Pete's Place

Indefinite Hiatus

2006-11-22T23:07:00.000-08:00

Hey all...

I know, I've been on a blog shut-down rage lately, but truth be told, I currently just don't have the time or interest to keep up blogging right now. I'm not going to delete Pete's Place or anything, and who knows, maybe sometime I'll come back, but I'm not making any promises. I may still post some papers and stuff like that every now and then using that wonderful process of "copy and paste," but it won't be regular or often if I even do it at all. :) Life is hectic enough right now, and this coming January I'll be starting college, so things are only going to get busier! :) So, I'd like to thank the nearly 13,000 people who've read my blog in the last year for their time and comments... I appreciate it, and it's been fun! And hey, this is exactly the second birthday of this blog to the day (I started it on November 22nd, 2004 if you can believe it!), so it's kind of a fitting time to give it a rest, right? :)

Ya'll take care, keep it real, and never forget... ORANGE RULES!! (Do I hear an "Amen" Kelc? Colin? :))

Pete

Iowa and Beyond...

2006-11-10T17:13:00.000-08:00

Well, it’s a mega bummer that the Dems won back the House and Senate in this past election, but I wouldn’t trade the campaign experience I got working with Gen-J for anything. I met some awesome people and made great friendships, had about 200 donuts and a dozen sodas every day, and watched UFC until 2:00 am in the morning every night. Lol, no, just kidding. What was really cool about the whole thing was campaigning for a guy who I knew was rock solid on practically every political, moral, and foreign policy issue out there. Those people are quite rare, and I’m extremely bummed Mike Whalen didn’t make it into office, but I’m glad he tried, and I’m glad my team did everything we could to help him.

So basically, we would start the day off with literature drops. Seven of us would pile into a minivan (I hate minivans, btw… just for the record) and would drive around using a map marked with targeted urban areas. We’d basically then get to a house, run up to it, knock on the door, and if nobody answered, we’d leave some lit on their door knob. If they DID answer the door, well… let’s just say I got extremely mixed responses to my little rehearsed speech:

Man number one: “Oh no, not you ---- people again! I don’t ---- want your ---- crap! Get the ---- off my property!”

Me: “Thanks for your time sir, you have a great day!” *leaves door cracking up*

Man number two: “Okay, thanks.”

Me: “Sure, have a nice day.”

Man number three: “Uh.” *slams door*

Me: “Riiiggghht… Wow, okay.”

Man number four: “Oh wow, thanks so much… I’d forgotten all about the voting! I’ll be sure to do that young man! Thanks again!”

Me: “Wow, are you serious? You wouldn’t possibly know the guy next door, would you?”

As you can all imagine, people in category four were inordinately sparse. Most of the people weren’t home, but if they were, I mainly got those who are classified in categories one and two.

After that, we’d head over the RNC headquarters and do phonebanking. This was undoubtedly the most tedious part of the day. Most of the people we were calling had already been called at least 5 times that day already and they were not in a very responsive mood. But there were quite a few people who were genuinely thankful for the information we gave out. I’ve gotta say, though, that when you are on the phone for 4 hours, you start to do mega weird things… and you lose hearing in whatever ear you are using. ‘Nough said.

So literature drops and phonebanking were all we did for the first several days. Then on the second to last day we got to do sign waving, which was by far the coolest part of the whole trip. We would go to a major intersection with signs that we either made or got from the RNC and we would completely flip out. Sign waving is the one time in your life that you can jump around, scream, and be a complete idiot without anyone thinking you’re mentally challenged or severely lacking in social skills. I had a sign that said “Honk for Whalen” that I’d written in big red caps, so we’d get literally hundreds of honks from people… It was awesome! After about one hour, we’d all be completely hoarse. Completely. So hoarse that when you talk to someone they think you’re trying to tell them a secret.

So that's the basic overview of what we did over there... The stuff we did wasn't hard, per se, but when you do it non-stop all day on 2 hours of sleep every night, it gets just slightly exhausting. :)

I managed to take a few pics with Chuck's old camera, so I'll post a couple on here, but if you want some better ones, Jenna set up a website where we can all contribute the pictures we took, so stop by at http://jennachristine.wordpress.com/ .

Okay, here's a couple:

Nick just a little surprised...

Colin hard at work signing signs...

Hi Jenna! (She's the tech geek of the group... :))

My brudders from annudder mudder: EJ and Morgan. Miss you guys!

Katie doing something with the coffee maker...

Me and my brudder EJ...

I finally got Colin to smile... He was one of my roomates.

Grant vegging out and watching UFC at 2:00 am... He was my other roomate. Fun times. :)

For some reason, this sign at the Denver airport just cracked me up...

When you're all by yourself in an airport for over 7 hours, you start to take very abstract pictures. This is a prime example.

Dude in a sweet orange shirt...

I spent a lot of quality time at this gate... Ha.

As a final picture, I thought you'd all get a big kick out of seeing my sweet shoes... Pretty darn awesome.

Okay, well, hopefully this post wasn't too incohesive... I'm still really tired and in a state of recovery, so you'll have to bear with me. :)

Catch ya'll later!

Becoming an Iowan...

2006-11-06T05:10:00.000-08:00

What's shakin' ya'll?

Well, I've just made the most tech savvy discovery of the year... I can get internet connection here at the hotel in Iowa! :)

Okay, quick update... For those of you who don't know and aren't interested, I flew in to Iowa last Friday to help on an SAT (student action team) here primarily in the political races for RNC candidates Mike Whalen (for Congress) and Jim Nussle (for Governor). The opportunity to come here was provided by an organization called Generation Joshua... A group I've been inactively involved with (oxymoron, I know) since it's initial days in 2004. So anyway, that's what I'm doing here.

So for those of you who did know and are interested, I arrived here at 1:00 am on Saturday morning after flying all Friday evening and night only to discover that my hotel location had been changed to Davenport which was a good two hour drive from the airport. Not funny. Way not funny. I basically didn't get to sleep until 4:00 am and then had to get up at 6:00 am. Let's just say I'm not used to getting 2 hours of sleep at night.

Okay, gotta scoot here... sorry to cut this short!

Memories...

2006-10-23T21:28:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone... Thought I'd post some pics taken of me over the last few years for fun. After all, I don't want this blog to be perpetually serious. :) Hope you enjoy them!

This one's of me and my very first guitar which I got for the Christmas of my 6th year.

Dad took this one of me jamming with some guys after I won first place in the bluegrass guitar competition in Stevenson when I was 12.

In order from the left: Me, Jon, Chris, Chels, Benj, and Daniel. We had just hiked up Mt. St. Helens and that's the crater directly behind us. That was so awesome!

Colin and me looking a little too serious for what we're wearing...

Putting the frosting on the cake I made for my B-Day this year... That had to have been one of the worst tasting cakes I ever ate. Needless to say, I have absolved from cake-making ever since. lol

Me during my sound check at the concert I played in in Early February this year... Wow, I was so nervous... Soloing in front of a crowd is really scary for me. :)

Hannah took this pic of dad on his 1981 Honda Twinstar which he had completely reworked to run like a dream. It's a sweet little bike... Get's about 70 miles to the gallon, too. :)

Okay, I've gotta get to bed here, so here's just one more... I, um, climbed up this branchless tree 15-20 feet off the ground and then Hannah made me hold still while she took a picture... It's not exactly the most coordinated position in the world to try and hold. lol

Okay, catch ya'll later! I'll maybe try and get more up here in the next few weeks... :)

"God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity"

2006-10-08T19:40:00.000-07:00

The Trinity. Three in one, and one in three. We’ve all heard of it, and we’ve all sung the hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy” in which we find the words, “God in three Persons, blessed Trinity.” But have any of us taken the time to really think about the nature of the Trinity and its seemingly paradoxical nature? Or do we just dismiss it as another one of those doctrines which we are probably not meant to understand? Throughout this discussion of the Trinity, I hope to be able to Biblically explain this fascinating topic without making it sound like Christianity is a polytheistic religion. I will be using Gordon Clark’s book, “The Trinity,” as a major reference, and I highly recommend that book to anyone who is eager to further their understanding on this issue.

To start off, let it be made perfectly clear that we as Christians serve one God. Throughout the entire Old Testament we find references to God being a single spiritual entity. Probably the best representative verse of this fact is Deuteronomy 6:4 which says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” (For other references see 2 Kings 19:19, Ezra 4:3, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 72:18, Psalm 83:18, and Isaiah 37:20.) The strictly monotheistic nature of the Bible is really beyond debate. When we talk of the three Persons of the Trinity, we are not speaking of a plurality of gods, but rather a plurality of spiritual natures within a single essence.

A suggestion of the plurality of God’s nature is given to us early on in Genesis 1:26 when God first decides to create man: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…’” (See also Gen. 3:22 which coincides with the verse just given: “…Behold, the man has become like one of Us…”) Because there are several different interpretations of these verses, they are not offered as conclusive evidence for the Trinity specifically. However, it is still interesting to note that many theologians agree it’s perfectly possible for these verses to be referring to the three Persons of the Godhead when interpreted in the context of Trinitarianism. Also, look at the singular/plural peculiarities of Genesis 18:1-16 in the story of the three men coming to see Abraham (due to the length of the passage in question, it will not be quoted in full here, and so the reader is encouraged to look it up for himself). Again, it’s impossible to form a dogmatic conclusion as to whether or not the three men are symbolic of the Trinity, or if they are simply the Lord and two accompanying angels. Whichever the case may be, the strangeness of the wording in the following text makes for some interesting considerations: “…behold, three men were standing before him…he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground and said, ‘My Lord…’” Although there were three men there, Abraham refers only to one when he says “My Lord.” It’s not conclusive, but it’s certainly suggestive.

The comparison of Isaiah 8:14 with 1 Peter 2:5-8 also sparks some Scriptural indications of Trinitarian doctrine: “He (the Lord) will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 8:14) “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up the spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ… Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient… ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.’” (1 Peter 2:5-8) So in the first verse, the Lord is the one who is referred to as a “rock of offense” and in the second verse, Jesus Christ is the one who is a “rock of offense.” It is apparent, then, that the Christ of the NT and the Lord of the OT are one and the same being and yet, based on the evidence of passages like Mark 14:36 in which Jesus refers to his “Father,” it is also apparent that while He and the Father are one, they are at the same time separate in some way as well.

Before discussing the Trinitarian point of view any further, I would like to briefly take a look at some of the doctrines which have been founded in an attempt to explain the oneness and yet separateness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps by demonstrating the falsity of these dogmas I will be able to utilize the Transcendental Argument to give my final conclusion some extra weight. 

Dynamic Monarchianism—This view suggests that Christ’s deification was progressive and that he began life a normal, mortal man. Eventually, the Holy Spirit entered him in a singular and special way and at this point he became homoousis (of the same essence or substance) with God but only in the way that man is homoousis with his own state of rationality. He experienced the power of the Holy Spirit to such a strong degree that eventually, as was said, he became a deity. This view is obviously in major disaccord with Scripture—particularly the earlier sections of the Gospels which deal with Christ the Son of God as a baby and young boy—and won’t be exhaustively refuted in this paper. For some quick references which disprove Dynamic Monarchianism, see Matt. 1:20 where Joseph is told in a dream by an angel that the Baby in Mary’s womb was conceived of the Holy Spirit. If Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, he could not possibly have been born as a completely normal, mutable man. See also Matt. 16:16, Mark 1:1, Luke 4:41 (Even the demons recognize that Christ is the Son of God!), John 6:69, John 11:27, and Acts 8:37 for further statements concerning Christ as the Son of God.

Modalism—Modalism suggests that God is an absolutely exclusive, single being, not having three parts in His personality. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply three different names for the same, specific Being. As one unknown writer put it, “There is a three-fold mode of revelation of God, but not a tripersonality within His being.” The Son, as he appeared on earth, is not an eternal being, but God the Father as a human version of Himself who is only to completely disappear as a redemptive figure when He ascends into heaven after His time on earth is finished. Neither is the Holy Spirit a separate personality or nature, but that part of God that works sanctification among men. This view is probably better known in the modern world as Sabellianism or Patripassianism. Modalism is the easiest of these doctrines to confuse with Trinitarianism, so refutations for this viewpoint will be expounded upon shortly.

Tritheism—This position claims that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are completely different gods that are in some unknown way unified. But it is made clear that the three members are as different as three mortal men are from each other. It’s really just a fancy way of saying polytheism. And since, as Christians, we know that polytheism is an unbiblical concept, an in-depth rebuttal of Tritheism is unnecessary.

Arianism—Arianists hold that, since God is immutable, His divine substance or essence can not be transferred or shared by any other being—be it immortal or mortal. Arians claim that Christ was God’s first actual creation, and that Christ, as a divine being but not a deity (don’t ask me how they can make a distinction between the two), created everything else including the Holy Spirit. The Arians’ favorite catch-phrase about Christ is, “There was a time when he was not.” This is the last of the false doctrines which will be addressed, and due to the great controversy it sparked in early Christian history, additional time will be spent on its history and various refutations.

To return briefly to the subject of Modalism/Sabellianism, first read this much more comprehensive, defining quote by Gordon Clark, “Sabellianism is the view that God is a single Person; there is not a second Person called the Son, nor a third called the Spirit. Rather, when God is active in creating the universe and controlling it, He should be called the Father; when He is active in redemption, He should be called the Son; and when active in sanctification He is called the Spirit.” So the Sabellians can come across sounding doctrinally intact when they agree that Christ is God. The major difference you have to notice here is that when they say “Son,” they are referring to a title for a specific type of activity, and when Christians say “Son,” we are referring to an actual spiritual being, separate from the Father in nature. One refutation for Sabellianism can be found in Romans 6:3, where Paul speaks of baptism only in Jesus Christ. Sabellianism requires baptism into all three functioning personalities of God, otherwise baptism would be incomplete. Another Biblical point which is contrary to what the Sabellians would claim is found in the apostolic benediction commonly used in the NT, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” In this statement only two of Sabellianism’s three functions are given, even though all three titles are listed. They are also in the wrong order for Sabellianism. More evidence is that the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit. Also, the Son prays to the Father as a separate Being (for instance, in the Garden of Gethsemane). Thus it becomes increasingly clear that God is not a single entity with multiple functions and respective titles, but rather that there are three separate Persons in one essence.

A short discussion and refutation of Arianism will close this study of the false doctrines that attempt to explain the three members of the Godhead. Arguing against Arianism, and integral to the raging debate of the same in the early fourth century, is a Church Father by the name of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius was the key figure in opposing the Arian movement and staunchly defended the Trinity his entire life until his death in AD 373. In roughly AD 319 a man named Arius began teaching that there was a time before God the Father supposedly created the Son when Christ the Son did not exist. About three years before Athanasius succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria, he attended the first Council of Nicaea in AD 325 as the latter’s secretary when the Nicene Creed, which for the moment anathematized Arius and his followers, was produced. To the Arians, the Word was a creature, created by God and thus a work not sharing the same essence or substance (homoousis) as God. And yet in John 1:1 we find the famous passage stating that the Word (or Logos) was God. Since the Arians claim that Christ (the Word) was a creation at the beginning of time, it follows that He must possess a status, or rank, if you will, lower than that of God the Father. And yet the Bible always speaks of the two as equals; in Genesis it is clear that Christ did not create the world as an agent of God, but that the two as one created it together. 1 Corinthians 8:6 says this: “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we live for Him; And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.” So if Christ was the first Creature rather than God’s begotten Son, we would be children of Christ, rather than children of God. And as children of a created Christ, we would only be separated from God the Father (by being morally attached to Christ as the Father’s creation instead of attached to Christ as the Father’s essence) rather than being united with Him. So it follows that Christ’s sonship to God cannot be a moral one, such as the sonship of all Christians to God, but rather Christ’s sonship must be a natural one, as Isaac was the son of Abraham. Thus, if Christ’s sonship is a natural sonship, then He could not have been created by God since it has already been shown that Christ as a creation could not be God’s natural Son.

A short treatise called “De Decretis” or a “Defense of the Nicene Definition,” written by Athanasius refuting the Arian claims, is something I highly recommend to motivated and interested readers. It provides a logical and exhaustive rebuttal to Arianism and really isn’t as much of a daunting read as it might sound. In chapter three, Athanasius forms the argument that since creations are external to the creator, and since Christ is not external to God, it follows logically that Christ cannot be a creation. Furthermore, as Athanasius points out in chapter four of “De Decretis,” if Christ, as the Word or Logos spoken of in John 1:1 (also see 1 John 5:7), was created by God as the Arians would have it, wouldn’t they have to accede that before Christ was created, God the Father had neither Word nor Logos (logic or reason)? Christ is called the power and the wisdom of God in 1 Corinthians 1:24 and again in 1:30. If there was indeed a “time when he was not,” it would have to follow that there was a time when God, as Christ’s Creator, had neither wisdom nor power.

So then, since none of these ideas are logically or Scripturally accurate, what is the correct view? Or is there one? Can it be that we are, after all, not meant to understand the doctrine of the Trinity and to try would hence be a waste of time? I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers or to be perfectly correct in the answers at which I have arrived. The conclusions I have reached by reading and studying are only that which are the most logical and Scripturally compatible.

We know that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are all infallible, immutable, and eternal. They did not have to learn anything; they simply know everything. They neither change their minds, nor have fluctuating opinions or ideas. And yet each of the Persons of the Trinity do not necessarily share the exact same thoughts as the others at the exact same time. Examples of this can be found in passages such as Matthew 27:46 which describe the last words of Jesus before His death (temporary though it was) on the cross, and also in Matthew 26 where Christ prays to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane. Persons who are able to think different thoughts than each other at the same moment in time, cannot be a single entity.

One major objection to this conclusion is a slightly revised version of the Third Man Argument first used by Plato as an inconclusive, self-refutation to his Theory of Forms (a completely different topic for another day). The argument is briefly as follows: Say you have three mortal, normal men. They are all similar to each other in that they are men and have bodies, minds, etc. In the Christian understanding, these men are an image of a more powerful, perfected version of themselves, and we believe that this more powerful person is God. The Third Man Argument claims that the similarity between the three men necessitates this higher Being (God). If we then say that there are three similar higher Beings (the members of the Trinity) which are representative of the lesser, imperfect men just spoken of, it would have to follow, according to the Third Man Argument, that there must be an even higher being which was the image of the trio of beings. And then there would have to be another fifth higher being that was more powerful than the last one by which to make the last one similar to the one or ones before it. Basically, then, when applied to the Trinity, this argument claims that the similarity between the three Beings presupposes another, higher being and that this being presupposes yet another, higher being and the process would continue ad infinitum.

The biggest problem with this objection is that since the three Beings of the Godhead are already eternal, all-powerful, immutable, and infallible, it’s impossible to conceive of a being higher than them. Also remember that each of the three Persons are not exactly similar to the others and each possesses a different personality with traits not common to the other two. The incarnation of Christ, for example, was something that happened exclusively to Christ and not all three. Thus it cannot possibly follow for one being which was higher than the three to be representative of the three as a whole.

So at the moment, without any major objections or theories now staring us in the face, where are we? Well, let’s look at a quick summary of Trinitarianism, the view which most logically explains the apparent paradox of the three Beings in one:

Trinitarian doctrine affirms that three persons exist or subsist within a single God. These persons are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is hence possible to maintain a monotheistic stance by stating the singular essence of a sole God, and yet it also puts both Christ and the Holy Spirit as separate Persons into the same oneness in essence with the Father. This is referred to as a “triunity” of beings and conveys the nature of a three-in-one Godhead. Again, this does not infer three separate gods, but rather speaks of each subsistence as a personality being on the same grounds of equality, eternity, and substance as the other two. It makes for an indivisible and perfect union in which each member has qualities privy to itself and at the same time shares in the work of the others.

There is a form of subordination, functionally speaking, between all members of the Trinity in that the Father functions as the head, the Son is beneath the Father, and the Holy Spirit is beneath the Son. This is more of a classification scheme in the process of redemption as opposed to an actual form of subordination. That is, the Father draws or chooses people, those people are saved through, and enjoy communion with, the Father through Jesus Christ the Son, and finally, sanctification is accomplished by the sending of the Holy Spirit to enter those people. In terms of ontology, however, the three persons of the Trinity are of equal status.

Simply stated, then, the three members are in a logical, causal order with each proceeding from the other from Father to Son, and Son to Holy Spirit. The Father is the head and source of all being (1 Cor. 8:6, Eph. 4:6, Eph. 2:18) and is revealed through the Son (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 3:17) who in turn is experienced by the Holy Spirit working in a person in the process of sanctification (Luke 1:67, Luke 4:1).

Evidence for Trinitarian doctrine can be found in the baptismal formula (found in Matthew 28:19) “In the name (notice the singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit.” Notice again how “name” is singular and yet three names are given. Also in 2 Cor. 13:14 we find the Trinitarian benediction, “The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” We also find evidence for the Trinity at Jesus’ baptism in Mark 1:9-11: “It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. Then a voice came from heaven, ‘You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’” Here we can see that each member is fulfilling their respective duties. God the Father speaking to Christ as a Son, the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus, and Jesus Christ the Son Incarnate carrying out His time on earth to save people from eternal damnation.

For a final reference, 1 John 5:6-8 says this: “This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” Notice especially verse 7: “…and these three are one.” This verse is the most conclusive of them all.

To conclude this short study on the Trinity, I would like to say that I believe it is impossible for us to fully comprehend this doctrine. Numerically speaking, it is not possible for 3 to equal 1 or vice versa, and perhaps that is why men over the centuries have tried to form comprehendible and numerically understandable doctrines about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Whether comprehendible or not, however, the truth of three in one in scripture cannot be denied and should most definitely not be explained away.

I believe Gordon Clark most fittingly closed his book with the words to the hymn mentioned in the beginning and so I shall do the same:

“Holy, holy, holy, Lord God almighty, God in three persons, blessed Trinity.”

(Btw, in case anybody was wondering, this was a paper I just recently finished writing... :) Hopefully you found it of interest and I'm looking forward to feedback! And always remember........ ORANGE RULES!!!)

Does 1 Timothy 2:11-12 forbid the ordination of women?

2006-08-24T09:36:00.000-07:00

Hey all...

