themselves. The rich have the responsibility to give to the needy out of their abundance. And anyone who makes any sort of income in the US should give to those in need. So one solution would be tax breaks for those who give which is a great incentive for helping the poor.
I'll just stop there, even though I can keep going. With this progression, I've touched on several topics like welfare, big business, taxes, healthcare, and incentives for giving. I'm sure you can gather what my position is on those issues.
The liberal media make some candidates look more Christian friendly, especially those with no hard stance on the issues. Here is a video that explains this lack.
I'm looking for a candidate who will stand up and strongly declare his position and be willing to follow through on his promises. I'm aware that the candidate will be challenged greatly on those promises if ever he's elected president. The worst would be if he is one way now and then betray his voters by doing an about face during his presidency. I'm looking for someone who will offer a healthcare plan with minimal government interference, who will cut back on government spending, who will put an end to Roe vs. Wade, who will continue to cut taxes, who will hold to the true definition of marriage, who will actually enforce immigration laws, who will win this war, etc. We do not need another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. We do need a more conservative GW, or maybe even a new Ronald Reagan.
Sources:
1. Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City CO., 111 U.S. 746 (Supreme Court 1884).
2. Leviticus 23:22
December 15, 2007
Approved to God
December 15, My Utmost For His Highest, by Oswald Chambers
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." — 2 Timothy 2:15
If you cannot express yourself well on each of your beliefs, work and study until you can. If you don’t, other people may miss out on the blessings that come from knowing the truth. Strive to re-express a truth of God to yourself clearly and understandably, and God will use that same explanation when you share it with someone else. But you must be willing to go through God’s winepress where the grapes are crushed. You must struggle, experiment, and rehearse your words to express God’s truth clearly. Then the time will come when that very expression will become God’s wine of strength to someone else. But if you are not diligent and say, "I’m not going to study and struggle to express this truth in my own words; I’ll just borrow my words from someone else," then the words will be of no value to you or to others. Try to state to yourself what you believe to be the absolute truth of God, and you will be allowing God the opportunity to pass it on through you to someone else.
Always make it a practice to stir your own mind thoroughly to think through what you have easily believed. Your position is not really yours until you make it yours through suffering and study. The author or speaker from whom you learn the most is not the one who teaches you something you didn’t know before, but the one who helps you take a truth with which you have quietly struggled, give it expression, and speak it clearly and boldly.
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." — 2 Timothy 2:15
If you cannot express yourself well on each of your beliefs, work and study until you can. If you don’t, other people may miss out on the blessings that come from knowing the truth. Strive to re-express a truth of God to yourself clearly and understandably, and God will use that same explanation when you share it with someone else. But you must be willing to go through God’s winepress where the grapes are crushed. You must struggle, experiment, and rehearse your words to express God’s truth clearly. Then the time will come when that very expression will become God’s wine of strength to someone else. But if you are not diligent and say, "I’m not going to study and struggle to express this truth in my own words; I’ll just borrow my words from someone else," then the words will be of no value to you or to others. Try to state to yourself what you believe to be the absolute truth of God, and you will be allowing God the opportunity to pass it on through you to someone else.
Always make it a practice to stir your own mind thoroughly to think through what you have easily believed. Your position is not really yours until you make it yours through suffering and study. The author or speaker from whom you learn the most is not the one who teaches you something you didn’t know before, but the one who helps you take a truth with which you have quietly struggled, give it expression, and speak it clearly and boldly.
December 12, 2007
The Murray Question
This is the background story on Matthew Murray.
Was this young man ignored? Rejected? Was there something that could've been done differently? What can we learn from his experience to prevent something like this from happening again? Times like these when I question people's belief in Calvinistic sovereignty.
Apparently, Murray wasn't a Christian. Yes, he may have been raised one, but somewhere along the line, something developed in him to make him resent Christianity and, assuming he had "accepted Christ" as a child, made him deny Christ as a young adult.
From the article, he made it clear that he was influenced by the world's culture, especially by the music he listened to. Whatever you program your mind with will change you accordingly. One of the best ways to program your mind is through music because it repeats ideas to a melody, which also affects you emotionally. Or, if you already have a certain emotional bent, music will either assuage it or exaggerate it. I don't need to cite evidence for this through research because this is common knowledge - what you expose your mind to, will affect you. Murray already had a resentment towards Christians and Christianity, so the music he listened to only exaggerated this resentment. But that's only one factor among many that did him in.
