Complainers

Five years ago today, I was living in Cincinnati, OH, and working for GE Capital. It was raining on and off that day and it cleared by the time I left to go home. I turned on the TV and all the news channels were reporting that US and Coalition Forces were beginning their first phase in invading and freeing Iraq.

The war was controversial in its outset. Why Iraq? Why not keep it in Afghanistan? There were no reports of Bin Laden being in Iraq. Why waste time, money, and lives going after Hussein, who didn't even plan the 9/11 attacks? Back then, most people relied on Bush's promise to find WMDs. After five years, there doesn't seem to be much to show for all the energy put into the war. And Bush even considered it a mistake. Why keep going? We should pull out now and find the real terrorists! And then impeach Bush.

Arguments like these only show an uninformed and narrow view of the war. Many have already forgotten why we went to war in the first place. What didn't help was the mainstream media constantly focusing on the failures of the war. And many people don't make the time to do a little research to find the truth. The mainstream media already had a built-in antipathy towards Bush, so they try to find anything that would discredit him, even going so far as suppressing the truth.

Here's a reminder from the article "Why We Went to War in Iraq" by David Horowitz (emphases mine):

"...The first – and last – rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or regime change.

"This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm – or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later...

"Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam by force when he expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear violation of the Gulf truce. This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.

"The Authorization for the Use of Force bill – passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses – is the legal basis for the president’s war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas” clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs. On the other hand, twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein...

"On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’ crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of Saddam.

"If its offer had been accepted, the Bush administration would have left in place a regime run by the Ba’athist Party and headed by Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz or some comparable figure from the old regime. The idea was, that without Saddam, even such a bad regime would honor the truce accords of 1991 and UN Resolution 1441. This would have led to Iraq’s cooperation with the UN inspectors and the destruction of any WMDs or WMD programs that Saddam may have had – without necessitating a war...

"Since war was not the president’s preference – first, last or otherwise – the United States did not immediately attack. Instead, the White House spent three months after the December 7th deadline trying by diplomatic means to persuade the French and Russians and Chinese to back the UN resolution they had voted for and to force Saddam to open his country to full inspections. In other words, to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce that they – as Security Council members – had ratified and promised to enforce."

In addition, there have been a significant amount of evidence showing that WMDs have been found. Hussein had enough yellowcake uranium that, if refined, would have been able to make nearly 150 nuclear bombs, besides all the other chemical weapons he had. All he would have needed was a little time and a whole lot of distraction to set up the factories to manufacture the weapons. And there should be no surprise that Hussein and Al-qaeda are connected in some way. They have been involved with each other for over a decade up until '02.

Anyone who misunderstands the reasons for the war are victims of their own forgetfulness or heavily influenced by media bias against Bush.

PMABM Newsletter #6

To continue our discussion on different martial arts I've experienced, here is a nice demonstration of silat, one of many Southeast Asian martial arts. This first video is a demonstration of both Filipino kali and silat, influenced by Dan Inosanto. He teaches the blended Maphilindo style of silat, but it's not too different from the purely Indonesian style I learned. You don't have to understand the commentators to appreciate this demonstration. If you understand Italian, then great!



This second video is more of what I trained in called pencak silat mande muda. This is part of a seminar taught by Pendekar Suwanda (pendekar means instructor). It was incredibly fun to learn since I was able to tie up my partner into a pretzel in myriad ways. This style helped catapult me to a greater understanding of contact flow and combative movement. No, it doesn't have any superficial connection to contact flow, but we'll go over some of the moves in class to help you see the shared principles.



And one more video: once again, look for the similarities in combative movement. Can you see hubud movement in there? Are you able to pick out what's effective and what's just dance-like? Do you think this can work in high speed? Do you think this can work with a sociopath coming after you?

I Heart Huckabee

Darn...

Huckabee dropped out of the race. And he was so good too! An incredibly gifted speaker, a natural comedian, and an overall fun-loving guy, which is not typical for a presidential candidate. I don't agree with his immigration stance, which is too much like Bush's, but for most everything else, he was closest to representing me. Oh, well, maybe I'll see him run again in 2012 or 2016 (whoa, those years seem sci-fi strange to me).