This question has just recently been interesting me, and although the answer seems straightforward enough, I don't want to forget that this is a hotly debated issue in the modern church and hence don't want to jump to any possibly legalistic conclusions. I won't be posting my own thoughts just yet on here since I would prefer to hear some more opinions and complete a more ordinate amount of study on the matter, so I hope to see some of you in the comments for some helpful discussion!

Here's 1 Timothy 2:11-12:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."

One must keep in mind passages like Acts 18:26, where it is obvious that women are allowed to teach/correct men in a seemingly private/personal setting.

Also, in Acts 16:14, 40, we can see that an apostolic pattern for home bible studies and prayer times was set by a woman named Lydia, who was actually Paul's first European convert.

I'd really appreciate your thoughts! Thanks!

The Economical Thought of the Roman Catholic Church: Part 2

2006-08-23T11:17:00.000-07:00

Hey there peeps! (Btw, if any of you make it all the way through this post, you may congratulate yourselves on a very impressive accomplishment. :))

Okay, to continue just a little bit further with Part 1’s dealings with the Roman Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas’ ideas about the community of goods, allow me to begin this second part with a related quote from the late John Paul II’s 1987 encyclical “On Social Concern”:

“It is necessary to state once more the characteristics principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all. The right of private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a ‘social mortgage,’ which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.”

Basically, then, Catholics consider a person’s private property as being on loan from the rest of the world’s population. The “universal destination of goods” is an extremely important principle in Roman Catholic economic thought - so important and exalted is this premise, in fact, that Paul VI states that all other rights “whatsoever” are subject to it:

“…each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent Council [Vatican II] reminded us of this: ‘God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis.’ All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle.” (Paul VI in his 1967 encyclical, “On the Progress of Peoples”)

That last phrase is very important, so read it again: “All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle.” I wonder if Paul VI realized just how broad a statement he made. As John Robbins says, “All other rights whatsoever, of course, includes not only the right to private property and the right to free enterprise, but the rights to worship, speak, teach, write think, and publish freely—indeed, the right to life itself.” Do you begin to see the huge significance of this principle of the universal destination of goods in Catholic economic thought? And, to refer back to a statement I made in Part I, it is because they give this principle a place in the natural law that they are able to make statements like the above and the following, extracted from the Second Vatican Council:

“If one is in extreme necessity he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others. Since there are so many people prostrate with hunger in the world, this Sacred Council urges all, both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, ‘Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, have you have killed him.’”

There’s that call again that we first heard from Thomas Aquinas to go and simply “procure” whatever you need from the riches of others. Since the Catholic Church believes that private property is categorized in the positive law, they have no trouble at all concluding that it does not have any set, moral foundations backing it up and therefore is subject to human regulations and changes. We all know that complete, world economic equality is a status that is impossible to be reached. Someone will always have a little more of something than someone else. So, since inequality seems to be synonymous with need in the Catholic system from what we have seen so far, and since private property is at all times unequal, it would seem that according to Catholic doctrine, private property is an immoral institution.

Also notice the word “right” in the first sentence of the above quoted section of the Second Vatican Council. A right is something that is given by God and is natural to every man. To say, therefore, that it is the right of every man to take what he needs “out of the riches of others” implies that it was God who instituted such an idea. I find this very difficult to believe since the Bible, which is the Word of God, says nothing of such a right.

Okay, for the rest of Part II, I’d like to talk about how Catholicism and its economical ideas about the community of goods have influenced society within the last hundred or so years specifically. I’ll confine my discussion of this issue to two social establishments in particular:

1. Liberation Theology in Latin America starting in the late 1960s.
2. The Redistributive State and Interventionism found principally in the United States.

I may have to have a Part III here to cover Catholicism’s influence in America, but we’ll see what happens. 

Liberation theology, especially in Latin America, is one of the most recent forms of collectivism that the Roman Catholic Church has helped put forth. This so-called “theology” has well been called a form of “Christian Socialism” (Yes, yes, I know, that’s a blatant oxymoron…) since it is, in the words of one scholar, “an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor.” It focuses on those parts of the Bible that appear to suggest that Christ came to physically liberate the oppressed from poverty and bring justice upon their oppressors. These passages are then sometimes used as justification for using arms and force to bring justice for the poor and suffering people. Some liberation “theologians” even go so far as to supplement the Bible as the sole premise for their actions with a few Marxist doctrines such as perpetual “class struggle” as they seek to find further justification for their beliefs and actions.

Economically and socially speaking, Catholicism completely agrees with what liberation theology is seeking to accomplish, and that is justice for the poor and equality of possessions. The only thing Catholics really disagree with is the secular and materialistic elements of liberation theology. They don’t promote the sometimes violent and extremist application of these ideas. So liberation theology is composed of principles which the Catholic Church agrees with, but it applies them in a way that the Catholic Church does not agree with, to put it simply.

An influential figure during the whole start-up of liberation theology was a man named Gustavo Gutierrez who was ordained a Catholic priest in the late 1950s and subsequently published a work titled “Theology of Liberation” in 1971. Mr. Gutierrez was never, despite some wishful thinkers who believe that the Roman Church has fundamental differences with liberation theology, admonished or reprimanded for his work. Why? Because on the whole, this branch of socialism in Latin America seeks to achieve goals which the Catholic Church has always approved of (as we have seen): social justice, the common good, and the universal destination of goods.

Let’s take a look at what John Paul II had to say in an interesting 1986 letter to the bishops in Brazil regarding this issue:

“The Church does not hesitate to defend fearlessly the just and noble cause of human rights and to support courageous reforms, leading to a better distribution of goods, including earthly goods such as education, health services, housing, and so forth…. We are convinced that the theology of liberation is not only timely but useful and necessary. It should constitute a new stage of the theological reflection initiated with the apostolic tradition and continued by the great Fathers and Doctors, by the Magisterium and by the rich patrimony of the Church’s social doctrine, expressed in documents from Rerum Novarum to Laborem Exercens.”

Furthermore, the Vatican itself endorsed the idea of the liberation movement’s “basic communities,” making no move to denounce the economic ideas of liberation theology. In fact, they reiterated its social doctrine as “a set of principles for reflection and criteria for judgment and also directives for action so that the profound changes demanded by situations of poverty and injustice may be brought about…”

My friends, there’s a very important thing that I wish all the high and mighty officials both in the Catholic Church and in governments around the world would realize. And it is this: It is none of their business to try and run people’s lives, even if it’s in an attempt to make life better for them. They certainly don’t have the right to take money and possessions from wealthier citizens and distribute them “evenly” as they see fit among poorer citizens in an effort to equalize the world’s produce so that no one has more or less that he needs.

In Part I we talked about how Aquinas justified theft from wealthier persons, saying that the need of the poorer man automatically forfeited the wealthier man’s possessions. When I first read that I thought, “Nobody would ever have the nerve to actually act based on that belief, would they?” And then it occurred to me that people already have. And they have been for centuries. In the name of universal need, the government even in the United States has taxed the wealthy and put those taxes into universal goods distribution programs known more commonly as welfare, healthcare, food stamps, and the list goes on. The thoughts and writings of Thomas Aquinas are not just these theories to read about and then dismiss as nonsense. They are actually in action all over the world.

I repeat: It is a reality that, in the name of need, men justify theft and most people don’t even recognize it.

This is simply not the Biblical way to approach poverty. It is the individual Christian churches that are to watch over and shepherd their flocks, making sure that no-one is dying of hunger or being turned out in the streets. How do they do this? Charity. Not theft from the richer people in the same church, but charity and love for the person who is struggling. Individual people and business corporations can also, as we can see by looking at different large companies, give funds of their own free will to help those in need.

Heaven forbid if Matthew 25:35 was ever to be rewritten like Thomas Aquinas literature to sound as follows:

“For I was hungry and I TOOK your food; I was thirsty and I TOOK your drink; I was a stranger and I SECRETLY entered your house.”

I pray it will always be understood just as it is written:

“For I was hungry and you GAVE Me food; I was thirsty and you GAVE Me drink; I was a stranger and YOU took Me in.”

Christ did not come bringing socialism, He came bringing salvation. His purpose here on earth was not to create a utopia of equality among men and to apply the universal destination of goods, but to save souls from the eternal fires of hell and to spread love, charity, peace, kindness, and goodwill among men.

For a final question to advocates of Aquinas' system of beliefs: Why do you think Paul placed such a heavy emphasis on charity (or love, depending on your translation) when he wrote the famous I Corinthians 13 chapter if we are supposed to simply go and take whatever we need?

The Economical Outlook of the Roman Catholic Church: Part I

2006-08-15T09:25:00.000-07:00

Been awhile since I put anything up on here, and I’m pretty sure that nobody reads this blog anymore, but I thought I might as well post the first part of a short paper I’m writing for the fun of it on a book called “Ecclesiastical Megalomania” written to provide a truthful outlook on the economical and political outlook on the Roman Catholic Church. It’s very interesting, to say the least. Anyway, hope some of you find it food for thought.

The Roman Catholic Church has, for centuries, operated economically on the same primeval and flawed ideas thought up by Thomas Aquinas although application of these ideas has varied over the years. For an example, we can see the fruits of these ideas in the Medieval Ages where guild socialism and Feudalism obviously failed. Even in the 2oth century, Catholicism was a contributor to the Fascistic societies which built up in Italy and other countries. Not to mention redistributive state and interventionism even in the United States. Most this stemmed from the anti-capitalistic and anti-private property dogmas found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

A few crucial points to show that what the last paragraph stated is true, and also vital to the integrity of this entire paper, must first be established. The foremost of these is to understand how Thomas Aquinas, who was essentially the only official philosopher of the Catholic Church, viewed law and subsequently private property. First, let’s look at his outlook on law…

According to Thomas Aquinas, there are four types of law, with numbers 2 and 3 fundamentally stemming from number 1:

1. Eternal law. This category refers to God’s plan for how things are to progress in the universe. This includes such things as gravitational force and photosynthesis.
2. Natural law. How rational creatures (humans, in other words) relate to and participate in eternal law. What humans do naturally, such as talking to each other, thinking, living in societies; these are things natural to humans, just as growing towards light is something plants naturally do.
3. Positive law. This class includes all the regulatory laws and customs made by men and governments in an attempt to apply the natural law to people and cultures/societies.
4. Divine law. Obviously this refers to things divinely instituted, such as the Ten Commandments.

Now let’s turn what Aquinas, when deducing from his own set views on law, thinks about the institution of private property and I quote:

“…‘the possession of all things in common and universal freedom’ are said to be of the natural law because, to wit, the distinction of possessions and slavery were not brought in by nature, but devised by human reason for the benefit of human life.” (Summa Theologiae, ii-ii, article 5)

Thus, private property, as Aquinas views it, is categorized as a positive law or institution and therefore entirely subject to human alterations and regulations. To further establish this point, allow me to present another quote from Aquinas:

“The community of goods is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one’s own, but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement, which belongs to positive law…. Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.” (Summa Theologiae, ii-ii, article 5)

So although Aquinas does not refer to the idea of private property (or, as he calls it, the “ownership of possessions”) as something that is entirely wrong, he denies it the same metaphysical standing that he allows what he calls the community of goods to possess, namely, a place in the natural law. He reduces private property to a position in the positive law, saying that it is simply a human invention in addition to the community of goods (modern day communism, in essence). Communism, according to Thomas Aquinas, is unalterable, natural law.

Now that we know what Aquinas’ base premise is, let’s take a quick look at an extremely interesting conclusion he is able to reach when deducing from that premise.

“Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or divine right… The division and appropriation of things which are based on human law do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence, whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor.” (Summa Theologiae, ii-ii, article 7)

So we essentially have the classic Robin Hood idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. According to Thomas, one person can take money or food or whatever they are lacking from their neighbor who is wealthier than they. As a matter of fact, he doesn’t even preclude theft and robbery as a means to this end of taking from a richer fellow citizen:

“…It is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property by taking it either openly or secretly; nor is this, properly speaking, theft and robbery…. It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another’s property in case of extreme need; because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need…. In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another’s property in order to succor his neighbor in need.” (Summa Theologiae, ii-ii, article 7)

I hope that if none of you reading this pay attention to anything else I’ve said, you will at least read this astonishing paragraph twice over. Aquinas bluntly states that it is perfectly permissible for one man to steal from another man if he needs something. Do you know how corrupt and horrible a society would become if everyone followed that tenet? Having a police force would be entirely pointless for one thing. I wonder though, why did Aquinas even bother to suggest that someone steal in secret? If it’s perfectly okay and lawful, a man shouldn’t have to be secretive about his stealing, should he?

Although poverty and need are unfortunate when they descend on people, they do not in any way warrant theft. If God thought there should be any exceptions to his commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” then He would have told us what that exception was in His Holy Word. However, since He did write down any such exception, no man is free to institute such an exception by means of his own opinions and thoughts while at the same time claiming to be a Christian and believing the Word of God. The two are completely incompatible. Thomas Aquinas went too far in his ideas about socialism when he began to leave Scriptural bounds.

Keep this in mind as well, because it’s the whole reason America became great: A society that is based in capitalism gives its working citizens, merchants, and businessmen the opportunity to pursue their own interests and also have competition between private enterprises. This gives a person a very real reason to further himself in his chosen vocation, seeking to be the best at what he does and thus getting competitive pay. So his employer rewards his hard work with higher pay in return for high quality work. At the end of the day, both employer and employee are winning and happy people. This setting will result in a very successful economy every time.

If that same person were merely working for the community of goods, he really has no motivation to work hard. After all, what he produces at the end of the day will simply be divided evenly among everyone in the society he is unfortunate enough to be a part of. (Either that or it will be stolen from him by one of Aquinas’ justified thieves.) He could work twice as hard as the man next to him, and yet would receive no more produce for his extra effort. So why should he work hard? There’s simply no motivation. Such a society is just plain bad economics, and yet it is such a society that Thomas Aquinas advocates.

Well, I’m going to cut this short here and continue later as I make further progress into the book, but I hope this gave some of you something to digest for a little while! I’m certainly finding the subject fascinating… Thoughts?

Could Christ Have Sinned?

2006-04-18T08:04:00.000-07:00

I know this isn’t exactly what ya’ll were expecting in terms of a topic at this blog, but I just remembered that I had wanted to post something about it and so here it is!

Anyway, I recently was talking with a friend and a very interesting topic came up that dealt with the compatibility or non-compatibility of Jesus’ sinless God-nature and his human nature. The question at hand was essentially whether or not Jesus could have yielded to temptation and actually committed a sin. This may sound blasphemous and/or completely pointless in nature, but nevertheless, once I’ve shown you the reasoning behind this question, I doubt whether any of you will condemn us for asking it of ourselves. :) So to start off, allow me to quote the passage of Scripture that first got me and him thinking about this:

Hebrews 2:16-18 reads, “For indeed He does not give aid to the angles, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”

It’s the “in all things He had to be made like His brethren” in verse 17 that really stuck out at first. This phrase seems to infer that, upon becoming “in all things…like His brethren” Christ then had the ability or rather, the nature to commit sin. But, obviously, since Christ was a perfect, Godly being as well, he didn’t actually do any sinning during his time here on earth, but nevertheless the question is raised, Was is ever feasible for Him to have committed a sin? In other words, did He either simply successfully resist all temptations that came His way, or could He just not have sinned period? I personally found it confusing to even think that Jesus, who is by nature a completely perfect being, could even have the possibility of sinning ever present in his life on earth. It seemed like a blatant paradox to me while under, of course, the not-necessarily correct assumption that Christ couldn’t possibly possess the ability to commit a sin due to His pre-incarnate existence of complete perfection. And yet there had to be some logical explanation of Hebrews 2:17-18 since I know that there is no such thing as a biblical paradox.

So I continued reading and came to Hebrews 4:14-16 which says, “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

I call your attention to the latter part of verse 15 where is it clearly stated that although Christ was “in all points tempted as we are,” He was tempted without a speck of sin. So my question then was, How can somebody come to be in all points tempted as I am, and yet not have the option of possibly giving in to those temptations? As far I as I can see, there are only three decently conclusive answers to this question: (1) Either Hebrews 2:17-18 is wrong (not a particularly promising option due to the universally accepted inherency of the Scriptures), or (2) Jesus did actually have the ability to sin (a slightly possible, although apparently contradictory option), or (3) perhaps He had two natures: one human, and one divine (which is a perfectly possible option). Without selecting one of these choices, what other way is there to reconcile the statement, “in all things He had to be made like His brethren” and then not having the possibility of sinning?

Also, think about God’s plan as a whole for mankind through Christ’s Incarnation. I mean, if Christ had had the ability to say “yes” to any of the temptations which He encountered, God’s whole plan of redemption would have been rather seriously jeopardized. Christ couldn’t have sinned because it wasn’t God’s will for Him to do so. And just as importantly, although Christ felt the strong human want to give into temptations, there was no way, because of His Godly nature, that He could have ever given in. If He could, He wouldn’t and couldn’t be the God of the Bible or Second Person of the Trinity who must by very definition maintain a state of complete perfection.

On the whole, then, when Christ took upon himself the same attributes of a human man, it made it so his physical body went through all the normal temptations and even some extraordinarily difficult ones (Mark 1:12-13 also Matt. 4… Satan’s tempting of Christ in the desert), but I believe the God nature (for lack of a better reference) which was still present made it impossible for Him to actually commit a sin. Christ didn’t undergo a type of metamorphosis which completely changed him from fully God to fully man. He still retained his Godly nature here on earth as well (Matt. 3:13-17), and since God cannot sin by nature, it was impossible for Christ to do so even though he felt the same temptations we do. So it wasn’t like there was this small chance that He might give in and God’s whole plan for mankind would come crashing down or anything. It’s kind of weird thing to think about having two natures which are contrary to each other and yet enjoying a co-existence in one bodily form at the same time. As Calvin says in volume 22 of his Commentaries on the Bible under Hebrews 2:16, “And the Apostle speaks of nature, and intimates that Christ, clothed with flesh, was real man, so that there was unity of person in two natures.” Perhaps the human mind isn’t meant to fully grasp it… And maybe that’s the most likely answer to these questions. :) (As a side note, as I got into this whole topic, I realized how much it has to do with the Incarnation and one’s perspective on this issue actually has a lot to do with one’s outlook on the Incarnation… But that’s another topic for another day, I suppose. :)

So anyway, I thought it was kind of an interesting thing to think about...:) Anybody have any thoughts? Do you completely disagree with me, David? :)

Happy Easter!

2006-04-15T08:38:00.000-07:00

Happy Easter everybody! :)

Okay, so for those of you who are still actually stopping by here every, oh, two weeks on average, maybe you'll see this. :) Anyway, I've lately gotten into eschatology and studying the whole end times/millennium stuff. Quite interesting, really... Trying to find out exactly what I mean when I say "I'm an Amillennialist,” or, “I'm a Postmillennialist." At any rate, up till this point, I've been what you might call a nominal Amillennialist even though I had only the very basic knowledge of what that term (or any of the others, for that matter) really meant. Hence the present interest in eschatological issues... :)

Actually, it was Lindsey who really got me into it when she asked what Amillennialists believed since my profile says I lean towards that position. Since I had really no clue what to tell her, and since she said she was leaning towards Pre-millennialism (reading with a more literal interpretation of Revelation/Books of The Apocalypse) and I had no real understanding of what that was either, I, well, yeah... :)

So anyway, I've sort of been writing up a relatively short paper about it, and hope to post it sometime in the near future. :) I'll probably be putting up my next section on "The Law" before that, though, if I can JUST GET THE TIME TO GET IT EDITED! :) Basically, then, I do have plans for this blog even though it probably seems like I completely disappear at times. :)

Finally, out of pure curiosity, where do you all place yourselves eschatologically? Amill., Premill., Postmill., Historic Premill., Futurist...? I'd be interested in hearing a little background and reason for why you believe what you do, too, if any of you feel like spouting a little. :)

Oh yeah, and Lindsey, if you read this, when you said you were leaning towards a Premill. view, were you referring to Historic Premillennialism, or Dispensational Premillennialism (aka, Dispensationalism)?

Have a great day peoples! :)

Christian Man in Afghanistan Released!

2006-03-28T09:20:00.000-08:00

Okay, to start this off, let me say that in my last post I was extremely upset and sort of typed that all out in a huff. I think I was too hard on muslims or at least wasn't very Christian in my reaction. Anyway, hope you all will forgive that moment of sporatic anger on my part...

So, read for yourselves!

An Afghan man who had faced the death penalty for converting from Islam Christianity has been released from prison after the case was dropped, the justice minister said Tuesday.

The announcement came after the United Nations said Abdul Rahman has appealed for asylum outside Afghanistan and that the world body was working to find a country willing to take him. Justice Minister Mohammed Sarwar Danish told The Associated Press that the 41-year-old was released from the high-security Policharki prison on the outskirts of Kabul late Monday. "We released him last night because the prosecutors told us to," he said. "His family was there when he was freed, but I don't know where he was taken."

Deputy Attorney General Mohammed Eshak Aloko told the AP that prosecutors had issued a letter calling for Rahman's release because "he was mentally unfit to stand trial." He also said he did not know where he was being held. He said Rahman may be sent overseas for medical treatment.

Hours earlier, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" marched through the northern Afghan Mazar-i-Sharif to protest the court's decision Sunday to dismiss the case. "Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion."

Several Muslim clerics have threatened to incite Afghans to kill Rahman if he is freed, saying that he is clearly guilty of apostasy and deserves to die.

The case set off an outcry in the United States and other nations that helped oust the hard-line Taliban regime in late 2001 and provide aid and military support for Afghan President Hamid Karzai. President Bush and others insisted Afghanistan protect personal beliefs.

U.N. spokesman Adrian Edwards said Rahman has asked for asylum "outside Afghanistan." "We expect this will be provided by one of the countries interested in a peaceful solution to this case," he said.

No country has yet offered asylum to Rahman, said an official familiar with the case who declined to be named because of its sensitivity.

Well, can't say as I too thrilled as to the means of his release, but at least he's been released at all. Mentally unfit... yeah right. Who's going to believe that? Oh well... I guess the greatest fear right now is that he may be killed by muslim clerics/enraged populace. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens, but I certainly hope he's able to get out of the country before it does. I doubt if he'll ever be able to live a public life in Afghanistan ever again unless he wants to risk being killed by fanatics.

Anyway, interesting to see where he'll go from here... Don't stop praying!