I remember one guest to my youth group, we'll call him John, who resented Christian teachers. And he grew up in a Christian home! In his effort to be individualistic in his thinking, John inevitably revealed that he was uninformed and judgemental, the two things he accused Christian teachers of being. (For example, he quickly criticized one teacher's opening message without listening to the following reasons. John practically closed his ears to it.) I don't know exactly what he went through in life, but he is obviously sensitive and hurts easily. I don't deny his intelligence or his temperament; I question his reasoning and how he developed his thinking. It could be several reasons, the reasons that Murray may have experienced: It could have been the Christian teachers in his church or maybe even his parents. They could've been inconsistent in teaching him foundational Biblical principles (they taught it verbally and didn't show it in their lives). Maybe they were consistent but too hard on him, making him follow rules without letting him see the importance of relationships - with God, with them, with others. Or maybe they told him that following specific rules and doing ritualistic religion is what pleases God, which is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. Or it could be that those teachers and his parents did all they could do well and as best they knew how, but he ended up with the wrong crowd. For example, Murray was influenced by the Columbine killers and repeated the phrases they used.
I'm not about to blame the people in Murray's life. If anything, it was his responsibility, he was the one who became the monster. The question remains, though: what can we do to prevent such evil from happening, especially with the people from our own circle of influence? Prayer is top priority, of course, but what else? What can we do with the youth to influence them for God without forcing them or neglecting them?
Was this young man ignored? Rejected? Was there something that could've been done differently? What can we learn from his experience to prevent something like this from happening again? Times like these when I question people's belief in Calvinistic sovereignty.
Apparently, Murray wasn't a Christian. Yes, he may have been raised one, but somewhere along the line, something developed in him to make him resent Christianity and, assuming he had "accepted Christ" as a child, made him deny Christ as a young adult.
From the article, he made it clear that he was influenced by the world's culture, especially by the music he listened to. Whatever you program your mind with will change you accordingly. One of the best ways to program your mind is through music because it repeats ideas to a melody, which also affects you emotionally. Or, if you already have a certain emotional bent, music will either assuage it or exaggerate it. I don't need to cite evidence for this through research because this is common knowledge - what you expose your mind to, will affect you. Murray already had a resentment towards Christians and Christianity, so the music he listened to only exaggerated this resentment. But that's only one factor among many that did him in.
I remember one guest to my youth group, we'll call him John, who resented Christian teachers. And he grew up in a Christian home! In his effort to be individualistic in his thinking, John inevitably revealed that he was uninformed and judgemental, the two things he accused Christian teachers of being. (For example, he quickly criticized one teacher's opening message without listening to the following reasons. John practically closed his ears to it.) I don't know exactly what he went through in life, but he is obviously sensitive and hurts easily. I don't deny his intelligence or his temperament; I question his reasoning and how he developed his thinking. It could be several reasons, the reasons that Murray may have experienced: It could have been the Christian teachers in his church or maybe even his parents. They could've been inconsistent in teaching him foundational Biblical principles (they taught it verbally and didn't show it in their lives). Maybe they were consistent but too hard on him, making him follow rules without letting him see the importance of relationships - with God, with them, with others. Or maybe they told him that following specific rules and doing ritualistic religion is what pleases God, which is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. Or it could be that those teachers and his parents did all they could do well and as best they knew how, but he ended up with the wrong crowd. For example, Murray was influenced by the Columbine killers and repeated the phrases they used.
I'm not about to blame the people in Murray's life. If anything, it was his responsibility, he was the one who became the monster. The question remains, though: what can we do to prevent such evil from happening, especially with the people from our own circle of influence? Prayer is top priority, of course, but what else? What can we do with the youth to influence them for God without forcing them or neglecting them?
December 11, 2007
PMABM Newsletter #3
This month we'll comment on two videos: one from the Guided Chaos youtube channel and the other a surveillance video capturing a real life self-defense altercation.
The Guided Chaos video shows that it is best not to play around with locks or holds especially against an assailant with serious deadly intent.