Just saw live coverage of Bush endorsing McCain. Ugh, that's too bad. I mean, both Bush and McCain are moderate anyway, so it only makes sense that they would team up. And I understand Huckabee throwing his support over to McCain, also. Strategically speaking, it would make sense to back one candidate especially if you want your party to win. I may be Republican, but I'd rather be associated with conservatism. Republicans in government are a little too moderate for me these days. Once again, it's one of those "lesser of two evils" votes. But with all the conservative radio pundits badmouthing McCain, I wonder who is truly less evil.

In the end, we'll see who God puts in the White House and then I'll have to accept it. I'll make my voice known if I need to.

Crappy News Nonsense

When we moved into our new house a month ago, the cable line was still on from the previous occupants. I told RCN to get rid of the cable because I knew I'd waste too much time in front of the dumbtube, especially with all the crap I have to do. RCN said they were on it. So, I'm watching as much as I can now before it cuts out. But man it's depressing! I'm usually on the news channels or documentary/learning channels. Talk about lack of truth and objectivity! I'm not saying there isn't any, but it sure is rare. I feel sorry for people who accept much of what these channels talk about as fact. And not only that, but the old adage "blood sells" or "sex sells" doesn't give me feel good vibes. News producers, we know the world is a wicked and violent place full of bloodshed and tears. We're very aware of the evil and the crap that happens in the world. Even though it varies in one form or another, it's still the same bad news. Is there a possibility you can report good news as often as the bad? That would be so refreshing, I would very much appreciate it. I'm sure a bunch of other people would too.

PMABM Newsletter #5

I want you to be familiar with the martial arts that have influenced my development. You're learning many of the principles from these arts, so it only makes sense to have a more in-depth knowledge of them.

Here is an Inside Martial Arts video on the Burmese martial art of Thaing, Kasheen style. I trained in a more common version of Burmese martial art called Bando, although Bando and Kasheen Thaing are both the same thing, just from different parts of Myanmar. When you watch the video, compare the similarities of combative movement in Thaing to what I teach you. Think about the underlying principles. Also, watch out for what the speaker says about the sport aspect of training, why he feels it's necessary. But, as I've said many times, even though combat sports is part of your training, it has its limitations. If the sports aspect is your only focus, it may hinder you from developing good self-defense skills, which is why contact flow and other types of non-sport self-defense training is important.



And this second video is quite interesting. Amusing actually! It's a self-defense film from the UK in the 1930s. Even then, watch out for principles of combative movement and compare it with what I teach you. Is it good self-defense? Is it bad? What techniques are usable? What goes a little too far? What is just stupid?



Remember, BASD is closed this coming Monday, so no Project Success DSD martial arts.

Rid yourself of B.O.

Obama seems to have the best chance at winning the Democratic nomination right now. It's a no brainer that he'll have the majority of the black vote. It still amazes me that the party that advocated slavery ended up being the party with the most black voters in recent times. The party that fought against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is now the party that wants to hold the black vote, not so much out of racial integration, but to keep the black people in line. Read up on the history. It's the January 27, 2008 article entitled Democrats and Racial Politics: From Jim Crow to Barack Obama by Frances Rice.

And for a little reading pleasure, here's Barack's oh so spiritual journey - as you read it can you just picture Barack as one of those Nation of Israel depictions of black Jesus, with a bright gold halo atop his closely cropped nappy hair?

Roe and Doe For Sho'

“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).

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."

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.

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."

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:

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

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.

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?

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)

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Days of Future Past

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

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

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

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

Here's Joel explaining a few things about this:




Sources:

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

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

The Dating Lessons, Part 3

Practical Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

The Dating Lessons, Part 2

Different Views

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

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

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

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

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

The Dating Lessons, Part 1

Historical Context

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

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

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

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

Excuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under-fire controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

IMHO forums stink!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main difference between Creation and Evolution

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

Creationism
In defense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rethinking Jimmy

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

What we've learned so far

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

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

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