International Protests Fail: Afghan Man to Die

2006-03-24T07:27:00.000-08:00

I am sick... Literally sick to my stomach that any human being, or any collaboration of human beings can be so cruel, idiotic, brainless as to even want to pull a man to "pieces so that there's nothing left." What a bloodthirsty bunch of murderers...

And what's the government's excuse for executing him? "The people are going to do it anyway, so we might as well save them the trouble and ourselves from a public uprising." That's essentially it. What a lousy excuse to sin. Other people are sinning, so we might as well do it to. Do you know what sort of place this world would be if we all had a mindset like that?

Anyway...

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Senior Muslim clerics demanded yesterday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."

In an unusual move, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned President Hamid Karzai yesterday seeking a "favorable resolution" of the case of Abdul Rahman.

The 41-year-old former medical aid worker faces the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic laws for becoming a Christian. His trial has fired passions in this Muslim nation and highlighted a conflict of values between the West and Islam, which forbids those born as Muslims from converting to other religions.

"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

The trial, which began last week, has caused an international outcry. President Bush has said he is "deeply troubled" by the case and expects the country to "honor the universal principle of freedom."

Miss Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said she told Mr. Karzai it is important for the Afghan people to know that freedom of religion is observed in their country. But in deference to the country's sovereignty, Miss Rice evidently did not demand specifically that the trial be halted and the defendant released. "This is clearly an Afghan decision," Mr. McCormack said. "They are a sovereign country."

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday after speaking with Mr. Karzai that the Christian convert will not face the death penalty, Agence France-Presse reported from Ottawa. "I phoned President Karzai personally yesterday to express our concern. He conveyed to me that we don't have to worry about any such eventual outcome," Mr. Harper told reporters.

Diplomats have said the Afghan government is searching for a way to drop the case. On Wednesday, authorities said Mr. Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.

But three Sunni preachers and a Shi'ite one interviewed by the Associated Press in four of Kabul's most popular mosques said they do not think Mr. Rahman is insane. "He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque. "The government is scared of the international community," he said. "But the people will kill him if he is freed."

Mr. Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled. Cut off his head," he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left." He said the only way for Mr. Rahman to survive would be for him to go into exile.

But Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shi'ite places of worship in Kabul, said Mr. Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country. "If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."

Afghanistan's constitution is based on Shariah law, which is interpreted by many Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death.

Hamidullah warned that if the government frees Mr. Rahman, "there will be an uprising" like one against Soviet occupying forces in the 1980s. "The government will lose the support of the people," he said.

Muslims are hardly worthy to be called humans. They don't follow basic humanitarian laws (God's laws)! It's like a bunch of murderers who got together and formed a country. Now I realize that there are definitely good people in there, and are most likely others that God has chosen to come to Him, so I'm mainly referring to the moderate-radical muslim population. But still, how can anyone actually WANT to kill another person simply because of a difference in religious beliefs? Unbelievable, people! Unbelievable...

On the other hand, however, I must say that I can't help but notice two good things that will come from the death of this man. One is that he will be in Heaven and actually enjoying a better life than we are. We should be happy for him in a way since he's going to a perfect life.

Secondly, the whole world will see, as a result of his death for no logical reason, what animalistic people true muslims are. And maybe this will wake them up and shut their mouths every time they start to say "oh those poor muslim people we're killing over there..." And don't forget, the people who want to kill Mr. Rahman are considered moderate muslims. I can't even imagine what radical muslims would do!

At any rate, who knows, maybe God will cause something to happen that will still save the life of this man. So again, keep praying everybody!

Afghan Man Declared to be Possibly "Mad" by Prosecuters

2006-03-23T09:21:00.000-08:00

Looks like President Bush is taking a stronger stand against the trial and execution of Mr. Abdul Rahman...

President Bush yesterday said he was "deeply" troubled by the trial in Afghanistan of a Christian who could face execution for converting from Islam and vowed to pressure the Afghan government on the matter. "It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another," Mr. Bush said.

Abdul Rahman could face the death penalty for rejecting Islam. He converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working for a Christian aid organization in Pakistan, but it just came to light recently during a custody battle over his two children.

While nations such as Italy and Germany lodged strong protests earlier this week against the trial, the U.S. State Department on Tuesday was more tepid, calling the case a matter for Afghan authorities.

Yesterday, Mr. Bush took a much firmer stance. "We have got influence in Afghanistan, and we are going to use it to remind them that there are universal values," he said.

It appeared yesterday that Afghanistan was looking for a way out of the international furor over the matter. The Associated Press, reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan, quoted a prosecutor as saying Mr. Rahman may be mentally unfit for trial. "We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person," said the prosecutor, Sarinwal Zamari, while the AP also quoted a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai as saying that Mr. Rahman will have an exam and that if he is deemed unfit, the case against him would be dropped.

Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah on Tuesday said that he understood American concerns but that the matter was a legal one and the government "has nothing to do with it."

Prosecutors said the case against Mr. Rahman would be dropped if he converted back to Islam, but he has refused. The state-sponsored Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has said Mr. Rahman violated Islamic law by converting to another religion and should be punished.

The trial has become a cause for Christians worldwide and for conservative groups in the United States, who demanded that the U.S. government intervene. "Americans have not given their lives so that Christians can be put to death," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an American Muslim advocacy group, also joined the call for Mr. Rahman to be released. "Islam advocates both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience," the group said.

The trial could be a stumbling block for Mr. Bush, who is traveling across the U.S. arguing that freedom and democracy are universal values and modern civil societies can rise from formerly oppressed Middle Eastern nations.

He has talked about allowing nations to form democracies in their own style, and often points to Japan's development of a "Japanese-style democracy" after World War II as a model.

But an Afghanistan-style democracy that includes trials of Christian converts is unacceptable to Mr. Bush's supporters. "How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by radical Islamists who kill Christians?" Mr. Perkins said.

Speaking in Wheeling at a town-hall-style event yesterday, Mr. Bush raised the issue himself, saying he was "deeply troubled."

But a firefighter in the audience challenged Mr. Bush to go further and reminded him that hundreds of firefighters died in the September 11 attacks by al Qaeda, whose leader, Osama bin Laden, was based in Afghanistan with the permission of the ruling Taliban. "Do you have an army of sociologists to go over there and change that country, or are you hoping that in a couple decades that we can change the mind-set over there?" the firefighter asked.

"We can solve this problem by working closely with the government that we've got contacts with -- and will," Mr. Bush said. "We'll deal with this issue diplomatically and remind people that there is something as universal as being able to choose religion."

Is it just me or is anyone else totally creeped out that the Afghan prosecuters for this trial are suddenly claiming that Mr. Rahman is crazy and therefor unfit for trial? When did that ever stop them?! They're just trying to find a way to appease the Western powers without loosing face and "breaking" their own laws which say this man should be executed. Gag me with a fork people! He's no more crazy than they are, but even if he was, they would still kill him without any prick of conscience. Men who can slaughter women and children shouldn't have much of a problem killing a man who is "crazy". That just completely disgusts me...

I kind of feel for the Afghan government right now, though. I think they know that the right thing to do would be to give in to the foreign protests, but they also know that if Mr. Rahman doesn't die, many of the radical muslims in Afghanistan with completely freak out. It would be a huge internal mess. But I still think they should intervene and keep Mr. Rahman from being executed.

Anyway, I'm glad President Bush took a stronger stance for saving the life of this brave Christian man. Keep praying!

Argh...

2006-03-22T19:56:00.001-08:00

Okay, a bunch of you said you're having problems accessing my other blog... Well, I was too and then I just figured out what was wrong. So trying clicking HERE and see if it works. Let me know if it's still not going anywhere for ya'll...

Sorry 'bout that!

Christian Man in Afghanistan Faces Death for His Faith

2006-03-22T10:38:00.000-08:00

Read for yourselves this latest bit about Abdul Rahman...

The Bush administration yesterday appealed to Afghanistan to spare the life of a man facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, but said the matter was one for the Afghan government and courts to decide.

In a case that has sparked international outrage, the remarks of Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns were in sharp contrast to condemnations of the trial by lawmakers and by leading European allies.
Briefing reporters with Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah at his side, Mr. Burns said the U.S. government was watching the case of Abdul Rahman closely, but added, "This case is not in the competence of the United States government. It's under the competence of the Afghan authorities."

But the governments of Germany and Italy, which -- like the United States -- have substantial troop deployments in Afghanistan, lodged strong protests at the prospect of Mr. Rahman's execution, with former Italian President Francesco Cossiga saying Italy should withdraw its 1,775 troops in Afghanistan if the death sentence is handed down.

The Italian Foreign Ministry said Rome will move "at the highest level ... to prevent something which is incompatible with the defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

California Rep. Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, demanded a strong official U.S. protest, calling the Rahman prosecution "outrageous" at a time when an international coalition of troops "are dying in defense of the Afghan government."

At least two prominent conservative religious groups issued online messages that appealed to the Bush administration to help save the life of a man "who refuses to deny Christ."

The American Family Association's founder and chairman, Donald Wildmon, asked readers to e-mail President Bush asking him to intervene.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, took issue with a statement by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, who called freedom of worship "an important element of any democracy." "Religious freedom is not just 'an important element' of democracy; it is its cornerstone," Mr. Perkins declared.

A Kabul court confirmed Sunday that Mr. Rahman, 41, was facing a death sentence under Islamic Shariah law for converting to Christianity. The conversion, which happened 16 years ago when Mr. Rahman was employed by a Christian aid organization in Pakistan, came to light during a custody battle over his two children.

The case is a delicate one for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose government remains highly dependent on Western aid and arms. But Afghanistan is overwhelmingly Muslim, and the ousted Taliban government, a fundamentalist Islamic movement, could exploit the case if the charge against Mr. Rahman is dropped. Mr. Abdullah, in Washington this week for talks on deepening strategic and economic ties with the United States, said, "I know this is a sensitive issue, and we know the concerns of the American people."

He said the Afghan Embassy had received hundreds of messages about the case. But he insisted that the case was a legal one involving Mr. Rahman and his family. "The government of Afghanistan has nothing to do with it," he said.

Afghanistan's constitution is based on Islamic Shariah law, which many argue forbids Muslims to convert to any other faith. The Afghan judiciary is considered a bastion of conservative orthodoxy, largely unreformed despite the ouster of the Taliban more than four years ago.

Prosecutor Abdul Wasi told the Associated Press that the capital case against Mr. Rahman would be dropped -- if the defendant would convert back to Islam. "We are Muslims, and becoming a Christian is against our laws," Mr. Wasi said. "He must get the death penalty."

Mr. Burns and State Department officials were clearly struggling to condemn the prosecution without causing a major break with a vital U.S. ally. Mr. Burns said the administration would demand "transparency" in the trial and noted that Afghanistan's constitution guarantees freedom of religion for all citizens.

"While we understand the complexity of the case and certainly respect the sovereignty of the Afghan authorities, from an American point of view, people should be free to choose their religion and should not suffer any severe penalties, certainly not death, for having made a personal choice as to what religion to follow," he said.

Wow. We don't know what it's like to have to face death for what we believe. We should definitely keep this good, solid Christian man in our prayers as his case unfolds.

I think President Bush and the other leaders of the coalition forces in Afghanistan did the right thing. Here's the logic: Afghan leaders are trying to deny the right to life of one man who has done nothing wrong while protective coalition forces are dying in the defense of the Afghan people. Am I the only one who misses the logic here? I really hope enough of an outcry has been made to save the life of this brave Afghan man.

Normally I would be against the US or any other nation trying to get involved in another country's private affairs, whether they be right or wrong. It's none of our business how other countries choose to rule. In this case, however, with our own men over there protecting Afghans from the very thing they are trying to do to this man, I believe we and other countries who have forces in Afghanistan have some right to speak out against it.

Anyway, keep this man in your prayers everybody!

Here's some other people covering this as well:
King's Highway
Unconformed
Boy Scout Blogger
Mercy Now

New Addition to the Blogosphere...

2006-03-17T11:25:00.000-08:00

Okay, this is a quicky to announce the opening of my other blog: I'm sick of trying to post personal and theological/political/philosophical stuff all on the same blog, so I'm opening another one for my personal stuff. Anyway, we'll see how it turns out... :)

So click HERE and let me know what you think!

The Law: Part I

2006-03-14T08:10:00.001-08:00

Well, for starters, I’m terribly sorry it’s been a few weeks since my last update… Just keep in mind that it’s my blogging motto not to just post for the sake of posting. I need to have something worthwhile to say if I’m going to post at all. Oh, and by the way, ORANGE ROCKS! :)

Given that premise, today’s “worthwhile subject” is actually sort of a book review/informal essay on law—what it is, why it is needed, and what it protects against in terms of malevolent behavior. But I also want to talk a bit about how under the protection of law, immoral and inhumane establishments have been instituted by the lawmakers. Hope this is of at least some interest to ya’ll!

Okay, I mentioned that this is also like a book review in a sense… The book is an amazingly excellent little treatise mainly about how socialism inevitably leads to complete communism. Now, maybe you’re thinking right now that, “What does that have to do with law?” Well, as it turns out, it has a great deal to do with it. In fact, the unavoidable demise of socialism/communism has so much to do with law, that this book is indeed entitled “The Law.” It was written, surprisingly, some short time before 1850 which was the year that it was first published. The genius behind the authoring of it appeared in the form a man named Frederic Bastiat—a Frenchman who lived through the “glorious” revolution of France and tried desperately to stop his country’s plunge into the socialistic structure of government and culture. Sadly, he had a short life of only 49 years which ended the same year that this book was published.

Well, now that you’ve got a little background, allow me to begin. :)

First of all, what is law? How should it be defined? It is, as Bastiat puts it, “The collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.” He goes on to say that every man has the God-given right to protect the three most important qualities of life: a person’s faculties, his liberty, and his property. These basic elements are inseparable. To preserve one is to preserve them all. “For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?”

Now, it is based upon this premise above that the law was initially established by men. After all, if one man has as much of a right as another man to protect these three possessons, then it is perfectly permissible that a corporate system be formed to protect these rights.

But, as Mr. Bastiat goes on to say, the law certainly does not fail to surpass it’s proper limitations; limitations which would keep it doing only that which it was founded for. Namely, protecting the rights of those who formed it. Historically however, it always ends up giving “legal” protection for acts which go completely against it’s foundations truths and purposes. How does this happen and what are the results? Law becomes distorted into an indistinct mess of good and bad rules by two main evils of mankind: greed and false philanthropy.

Man is forever trying to find ways to gain the most advantage with the least effort. This means that the means by which he makes any gain at all is often by the sweat of another man’s brow. Monopolies, dishonesty in trade, slavery, and wars all result from some man or some men whose greed pushes them to squeeze the greatest from other with the least amount of effort.

So what’s the easiest way dishonestly take the most at another man’s expense (in terms of labor and pain)? Make the taking legal, of course. If someone can legalize stealing, who would work? We would all just go to someone’s house and take whatever we want and they would do the same to us. Society and culture would go down the drain if that happened, no? Obviously, this was an example. Nothing quite so drastic has ever really been done, but nevertheless, lawful plunder is, even now, pervading countries around the world. Income tax, property tax, product tax, these are synonymous with stealing when the money is used for purposes beyond the protection of property, liberty, and human faculties. And it is particularly evil when it is used to promote immoral practices that go against the conscience of the tax payer. All it is is a nice way to say the bitter truth, that’s all.

Now, man naturally is inclined to go to great measures to avoid pain, right? And since pain is equal to labor, men will always resort to stealing whenever it is easier and less painful than work. Obviously, then, it becomes apparent that the law’s true purpose is always to make stealing painful and thus eliminating the mass plunder factor inevitable in any society where physical means are crucially necessary for even just basic existence (and since this defines every single society on earth, heaven is the only place where prevent of evil by means of law will be unnecessary).

Unfortunately, there is only ever one man or a group of men who tend to the laws and make new ones. And since man’s natural desire is for gain without pain, a corrupt corporation of men is hardly avoidable at some point in a country’s history. This group of men can easily make legal the act of stealing and initiate harmless sounding programs such as the “graduated income tax” which started so small that no-one could feel it. Now, however, there is such a thing as a 60% overall tax bracket for a single income. 60% people! So now what started as something to stop the act of stealing and other lawlessness has become its own invincible enemy. Justified stealing can hardly be fought by the common man when it comes in the form of automatic exacting from a monthly paycheck. He can’t pull out a gun and tell it to leave his house. And if he refuses to pay (something which, in and of itself, would be quite hard to arrange), jail or worse stares him in the face.

And yet, even if all men unite to fight the commonly felt evil of legal plunder, then those who rebel to take over the tyrants then themselves suddenly feel the power of government and proceed to participate in the justified stealing they had just fought to destroy. Their excuse is that they are punishing the domineering class which had so recently plundered them. Greed and want of power will never cease to be a pervading problem in the world until the return of Christ, so the cycle has repeated itself many times.

What is a viable proposition of reform to address to this huge problem of legalizing crime? To restrict the law itself. If the law is, by law, restricted to exclusively protecting human rights and properties, what person, as Bastiat says, “would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?”

I found Mr. Bastiat’s short remarks about the state of the USA (written in 1850, mind you) of particular interest and I will end part I of this topic with this quotation:

“…Even in the United States, there are two issues-and only two-that have always endangered the public peace. What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer. Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property. It is a most remarkable thing that this double legal crime-a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World-should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union.”

I have to give it to this man that he had incredible vision. I mean, if you look at the state of affairs in the US today, exactly what he said would happen, has happened. That’s not to say that this still isn’t the best place to live when given a choice of nationality, but just look at the amount of graduated income tax Americans now have to pay! It’s insane!

I’ll just say something else really quick: I’ve heard many Christians say that, since Christ said that we are to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesars” we should pay our taxes without question. But have they stopped and thought about exactly what those taxes go toward? We are beyond rendering unto Caesar what is due him. We are now funding things which directly contradict the teachings of Christ. Is that something He would say to continue doing without question? Just take a look at our school system. Evolution, sex, and other abominations are rampant in today’s schools. And not only that, but these things are promoted and taught! It’s definitely something to think about.

Thoughts anybody? Don’t hesitate to bring up things you think I’m wrong on. I’m completely open to correction where I may (indeed, most likely) have failed in my deductions!

Signing off…

Happy Birthday!!

2006-02-21T09:12:00.000-08:00

Happy 19th Birthday, Sarah! Hope you have a wonderful day! :)

And I embarrassingly announce the birthdays of two other people:

Kristin! So sorry I missed it... I feel like jerk, but I hope you'll accept my slightly late well-wishes! :) Happy 17th!

And last but certainly not least, a very Happy 18th to Joe! I'm afraid yours was yesterday, but I got you and Sarah mixed up again and thought yours was today and hers was tomorrow. Ahh! How do people keep up with stuff like this? :)

Well, that's gonna have to do for an update... For those of you still wondering how my concert went like two weeks ago, it was absolutely great... By the grace of God, I was able to turn a potentially disastrous miss-tuning episode into a really big laugh for the audience. :) Overall, it went practically flawlessly and was very encouraging to me. Many thanks to those of you who prayed!

On a different note, I ordered an iPod Shuffle a couple days ago... FINALLY! I really should've gotten one a while ago, but could never seem to take the plunge. :) Anyway, that should be fun to have when I'm running and so-forth.

Okay, I've really gotta run here... Sorry for the quick update!

Prayer...

2006-02-08T21:09:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody... Hope this post finds you all in excellent health. :)

This is actually just a quicky to ask for everyone's prayer for me as I make the final preparations for and play in a concert this Friday... I'm technically not nervous in front of a crowd of people because whenever I perform I'm almost always either singing with a group of people or playing in a band/ensemble. But on Friday I've been invited by the winner of the guitar National Championship at Winfield (John Standefer) to play solo guitar at his personal winter concert as a guest artist. It's a really big deal for me and I'm really agitated about getting up on stage completely by myself. It's a great honor and I'm worried that I won't live up to it. But I am trying to trust the Lord and stay half calm about it. :)

Anyway, I would really appreciate everyone's prayers... Thanks so much!

Profound Question of the Day

2006-02-05T17:12:00.001-08:00

Hmm... I suppose if I was really particular, I'd have to post one "Profound Question of the Day" every day simply to be consistent with the connotations held by a "Profound Question of the Day"... Oh well. :) '

You know, that was a really unnecessary thought... Pardon me. I have these moments of abstraction after which not even I can explain myself. :) Maybe I should hire an interpreter. Who knows, I might be saying something really profound... :)

ANYWAY. Here's my question:

Do you believe that there is biblical support for modern prophets?

I'm REALLY interested in hearing you people's views... So spew forth! :)

YES!!

2006-02-02T14:05:00.000-08:00

Phew! I've gotta spill this really quick... I just got back from my daily running routine just now, and while I was out, I stopped at one of our local school tracks and timed to see how fast I could do a mile. I did it in JUST over 5 minutes! To be exact, I got it in 5:01.6! My running goal for this year was to do a mile in under 5 minutes, and I got closer than I thought I would sooner than I thought I would! Yahoo! Okay, so maybe none of you people care, but I'm pretty excited... :)

I'll shutup now... :)

Hey, I was wondering what everyone thought of Bush's State of the Union Address not too long ago? I thought the speech on the whole was pretty excellent, but towards the end, he started really pushing the govermental interference in making our country less and less dependent on foreign oil, especially from the Middle East. Personally, I think that sort of thing should be restricted exclusively to private enterprises. He also talked quite a bit about researching new sources of power, particularly mentioning the use of natural substances such as the ethanol in wood chips and other natural resources to replace oil in the power industry. Again, it is none of the governments business to research how America powers its houses. That is a strictly capitalistic thing and should be left that way.

He also mentioned focusing on the math and sciences in public schools so that the next generation will be able to advance even farther in industrial science and the like. And where does the government get the money to pay for advanced studies in the public school? Tax dollars. Our tax dollars. They would be much better off giving us that money back so that we can school our own kids in the ways that we see fit. Ah well...

On the whole, I thought it was a great speech, though. His part about Iraq and our foreign policy was awesome. Not to mention his comment about the newly confirmed judge, Alito... You could just see the disgust on the dem's faces! That was sweet... :)

So, what'd ya'll think?