This second video shows a robbery attempt. The entire event took less than ten minutes, but for the store employees, it must have seemed like an eternity. Fortunately for the employees, the perpetrator was only armed with a knife. Anyone can play the Monday morning quarterback with videos like these, so I'm not going to say too much. I can't criticize the manager for being the hero. As I mentioned in class, what are you willing to do and what are you prepared to deal with before the spit hits the fan? Will you let a perp go and allow law-enforcement to handle everything or will you do what this manager did? Either way would be all right, although the manager risked his own safety by holding on to the perp. Good for him that the perp didn't have a second knife or even a gun. Using the ideas from the first video, you'll see that it was quite a challenge to try and control the perp. (And for you MMA nuts, what technique did the manager use to control the would-be robber? Hint at 3:33)
The Guided Chaos video shows that it is best not to play around with locks or holds especially against an assailant with serious deadly intent.
This second video shows a robbery attempt. The entire event took less than ten minutes, but for the store employees, it must have seemed like an eternity. Fortunately for the employees, the perpetrator was only armed with a knife. Anyone can play the Monday morning quarterback with videos like these, so I'm not going to say too much. I can't criticize the manager for being the hero. As I mentioned in class, what are you willing to do and what are you prepared to deal with before the spit hits the fan? Will you let a perp go and allow law-enforcement to handle everything or will you do what this manager did? Either way would be all right, although the manager risked his own safety by holding on to the perp. Good for him that the perp didn't have a second knife or even a gun. Using the ideas from the first video, you'll see that it was quite a challenge to try and control the perp. (And for you MMA nuts, what technique did the manager use to control the would-be robber? Hint at 3:33)
November 20, 2007
Behind
The evening news occasionally reports medical break-throughs. They advertise these stories as if they had the edge on what's going on in the medical community. When I was growing up, my mom, who's a nurse, would always say how far behind the media was in reporting these break-throughs. I usually rolled my eyes; sometimes I believed her, sometimes I didn't.
Today I read about how researchers can use nonembryonic adult stem cells (ASCs) as an alternative[1] to the more controversial embryonic stem cells. Just like my previous article citing the appendix, I found myself saying, "this report is so far behind." The media lumps stem cells into one category, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and that these are the only kind of cells that are the answer to the myriad diseases and cancers plaguing mankind. And they make it seem like this Bush guy is halting science by withdrawing funding for research into this panacea of panaceas.
The whole debate with ESCs began as a pursuit for cellular immortality through the cell's regenerative power.[2] Researchers were able to isolate ESCs with the hope that these cells will be the most versatile in cellular therapy. But the research proved that ESCs were not capable of immortality. "The only immortal cells we know of are cancer cells."[3] A lot of media hype, liberal thought indoctrination, and celebrity power were the source of misinformation and caused the inevitable controversy. When human life is redefined by government and culture as only occurring in the last trimester of pregnancy, then there will be problems. I don't want to let government be the last word in defining terms for me. Human life begins at the embryonic stage and saying so uses both scientific reasoning and common sense. Destroying an embryo for research is the same as destroying a human life. It can't get anymore simple than that.
Adult stem cells are the best choice in therapy. One stem cell researcher, Markus Grompe, had an ethical dilemma and tried to make sense of the issue. He said "it is factually wrong to state that limitations on ESC research are preventing life-saving cures, and it is equally false to claim that ESCs have no therapeutic potential. At this point, we simply don't know."[4] Even though Grompe leans toward not destroying ESCs, he missed an important point about their research. ESCs may have therapeutic potential, but because it is programmed to develop an entire body, it poses several problems for researchers including genetic instability and the development of cancerous cells. ASCs are being used today on a consistent basis. To date, ASCs account for around 70 therapeutic applications.[5] And they don't seem to be mostly blood related like Grompe said. In fact, there are a variety of applications including various cancers and bodily damage, not just for blood. Yes, it could have all been experimental and not clinical, but it worked.[6]
I'm glad the media pointed out that skin cells can be used as stem cells, but it's old hat. Instead, they should emphasize how ASCs are being used already and that the skin cells are just one of many options people have in helping them with their ailment without having to destroy human life to do so.[7]
Sources:
1. Associated Press. (2007, November 20). 'Milestone' stem cell advance reported. CNN.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/index.html
2. Bethell, T. (2006, November 20). The Great Stem Cell Error. The American Spectator. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10652
3. Ibid.
4. Grompe, M. (2007, October 11). Alternative energy for embryonic stem cell research. Nature Reports Stem Cells. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0710/071011/full/stemcells.2007.100.html [doi:10.1038/stemcells.2007.100]
5. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
6. Hall, R. (2007, July 30). Adult Stem Cell Research Puts Patients First, Proponents Say. CNS News. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070730a.html
7. Lillge, W. (2001) The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research. 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
Today I read about how researchers can use nonembryonic adult stem cells (ASCs) as an alternative[1] to the more controversial embryonic stem cells. Just like my previous article citing the appendix, I found myself saying, "this report is so far behind." The media lumps stem cells into one category, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and that these are the only kind of cells that are the answer to the myriad diseases and cancers plaguing mankind. And they make it seem like this Bush guy is halting science by withdrawing funding for research into this panacea of panaceas.