2006-01-31T17:39:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm planning to finish my "series" on the Manifesto either this weekend or next week... We'll see. Other than that, I don't really have any long term plans for posting. Anybody got any ideas? :)

For news, Samuel Alito, President Bush's latest appointed judge to the SC, was confirmed today as the USA's 110th Supreme Court Judge! Yes!! I actually didn't have many doubts that his confirmation wouldn't go through... But it's great to have it all over anyway! I believe the Senate vote was 58-42 in his favor (obviously).

Can anyone actually believe that Kerry, in all his idiocy, still tried to fillibuster Alito's confirmation? His reason? Here it is in his own words:

"[A fillibuster] is the only way we can stop a confirmation that we feel certain will cause irreversible damage to our country."

He also gave "reasons" for his proposed fillibuster:

"[Bush has] nominated a man who consistently defers to the government action regardless of how egregious it may be; a man who erects rather than breaks down barriers in the area of civil rights, a man who, to this day, has never retreated from his declaration that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to privacy, a man who has demonstrated a persistent insensitivity to the history of racial discrimination in this country and, was even, at the government’s request, willing to ignore overwhelming evidence that African Americans were intentionally stricken from an all-white jury in a black defendant’s capital case."

Gag me with a fork, people! The dems last stronghold in the government was the court system, and that's why they are trying desperately hard to fillibuster every person Bush nominates.

Okay, I won't even get started...:)

"We love our freedom and we will fight to keep it!" I'm watching to Bush's State of the Union Address right now and boy is it awesome! He's sticking completely to his plan to stay in Iraq until we've achieved total victory. What a great president we've got!

The Communist Manifesto: On the Bourgeoisie and Proletarian Classes and Their Relation to the Communists

2006-01-27T08:36:00.000-08:00

Greetings friends of the blogosphere! I trust this post finds you all well…

Here’s my paper on the first two chapters of the Communist Manifesto. I decided to only do the first two chapters in a section, and then do the third and fourth ones later on... Depending on how much of a response this gets. Anyway... I know that (or rather hope that) there will likely be little to no tangible debate in the comments section as to the true/false nature of Communism since I’m assuming most of my readers are presupposing the fact that it is wrong, but I nevertheless readily invite criticisms of my work and any discussion is also welcome. Anyone is free to spew forth their singular thoughts. :) That said, I hope this paper is of some interest to you and that you will get some sort of thought-provoking pleasure from reading its contents! (I should also note that I did this on my free time… Not as a school paper. Hence the prolonged “release date”. :))

Before I begin, for those who are particularly interested, I would suggest that everyone read the Communist Manifesto (from here on “CM”) in its entirety for themselves. Although in this paper I tried to be as unassuming as possible when it came to judging whether or not any of my readers have actually read the CM, it may do many of you good to read it for yourselves. I found it quite intriguing, as opposed to exclusively revolting, as some might think it would be. I mean, it’s dreadfully horrible in the sense that its proposed propositions for the creation of a utopian society and civilization are appalling and mortally inaccurate (for proof of this claim we but need to take a glance at the outcome of Stalin’s Russia, or Mao’s China), but analyzing it from an objective stand-point makes for quite an interesting read despite its obvious fallings-short. I believe that Karl Marx and Friedriech Engels were both correct in there analyzation of the problem of society at the time of their writing of the CM. But as I say further into the post, their solution to this problem was drastically faulty. Just like Shaeffer says, many people see problems in this life correctly, but not many are able to come up with correct answers.

I shall go through in as much detail as possible the three chapters which join to form the CM. Starting, then, rather appropriately with Chapter 1 entitled Bourgeois and Proletarians we find this beginning sentence:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

I think this is rather obviously the underlying premise behind the formation of the Communist party. Communism attempts to eliminate class struggles by forcing everyone to live in an equal society. But as to the statement itself: I am rather inclined in a sense to agree with and disagree with it at the same time. Assuming that, hitherto, no society/civilization has ever tried its hand at democracy, this statement is most definitely factual. Obviously, you have throughout the ages the noble class, the middle class, and the peasant class. Each of these classes, particularly between the two extremes of poverty and prosperity, are seen to be almost always struggling between each other. Marx and Engels say this in their next few sentences which read:

“Freeman and Slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on in an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

But think of the founding of the United States and the writing of the Constitution and the overall entering into the realm of societies that of democratic thinking. The United States by definition allow all men to be free to do what they will. If someone fails and is poorer than another man in the US, it is undoubtedly his own fault unless he has a paralysis of some kind. Overall, however, US society is free to do what they will and that is what men of all classes will always yearn for: simple yet powerful Freedom to do what they do best in their own way. It is this whole proposal of total class freedom which makes me disagree with the idea of a never-ending history of class struggles. But let us continue with the next quote in which the writers of the CM describe what they believe to be the universal modern class struggle:

“Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”

The writers then continue in great detail to explain the history and evolving of the bourgeoisie to where it is today. I’m afraid I lack the space and time to quote and analyze each paragraph of this, but if you feel so compelled, reading this section for yourselves would most likely be helpful for greater understanding of the bourgeoisie class.

Allow me, then, to skip a few paragraphs and pick up where the writers begin to describe the modern bourgeoisie:

“Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells… The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.”

The writers believe that the modern bourgeoisie are destroying themselves using the very same means of “production and exchange” by which they became “above” the common working man, or the proletarian class. They go on to say that not only will these means of production and exchange turn back upon their creators, the bourgeoisie, but that those who wield them, the proletarians, will also do their part in the destruction of the “upper class.”

Indeed, I must admit that in this regard Marx and Engels were right. The common working man under the yoke of factory employment which gets worse and worse will always eventually turn on his superiors and strike back for what he believes are his rights. Yes, Marx was correct in his belief that some men should not have to be under the whip of others. But, as is often the case, his solution to this problem was radically erroneous. Toward the end of Chapter 1, the CM writers come to the conclusion that the modern bourgeoisie class is no longer fit to rule the common working man since “it cannot help letting him sink into such a state [of pauperism], that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him.” The chapter ends with the fall of the modern bourgeoisie class being completely inevitable.

Upon the belief that men should live equally, then, is formed one of the most despicable societal parties to ever be thought up by man. Communism. We have arrived at Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists.

This chapter begins with the inquiry:

“In what relation do the communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?”

And is answered:

“The Communists do not form a separated party opposed to other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. The do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.”

Basically, then, it is stated that the Communist party is in essence synonymous with the interests of the common proletarian, right? Right… Except for one thing, says Marx, and this is presented as follows:

“The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only:

1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.”

So, actually, I would say that yes, the Communist party essentially claims to have the interests of the working man at its heart. That is the reason for its proposed drive and call for action from proletarians around the globe. The difference is that it believes that it forms into a resolute society what was before simply a scattered bunch of confused individuals who didn’t know what to do about their present conditions. Indeed, Marx and Engels say that the “immediate aim of the Communist party” is to form the proletarians into one solid, powerful society and then “overthrow the bourgeois supremacy.”

Here’s my question: How can you overthrow one supreme class without creating another one at the same time? How? You can’t! Not unless you are prepared to tell each and every person in your society exactly, and I mean exactly what they are supposed to do, and what they are allowed to have in terms of physical means. But even then, doesn’t that make the enforcer of the above said radical measures a bit of a supreme being himself? Any given society simply cannot not have one group of men constantly ruling, or guiding, if you will, over others. Even if it is only a general overseeing such as we have in the United State’s President/Senate/Congress etc (or used to have...).

But Marx and Engels believed that given hugely strict measures and standards, this could be accomplished and then successfully implemented into a country and used for practically forever. For instance, Communism strongly advocates the eradication of private property and other rights:

“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

There you have it. No individual rights. None whatsoever. If you directly take away one private right of a human being, how can that human be sure to have any rights at all? Here is what Marx says when reproached for the desire of abolishing personal property when under certain conditions that property may have been honestly and painstakingly gained by even a proletarian:

“Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.”

He completely avoided the question! Completely! He simply said that there is no need to destroy something that he believes already barely exists. But he refused to outright state that when it came to it, he would take away the land from a working proletarian; the very man he is claiming to protect against people like himself! The illogical nature of Communism is utterly amazing. While making strong assertions that Communism seeks to offer freedom and equality to all, its very nature takes from some to give to others. Even if the ones which it takes from are those to whom it is making allegations to protect!

Ah well, let us continue with our next quote:

“In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.”

In other words, no-one really produces for his own gain. Everyone receives the same amount of production by which to live on. So a person who works hard is not rewarded with increased wealth or augmented production to be applied to his own family and personal benefit. This sort of society hardly constitutes any reason for existence, in my opinion. If there is no such thing as individual economic growth and capitalistic spread, why should anyone bother to work hard? Or work at all for that matter? This is what happens when a government takes complete control over the populace. And then comes the uprising. The very thing which Communism seeks to eliminate and yet the very thing that will inevitably happen to it. Marx is now guilty of what he was accusing the modern bourgeois of doing. Namely, that what his society produces and those who are the producers will be the ultimate downfall of his society and culture.

Moving on…

“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians and in public prostitution.”

How can anyone accuse a family as a whole of existing simply for private gain? Families exist because there needs to be a way for the next generation to be taught by those who have been in the world for many years already so that the next generation will not make the same mistakes as the previous one. Private gain? No, say rather that the family is based on leaving the world with a capable next generation. If you destroy or undermine the power of the family, your society will never last. I believe this may be one of the most fundamental errors of Communism. The family is the place where the next generation is started, and if that is undermined, how can a civilization last?

Okay, everyone, this next part will blow you away. Here, my friends, are the ten “pretty generally applicable” measures of Communism:

“1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.”

In effect then, the populace are robots, too stupid to handle their own lives, so the government must do it for them. Stunning. Completely stunning. This is a recipe for destroying a civilization. First deny citizens all rights. Then tax them heavily. Centralize in the State each major industry. Force everyone to work the same amount. Force everyone to live where it would be most economical, even if it means uprooting families and moving them around against their will. And finally force the children to attend “free” public schools. Noticed the word “force” yet?

I must repeat that every man will always desire freedom. Freedom is such a precious thing and should never be taken for granted or, on the other extreme, flaunted. Capitalism defines economic prosperity with every man working hard in whatever area he is most skilled in and raising his family according to the standards of God, not the government. I pray that America will never let die that which she was built upon. Already, traces of Communism can be seen in the way our Country practically enforces public schooling and the way they handle taxes and private property. Don’t get me wrong, we are a very long way from becoming radically communistic, but we do have a small start. May the Lord be pleased to spare us from the horrors of Communism undergone by the Chinese and other countries.

Signing off…

Interesting Quote...

2006-01-23T20:26:00.000-08:00

Hey peoples... Just a quicky here. :)

I thought this quote was interesting about what a real conservative movie should be...:

"What is a conservative film? Let's start with what it isn't. It's not about men with bulging biceps and even bigger guns. It's not cartoonish action heroes. It isn't revenge tales masquerading as heroism. Conservative cinema does more than entertain; movies that do no more are visual candy. It instructs and inspires. Conservative films celebrate virtue. They tell timeless tales of individuals overcoming all manner of adversity to achieve true greatness. They're about honesty, loyalty, courage and patriotism. They're concerned with conservatism's cardinal values---faith, family and freedom." ---Don Feder

Thoughts? Comments?

Blog Header/Tag

2006-01-22T15:47:00.000-08:00

Well, I was tagged (again) to post what I do for school everyday by Jennifer... Thanks Jennifer! (I think..:))

Okay, here goes:

1. Math--This actually is one of my favorite subjects, surprisingly for some of you math haters. :) I'm almost done with Saxon's entire Algebra course... I'll hopefully be starting Advanced Math later this semester.

2. Chemistry--Hands down my best subject... I absolutely love Chemistry. I get this inexplicable thrill while studying it which, oddly enough, no-one seems to be able to relate to. (Right, MVB? :))

3. History--Nothing special... An hour a day or so... essentially just reading a big, fat history book. :) Tests every quarter or something and a VERY long paper due at the end of every semester. I don't hate it and I don't particularly love it. :)

4. Literature--I'm taking a literary analysis course that basically teaches you how to analyze (surprise, surprise) things like books, movies, articles and the like. It's made up of a TON of reading and a 2-3 page paper due every 1-2 weeks. It's okay... :)

5. Gym--This is sort of a home-made PE thingy I'm doing... :) I get a half credit or something for running between 30 and 40 miles in a five-day week... Only like 6-8 miles a day. I love running, so I hardly am dissapointed with this "subject". :) It takes up about an hour per day... Give or take depending on how far I go.

6. Music Theory--The worst course in the history of mankind. I don't spend a whole lot of time every day doing this, but what I do spend is agonizing. :)

7. Classical guitar--This is classical guitar lessons specifically... This isn't what most of you know I play. That's almost exclusively bluegrass, fingerstyle, and occasional jazz/blues styles which I play 2 hours a day or so on my free time. This is completely different. I even have a different style guitar to play it on. :) Anyway, I don't really like it... :)

8. Vocab--This only takes like a half hour a day and it's a love/hate relationship. :)

9. Choir--My sister and I sing a choir and we've established a practice time as part of our daily school schedule... About an hour a day.

10. And last but certainly not least, my Bible/theology section of school--Some of you know that I study theology/philosophy on my free time in the evenings, but I am required to do a certain amount of that each day. I read a few chapters in the Bible, and then try to get at least one commentative book read every week. I enjoy this section of school-time as well. :)

That about wraps it up... I may be forgetting somthing. :) I end up doing right in the area of 9 hours of school a day, not too much, not too little. This year's schedule is pretty comfortable for me in terms of time and difficulty level.

Hope you all enjoyed reading this boring commentary! :)

Here's the people I tag... You luckies! :)

Hannah of Sold Out
Hannah of True Light
(darn, no more Hannahs... :))
David of The Account
Jeremy of Skystrideria

Oh, many thanks to my sister, Hannah, for creating that nifty little design at the top of my blog... It was really nice of her to do that! :)

Gotta run!

New Theatre Release: The End of the Spear

2006-01-21T15:56:00.000-08:00

Well, many apologies to those of you who might have been looking forward to reading a long and boring paper on the Communist Manifesto today... I'm ALMOST done with it, but it's needs such a sufficient amount of editting as to warrant it embarrassing to post at this time. :) Anyway, sometime next week will have to do I suppose. Sorry!

On a different note, I went and saw a movie called "The End of the Spear" yesterday evening and again this afternoon. Wow. Some of you may recall my rather picky reviews of movies in general, so this next comment will probably amaze you. :) I loved it. Granted, it had, as do all movies, flaws, but they are so slight I won't even mention them.

For those of you that don't know already, back in the 1950s five men (Nate Saint, Roger Youderian, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming , and Jim Elliot) were murdered by natives from the Waodani tribe whom they had just made contact with in the Ecuador Amazon basin area. This movie is about that event and what happened as a result. I won't give away any details of the plot, but the movie is mainly about one of the missionaries, Nate Saint, and his son, Steve Saint. These particular natives they are trying to reach are incredibly prone to killing anyone and anything on pretty much any suspicion. Some of this trait is shown rather graphically at times, especially when the five men are being killed. It's more of a slow, agonizing sort of violence than the fast, explosive kind, if you follow. It's not like there's all this blood or anything, but many of the people you see leaving the theatre have tears running down their faces...I personally think it deserves every bit of the PG-13 rating it got. Anyway, it's portrayed amazingly well, and I would encourage everyone to go see it. It's also interesting to note that one of the actors (I didn't find out which one exactly) got saved after filming the seen of the five mens' murder...

So I hope you all find the time to make it to your local theatre in the next little while! :)

Signing off,

Argh!

2006-01-18T21:17:00.000-08:00

This is getting dreadfully annoying... I can't seem to keep up a regularity of posting! Argh! Everybody starts going "gosh, why don't you just update already?" I'm like, "I don't have anything to say!" :) Oh well. My philosophy of blogging (is there such a thing?) is that if one doesn't have anything decent or interesting to say, don't say it. Now, when I comply with that theory, it means I don't always post two times a day! AHHH! :)

So why exactly am I posting right now? (You didn't honestly expect me to be constantly consistent with my own philosophy did you? :)) There's nothing like posting something pointless now and then. :)

Okay, first of all, I got tagged to post the five most weird things about myself... Only five, you ask? Shutup! :)

Anyway, here goes:

1. My favorite movie is Pride and Prejudice (I can already feel the comments coming from the peanut gallery...:))
2. I sleep with my window wide open all the way through December and the other Winter months...
3. My competitive nature knocked me unconcious during a 5 foot bike-jump tryout with some BMX biking freaks... Please don't ask me to expound on that one. :)
4. My family gets my name mixed up with our dog's name a disturbing amount of times...
5. I absolutely cannot stand make-up on girls. (and I mean, I really can't stand it. :)) Hope I didn't offend anyone with that one... :)

So here's the list of people I tag:

Kelci
Jennifer
Matt
Jonathan
Ugh... How about Benj? Sorry man! (I'm betting he won't even see this... :))

Well... Lemme see here, news, news, news. I am going to be continuing with the choir I sang in last semester... Voices of Praise. Some of the songs we're singing this year are absolutely gorgeous... Can't wait to perfect them! :)

Hmm, I haven't exactly been Mr. Active lately since it's been so darn wet and freezing... I can't exactly play tennis in the rain, ya know. :) But I've tried to keep up a 5-mile jogging routine every day that will hopefully keep from getting flabby before summer comes around again... :)

Oof, it's getting kinda late here... Phooey. I s'pose I should go turn in...

Oh, I'll be posting my paper on the Communist Manifesto hopefully on Saturday... I've had a hard time not exploding while reading the thing. It's so amazingly illogical and socially inept! How Marx and Engels thought they could reform economics and social life using a governmental run communal system is beyond me... Ah well.

Signing off,

"And it's always winter, and never Christmas..."

2006-01-05T17:25:00.000-08:00

What did everybody think of Narnia? I went and saw it last week and was both impressed and little disappointed.

First of all, the acting was very comendable. The kids, (especially Lucy) did an amazing job. The special effects were also quite good. The only really lame thing I could point in terms of filming were the hugely obvious digitized reindeer used by the White Witch. Not a big deal at all, though... The battle scenes were excellent, although deaths could have been a little more realistic. Also the magnitude of the final battle swamped BBC's version. (Have any of you ever seen that one? It's definitely more for little kids, but we watched it just for comparison's sake...:))

On the negative side, Mr. Tumnus was absolutely all wrong. His upper body was completely bare! Fawns have fur, hello! A little more hair up there would really have helped. :) Also, when Peter was facing early enemies (such as the wolves), the way he pointed his sword at them was completely ridiculous looking. Not to degrade the actor, but that position was really pathetic. The only other thing which bothered me was the relationship between Mr. Beaver and his wife. There was too much ridiculing and teasing. It wasn't that way at all in the book.

All in all, I don't want to make it look like the bad outweighs the good. I did like rather well, but was hoping for something better. Maybe I'm too particular...:)

So what did you all think? And no, there's not going to be a debate about this... :)

Is History Predictable?

2006-01-05T08:44:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody! I guess the only time I can promise that I'll post is when life is calm and uneventful. Rather a contradiction it terms, but hey, it can't be helped. :)

I'm planning a post on the Communist Manifesto not too long down the road, but right now, I'd like to ask everyone a question which rather interesting me when I was doing a little research last night:

Does history have a followable and hence predictable pattern? I mean, does history repeat itself to the extent that we can look at past events, say, the rise and fall of civilizations, and with that information form dogmatic conclusions about the future? Is there a law of history which is relative to, for instance, the scientific law of the pendulum? There are many types and sizes of pendulums (comparable to the many types and sizes of civilizations) but each works upon the same law... That the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the length. Does history work under the confines of such a law?

Or do you think that history is entirely haphazard with completely unpredictable events? Do things just happen without following any pattern whatsoever?

Or, perhaps, is it part of both?

I'm really curious as to what ya'll think...:) (This does have a little bit of something to do with the post I'm planning on the Communist Manifesto... :) Hope it doesn't bore everyone completely. :))

SORRY!!!

2005-12-17T09:01:00.000-08:00

Okay, I'm not going to offer any excuses other than I honestly have had virtually no time at all for the last month due to school. But with Christmas break starting this coming week, I hope to pick up where I left off. :) (That is, if I still have any faithful readership...:))

Once again, I apologize, but there was nothing I could really do about it! :)

Oh, and being in a choir that has concerts pretty much twice a week in December isn't helping. :)

The only fast interesting news I can come up with right now (since I have to eat and run out of the house here VERY soon...) is that us a bunch of friends went and sang Handel's Messiah last night! It's just the choir choruses, not the solos, but it was still a blast! Has anybody here ever sung it either for fun or professionally? If you haven't, you have to. :)

Ahh... Okay, okay, I've really gotta go. Glad to be back! :)

Profound Question of the Day

2005-11-15T17:38:00.000-08:00

Okay everyone, I want to see all the different answers you have to this question:

Is the ability to sin a sin in-and-of itself?

Not necessarily a complex problem, I grant you, but interesting to think about all the same. :)

German Originated from English?

2005-11-13T13:24:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone...

This is absolutely hilarious... The last paragraph is rather difficult to read, eh? :)

The European Union commissioners have announced that
agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred
language for European communications, rather than German,
which was the other possibility. As part of the
negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English
spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a
five-year phased plan for what will be known as EuroEnglish
(Euro for short).

European officials have often pointed out that English
spelling is unnecessarily difficult -- for example, cough,
plough, rough, through and thorough. What is clearly needed
is a phased program of changes to iron out these anomalies.
The program would, of course, be administered by a committee
staff at top level by participating nations.

In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest
using 's' instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, sivil servants
in all sities would resieve this news with joy. Then the
hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k' sinse both letters are
pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up konfusion in
the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters kould be made
with one less letter.

There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year,
it kould be announsed that the troublesome 'ph' would
henseforth be written 'f'. This would make words like
'fotograf' twenty persent shorter in print.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan
be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated
shanges are possible. Governments would enkourage the
removal of double letters, which have always been a deterent
to akurate speling.

We would al agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the
languag is disgrasful. Therfor we kould drop thes and
kontinu to read and writ as though nothing had hapend. By
this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and
peopl would be reseptive to steps sutsh as replasing 'th' by
'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by
'v', vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze
unesesary 'o kould be dropd from words kontaining 'ou'.
Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations
of leters.

Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a
reli sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor
trubls, difikultis and evrivun vud fin it ezi tu understand
ech ozer. Ze drems of ze Guvermnt vud finali hav kum tru.

Apology

2005-11-02T10:57:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone...

I'm really swamped with school and other things right now so I won't be posting for a while here until things calm down. Just so you know I'm not dead... :)

But I will say one thing since I know you all are wondering: I think that Bush's new nominee, Samuel Alito (aka "Scalito" :), is absolutely awesome... Mabye not as good as Brown, but still awesome. :)

Gotta run...

Wishing a Very Happy Birthday to...

2005-10-28T09:03:00.000-07:00

...Alex and Brett Harris of The Rebelution! Happy birthday guys! :) You're absolutely awesome bloggers and a wonderful inspiration to me. :) Hope you're having a wonderful day in San Antonio!

Here's some others who are wishing you the same!:)

Marshall Sherman

Kristin Braun

Jake Smith

Alex King

Hannah

Tim Sweetman

Travis Henry

David Ketter

Karen Kovaka

Again, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!

MIERS WITHDRAWS NOMINATION!

2005-10-27T09:16:00.000-07:00

Okay folks, I am elated to a physically dangerous degree. :) This is absolutely great! And before I get any further, allow me to restate my previous assertment that I have nothing against Miss Miers as a person. She is a great lady for what she used to do. It's President Bush that I and so many others were upset with. She simply didn't have the qualifications for a Supreme Court Judging position, and it would seem that now she knows that too. Read what she says:

"I have been greatly honored and humbled by the confidence that you have shown in me, and have appreciated immensely your support and the support of many others. However, I am concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."

My reverence for this lady as a person has only gone up because of this statement. Apparently Bush feels the same:

"Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

Now, thank the Lord, Bush has another chance to choose a justice and has full backing from his party once more. Conservatives have spoken and were heard and won't be disappointed again... I hope. :) Let's pray that Mr. Bush learned from this and will now appoint a person such as Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones, or Michael Luttig who are all staunch conservatives and people who we know will judge according to the constitution.

I've gotta run for now... Perhaps I'll try and get a more detailed post up about this later today or tomorrow, but I just had to blab the good news! :)

Absolutely a Must Read Post about Modern Conservatism

2005-10-25T20:22:00.000-07:00

My very good friend Jonathan has recently posted an excellent article about the sad state of what we call "conservatism" today. True, it is currently better than hard-left liberalism, but is it really what it used to be? Is it all that far off from becoming liberally oriented itself? This is a absolutely must read post. It's not too long, but by the end of it, you will most likely have a new outlook on how far from true conservatism even our Republican leaders have become. Everyone in office says they support the constitution, but by looking at their political lives, it is hard to tell if any of them have even read it! True conservatism was originally grounded in Christian principles by the founding fathers... The result of which now "conservatives" say, "Homosexuality is wrong", but if you ask them why, most of them probably won't know! They'll just say that's the way it's always been. Talk about straying from one's initial principles! Anyway, make sure to read what Jon has to say...:)

As a side note, I have known Jonathan for about 10 years now, and he was the first one who introduced me to the world of blogging. He himself has been at it for just over two years now... (Congrats on the anniversary, Jon!)

Departing from the Norm...

2005-10-25T18:57:00.000-07:00

Yo all!

I'm going to jump out of my blogging character for this one post and blab some personal info...

Anywho, first and foremost, *drumroll* I just bought a new computer! It's the latest Dell Dimension model: The E510 edition. It's so cool. When it arrives (tomorrow!) I'll have to post some pictures of it. :) 160G hard-drive, 3.0Ghz processessor, and a PCI Express 128MB graphics/video card among many other sweet attributes. Not to mention a 17 inch flat panel monitor. :) And to top everything off, I ordered a 100 Watt surround sound system with a massive sub-woofer. :) Oh yeah... :)

I didn't buy the RAM upgrade to 1G, so the only real letdown is that I'm stuck with only 512 MB of RAM, which certainly isn't the greatest. Ah well. I don't really need that much RAM, so I figured I'd pass on spending the extra 100-odd dollars for it.

All in all, it's about a medium grade computer with a few upper end qualities. :) Just what I'm needing...:) It cost enough, too...

Anybody else here a big Dell fan? They even make a pretty good handheld MP3 player... Can anyone tell I'm not an Apple fan? :)

On a different note, the choir I sing in has been getting quite a few bookings for concerts and the like in November/December... We also were picked out of 124 other groups to sing for the November 5th Blazer game! Quite exciting... :)

That's about all the decent and slightly interesting news that I have for the moment... I feel like I'm forgetting something...? :)

Anyway, have a great night everyone! I will continue with my dull, serious posting routine tomorrow... Have no fear! :)

Signing off...

Bush, Oh Bush

2005-10-24T10:23:00.000-07:00

My friends, I believe now that in Harriet Mier's confirmation, Bush has made a great mistake. The qualities of hers which the presidential administration has advertised as adequate simply don’t outweigh or replace the many very important credentials which she fails to possess. Just because she is an evangelical Christian does not mean she will be a good judge or an upholder of the constitution. Just because she supposedly opposes Roe vs. Wade does not render her eligible for a Supreme Court judging position. So far, these really are the only two most importantly propagated issues which her supporters utilize. A simple stance against Roe does not tell us how Miers will be judging on many other issues of today, and ones which will most definitely arise in future years. And none of these things mean that she will judge staunchly according to the constitution.

The following article was written by Robert Bork and one which I highly recommend, indeed, which I beg you all to read all the way through. It was of great clarification for me, and I believe it will help you all understand the pathetically unconservative nature of this recent nomination.

Slouching Towards Miers

By Robert H. Bork

With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.

There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It is not just that she has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy. It is worse than that. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she wrote columns for the association's journal. David Brooks of the New York Times examined those columns. He reports, with supporting examples, that the quality of her thought and writing demonstrates absolutely no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively."

The administration's defense of the nomination is pathetic: Ms. Miers was a bar association president (a nonqualification for anyone familiar with the bureaucratic service that leads to such presidencies); she shares Mr. Bush's judicial philosophy (which seems to consist of bromides about "strict construction" and the like); and she is, as an evangelical Christian, deeply religious. That last, along with her contributions to pro-life causes, is designed to suggest that she does not like Roe v. Wade, though it certainly does not necessarily mean that she would vote to overturn that constitutional travesty.

There is a great deal more to constitutional law than hostility to Roe. Ms. Miers is reported to have endorsed affirmative action. That position, or its opposite, can be reconciled with Christian belief. Issues we cannot now identify or even imagine will come before the court in the next 20 years. Reliance upon religious faith tells us nothing about how a Justice Miers would rule. Only a commitment to originalism provides a solid foundation for constitutional adjudication. There is no sign that she has thought about, much less adopted, that philosophy of judging.

Some moderate (i.e., lukewarm) conservatives admonish the rest of us to hold our fire until Ms. Miers's performance at her hearing tells us more about her outlook on law, but any significant revelations are highly unlikely. She cannot be expected to endorse originalism; that would alienate the bloc of senators who think constitutional philosophy is about arriving at pleasing political results. What, then, can she say? Probably that she cannot discuss any issue likely to come before the court. Given the adventurousness of this court, that's just about every issue imaginable. What we can expect in all probability is platitudes about not "legislating from the bench." The Senate is asked, then, to confirm a nominee with no visible judicial philosophy who lacks the basic skills of persuasive argument and clear writing.

But that is only part of the damage Mr. Bush has done. For the past 20 years conservatives have been articulating the philosophy of originalism, the only approach that can make judicial review democratically legitimate. Originalism simply means that the judge must discern from the relevant materials--debates at the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers, newspaper accounts of the time, debates in the state ratifying conventions, and the like--the principles the ratifiers understood themselves to be enacting. The remainder of the task is to apply those principles to unforeseen circumstances, a task that law performs all the time. Any philosophy that does not confine judges to the original understanding inevitably makes the Constitution the plaything of willful judges.

By passing over the many clearly qualified persons, male and female, to pick a stealth candidate, George W. Bush has sent a message to aspiring young originalists that it is better not to say anything remotely controversial, a sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" admonition to would-be judges. It is a blow in particular to the Federalist Society, most of whose members endorse originalism. The society, unlike the ACLU, takes no public positions, engages in no litigation, and includes people of differing views in its programs. It performs the invaluable function of making law students, in the heavily left-leaning schools, aware that there are respectable perspectives on law other than liberal activism. Yet the society has been defamed in McCarthyite fashion by liberals; and it appears to have been important to the White House that neither the new chief justice nor Ms. Miers had much to do with the Federalists.

Finally, this nomination has split the fragile conservative coalition on social issues into those appalled by the administration's cynicism and those still anxious, for a variety of reasons, to support or at least placate the president. Anger is growing between the two groups. The supporters should rethink. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality). This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values. He appears embittered by conservative opposition to his nomination, which raises the possibility that if Ms. Miers is not confirmed, the next nominee will be even less acceptable to those asking for a restrained court. That, ironically, is the best argument for her confirmation. But it is not good enough.

It is said that at La Scala an exhausted tenor, after responding to repeated cries of "Encore," said he could not go on. A man rose in the audience to say, "You'll keep singing until you get it right." That man should be our model.

I feel quite discouraged, to say the least. It is certainly possible that maybe more information about her qualities may be released during her confirmation hearings which start sometime in early November, I believe, but I don't believe that enough will be said to eradicate the lack of sufficient credentials of Miss Harriet Miers. And yet, despite all this and what I've said, I still feel inclined to wait and continue watching and reading until the confirmation hearings with a slightly resigned outlook... Perhaps I am but hoping in vain that an apparent political tragedy will yet unfold itself into a wonderfully happy ending?

Attention Bloggers!

2005-10-20T14:14:00.000-07:00

In case any of you don't already know... Voting for the Blog of the Year begins tomorrow over at The King's Highway! :) The owner, alias "MVB", has listed a number of blogs on his site, one of which will attain the Blog of the Year title by popular demand! :) I think this is a wonderful idea, and hope you will all head over there, check out the blogs listed, and pick the one you think is the best. I already know who I'm voting for...:)

Among the ones nominated are blogs of note such as Agent Tim (an extremely talented 15-year-old), Spunky Jr., definitely one of the top girl bloggers in the "sphere", The Account by David Ketter (I absolutely love his blog and visit there daily. There's almost always something interesting to be found.:)), and quite a few other really great blogs! (MVB was also gracious enough to nominate me as well...:) I don't stand a chance, but thanks a bunch anyway, Zach! :)

Again, there are many other absolutely excellent blogs, so don't forget to vote, everyone! :)

EDIT: I forgot to add that voting is only possible through the 28th...

Biblical Predestination

2005-10-18T10:33:00.000-07:00

Hello all!

As the title suggests, this post is going to be devoted to the study of the immensely controversial subject, predestination. I have been planning this post for a while now and I sincerely hope it will provide some level of benefit to anyone who reads this. But I especially wish that some may fully understand the truly Biblical nature of this doctrine. Many people deny outright its very existence in the Word of God. Others attempt to explain its obvious presence in Scripture. Still others simply claim that it is misinterpreted by people like me. :) I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some from each group who will read this judging from the large diversity of the subject and with that in mind, if anyone believes me to be in error on any of the points I will make, feel free to bring it up. All I ask is that everyone who comments refrain from derogatory annotations and ad hominem attacks on people. Also, please back up your ideas with at least a few Scriptural references. I hope with this in mind we may have some excellent and uplifting discussion in the comments! Hope to see you all there, concurring or not. :)

Allow me to begin with a good running definition for my topic of address: Predestination—The foreordination by God of whatever comes to pass; particularly the salvation and damnations of souls.

Okay, for my first Biblical reference, we may turn to Romans 8:29-30 where we find this: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

This verse essentially states that God knew us from the beginning, predestined our fate according to His good will, and finally carries out that fate (by finally justifying and then glorifying us) in His good time. How can there be any other interpretation of this passage? It seems so blatantly clear that “He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His son” those whom he has chosen! He foreknew us, then predestined us, then gave the outward call through an evangelist, and finally justifies and glorifies us! It seems hard to imagine that anyone could interpret this verse differently. And yet, I will admit that it is never correct or logical to base an argument on the claims of but one verse. So let me continue with my next reference...

Hear what Christ Himself has to say about predestination in Luke 8:10-15 in His elucidation of the Parable of the Sower (which I suggest you read first a few verses earlier in Luke 8:5-8). "And He said, 'To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that

‘Seeing they may not see,
And hearing they may not understand.’

“Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.'"

Let’s analyze Christ’s analysis. :) There are four types of terrain soil here: the wayside, the stony ground, the thorny ground, and finally, the good ground of fruitful planting. Let's think about something here. Christ tells us that no fruit comes from the first three types of soil. These, He tells us, represent essentially the same group: that of those who are unsaved. And the one soil which was fruitful symbolizes the group of saved people. So ask yourself, “Did those four types of soil choose to be the way they were?” Of course not! How could they? Now apply it as Christ did, namely to the two groups of people: the saved and the unsaved. Could they choose to be the way they were? Is it possible for them to pick the type of soil they would like to be if they ARE the soil? Soil cannot choose what type it will be. Neither can humans. Christ also says that the devil will come and take the Word out of their hearts lest they believe and be saved. Lest? Christ is saying that it would be against God's plan if they believed and were saved! God actually will keep the ears of some closed to fulfill His purposes. Christ himself is saying that it is God who chooses who will, and will not be saved.

On another note, an additional point can be made. If God is all-knowing, how can it be possible for Him not to be in control of everything? In other words, how can God know what we will do ahead of time, and yet not have planned it so? No Christian of any on of the large amount of sects today will deny that God is all-knowing. If anyone does, they cannot be a Christian. How can you believe something truly if you deny the very essence of what you are asserting as truth? Now, how can any real Christian, while admitting the all-knowing nature of God, then turn around and say that God did not pre-plan and predestine everything and everyone? How can you know everything in advance without having planned it that way? I have yet to hear a logical response to this question.

Ephesians 1:4-5, “Just as He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.” This verse is just as clear as the one in Romans previously cited. God chose us to be adopted through Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world, just as the Word says. Some have asserted that when Paul says, “He chose us in Him” in this verse, it can be interpreted that God foresaw who would have faith in Christ’s death and resurrection and then planned according to that foreknowledge; electing them beforehand. But this idea denies the very essence of God. He does not work around how we will act. He works things in accord with His own good pleasure, glorifying Himself in all things. This whole idea of a passive foreordination on God’s part has another fault and collapses when we see the obvious statements of passages such as Romans 8:28, Ephesians 1:4-5 and others which indicate the predetermined choice of God for His people and the advance recognition He has of them and their fate. And again, God works for His own glory, not around what actions He sees us doing in the future.

If humans can choose their own salvation, does it not mean that they have committed an eternally good action? And wouldn’t this contradict what the Bible says about us being “dead in our trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) and God giving us over to a depraved mind, to the lusts of our hearts, dishonoring ourselves and forsaking God’s truth for the lies of Satan? (See Romans 1:24-25 for information on this point. Also Romans 1:28-32.) With our own total depravity in mind, then, how can it be possible for us to suddenly become good and wise enough to make a decision of our own accord which will secure our eternal happiness? And wouldn’t this provide God with far too little credit for adopting us and taking us to heaven as His own children? No, we cannot choose for ourselves. We sorely lack the goodness and eternal perfection to do so.

Yet another verse to stress this point is found in I Peter 1:1-2 where Peter begins his epistle as follows, “To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” Here again we find words such as “elect” and “foreknowledge”, which are strong synonyms of “predestine”. Peter addresses these people as “elect”, by the foreknowledge of God. He is referring to those chosen by God for eternal life, and hence begins accordingly. He does not say, “Blessed with eternal life by their own choice and determination”. You will never find a verse that says such a thing and I challenge anyone to find one that does.

I also want to clear up a common misconception which I am constantly bumping into while involved in discussion of this kind. It is indeed the person who makes the outward choice to serve the Lord. However, this is only in response to the inward call of God. A person cannot make that choice without first having God’s election and approval. Thus, although it is us who makes the external decision, it is ultimately the pre-election of God which provides us with the capability to do so. The evangelists and missionaries are the ones who give the outward call to many, just as the Sower spread the seed to more than one type of soil, but only those who have already been inwardly chosen by God will respond to that call and bear fruit as the seeds which rooted in the fine soil.

Another instance of Christ’s own words in reference to predestination can be found in Matthew. The 11th chapter verses 25-26 specifically. Jesus says, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.” Here again is a reference to God’s doing that which is according to His own good pleasure and will. Christ says that God chose to reveal “these things” to some, and to hide them from others. And it seemed good in His sight to do so. He is not being cruel or pitiless, as many modern churches and people like to say, by sending people to hell, He is glorifying Himself. This we are told specifically in Romans 9:18-21, “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’ But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” Paul says that God indeed will send many people to hell, and it is beyond our status or position to question His choice of people or their number. It is for His glory and His glory alone that God does whatever He does.

I will wrap up here with one more reference. This one is from Ephesians 2:4-7: “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” It is God, not ourselves who has made us alive together with Christ. Can there be any doubt, given these verses and deductions, that to deny the Biblical doctrine of predestination is utter blindness? How can humans be capable of securing their own salvation if they are living in a naturally degenerate state? We can but give thanks and glory to the Lord for choosing us to be His own children and enter into eternal happiness. It is by His hand and doing, and His alone, that we are saved. And this I thank Him for daily!

EDIT: I should say that there are many, many other verses in the Bible which contain the words "predestine", "election", "foreordination", and their synonyms. I may actually be induced to compile a list and post it sometime soon for the benefit of those discussing in the comments. I just didn't have time to go through each verse in detail. :)

A Great Post on Modesty

2005-10-17T19:44:00.000-07:00

I have to encourage everyone who hasn't already to visit Jennifer's Musings and read her latest post. It is so good. Although girls may feel like it's weird and abnormal and nerdy to wear clothes that show no skin, aren't tight, leave virtually nothing to the imagination and won't attract "handsome" men without doing so, they will be blessed with a good, godly sort of young man if they resist that desire to be "in style" and pursue godliness and a good character instead. That is the sort of woman that a truly concerned man will pursue. Not the flighty, silly, flirty girls. (I myself really can't stand them... They drive me a little loco. :) Anyway, it's a great post, and I hope you all will get a chance to drop by her place and read it!

Where Did Evil Come From?

2005-10-15T09:14:00.000-07:00

Where did evil come from? I have struggled with that question for quite sometime. As far as I've seen, there are only two possible ways of looking at the origin of evil:

1. God created evil.
2. God did not create evil.

Either God did, or didn't create evil. Now, looking at each in its turn, let me show you the huge problems that arise on both sides.

1. God created evil.

The contingency here should be obvious: How can a perfectly holy God create that which goes against himself? Wouldn't that present a contradictory nature? And since God is perfectly logical, how can it be possible for Him to be contradictory?

2. God did not create evil.

So where did it come from? Didn't God create everything? So if God created everything, but didn't create evil, it cannot logically be subject to Him. But the Bible says that God is infinitely more powerful than the forces of evil! So, if God didn't create evil, where did it come from, and why is it subject to him?

Okay, so you all see the predicament here, right! :) Neither side appears to be logical in-and-of itself...

And yet, look here at a few verses:

Genesis 2:9 reads: "And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Here we are told that God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Is there a complicated exegesis that I am missing here? Or does it rather plainly say that God created evil? And yet I am still hesitant to infer that God actually CREATED evil...

Here's another one: "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5)

Be like God, knowing good AND evil...? So God knows evil as well? Or does this just mean that He knows ABOUT it? And take into consideration that this is the Serpent speaking... Since he lied to Eve about the fruit, it could very well be that he's lying here as well. So I still wouldn't call this conclusive evidence.

And yet later we find out that Satan is not lying: "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:22)

God Himself says that he knows good and evil... So what now? Are we to think that God is capable of evil? Most definitely not! That would contradict everything that the Bible says in its entirety! So what else? What does it mean to "know evil"?

Here's another one: (Isaiah 45:7) "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and CREATE EVIL; I, the Lord, do all these things."

Okay, now, is this a blatant statement of fact? Or can it be interpreted to mean that God creates evil in the sense of illness, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc? Did He actually create evil from the beginning of time? If He didn't, how can evil be subject to Him, and how can he implement it for His holy purposes? (Such as the destruction of the wickedness in New Orleans and other cities in the past.)

"The Lord has made all things for Himself, yes, EVEN THE WICKED for the day of evil." (Proverbs 16:4)

How can these verses be explained other than God created evil? And yet that is such a horrifying statement... Hence my hesitance in proclaiming that God created evil.

I have read a few articles on this subject... One of them very interesting and insightful which you can read here. (Thanks for that one, Chris! :)) However, I still am slightly skeptical because of the problems which arise on both sides... I guess I'm just still not certain in my own mind.

That said, if anybody has any other insight it would be most welcome...

Presuppositions and Their Effect on Modern Culture

2005-10-13T19:33:00.000-07:00

Everyone has presuppositions. They are unavoidable since everyone must have something upon which they base everything else. They have to start somewhere. For Christians, this first principal is that the Bible alone is the Word of God. This first principal guides our external behavior and how we think and carry ourselves in society. The way people think defines the way they act and view the world.

Now, throughout history a pattern can be seen. A pattern which defines the existence and then fate of each great civilization. They rise up with great ideals, good purposes, and then crash due to their depreciating presuppositions. In Rome the inward structure of the Empire was unstable from the beginning, and the final invasion by barbarians was just the last straw for an already internally instable culture and society. Today, we see the same thing happening to America and contemporary culture. 200 years ago, we realized the importance of morals, purpose, and hard work. We have now strayed radically from our beginnings, with an actual market of physically pleasing distractions which Satan has spread to keep us from the path of righteousness. We are reliving Rome’s downfall and grabbing ahold of its main reasons for decay and destruction. Our mainstream presuppositions have become infested with immoral ideas and unbiblical basis. We no longer live in the Christian consensus which made this nation great. We no longer share those pure presuppositions which were held by our forefathers and the benefits of which we have enjoyed for so long.