The whole debate with ESCs began as a pursuit for cellular immortality through the cell's regenerative power.[2] Researchers were able to isolate ESCs with the hope that these cells will be the most versatile in cellular therapy. But the research proved that ESCs were not capable of immortality. "The only immortal cells we know of are cancer cells."[3] A lot of media hype, liberal thought indoctrination, and celebrity power were the source of misinformation and caused the inevitable controversy. When human life is redefined by government and culture as only occurring in the last trimester of pregnancy, then there will be problems. I don't want to let government be the last word in defining terms for me. Human life begins at the embryonic stage and saying so uses both scientific reasoning and common sense. Destroying an embryo for research is the same as destroying a human life. It can't get anymore simple than that.
Adult stem cells are the best choice in therapy. One stem cell researcher, Markus Grompe, had an ethical dilemma and tried to make sense of the issue. He said "it is factually wrong to state that limitations on ESC research are preventing life-saving cures, and it is equally false to claim that ESCs have no therapeutic potential. At this point, we simply don't know."[4] Even though Grompe leans toward not destroying ESCs, he missed an important point about their research. ESCs may have therapeutic potential, but because it is programmed to develop an entire body, it poses several problems for researchers including genetic instability and the development of cancerous cells. ASCs are being used today on a consistent basis. To date, ASCs account for around 70 therapeutic applications.[5] And they don't seem to be mostly blood related like Grompe said. In fact, there are a variety of applications including various cancers and bodily damage, not just for blood. Yes, it could have all been experimental and not clinical, but it worked.[6]
I'm glad the media pointed out that skin cells can be used as stem cells, but it's old hat. Instead, they should emphasize how ASCs are being used already and that the skin cells are just one of many options people have in helping them with their ailment without having to destroy human life to do so.[7]
Sources:
1. Associated Press. (2007, November 20). 'Milestone' stem cell advance reported. CNN.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/index.html
2. Bethell, T. (2006, November 20). The Great Stem Cell Error. The American Spectator. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10652
3. Ibid.
4. Grompe, M. (2007, October 11). Alternative energy for embryonic stem cell research. Nature Reports Stem Cells. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0710/071011/full/stemcells.2007.100.html [doi:10.1038/stemcells.2007.100]
5. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
6. Hall, R. (2007, July 30). Adult Stem Cell Research Puts Patients First, Proponents Say. CNS News. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070730a.html
7. Lillge, W. (2001) The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research. 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
November 19, 2007
Questions
Pastor Deb of Family Life Community Church started a blog and it provides different questions for the week. After a few days or so of thinking about it, I finally came up with a decent question: Is it necessary to keep pushing for political/cultural change while also working on affecting individuals for Jesus or should we keep focus on the individual level with the hope that it will then affect the political/cultural arena?
I can answer that question myself, but I also want to see other people's answers as well.
I can answer that question myself, but I also want to see other people's answers as well.
November 18, 2007
Useless organs?
I wanted to review the human muscular system and looked into the book Anatomy and Physiology, which my wife borrowed from a friend. When I opened the book, the first chapter had a section devoted to evolution. I thought evolution was dumb before, but after the Creation Seminar this past week, it was laughable to see the "evidence" for evolution. There was a little factoid box on page 11 that talked about vestigial organs,[1] organs that have lost function or just have limited function because of an evolutionary development in the human body. First of all, "the list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999."[2] This Anatomy and Physiology book was the second edition from 2001. The editors were either clueless about the recent finds in medicine about those organs, or they were in denial. I noticed that the list of vestigial organs was limited to human body hair and the muscles for ear movement. Neither are vestigial either, just part of the bigger system of the human body. Just because evolutionists don't know its purpose or how it developed, does not mean it has no function or that it is simply a vestige of a previously functioning organ. Right now, I'll get rid of doubts about the most cited "vestigial" organ - the appendix:
The appendix is a very useful and complex organ in the body. The evolutionary dogma that states the appendix is vestigial most likely hampered any major advance in research concerning its true function: being part of the immune system. Ham and Wieland (1997) cites a medical textbook by Dr. Martini saying: "the authors are emphatic about the function of the appendix: The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."[3] Ham and Wieland says further: "the appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
1. IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
2. IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream."
Last month, I read a CNN report saying that Duke University Medical School doctors found the purpose of the appendix. I'm not a doctor and yet I was fully aware of the appendix's function back in college. The "new" medical find was actually behind the times. The article quoted a Duke University surgery professor who said, "in less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S."[4] The professor didn't seem to account for the diet of industrialized nations - generally processed, ultra-hygienic, and low in natural fiber. Ham and Wieland states "it is clear that appendicitis is only common in countries where a very highly refined modern diet is eaten. Where people eat a high proportion of vegetables, fruit and unrefined cereals, (in other words, have a high fiber diet), appendicitis is actually very rare.[3]"
I shake my head in disbelief when I read professional literature that talks of vestigial organs as if it is still a valid research subject. I think to myself, "People with doctorates write this stuff?" I'm tempted to get a doctorate as well and be one of a growing number of scientists who know that life didn't come about by chance and evolutionary processes, but by the power of the Creator.
Sources:
1. Saladin, K. (2001). Anatomy and physiology: The unity of form and function. McGraw-Hill: New York.
2. Bergman, J. (2000). Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal 14(2):95–98. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
3. Ham, K. & Wieland, C. (1997). Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason. Creation 20(1):41–42 December 1997. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
4. CNN.com (2007, October 5). Purpose of appendix believed found. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
The appendix is a very useful and complex organ in the body. The evolutionary dogma that states the appendix is vestigial most likely hampered any major advance in research concerning its true function: being part of the immune system. Ham and Wieland (1997) cites a medical textbook by Dr. Martini saying: "the authors are emphatic about the function of the appendix: The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."[3] Ham and Wieland says further: "the appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
1. IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
2. IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream."
Last month, I read a CNN report saying that Duke University Medical School doctors found the purpose of the appendix. I'm not a doctor and yet I was fully aware of the appendix's function back in college. The "new" medical find was actually behind the times. The article quoted a Duke University surgery professor who said, "in less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S."[4] The professor didn't seem to account for the diet of industrialized nations - generally processed, ultra-hygienic, and low in natural fiber. Ham and Wieland states "it is clear that appendicitis is only common in countries where a very highly refined modern diet is eaten. Where people eat a high proportion of vegetables, fruit and unrefined cereals, (in other words, have a high fiber diet), appendicitis is actually very rare.[3]"
I shake my head in disbelief when I read professional literature that talks of vestigial organs as if it is still a valid research subject. I think to myself, "People with doctorates write this stuff?" I'm tempted to get a doctorate as well and be one of a growing number of scientists who know that life didn't come about by chance and evolutionary processes, but by the power of the Creator.
Sources:
1. Saladin, K. (2001). Anatomy and physiology: The unity of form and function. McGraw-Hill: New York.
2. Bergman, J. (2000). Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal 14(2):95–98. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
3. Ham, K. & Wieland, C. (1997). Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason. Creation 20(1):41–42 December 1997. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
4. CNN.com (2007, October 5). Purpose of appendix believed found. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
November 09, 2007
Wiki madness
I love online encyclopedias because they make research a little more convenient. I'm aware they're not always credible and they're not academic journals, no matter how academic they may sound. The biggest and most popular is Wikipedia. Based on the free Media wiki software, this encyclopedia is constantly growing and is a good start in any research endeavor. But because I'm into the truth, I also look for another view to the facts. Wikipedia is good for general usage, but because of the slightly liberal (or blatantly liberal) views on certain topics, I balance it out with Conservapedia, the more conservative view of the facts. I won't even get into the radical and nonsensical wiki sites, like the supposedly "rational" wiki. And if I'm looking for theology or anything related, I use Theopedia, which seems to be dependable. All three combined are useful in leading me to better sources.
Sources:
Media Wiki (2007). http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Wiki Index (2007). http://www.wikiindex.org/Category:MediaWiki
Sources:
Media Wiki (2007). http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Wiki Index (2007). http://www.wikiindex.org/Category:MediaWiki
November 08, 2007
PMABM Newsletter #2
I've decided to do a monthly newsletter instead of a bi-weekly one, since there isn't a big readership for it right now, and I have way too much to do.