Our nation has introduced, after slowly but surely loosing its wholesome roots, new presuppositions. In his book, “How Should We Then Live?,” Francis Schaeffer says that there are two bottom-line values which first took over society: “Personal peace and affluence.” He defines these for us as follows:

“Personal peace means just to be let alone, not to be troubled by the troubles of other people, whether across the world or across the city—to live one’s life with minimal possibilities of being personally disturbed. Personal peace means wanting to have my personal life pattern undisturbed in my lifetime, regardless of what the result will be in the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren. Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity—a life made up of things, things, and more things—a success judged by an ever-higher level of material advance.”

These modern presuppositions are so drastically different from those of our founders! Just live your life, die and let the next generation do the same. And now the mainstream world-view has gotten even worse and more pointless than that!

The mid-20th century students, Schaeffer tells us, asked their parents, “Why be educated?” and were answered that an education will bring in more money per year. “So why make more money?” So that you can educate your kids well, too. This presents a rather pointless cycle, rendering slightly meaningless the existence of man and education. A solid work ethic became non-existent… For work, as opposed to its real purpose when pursued with Christian ideals, had become “an end in itself—with no reason to work and no values to determine what to do with the products of one’s work.” Some people began to notice this and really wondered why they existed. Then the drug age started with Aldous Huxley’s “novel” ideology. Namely, if everyone took drugs, all the modern societal problems would be explained. So the teens/hippies started arguing and fighting their parents’ “impoverished values of personal peace and affluence” by philosophically ingesting drugs to create a utopia on earth. They thought that a solution had finally been found to justify human existence! They were, as Schaeffer says, on the correct track about changing, for their parents ideas of personal peace and affluence weren’t correct either. But he also points our that their solution to this problem was far from accurate.

Our society still has not figured out the real solution to modern culture problems. Many people still do not understand the true reason why they exist or why they should do anything at all. The slaughtering of thousands of innocent babies, food stamps, laziness, rampant promiscuity, illegitimate children, the public schools, a far too powerful government that invades our private lives and is guilty of extortion, and the list goes on, are all consequences of adhering to poor presuppositions. These are all signs of the decay of a nation. We are not great anymore. And without the re-entering of God into this culture, we can never be great again and will continue to plummet morally. Humanism has taken over…

Schaeffer on the effects of humanism in our culture: “Humanism has led to its natural conclusion. It has ground down to the point Leonardo da Vinci visualized so long ago when he realized that, starting only from man, mathematics leads us only to particulars—and particulars lead only to mechanics. Humanism had no way to find the universal in the areas of meaning and values. As my son, Franky, put it, ‘Humanism has changed the Twenty-Third Psalm:

They began—I am my shepherd.
Then—Sheep are my shepherd.
Then—Everything is my shepherd.
Finally—Nothing is my shepherd.’

There is a death wish inherent in humanism—the impulsive drive to beat to death the base which made our freedoms and our culture possible.”

What men believe always affects their behavior and, consequently, their actions. Even when men say they believe that knowledge is impossible, they are expressing their belief that knowledge is unattainable. Men now do what is right in their own eyes, and this selfish orientation leads indefinitely to moral decay and cultural volatility. Thus, the presuppositions upon which men start their thinking are critical to the life of a nation. All roads do not lead to Rome and her demise. One road leads to God and the reformation of culture and wickedness. The map which leads to that road of change is given in a written revelation. The first step is the adoption of the presupposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God. Then, and only then, will our nation and modern culture be able to turn the path which we are now on.

If modern culture fails to grasp this presupposition, may the Lord be pleased to save us from its thus far imminent doom...

A Continuation of Kant's Criticism of Rationalist's "Necessary Being"

2005-10-11T20:14:00.000-07:00

Some of you may remember when I compiled a post on Rationalism and Anselm's Ontological argument. I also offered a few criticisms of Immanuel Kant for an example of a stance against the "necessary being" of the rationalists. Well, I got to reading a little bit more, and I found more interesting comments and arguments Kant used against rationalism. They are absolutely fascinating... (To me, anyways. :))

Rationalists will often bring up an illustration of a triangle and its three sides to give evidence for when asked to explain their position of necessity. For an example of their first necessity, I offer my previously studied 11-12th century rationalist Anselm, who tried to use his own formation of an argument to prove the necessity of God's existence called the Ontological Argument. In syllogistic format it looks as follows:

1. The term "God" is defined as the greatest conceivable being.
2. Real existence (existence in reality) is greater than mere existence in the understanding.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just in the understanding.

Now, as I said in my post about this some time ago, Kant first attacks rationalist's talk of a "necessary being" as being premised too lightly. He says that, in all their words about the "necessary being", rationalists fail to stop and cogitate how it is even possible to think of such a being, let alone prove its very existence. So he says, "A verbal definition of the concept is certainly easy enough: it is something, non-existence of which is impossible. But this definition does not throw light on the conditions which make it impossible to cogitate the non-existence of anything." Kant's question then concerns, not the easy ability to state a condition by which to conceive of the existence of something, but the non-existence of something. What is there that could prevent anyone from cogitating the non-existence of God? This is the beginning of his arguments against the idea of a necessary being. There is no way to state a logical condition which requires that people cannot think about the non-existence of something... Thus far Kant.

So I come to my first comment. Rationalists use an example of a triangle to illustrate their idea of a necessary being. Namely, three sides of a triangle are an absolutely necessary part for the triangle to exist. This is obvious, because one cannot infer that a triangle has two, or four sides, since this would make it self-contradictory. But the problem with this, as Kant points out, is that when trying to prove the existence of an object, as the ontological argument attempts to do, you are not proving the necessity of a proposition, as is what you are doing with the triangle and its necessary sides, but trying to prove the existence of something. "If in an identical judgment," points out Kant, "I annihilate the predicate in thought, and retain the subject, the result is a contradiction; and hence I say that the former belongs necessarily to the latter. But if I suppose both subject and predicate in thought, no contradiction arises; for there remains nothing at all, and therefore no means of forming a contradiction. To suppose the existence of a triangle and not that of its three angles, is self-contradictory [as pointed out]; but to suppose the non-existence of both triangles and angles is perfectly admissible. So it is with the concept of an absolutely necessary being. Annihilate its existence in thought, and you annihilate the thing itself with all its predicates. How then can there be any room for contradiction?"

Kant puts it a lot better than I do...:)

Okay, so all one has to do to destroy the necessity of a necessary being is to deny the predicate and hence deny the subject without presenting a contradiction. And whalla, you have denied the existence of the necessary being. :)

However, what is wrong with Kant's critique here? How exactly does one annihilate something in thought? Just not think about it? There also seems to appear a slip in Kant's argument. In the example of the triangle, we are asked to deny the subject, hence annihilating the predicate and thus the whole argument to avoid contradiction. But here he asks us to deny, not the subject, as in the triangle example, but the predicate. His argument hence appears not to hold together in an air-tight manner.

To take this point further, Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) (for the more interested readers, here's a short biography of Augustine, just so you aren't totally lost as to who I'm talking about. :)) showed that truth is inevitable and impossible to escape. Truth is innate in the mind. This is our image of God in us. Perhaps on another day I will go into how Augustine did this and his own part in Rationalism. But for now, if we do indeed think truth naturally, and since God is the only pure truth, how can it be impossible to deny or annihilate Him in thought? Am I making sense here? :)

Kant is aware of this problem, however. He says (to the rationalists), "You find yourselves compelled to declare: There are certain subjects which cannot be annihilated in thought. But this is nothing more than saying, There exist subjects which are absolutely necessary--the very hypothesis which you are called upon to establish."

So in response to this question raised, Kant basically accuses rationalists of circular reasoning. But we have to admit, in this last quote, Kant has failed to prove impossible the idea that there are indeed subjects which cannot be annihilated in thought. Neither can he claim to have disproved the proof for God's existence.

However, he still has a few points to make in regard to this... And this is where things really start to get cool. :)

Kant, in the beginning of his "Critique of Pure Reason", distinguishes between analytic and synthetic judgments. Analytic judgments are those whose predicates can be logically deduced from their subjects. He says, "When I say, 'all bodies are extended', this is an analytical judgment; for I need not go beyond the conception of body in order to find extension connected with it, but merely analyze the conception." Synthetic judgments, on the other hand, are augmentative. Their predicates are not logically contained in their subjects. For instance, the statement "this keyboard is black" is a synthetic judgment. For any amount of analyzation of the term keyboard will not necessitate the blackness of this keyboard.

So ask yourself the question Kant now presents: Is the judgment, "God exists" analytic or synthetic? Why?

And with that question I will now leave you, and will anticipate your different answers in the comments with great interest. :)

Great Posts

2005-10-10T19:24:00.000-07:00

Well, I have to encourage everybody who sees this to go straight to Karen Kovaka's blog and read her two recent posts about advancing God's Kingdom through networking. Both are excellent.

Read one here, and two here.

Karen is a very good writer and clearly presents her thoughts in each post. Although relatively new to the blogosphere, she has easily outpaced many of us! :) I would highly recommend her blog as one to go to if interested in theology and literary analysis especially. Very enlightening and refreshing. :)

The Beginning of the Diamond Age

2005-10-10T14:40:00.000-07:00

Well, it’s been done! And of course, just like all great scientific advances seem to be uncovered, the discovery of fabricating diamonds was essentially an accident. It seems that in a laid back old strip mall building, a scientist named Robert Linares who started a small company called Apollo Diamond, arbitrarily left a diamond in an acidic solution that basically cleaned it of excess carbon. Apparently, he had originally only intended to make a diamond similar to that of General Electric, imperfect but strong enough to reform the cutting industry in ways such as having diamond tipped saws able to cut through previously untouchable granite. The difference was that he proposed to do so by a method known as CVD, or chemical vapor deposition. This is much more subtle than the way than General Electric suggested it be done... Namely, by brute force of extreme pressure and heat (which they had indeed succeeded in doing). Anyway, he never meant to or thought of his discoveries leading to the growing of pure, flawless diamonds.

And of course, we all know exactly what’s going to happen very first: The price and value of diamond will drop drastically.

Not only that, though, for there are an untold amount of things now possible because of this discovery. For instance, computer technology. Over the years, computer chip companies like Intel have continued to make progress in the field of faster and smaller running chips by squeezing extremely miniature wires closer and closer together while having them run faster and faster. But by using silicon wafers, this process couldn’t go on a whole lot longer because at a certain point running these chips too fast will end in them melting due to extreme heat. This problem is annihilated if diamond wafers are employed. The only primary problem before was that diamond (pure diamond) was rare and very expensive. Not any more!

Moreover, since Diamond has a higher level of thermal conducting ability that any other material, it being unlimited and much cheaper is invaluable to tech companies like Textron. Textron has been interested in producing huge lasers which could be used as either weapons or serve as sort of a camera flash for night photos from spy satellites, to paraphrase USAToday’s article on the subject. To do this, Textron needed large, totally pure diamonds by which they could quickly transfer intense heat away from the laser’s insides.

These are just a few of the many ways in which an unlimited supply of pure diamonds could affect modern society. Says Kevin Maney of USAToday, “Manufactured diamonds will be like other inventions that were so profound because they made new things possible. Steel allowed engineers to dream of skyscrapers and suspension bridges. Transistors led to computers and pacemakers and so much else. So this may be the beginning of the diamond age of technology. The military's DARPA research arm has been pumping money into CVD projects. Companies such as Lucent are on the trail of holographic optical storage, which will use lasers to store data in 3D patterns, cramming huge amounts of information in tiny spaces. CVD diamonds would vault holographic storage ahead, helping bring about the 10,000-movie iPod.” (Yes, Jon, I just saw your eyebrows go up. :))

Yes, my friends, we are at the beginning of a new age...:)

Worldview of a Christian Teen

2005-10-09T22:07:00.000-07:00

Here's a short essay I wrote quite a while back... I came across it recently and thought I'd post it. ;)

My worldview in based in the Bible. All that directs my walk through life is written in that beautiful book. As a teen, specifically, God through His Word has commanded me to be obedient to my superiors. As a human, I recognize, using the Bible, the fact that man is rational and this state reflects God’s character since we are told that we are created in His image. As a Christian, I realize that salvation can be gained through simple faith in Christ alone. There is no other way. Christ tells Thomas in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

The Lord God Omnipotent has laid down a written revelation for all men to follow who are of His fold: the Bible. This book and its contents are what I base my life on, and what directs my thoughts in every situation. The Bible has a profound influence on my teen life because of passages which command and exhort children to obey their parents so that “it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.” (Eph. 6:3) Also, “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.” (Col. 3:20) The Christian walk is aimed at pleasing God in everything we do, and this, at my age, can be done by exercising obedience towards my parents and superiors.

Man’s indispensable inimitability is that he is made in the image of his Creator, God. Our ability to think, reason, and understand by rational means is what separates us from other aspects and organisms of God’s creation. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…’” (Genesis 1:26) Since God is not in bodily form and is incapable of sin, the only way we can resemble His nature is when we do the right thing. So our ability to be capable of correct logic, good actions, and our innate system of ethics, although naturally flawed since the fall of man (Genesis 3), enables us to resemble God’s perfect character. God’s word tells us that He created the world and everything in it. Man was made in His image, and did not evolve or explode from primordial ooze. Man is special! He has been given the gift of rationality, and should not scorn it by denying his Creator!

Many people believe that if they are really good and do a lot of first-rate actions, they will be assured of a place in Heaven. But, because of the fall of man, they can never be good enough. They must turn to Christ with a repentant heart and ask forgiveness for the evil which infests them by nature. It is only through Him that they will attain a place in Heaven. Otherwise, no matter how good they seem to think they are or have been an eternal punishment in the fires of hell awaits them. We all deserve this wrath of God. We all deserve to be destroyed for our naturally depraved and sinful state. But God has provided an escape route from the justice of eternal death through His Son, Jesus Christ, to those who He graciously grants completely faith. Yes, we will suffer on this earth for our beliefs. We will suffer and those who oppose the Lord will appear to have the upper hand and all the comforts life can offer. But when that final day comes, all those physical, worthless earthly riches and pleasures they enjoyed while spurning God will count them as nothing and they will disappear into the abyss, while those who have suffered will be raised up and glorified with Jesus!

Space prevents me from expounding on why the Bible should be the only source we turn to when in need of understanding about government, ethics, family life, philosophy, science and more.But above all, it’s most important that we understand how we are saved. After all, it’s only after a person has accepted as truth Christ’s message of forgiveness and eternal life by salvation by faith through Him will the other things of the Christian walk become manifest. The process of sanctification is long and painful because of mistakes we make, but in the end, Christ will come again to take us up with Him to glory, and eternal perfection. Christ said, “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” (John 14:2-3)

Thoughts? Arguments? Suggestions? Criticisms? All are welcome... :)

A Couple of other People Keeping up with Miers

2005-10-08T22:10:00.000-07:00

Hey all...

Just a quicky to let you all know to check out Travis of Boy Scout Blogger for some interesting info on Harriet Miers... He appears to be thinking very much along the same lines as me.

Spunky Jr. also has a post up on Miers...

I sure wish there'd be a little more meaty information about her out soon! It seems to be getting released so aggravatingly slowly! :)

Hopefully more tomorrow. Saturdays are so darn busy! :)

Night all!

I Got Tagged...

2005-10-07T17:51:00.000-07:00

Many thanks to Jennifer of Jennifer's Musings for dragging me into this...:) Just kidding. I've never been tagged before, so I was surprised when she arbitrarily picked me. Ah well, the idiosyncrasies of life...:) Anyway, thanks Jennifer. :)

So here's the big topic: Your five favorite songs.

Lemme think... I've got so many it's a little hard to pinpoint just five. But then, everybody says that. :) Okay:

Yesterday--I'm not sure who wrote it, but I've heard it sung and I love the tune and lyrics.

The Greatest Gift of All--Sung by Glen Campbell... I really like his voice.

2000 Years Ago--Sung by the incredibly talented group Rescue... Unfortunately none of the original members are still singing, so I don't like it as much anymore. :) But they're still pretty good...

Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 in G Major: III. Allegro--By Johann Sebastian Bach. Haha, I bet I really surprised everyone with that one. :)

Hmm, one more.

I really like Rescue's arrangement of Amazing Grace. It's so creative and yet holds the melody of the song throughout the duration of the piece.

Anyway... That about raps it up. How did I do? :)

Um, I guess now all I have to do is pick somebody to tag:

David Ketter of The Account (Because I don't think he'll do it...:))

Jonathan of Living Stone (Because I know he will. :))

Kristin of Spunky Jr. (Okay, this is getting totally arbitrary... And I hope she hasn't already done it at some point! :))

And finally, Hannah, of Sold Out (Just for the heck of it... :))

Bye for now!

James Dobson Promotes Harriet Miers

2005-10-05T21:19:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears that one conservative Christian organization leader is quite enthusiastic about Harriet Miers. James Dobson of Focus on the Family gives Miss Miers a high recommendation for conservative oriented Christians, saying that she is "a deeply devoted Christian" who is "a tithe paying member." He goes on to say that, although he disagrees with some of the president's positions on other current issues such as how to deal with illegal immigration, he believies in "trusting this president at this time." Dobson also makes the point that "thus far the president has been true to his campaign promise to place conservative, strict constructionalist judges on the federal bench." So why, he wonders, would the president choose to be inconsistent with his own political philosophies and "sabotage" that legacy with a nomination who would contradict it? (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/52005a.asp)

Mr. Dobson does say that he may be wrong about Miss Miers and if so, he will come out and "repent" before the microphone.

Miers attends a nondenominational evangelical church and has taught the Sunday School class there for years reportedly. In addition to this, she has also served the the church's mission board for a comparatively long time.

When commenting on why Miss Miers made donations towards Al Gore in the late 1980s Dobson said that at the time Mr. Gore was pro-life. (Miers has been pro-life all her life.) Also, she holds a position similar to Dobson's on homosexual union, namely, supporting equal, but not special, rights for gays.

Miss Miers also made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ in the late 1970s and was soon after baptized in Valley View Christian Church.

Well, now I'm thoroughly skeptical about what to think. I've heard radicals from both sides of the split conservative party now who are each reputable. In addition to James Dobson, Jay Sekulow (previously mentioned) is also very pleased with Miers' nomination. He is also a highly intelligent conservative lawyer who is very influencial in my political views...

Harriet Miers: What exactly is Bush thinking?

2005-10-04T16:35:00.000-07:00

So who besides me was only slightly suprised at Bush's latest judicial nominee, Harriet Miers? She is on record as supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, a major local tax increase and women in combat... To paraphrase what I found out from WorldNetDaily. I find each of these things in slight opposition to what I call conservatism, and what I thought Bush totally stood for. More importantly than that, which should come as no surprise to most of you not to mention the numerous conservative organizations, miss Miers has virtually no "paper trail" of judicial background. She has never served in a judging position. Needless to say, going from a non-existent judicial background straight to the Supreme Court judging position to replace Sandra Day O'Connor is quite amazing if not unheard of.

Not to mention the Democrats like her... Says Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, "I Like Harriet Miers. As White House counsel she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner, I am also impressed with the fact that [Miers] was a trailblazer for women as a managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association." This is certainly helpful. Nothing like one's political enemies enjoying a decision which benefits their side. I'm almost sick.

Still, I will try and give her the benefit of the doubt. Many organization leaders on the sub-conservative side are either enthusiastic or simply neutral, preferring to see how things turn out than to pre-judge. This approach is admirable, and one which I would readily take did not I know Miers' stance on issues such as a local tax increase and women in combat.

To give an example of one who seems elated about this recent nomination, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice believes Harriet Miers to be an excellent choice stating, "Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor." Then another, Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist, also seems pleased by Miers nomination, "With this selection, the president has chosen another outstanding nominee to sit on our nation's highest court."

I understand that the ACLJ is also ready to mount a campaign in support of Miers, just as it did with the lately approved John Robberts, taking advantage of the program's 1.5-odd-million weekly listeners.

Then others, as I mentioned, are simply taking a more cautious approach. States Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, "President Bush has long made it clear that his choices for the U.S. Supreme Court would be in the mold of current justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We have no reason to believe he has abandoned that standard. However, our lack of knowledge about Harriet Miers and the absence of a record on the bench give us insufficient information from which to assess whether or not she is indeed in that mold."

So perhaps everything will turn out well in the end. I suppose I shouldn't pre-judge either, but it certainly is hard when miss Miers seems so contrary to what I had presumed conservative ideals. But again, I will give her a chance... I do feel a little disappointed in Bush though!

What do you guys all think?

EDIT: Okay everybody, I reread this and realized that I might have come across a little bit more biased that I intended to. I really am going to give Miss Miers the benefit of the doubt and won't form a completely solid opinion what with all the contrariness even among conservatives until I have actually seen her in action. I just feel that Bush could have done a better job... But we'll see. :)

I'm Back!

2005-10-03T22:49:00.000-07:00

Hello everybody! :)

Well, it was a fun ending to a packed summer of vacations... We all went to Manzanita, a seaside town in Oregon. Awesome place with an awesome beach. :) The only letdown was the church we went to. What a joke. :) Well, actually, it wasn't all THAT bad, and at least the pastor didn't preach totally wrong things, and I guess aside from the rock band up front, the praise choruses which got old really fast, the lack of song lyric substance, a milky sermon, emotional responses to everything that happened, mega-speakers in the ceiling and the list goes on, it was really okay! :) Phew! Talk about an example of the mainstream church in America! All about feeling and emotional response...

ANYWAY. :)

Does anybody like Frisbee? We played quite a bit of Frisbee... And Boggle and Scrabble. :) Both of my grandparents are incredible at those two games. Especially grandpa. :) I felt rather stupid playing against two people with incredible vocabularies, but hey, they've been around for 60+ years. :) (I've gotta find some sort of consolation anyway...:)) But it was still an absolute blast. Did anybody know 'taj' is an accepted Scrabble word? :)

Okay, so back to the old routine of every day life! I'll try to keep up a relatively decent posting frequency (and don't ask me to define "decent") :)) despite school and work... You can all badger me if I let it go for a month or longer. :)

Vacation

2005-09-30T17:00:00.001-07:00

Hello everyone...

Just a note to let you all know that I will not be able to post or comment for a few days here due to vacation. Sorry! :) I will try and post next Tuesday, though.

Gotta run... Leaving in 3 minutes! :)

To Live is Christ, To Die is Gain

2005-09-29T08:02:00.000-07:00

It's funny and sad at the same time at how fearful this world has become of death. People don't like to talk about it, they don't like to think about it, and the realization and fear of the reality and eternity of it really start to set in the older they get. If someone is scared of dying, then, what is the first thing we can assume about them? They are not saved. They cannot be if they are not enjoying the benefits of the verse in Ephesians that tells us that, "...the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Eph. 4:7) So then if they aren't basking in this peace which God bestows upon His children, neither can they be in understanding of a very important point about death: It is gain! Well, it is if you are saved from the fires of hell through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. People who are lost cannot even begin to cogitate how Christians can look forward to death as a blessing! We have goodness in life and death!

Check out this verse from Philippians: "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Phil. 1:21) To live is Christ, and to die is gain! All our earthly days, we live Christ like lives, praying for God's strength, pursuing that which is good, and spreading the good news of the Gospel to those we meet. Then, when our death comes we can welcome it with open arms, rejoicing that we will soon be with our Savior! And if the Lord is pleased to take my life early in my years, so much the better! The less time I have to spend in a wicked world of sin. This also dispels the common idea of an "untimely death" as a myth. There can be no such thing as an untimely death if God is in control of all things. He chooses to give life, and He chooses to take it away.

Christians, therefore, should have no fear whatsoever of death. Doing our best for Him is important now, glorifying Him as best we can with His strength, then glorifying Him again by our deaths. We live and die for the glory of God. It is, in fact, selfish in many ways to fear death. Now, I realize and completely admit that death is heartbreaking to those remaining on earth who will miss the one who died. But then, putting aside the gloominess of sadness, they can rejoice for that person in heaven with his/her Lord and Savior and eagerly await their own departure from this world, that they might see that person again in a happier place.

Again, quoting from Philippians 1: (verse 20) "According to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing shall I be ashamed, but with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death." So then, as Paul tells us, all that we do should be with the magnification of Christ in mind. Whether it is done so by life or by death. Whichever pleases the Lord. Indeed, Paul tells us in verse 23 that although he was "hard-pressed between the two [life or death]", yet he desired to go and be with Christ, "which is far better." So then, for them that are saved, death is better than life!

This is the relaxing and peaceful view of death, then, which the Christian can hold...

...If only it was the view of all those in the world.

The Greatest Gift

2005-09-28T07:43:00.000-07:00

I was reading in 1 Corinthians today and hit the famous chapter 13, or, "The Love Chapter". As I read through it, it struck me at how distorted today's culture has made the definition of true love. It really is nothing like what common opinion makes it out to be. People are always parading around with one boyfriend/girlfriend one day going on about how much they love each other and how they will never separate. Then watch, in many, indeed far too many, cases a short time later, that same person will be engaging in the same affair, but with a different partner. This is not true love. How can it be when Paul tells us that "love never fails?" (1 Cor. 13:8)

Neither is love being kind in the modern "mushy" sense by giving lots of unwarranted gifts to appease selfishness, not disciplining or admonishing or exhorting under the excuse that doing so may hurt the other person's "feelings". However, when we read Proverbs 13:24 this is directly contradicted: "He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly." How clear can it be?

Moreover, going back to 1 Corinthians 13, Paul tells us many times that without love we really are nothing. Starting in verses 1-2 we find this: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging symbol. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." This is strong language here. Paul places love as the fulfilling factor of a Christian's life. We may have all the gifts that he listed and yet still be empty and meaningless without love. Now, perhaps Paul is intentionally exaggerating here. But he certainly makes his point very clear! Love is not so much of an emotional response or feeling, it's much less self-oriented. Indeed, Paul emphasizes the fact that love is not at all self-concerned. "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity..." (1 Cor. 13:4-6) As anyone can see, love is about caring for others and being concerned about them, being kind and helping to bear their hardships. Paul then continues with what love should be: "...but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails." (1 Cor. 13:6-8)

Here is the best example of true love that the Bible can offer: God in his mercy and love sent His only Begotten Son that He might perish instead of us to pay the penalty for our sins. This, my friends, is the true definition of love. Christ Himself tells us in John 15:12-13, "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends."

I wish that everyone understood what love really is. Love is a sacrifice. Giving, helping, doing everything we can to uphold our neighbor's well-being. This is Christ's commandment. It is not about how one feels. It is about doing what's right. It's about helping others when they're in need whether or not we feel affection for them personally. Loving another sometimes requires the hard words of admonishment, exhortation, or correction; often painful both for the hearer and the giver. But in the end, it is loving the person to make sure their well-being is Biblically maintained. Modern society does not believe this. It would make an amazing difference if it did.

1 Cor. 13:13, "And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

Visit These New Sites!

2005-09-27T20:27:00.000-07:00

Hello everyone...

I have recently added a few links to my blogroll: Spunky Jr., Jennifer's Musings, Sold Out, Agent Tim Online, and The Rebelution.

These are all blogs that I have found very interesting and, indeed, helpfully insightful on the many theological/social/political issues in debate today. I highly recommend each and every one and would encourage anybody to visit them daily. Most of the brains behind these blogs I am not personally familiar with, having met only somewhat recently met them through certain good online friends that I have, but The Rebelution in particular is run by boys of a last name that some of you may be quite familiar with. They are the twin sons of Greg Harris named Brett and Alex. Both very bright 16-year-olds, I am constantly amazed at how well they write and present their points for any argument under any category. Absolutely excellent blog you guys have... Keep it up!

Agent Tim is, incredibly, only 15 years old. I have been reading his website for a while now, having gotten access to it through David Ketter's The Account. He is a powerful writer, implementing logic and excellent research into his posts. Recently, he was interviewed on Albert Mohler's radio show about teen Christian bloggers. You can listen to it here. Anyway, he's a great guy with great ambitions and an awesome way of writing exactly what everybody else seems to be thinking. :)

The other three blogs are those of girls... Now, I should explain something here. I had originally been bigoted against girl bloggers since they only ever seemed to post things like (what did you say Tim?) what they had for breakfast, how they did their hair on such-and-such a day, or where they are going tonight. I mean, for girls that I know personally really well, that's fine in a sense since I can actually comment on what they did and/or are doing. But generally, I stayed away from girl bloggers. :) But more and more I've been discovering a group of girls who are surprisingly good (better than me, in fact) at posting political/social issues and then exegeting them logically to form a good and reliable argument. That said, I really recommend that ya'll give them a visit and be as pleasantly surprised as I was! :)

New Features

2005-09-21T19:51:00.000-07:00

I put a couple of new features on this site... It was in dire need of a technical update. :) Also, I finally got around to drafting up a profile, so you can actually view a pic of me for those of you who are curious. :) David, you get to see who is always arguing with you! :)

Anyway...

We have some family traveling up to stay with us next week, so I'm afraid that will interfere with my posting frequency... We'll be at the coast and other places out of town, so I probably won't even have email access for a week or so. So please don't everyone get offended when I don't answer emails pronto. :)

I want to eventually write a post on predestination... I know, it's a huge and hotly debated topic and I'm sure most of you will disagree with me, but I believe it will turn out to be interesting. At least we'll have some good discussion going. :) Another issue I would really be interested in pursuing is that of God and Evil. Namely, how can evil exist if God didn't create it but God created everything that exists? Or did God actually create evil? These are questions that are completely unavoidable, and I would like to answer for myself in a satisfactory manner. I mean, I have conclusions about them, but nothing upon which I would base an argument.

So that's what going on for me... I also started school a few weeks ago and that has been hard to adjust back into after all the summer partying. :) Not to mention I'm doing a few new subjects which are hard and time-consuming. For instance, Chemistry. :) I admit I enjoy it, and it's like a blessing after the horrors of Biology, but certainly isn't something I would participate in for an after-school activity! :)

And to top things off, I got hooked up with this football program for homeschoolers-A group of about 20 guys my age who get together every Saturday for coaching and practice games. It's hard. It's not that fun, pathetic slow jogging practice that you see kids doing with all the suits and everything. I am pushed to my physical limits with this group. But it's still a lot of fun... I'm learning a lot of plays and technical football terms and we have some really good coaches, so, I'm not complaining. It actually doesn't take up a whole lot of time either... Just two hours on Saturdays.

Finally, I am now officially in the choir "Voices of Praise"! It's really, really cool and the guy who directs it is the tenor in a quartet that is rated number 4 in the WORLD! Hence, it's not surprisingly a really good choir. It's sung at Blazer games, the Grotto, and numerous other concerts. God really blessed me in this...:) It does take up a lot of time per day, though... Unfortunately more time than I would like to spend. But, it's absolutely awesome when you get to sing every week. :)

Okay, that about wraps it up here... Sorry for all the spelling/grammatical errors in here, as I know there are. I don't feel like running it through Word, and I don't feel like going back through and editing it, so, bear with me. :)

Signing off...

Two Common Soteriologies: Which is True? Are We Saved By Faith Alone? Or is it a Combination of Faith and Works?

2005-09-16T18:29:00.000-07:00

When an argument is started between two people about whether or not salvation is gained by either faith alone, or faith and works, this section out of James is immediately quoted as conclusive evidence by that person who is in favor of the faith and works doctrine:

James 2:14-26: “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

Now, as in many disagreements about the Word of God, there are many other passages (I will quote a few in a moment) which point directly to faith alone for salvation. Does this mean that the Bible has or can contradict itself? By no means! The Bible by nature is infallible, perfectly logical, and since a contradiction is that action committed by a sinning mind, it is impossible for the Bible to be subject to a contradictory nature. Hence, one explanation for the supposed contradiction is annihilated.

What else is there to turn to? Shall there forever be a dispute and shall we never know what is the truth? Again, by no means! For, if that were the case, no-one would be saved as a result of being undecided upon this apparent contradiction. We must logically deduce from good and necessary consequence which is the Biblical and truthful doctrine. For only one will save a person...

First of all, let me provide a few verses which back up the position of him who argues for faith alone:

Romans 3:26—“To demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Romans 4:1-5—“What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness.’ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted, as grace but as debt.”

Galations 2:16—“Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”

Romans 1:17—“For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

Now, we have established that the Bible is perfect, infallible, and hence incapable of any fallacies... Thus, the apparent paradox presented here between these verses and that section from James cannot exist in reality. There must be one truthful answer by the laws of logic.

Since this is our resolve, let us analyze James’ passage…

First of all, faith cannot be defined in a subjective sense, such as a sanguine decision on the part of the doer. Neither, as R.C. Sproul puts it, can it be a passive orthodoxy. No, Christian faith is a God-granted ability to assent, or respond if you will, to God’s divine revelation, allowing a firm belief in the truth of the Gospel, leading to utter reliance on Christ for salvation. It’s an entire placing of confidence in Christ’s character and doctrines relying on His merits, not one’s own, for justification and salvation. So James, when speaking of faith without works being dead, isn’t talking about faith as was just defined. He’s not saying that a duality between faith and works is what saves, he is referring to a faith that hasn’t completely placed trust in God and hence is no real faith at all. R.C. Sproul again masterfully puts it this way: “Justification is by faith alone, but justifying faith can never be alone.” Thus, if your works are not proclaiming the fact that you are saved, you can’t have placed total faith in Christ for salvation. If you have placed total faith in Christ for salvation, your works will automatically show forth the fact that you have done so. They cannot be separated and that is the point James is trying to make. A failure to cultivate and develop the fruits of the Gospel shows that it has not been received.

Faith is often referred to as first knowledge of something, agreement with that something, and then final trust in that something. If a person has completed each of these steps in the process of salvation, he will live his life accordingly with the outward result being a difference in his character, personality, and overall worldview. His worldview is based on this thing that he trusts completely. So his outward actions will be in consensus with it. But someone who knows of something, and even acknowledges the truthfulness of that something and yet deigns not to put total trust in that something will not act in concurrence with that something. His faith is not complete, and thus the naturally appearing outward and inward traits which accompany true salvation will not be present.

Read this quote from James again from the section up top: "...and by works faith was made perfect?" This is the key statement to understanding what I have said. Works completes faith. It makes it whole. But it is not necessary for saving faith.

Those who are in the state of sub-faith, so to speak, must not continue trying to do things for themselves, but must place total trust in God to save them from their natural state of total depravity of mind. They cannot do this for themselves. It is Paul the Apostle who shows us that there is no way to break the impossibility of salvation by works. It is James who illustrates that this faith rests completely in God’s hands by showing the inseparableness of this faith and that which God produces in a person afterwards.

Romans 7:21-25 tells us that man, even after salvation, is not perfect and completely safe from sin. It is God’s mercy through Christ’s propitiation on our behalf that makes us acceptable in His eyes. “I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Oh wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God---through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

And here I will end this… I encourage all who read this to comment: correction, agreement, or discussion. All are profitable!

I hope this post was helpful to some, and remindful to others, for I know in composing it, I was greatly benefited!

John 14:2-3: “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.”

Pete

P.S. I JUST installed that visitor counter at the bottom and the "blogtopsites" thing at the top to the right. I'm pretty low on the list in the category of "religion", there being about 130 other blogs listed there, but hopefully after a few months that will have changed...:) If you like my blog and want to put it higher on the list, click on the top blog sites icon and rate me higher! :) I won't complain...:)

What's Wrong With This Picture? Homosexuals Attack Christians; Marvin Olasky Attacks Christians

2005-09-02T21:37:00.000-07:00

The following is an excellent article written by late Presidential candidate Michael Peroutka about the intollerancies of the treatment of Christians in our own country. WORLD magazine (mainly editor-in-chief Marvin Olasky) unjustly accused several Christians from the Repent America association (previously quoted) of being hurtful to the evangelical cause during an attempt to preach the Gospel at a homosexual rally; an issue which Peroutka addresses in a most commendable manner. Anyway, I'll let you read it for yourself...

"It was, to put it mildly, an ugly scene when in early October of last year, in Philadelphia, "Repent America" Director Michael Marcavage and some of his fellow Christians tried to peacefully preach the Gospel at a homosexual block party known as "Outfest."

When the Christians arrived, they were surrounded by angry homosexuals who blocked their Christian signs. Loud, shrill whistles were blown in the ears of the Christians. Vile language was screamed at the Christians.

Eleven Christians from "Repent America," including Marcavage, were arrested. All of them, after spending 21 hours in jail, were each charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors. The felony charges included: criminal conspiracy; ethnic intimidation (preaching the Gospel and singing "Blessed Be The Name Of The Lord); and riot. The misdemeanors charges were: reckless endangerment of another person (hate crime enabler, predicate act); possessing instruments of crime (the use of a megaphone to preach); disorderly conduct and failure to disperse; and obstructing a highway.

If all these Christians had been convicted --- which, thank God, they were not --- each would have faced, respectively, up to 47 years in prison and a $90,000 fine.

Now, you would think that if a Christian journalist was writing about all this, in a supposedly Christian publication, the story here is obvious. The "hate crime" here was by the homosexuals against the Christians.

But, no, when "World" magazine editor-in-chief Marvin Olasky wrote about this in his column in "World" magazine, he attacked the Christians!

In his column, headlined "How to hurt evangelism/In-your-face protests may distort, not amplify, the message," Olasky began by noting that when a judge dismissed all charges against these Christians, she said that free speech extends to Nazis, the KKK and "Repent America." This, he said, was "bitter news for evangelism" because the word had gone out from this judge that Nazis, KKK, and Christians were "all repulsive, but we have to put up with them."

But, this is an unconscionable cheap shot, especially from a person who is supposed to be a fellow-Christian. What, exactly, is the point of saying this when Marcavage and the other Christians in his group were in no way responsible for what this judge said? The notion that evangelism is somehow "hurt" because of what some judge said is absurd.

Olasky also took Marcavage and his Christian crew to task because they carried a sign "decorated by flames, telling the gay revelers that they are going to hell." He asks: "How does that show Christ's compassion?" Well, (1) It's a fact, because God says it, that unrepentant homosexuals ARE going to go to hell unless they repent of their sin and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. And (2) it always shows the compassion of Christ to tell people what God says.

At another point, Olasky asks: "What tactics should Christians use in communicating to homosexuals both God's holiness and God's grace?" Good question, as far as it goes but it does not go far enough. God is not about just holiness and grace. God is also about WRATH. God's Word tells us that God is also a jealous God, a consuming fire, a God who will by no means clear the guilty. To talk about God and leave Hell out of the picture is to preach an incomplete Gospel.

Olasky quotes Marcavage as saying about the criticism of "Repent America" that: "It doesn't matter what we say. This is what we should expect from the world. They killed all the prophets." To which Olasky replies, in part, snidely: "Hmm: Can that be a self-fulfilling prophecy, so that unless we win the ‘repulsive' label we think we've failed?"

But, this is another, below-the-belt cheap shot. Marcavage and the Christians with him were in no way trying to win the "repulsive" label. Not at all. They were simply trying to, and were, peacefully and lawfully preaching God's Word; they were trying to win homosexuals to Christ.

Olasky says that it seems to him that it is "easier to use a megaphone than to love our neighbors quietly and one-by-one, so that we have the credibility to communicate difficult truths to them." Well, (1) what happened to these "Repent America" Christians shows, obviously, that it is NOT all that "easy" to do what they did because they were physically menaced, jailed and charged with a number of serious crimes. And (2) Olasky commits the fallacy of the false alternative. In presenting the Gospel, it is not, necessarily, a choice between using a megaphone OR preaching quietly. There's a time and a place when either method is required.

Ironically, Olasky tells how he once asked some of his University of Texas journalism students to answer the question: "How do Christians act?" Typical answers included: "Fanatical…Trying to force others to do everything their way. Bossing, not helping, others." This is ironic BECAUSE THIS IS THE WAY THE HOMOSEXUALS TREATED MARCAVAGE AND HIS CHRISTIAN CREW!

Olasky concludes his column by referring, obviously, to Marcavage and his Christian evangelists, saying that we, as Christians, should be "constantly reexamining our own understanding and tactics." Well, amen! But, in this particular case, it is Marvin Olasky who should be reexamining, and apologizing for, his gratuitous and unwarranted bashing of Michael Marcavage and his fellow Christians who were simply trying to tell Hell-bound homosexuals what God says about their sin.

We, as Christians, should expect to be attacked by the world. We should not expect to be attacked by the Editor of "World" magazine, which is supposed to be a Christian publication.

A footnote: If you would like to contact Marvin Olasky to tell him what you think about his column, his office phone number is 609-258-7101. If he replies, let us know what he said. And, please, be nice. Do not respond to Olasky the way he did to Michael Marcavage & Company."

Michael Peroutka

Pete

New Orleans: Well Timed Disaster?

2005-09-02T16:55:00.000-07:00

According to WorldNetDaily, Hurricane Katrina hit home just two days before an annual gay event in New Orleans called Southern Decadence. I choose, for everyone's sake who's reading this, not to mention even a little bit of the horrible wickedness which continues for 5 days and consisting of over 125,000 drunk homosexuals in mainly the French Quarters of the city. Many Christians are saying that this late hurricane was a well-timed destructive agent sent by God to stop and put an end to the furtherment of such lewd and detestable acts in organization. Much as I am sorrowful with, and pray for the many good people who are now stranded in life without money, house, or car, I feel very much the same way as these other Christians. Such wickedness certainly warrants such a disaster...

Repent America director Michael Marcavage carries this same opinion:

"Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city. From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence,' New Orleans was a city that opened its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. May it never be the same."

Repent America also claims that three former and all the current mayors of New Orleans have encouraged this event and such related occurrences by issuing proclamations and invitations out to other people. This disgusting display of support by those authorities who are supposed to divert and work against drunkenness, homosexuality in the streets, and other acts which could easily be labeled as, "indecent esposure", is enough to make one puke. I personally had no idea that such decadence and low, disgusting sins could be tolerated in such a fashion.

Marcavage again on this matter, "Let us pray for those ravaged by this disaster. However, we must not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long. May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God."

We may, as usual, refer to the Bible to find past examples of such acts of God. Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 imediately come to mind. (Gen. 19:24, "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.") Also the destruction of Jerusalem which can be found, among other places, in Jeremiah and Lamentations. (Lamentations 1:7; Jeremiah 6:1; etc.)

There is proof throughout the ages of man that when city's and civilizations become too wicked for God's righteous wrath and anger to keep alive, He will most certainly destroy them. Now the question is, "When will our entire civilization become too wicked for God's wrath to continue to be withheld?"

Pete

Related Sites:
New Orleans death tole probably in the thousands
Looters turn New Orleans into "downtown Baghdad"
Hurricane pushing stocks lower
Bush, "Global Warming to blame for hurricane?"

Free Will--Part 1: Augustine’s First Solution for the Problem of God and Evil

2005-08-23T10:47:00.000-07:00

Augustine began wondering early on, in terms of his conversion from his prior position in belief as a pagan Manichaean, about the problem of God and evil. He cogitated that if all persons, recognizing that they sinned, could have originated from God, they would have to submit those sins back upon Him and hence making God responsible for our evil actions. To put it in different words, how could God create sinning people without being answerable to their sins? Here is Augustine himself on the matter, “I ask whether a free will itself, by which we are proved to have a power to sin, should have been given us by him who made us. For it is clear that if we were without free will we would not sin; and in this way it is to be feared that God may be adjudged the author of our evil doing.” Evading this termination may be done by putting forth the elucidation that, possessing not free will, we as humans would be only capable of doing as little evil as good. Hence the ability to to good or evil is equal. Take the example of a stone, which is non-existent. This stone is just as powerless to commit an evil action as a good one. So far Augustine’s ideas. He thought that a live soul, though persisting in sin, is still better than an object such as a stone which possesses no will at all, and hence forgoes the capability of sinning or doing any good at all.

But is that so? Is a sinning nature really better than being inanimate? As Gordon Clark says, “What would Augustine have said if he had remembered Christ’s statement, 'It would have been good for that man if he had not been born'?" These are unavoidable questions, but we will continue with Augustine’s observations...

Thus far, it would appear that free will is the property of all men. But Augustine later provides a new thought, off the basis that man cannot now, in his unregenerate nature, avoid sin. And I quote, “When we speak, then, of the will free to do right, we speak of the will in which man first was made.” So now it seems that only Adam possessed a free will. He continues with this thought in his later work, “The City of God” by saying that Adam had a free will in the sense that he couldn’t sin.