This month's video is from the Dog Brothers. This is their promo video for their semi-annual Gathering of the Pack tournaments, which is beyond UFC and something more akin to what we like to do. They take the cake in how advanced they are in their approach to martial arts and they do a wonderful job at promoting this event. Make sure you comment on this and if you haven't commented on the previous video that you do so as well.
This month's video is from the Dog Brothers. This is their promo video for their semi-annual Gathering of the Pack tournaments, which is beyond UFC and something more akin to what we like to do. They take the cake in how advanced they are in their approach to martial arts and they do a wonderful job at promoting this event. Make sure you comment on this and if you haven't commented on the previous video that you do so as well.
October 22, 2007
Heroes welcome
I finally got to watch the first few episodes of Heroes. My sisters promoted it so much to me that I finally took the time to rent it. It's like a superhero comic book without the cheese. From what I see so far, it's a good combination of X-Files and X-Men, both being top-notch in their respective areas of sci-fi. My sibs and I are big sci-fi fans and we also read comic books growing up. Not only that but we're into good literature and we're quite familiar with world myths. Heroes is now another great addition to our stockpile of addictive stories that color our conversations.
I have one critique - Heroes is so blatantly pro-evolution that sometimes it's tough not to get riled up. Yes, it's a sci-fi show, but it's based on concepts that people think is real science. I'm sure many scientists cringe also, but for the evolutionists, this is one entertaining way to market and indoctrinate their religion. As I'm doing more research on Creationism, it just makes evolution that much more silly of a concept. Nice as science-fiction; paltry as science. Since evolution is merely today's origins myth, I liken good sci-fi to the great myths of old. The ancient pagans believed the world began a certain way, ie - Kaos of Greek myth or Pan Ku of Chinese myth. Likewise today, the majority belief is that random chance processes brought the world into existence over billions of years. Just because the majority believes something is true does not mean it's true.
I give Heroes credit for at least allowing the idea that God may be the source of their powers. They may not be talking about the God of the Bible, but at least He's implied. In a way, I hope to see more of that idea pan out as I finish the first season. I better hurry through it because I think the second season just started.
I have one critique - Heroes is so blatantly pro-evolution that sometimes it's tough not to get riled up. Yes, it's a sci-fi show, but it's based on concepts that people think is real science. I'm sure many scientists cringe also, but for the evolutionists, this is one entertaining way to market and indoctrinate their religion. As I'm doing more research on Creationism, it just makes evolution that much more silly of a concept. Nice as science-fiction; paltry as science. Since evolution is merely today's origins myth, I liken good sci-fi to the great myths of old. The ancient pagans believed the world began a certain way, ie - Kaos of Greek myth or Pan Ku of Chinese myth. Likewise today, the majority belief is that random chance processes brought the world into existence over billions of years. Just because the majority believes something is true does not mean it's true.
I give Heroes credit for at least allowing the idea that God may be the source of their powers. They may not be talking about the God of the Bible, but at least He's implied. In a way, I hope to see more of that idea pan out as I finish the first season. I better hurry through it because I think the second season just started.
October 10, 2007
PMABM Newsletter #1
This is the first video newsletter for our advanced class! For the next few weeks, we'll be analyzing Kurae no ken's kurae fighting style video. There's a lot in this and I would love to hear your input. To make this worthwhile for all of us, I prefer that with each video I add, we should make a comment, a critique or a question, and a case-study practice exercise. To give you guys an example of what I'm talking about:
Comment:
This is one of the best martial art school promotional videos I've seen so far.
Critique:
The knife disarms are too impractical and downright dangerous to pull off in real life. Fun to watch, though, and it's still good to learn things like that. (Or if you have a question about it - Would knife disarms like that actually work in real life?)
Case-study:
We should practice the Indonesian/Filipino silat principle of driving into the opponent.
I can easily go on with each point and you can too if you want. This is the least we should do so we can get into the habit of doing something about what we see and not just let it entertain us. Everything we do should have a point so we can get more from our practice.
Comment:
This is one of the best martial art school promotional videos I've seen so far.
Critique:
The knife disarms are too impractical and downright dangerous to pull off in real life. Fun to watch, though, and it's still good to learn things like that. (Or if you have a question about it - Would knife disarms like that actually work in real life?)
Case-study:
We should practice the Indonesian/Filipino silat principle of driving into the opponent.
I can easily go on with each point and you can too if you want. This is the least we should do so we can get into the habit of doing something about what we see and not just let it entertain us. Everything we do should have a point so we can get more from our practice.
July 12, 2007
Oh my heaven
Tori Spelling becomes an ordained minister? Wow. I guess if you have enough time on your hands and you want to deconstruct the very idea of marriage, then I guess you can do that type of thing. She must have gotten her certification from the Church of Secular Humanism because what she did was definitely not Christian. Bad enough that secular organizations pass themselves off as religious, or even Christian, and perform gay marriages. It's worse when people who come from a Christian denomination accept even the idea of gay marriage. Absolutely no thought behind that conclusion. You'd have to eradicate all sense of good reason and knowledge of the Bible and mindlessly go along with the culture to say that gay marriage is acceptable. To say that it is acceptable in the Bible is beyond mindlessness, it's irrational and dangerous.
Source:
Hall, S. (2007, July 10) Tori Spelling officiates. E! Online News. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=918054c3-c4b8-4f04-b48f-de042634830c
Source:
Hall, S. (2007, July 10) Tori Spelling officiates. E! Online News. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=918054c3-c4b8-4f04-b48f-de042634830c
July 09, 2007
Flimsy
Sources are important to lend your argument or assertion some credibility. Blogs don't necessarily need them since most bloggers write opinion pieces rather than academic articles. But for those who write professionally, say in the world of journalism and the more serious bloggers, it is vital they use sources that are reliable and truly credible. I hate it when I read articles in newspapers that use other newspapers as their source. Whatever statement the writer tried to prove was buttressed by twigs.
The same is true in the blogosphere. I was ambivalent in using references, citations, or sources in my articles. Sometimes I thought "what's the point?" Other times I thought, "hey, maybe this will lend my articles a little more credibility." I've seen articles where the blogger used references, but the references were not credible at all. Sorry, I don't have a source for that. Trust me, though, I've read several. I may add some examples in the future if the need arises. But I've decided to add sources when I can in future articles. I may want to publish a few outside of this blog.
The same is true in the blogosphere. I was ambivalent in using references, citations, or sources in my articles. Sometimes I thought "what's the point?" Other times I thought, "hey, maybe this will lend my articles a little more credibility." I've seen articles where the blogger used references, but the references were not credible at all. Sorry, I don't have a source for that. Trust me, though, I've read several. I may add some examples in the future if the need arises. But I've decided to add sources when I can in future articles. I may want to publish a few outside of this blog.
July 07, 2007
Live Dearth
"Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with RWE Research Lab in Germany, questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC climate projections have fueled worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.
Volz noted that IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines." Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales."
Scientists Debunk 'Fairy Tale' of 'Global Warming' by Marc Morano, CNSNews.com Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Al Gore is a self-deluded propagandist.
Also, this is one article among many written by scientists who let the evidence speak for itself.One thing is sure about global warming: we are not causing it and we cannot control it, that is, if it's actually happening at all. To understand what is going on depends on a person's worldview and their understanding of science.
Added on October 14, 2007:
Al Gore is my sheperd
He is only aware of what he wants
He makes me lie down on park benches outside his mansion
He leads me beside the polluted water of his strip mine
He restores my doubt in brain dead politicians
He leads me in the path of Kyoto for his legacy sake
His lies make children sleepless
Though I walk dark in my house, his three are lit like Vegas
Surely his lust for power will follow me all the days of my life
And I will see votes held to the light on thanksgiving forever
by carmexworks, comment on youtube.com from Gore's holographic opening of live earth 7-7-7 channel by stefanhelder
June 29, 2007
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
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
April 01, 2007
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.
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.
March 31, 2007
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.
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.
March 30, 2007
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."
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."
January 29, 2007
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.
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.
January 28, 2007
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
"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
January 27, 2007
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.
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.
January 25, 2007
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!
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!
January 17, 2007
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.
January 11, 2007
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.
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.
December 20, 2006
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.
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.
November 09, 2006
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.
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.
November 06, 2006
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.
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.
September 15, 2006
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".
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".
August 08, 2006
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.
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.
June 22, 2006
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.
Whether or not the account is true, it's still hilarious to think about the new art of Amish-fu.
May 26, 2006
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.
- Nechirvan Barzani, a Muslim and the prime minister of Kurdistan Regional Government
That's some good stuff.
May 16, 2006
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."
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."
May 05, 2006
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.
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.
April 25, 2006
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.
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.
March 27, 2006
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!
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!
March 18, 2006
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)