The common idea of free will today is that all men have the ability to either obey or disobey God’s commands. This was Augustine’s first idea too, it would seem. But as he learned more, read more, and progressed along in his Christian life, he realized that man couldn’t help but sin. Hence, unregenerate man is incapable of doing any good at all. So now there is an impossibility of him choosing to do the right thing by selecting God as his Savior. But then when those who are granted eternal salvation and reach heaven, we bump into this same impossibility! We won’t be able to do any evil! So now we take a new outlook on the ideas presented in the previous paragraphs. As we first saw, Augustine’s first postulation was that man is just as capable of committing a good action, as an evil one. But now we see that unregenerate man is perfectly incapable of committing any good action whatsoever! So, either we must reject the idea of free will or redefine it altogether. Either way, it is impossible for man to choose God as a sinner, since that would be a good action, and as we see, unregenerate man cannot commit a good action.

So, what do you guys all think?

Pete
(Some of the information presented here was gathered from Gordon Clark’s book “God and Evil” which I highly recommend for a more detailed exposition of the subject.)

Explanation, Apology, etc...

2005-08-19T08:49:00.000-07:00

Hello everyone...

Since you probably all already noticed that I deleted by previous post on Signs, I'll offer a short reason why. I think I was too hasty in my judgment of that movie and hence some of the things I said against it I do not now, due to some discussion in the comments, believe are altogether true. Such as the religious content being Catholic oriented. I would like to thank those involved for their help in righting me on some of my points.

I still don't like the movie though, as I still do stick to some of the things I said. But I simply couldn't leave up a post that I was half skeptical with. :)

Anyway, perhaps in the future after watching it again, I'll write up another review... And be more careful and sure about what I say first before posting. So sorry to everybody, and I hope none of you are permanently offended! :)

Now, on to something else...

While vacating this past week, I had the opportunity to watch several other very fascinating movies:

1. The Bourne Identity
2. The Bourne Supremacy
3. The Gladiator (Russell Crowe)
4. Elizabeth (Cate Blanchet)

Now, I should mention here that all but one of these movies (The Gladiator) had been sent to a place called Clean Flicks or something like that and had several of the parts with innuendo etc. taken out. Have any of you seen any of them? What did you think? Perhaps I'll let you guys start a discussion before I spout my ideas this time. :) I will say that I did indeed enjoy the first three very much. Elizabeth, ah, wasn't exactly in my line of movie watching. :)

Well, I'm going to try my first 10-mile-jog-in-one-hour experiment next week. I can do 8 miles in one hour, but I'm not sure if I can up that 2 miles more for a whole non-stop hour. Anyway, we'll see how that turns out. :) Has anybody here ever run a marathon? If so, how hard was it? :)

Well, I did finish recording the last punch-lines of my CD two weeks ago. The guy at the studio is finishing up the last few touches of EQing, and then we'll have a little art-work to do. :) I have no idea what to put on the front of the CD case. Any suggestions would be most welcome... As for a title, we're pretty sure about one, but still bouncing some ideas around. I can't really think of something decent that either hasn't been used or is really lame! Oh well. Whatta think of Acoustic Guitar Solos? Is that nice, simple, and not to overly professional sounding?

I've gotta run for now... ttyl!
Pete

Excuses, excuses, excuses...

2005-08-03T10:18:00.000-07:00

Okay peoples, quick list of reasons why I haven't posted in months (literally, I know it's sad).

I've been on vacation for a long time now, and don't have access to a computer every day, not to mention I can't find the time to actually sit down when one is available. Terribly sorry, but, that's the way it goes!

Wow, I gotta say, here in Ohio we've been getting 96 degree weather with 95% humidity which makes it feel like 120 degrees. :) Not to mention, one sweats close to 50% more doing the same amount of activity outside. If you don't have air-conditioning here, you might as well sign your own death warrant. No kidding. My cousin does cross-country and I was jogging regularly at home, so we've been going to the track quite a bit... Four miles over here is like 10 miles at home! Phew!

Well, I finally got to meet my famous cousin Haley this week! What an awesome cousin! :) I was most impressed at how well she can throw a football...:)

Other than that, pretty much standard vacationing going on... Nothing out of the exciting common way. :)

Thus said, I will bid you all a very fond farewell... :)
Pete

Guess what? Science...

2005-06-12T18:06:00.000-07:00

Well, I finally took the last final for the conclusion of my participation in this Biology course. Now comes the horrible wait... The wait to see what I scored. I can't have done too bad, it was a pretty straightforward test; no abstract or trick questions that I know of. The only really difficult thing on it was the last page (extra credit): One had to remember the complete inclusive nomenclature for a clownfish. Here's what I gave:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Perciformes
Suborder: (Strangely, this wasn't required)
Family: Pomacentridae
Genus: Amphiprion
Species: Ocellaris

I hope I got that all right... We'll see! :)

That combined with a few essays, however, didn't compile into an easy test... Although straightforward, it was not simple. ;)

Anyway, this isn't even the end! I have to turn in a final essay by the 17th and on the same day turn in my lab notebook. Unfortunately, this particular week will be filled with cramming in half-done sketches and taxonomies, together with two page explanations and write-ups... Ode well. ;)

Blargh! I hate waiting for test results! It's so darn nerve-wracking...:)

The Ontological Argument of St. Anselm

2005-06-01T09:25:00.000-07:00

Well, (this is mostly for David Ketter since he asked for the original) I did a little research on the internet and found the book by Anselm in which the previously summarized Ontological argument was contained. (David, you can go HERE and read any chapter of the book Proslogium by Anselm. Sorry it took me so long. (And just in case you don't notice, the chapters are all listed on the right hand side of the page...) The Ontological argument is in chapter 2 which should come up first.) Hope you enjoy!

Okay, here it is... Chapter 2 of Proslogium by St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury:

"And so, Lord, do thou, who dost give understanding to faith, give me, so far as thou knowest it to be profitable, to understand that thou art as we believe; and that thou art that which we believe. And, indeed, we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Or is there no such nature, since the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God? (Psalms xiv. 1). But, at any rate, this very fool, when he hears of this being of which I speak—a being than which nothing greater can be conceived—understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding; although he does not understand it to exist.

For, it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists. When a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding, but he does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, he both has it in his understanding, and he understands that it exists, because he has made it.

Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.

Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality."

Religious Philosophy: Anselm and Rationalism

2005-05-26T07:54:00.000-07:00

Anselm (1033-1109---also Archbishop of Canterbury) originally tried to "improve upon" what Augustine started in terms of understanding. One of these areas which he was most perplexed about and wished to be able to cogitate with proof rather than faith as his main means, in essence for his own sake, was the existence of God. He didn't want just to be able to believe or conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, using the Bible and faith to understand that such a being exists. He wanted to know, by physical means, the legitimacy of his own Christian faith. In his Monologium, he tried to use a list of reliable arguments for the existence of God, referring mainly to a Platonic methodology of rationalizing (hypostatizing) abstract ideas/beings/things such as God, justice, etc. This wasn't enough to convince him, however.

So eventually, Anselm pieced together what became known as the Ontological argument for God's existence. I think you would all be bored to death with the length of his original script, so I will give the well known outline for it:

1. The term "God" is defined as the greatest conceivable being.
2. Real existence (existence in reality) is greater than mere existence in the understanding.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just in the understanding.

Just in case this is not clear, I'm also going to give Descarte's reduction:

"God, by definition, is the being who possesses all perfections; existence is a perfection; therefore God exists."

Now, I am going to quote Kant, in his supposed deconstruction of this argument:

"The conception of an absolutely necessary being is a mere idea, the objective reality of which is far from being established by the mere fact that it is a need of reason."

Kant again, on accusing rationalists about what they say about an absolutely necessary being without trying to show how it is possible to even reflect upon such a being, let alone provide proof for its existence:

"A verbal definition of the concept is certainly easy enough: it is something, non-existence of which is impossible. But this definition does not throw light on the conditions which make it impossible to cogitate the non-existence of anything."

So, what do you guys think?

Science Blowout and More

2005-05-19T08:09:00.000-07:00

Hola, hola, to my friends of the blogging grapevine. :)

ARGH! As if I don't have enough school as it is with not enough time to do it all it! Now I hear that I must start studying for a 3 hour final which covers Wile's entire Biology course. *bangs head against monitor* Umph. When is this delightful escapade of academics to take place? It soils my own birthday month with it's forboding. June 1st. I have TWO weeks to study for THREE hours of class! Not to mention I have the last "ordinary" test THIS week (today, in fact), which cancels out possibilities of starting early. Maybe this doesn't bother you people who do crazy, boring and scary finals all the time, but this really gets me. I don't mind finals, but although biology isn't bad like I said in my previous post, it's not my favorite subject. My point? I would really love not to study that whole book. I can't even begin to tell you how much I would love not to study that whole book.

On to more interesting news...

I must say when I watched the Village a week or two ago, I was a little disappointed. As far as I could see, there wasn't much of a plot. So the movie didn't really have an excuse for existing other than to attempt to creep people out. But even that aspect failed! Bony dudes running around with red robes and hay sticking out of their backs isn't my idea of scary. It's my idea of funny if anything.

Oh well, like I've said before, the one thing I liked about the movie was the fact that it showed the main worldview to be utterly impossible. We as humans cannot run away from our natural sin and attempt to make a perfect community. Too many people in this day and age seem to think that if you get rid of technology and comfort, you will be able to have a better society. Not at all. The Pioneers actually sinned, believe it or not, despite the fact that they had zilch technology and comfort. You cannot run away from sin. Anyway, that was kinda cool... To "analyze" the different philosophies, even if I didn't agree with them. :)

We also watched National Treasure this past week. Maybe you'll tell me I'm being inconsistent, but I really liked that movie. I mean, if I were consistent, I would have to say, "Gee, there wasn't a plot, the bad dudes with guns couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, even by accident, it was totally fake, etc." However, I really did think it was a cool movie, a few unnecessary scenes aside, that is. It was a little funny though, watching chase scenes with a lot of shooting going on, those blockhead thugs could hit a darn thing! I was sitting there thinking, "Man, maybe if you try not to hit him, you will." So I can't really say why I thought it was pretty good. Don't watch it thinking "aha, a mystery movie", or if you do, be prepared for a huge disappointment. Watch it thinking "aha, an action movie" and you'll be pretty impressed I'd say.

I'm afraid I must go now and leave you all to cry bitter tears at my parting... Farewell! For the present I must leave you, but if you will allow me to quote our great General of WW2 as he was driven from the Phillipines by the ruthless Japaneze, (I hope you know who that was :)) "I will return!"

Modern Christianity

2005-05-09T16:27:00.000-07:00

As some of you may know, I have in the past six months become involved on a discussion forum where I have argued about pretty much everything there is to argue about.

The most recent on is Catholicism, a thread which has introduced me to some very strange beliefs. For instance, a sort of cross between Protestantism and Catholicism. A few people think that we should just get over "common differences" and unite to fight the "common enemy", and they don't seem to realize that Catholicism IS the common enemy of all true Christians. The late pope, John Paul 2, was trying to get Mary more and more involved in the Church. He labeled her as the mediator between us and Christ, a belief which directly contradicts Scripture. Christ is the only mediator, and praying to some sinning woman to plead before Him on our behalf is disgusting. Not to mention they place baptism and works as saving attributes, when the Bible clearly states that it is by faith alone that we are saved.

As an example, read this quote from the late pope:

"I have called the current Marian year in order that the Catholic faithful may look more and more to Mary, who goes before us on the pilgrimage of faith and with maternal care intercedes for us before her Son our Redeemer. I wish to entrust to her and to her intercession this difficult moment of the modern world..."

Is it just me or is this full of blasphemous claims? He goes on to say that we should place all the difficult social problems and international crisis before her "eyes of mercy" in a so-called filial spirit. Lame. Really lame.

I have heard some say that Catholics are more spiritual, or humble, than us because they don't believe themselves worthy enough to go straight to God and His Son... This is a supposed justification of their use of praying to "the Virgin". Nothing could be farther from the truth. Turning to a sinning women does not show that Catholics are more humble or spiritual than us. It shows they have put into practice ideas which are not in Scripture. We as Christians don't believe we are worthy of such great holiness either, but we don't let that unworthy feeling drive us to create a new and ungodly image of a sinner like ourselves.

And how can one man, namely the pope, have such authority so as to place him in Christ's place (the head of the Church), and over the authenticity of Scripture itself? One man, no better than ourselves, has ultimate power on earth over more than 1.5 billion people. Christ no longer leads, He takes second place in the Catholic doctrines.

My point is to show how far from the truth us Christians have gone. People claim to be reformed five-point Calvinists, and yet sue for peace and consention among all sects of "Christianity". It's maddening. This country needs dire reform itself from its wayward turn into immorality, and when we Christians are most needed, we can't even get our own ideas figured out. Graphically disgusting and sinful things such as homosexuality and abortion are being legalized, and many Christians are saying we should just stay calm and leave people to their own decisions. Now I'm not one to go bossing people around in their private lives, but when the next generation's pureness and righteous heritage is under threat of such evil, how can Christians stand by and cry for "peace and blessings upon America and Christianity?" How can we be blessed for such behavior? Why should we be blessed?

Biology Update

2005-05-09T16:14:00.000-07:00

Well, as most of you know, I've been taking a really time-consuming Biology class from a lady named Pam Long. (Great teacher, and she knows how to make you work!:))

Anyway, for an update, I've only got two more modules (that's approximately one more month) of class left. And after almost seven previous months of science, it'll be weird not to have that in the back of my mind every day. So far I've gotten straight As through the whole class, so that's nice to have for future reference. She jacks the tests up to well over 90 problems often, so it's no easy job to prep, even when one has two weeks. My lab book is packed with drawings of the insides of pretty much every animal you can imagine, not to mention a thousand difference leaves, cells, and other diagrams. Besides that I have pages and pages of write-ups and essays that add to my collection.

Ah well, it's been a great experience. I haven't had to put my head down for bad behavior yet, but who knows...:) I understand the last test is going to be the worst (which I find difficult to ponder), so I can't start relaxing until that's finished!

I will say I entered Biology with extreme scepticism as to how much I would like the topic... I leave sad that I must, for the present, desist from further study on the subject. It is indeed one of the most fascinating things to study!

Comment System Switch

2005-04-24T13:06:00.000-07:00

As you may have noticed, I have switched comment systems to Halo-Scan... This is because, for some reason, CommentThis wasn't working. My blog took forever to come up, and there was absolutely no way to access comments. So I got Halo-Scan, and everything is working just fine!

One slightly annoying contingency is bugging me: I lost, as did Chuck, all the comments that I had before with CommentThis. Ode well. So anyway, if you all really like reading comments, you're going to have to re-type them into my new thingy. :)

Pete

Profound Observation of the Day

2005-04-10T13:04:00.000-07:00

As an example of the important exception to the usual "rule" that when the connotation increases, the denotation decreases and visa-versa. This can only apply when the members are finite. But when one bumps into infinite members, well:

All prime numbers are numbers. But not all numbers are prime numbers. Both prime numbers and numbers go on for infinity. Therefore, even though not all numbers are prime numbers, the amount of prime numbers and the amount of numbers are equal.

*Definition of "infinity" - Unlimited extent of time, space or quantity; boundlessness.*

Pete

2005-04-09T08:12:00.001-07:00

I'm actually going to record a commercial CD! I can't believe it! I'm so excited! I did the recording tryouts on Wednesday and I'm actually going back to do the final job! I really can't get over it...

The tryouts were completely freaky for the first part. Walking into a room just brimming over with all sorts/brands of mics, headphones, speakers, soundboards, computers and an occasional chair (one would quite forget one is supposed to sit down after walking into that place) has got to be one of the weirdest and scariest experiences I've ever had. Anyway, I sit down, and this guy comes over and starts adjusting a few different mics all around my guitar. Then he hands me a set of recording headphones. When he's done, he sits down in the middle of a semicircle of equipment. Now come the eternal words: "All set, you're on..." So after stalling for a few minutes acting like my guitar wasn't situated right, I went into Ed Gerhard's rendition of "Moon River". (It's a really nice piece by Henry Mancini... You guys have probably all heard of it.)

After that I started to settle down a bit... Listening to one's self through headphones is somewhat calming to the nerves, don't ask me why. We went through about 3 songs in 2 1/2 hours. By the end, this guy (a total professional... he was so good at it) had the perfect EQ mix with just the right amount of additional effects. (i.e., reverb, compression, etc.) My guitar is a dreadnaught so the bass is naturally somewhat overpowering when one is fingerpicking. This is the main problem with the recording I did at home... Most of our small home boomboxes have had their speakers blown out.:) To deal with this problem, we first tried a couple different sets of mics (a few of them were built especially for acoustic guitar, the others I couldn't really relate to) then compressed the bass sound. The result with the first set of mics was a stiff sounding tone with a muffler on it. So Mr. Swenson (the guy's name :) repeated the same technique with some of the other mics and that ended up making the whole difference.

Anyway, the purpose of our doing this was to find out if this was the way we wanted to possibly record my CD... See for ourselves if we liked what a sub-recording studio could do and if the money would be worth the outcome. Now that we have decided it is what we like and want, I'll be going back in in about 3 weeks to do the final recording.

On the whole it was a great experience. I had a ball after I got over the first few minutes and Mr. Swenson is a really nice guy, so, there really wasn't much to be nervous about. (When is there ever? I always still am a nervous wreck, even if it doesn't make sense to be... :))

Gotta go for now,

Pete

My "New" Guitar

2005-03-04T18:36:00.000-08:00

Whelp, I finally got a pick-up installed in my guitar today. $150 dollars. I've ordered my amp... $525 dollars. (it's technically an $800 dollar amplifier, but I got a crash deal on it... A 50 Watt Ultrasound.) So I fulfilled my dream. :) I also got a 15' cord with 24 karat gold plated tips. Really sweet deal on that too... $22 bucks!

Forgive this possibly boring post, but I am really exited about this... Especially with all the money involved. :)

Recent Concert: Best Guitarist in the World

2005-02-11T21:54:00.000-08:00

Well, we just got back from a concert performed by John Standefer. My hero in the guitar world and the best there is. I have several of his songs already tabbed out in about 3 books. So I get to have a lot of fun playing (or trying to play in some cases :)) songs invented by the world's best guitarist!

For the encore he played a song transcribed for fingerstyle guitar by Chet Atkins called Blackmountain Rag... A bluegrass hick-tune made popular by Doc Watson. It was really amazing to see a song I play with a flatpick and a band performed all in one by a single guitar! It is truly a versatile instrument.

The really great thing about John is that he is a Christian. Saved in his early twenties, he had to give up the immoral life of playing in clubs and bands... Which is how he got his living. It's amazing, because at age fifteen, he was giving lessons and had a degree to do so. He was recognized by everybody in the lower half of the US as the best there was. At sixteen, he was driving a Porsche which he paid cash for, and had all the other luxuries of the rich life. After becoming a Christian, he moved with his wife and son to the upper northwest. Not known to anybody up here, he struggled to make a living. He is now 54 and still not nearly as rich as he was early on in life.

He recently won the Winfield National Championships for fingerstyle guitar and with it came a free $10,000 guitar. Now that's an easy way to get a nice guitar! He has also won MANY other competitions. Not, of course, quite so prominent, but it's enough that he is better than anybody he encounters!

I went to a ten week class given by him last year in the early summer... In about two weeks I'll be taking a private class one time before we go since in March he's having surgery and the recovery, I understand, will take quite some time. But I'm excited and nervous at the same time about getting a private class with him! It should be pretty cool!

That's the best I can do for an "update" right now!

Pete

Please Pray...

2004-12-23T22:35:00.000-08:00

My family and I would really appreciate your prayers as we deal with some recent news about my Grandpa on my dad's side. It's rather ironic since dad actually called him up and talked to him today, but then at about 7:00pm we received a call that my grandad had had a stroke not a few hours after he hung up the phone from talking to my dad. He had then fallen and hit his head on a counter and went into a coma. My Aunt and Uncle out there then took him to the local hospital where they said that he needed an emergency flight to a larger and better hospital in Cleveland (he was orininally in Amherst). When there, he was further inspected and when the doctor aproached my Aunt and Uncle, he said that my grandad was in a vegetative state and that there was nothing they could do. So, he'll be like a vegetable for the rest of his life unless a miracle happens. Since this all happened in one day, you can imagine how my grandma and our other family out there are taking it. Neither of my grandparents is a Believer, so this is especially coming down hard on my dad's mom... We are now very sure that dad will be flying to Cleveland as soon as he can. Possibly the in the next few days. It's been a shock to my dad, and he's pretty sad, so we'd appreciate prayers for him and all the rest involved.

I had to type this rather fast, so if ya'll could ignore errors, that'd be great... :)

Some Thoughts on Prayer

2004-12-08T15:09:00.000-08:00

First of all, I must assume for a charitable moment, that those who read this have placed faith in the scriptural doctrine of predestination, rather than that of free will. For the Armenian, in contradiction to my discombobulating pertaining to the matter of prayer, would, according to his belief system, make the said matter seem easy to grasp and of little rational consequence.

Here’s a hypothetical problem: Sarah has, for some time, been desiring greatly to relocate herself for a few days to a famous beauty salon in San Francisco. Finally, she decides to pray about it. Now, according to predestination, God has already planned whether or not Sarah will spend time in the said salon. So, what’s the use of Sarah’s prayers? Since God’s will is immutable and cannot be changed no matter how much she cries? “Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me, yet My mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of My sight, and let them go forth.” (Jer. 15:1) Sorry I don’t have time to bring up more examples… So now let’s say that God’s plan was that Sarah should go to the beauty salon and she prepares to leave.

So why should we pray? Well, first of all, we are commanded to do so in the New Testament. So why are we commanded to do so if it seems perfectly useless? As I see it, there are several reasons: It brings honor and glory to God, which should be our main purpose in everything we do. Secondly, it is refreshing for us to lay troubles and joys before the Lord. It helps us grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Third, as A.W. Pink puts it, “Prayer is appointed by God for our seeking from Him the things which we are in need of.” This again brings up the question, “But if God has already ordained the outcome, what’ the use of seeking otherwise even in ignorance? Again, it is because He is brought honor and glory by our doing so. It is praise for Him to receive proof of our state of helplessness through prayer.

Here’s another quote from Pink: “Here then is the design of prayer: not that God’s will may be altered, but that it may be accomplished in His own good time and way. It is because God has promised certain things, that we can ask for them with the full assurance of faith.” What a great summary.

Well, I wish I had time to say more… Anybody is welcome to post thoughts or comments, but I would ask that those of you who are in disagreement about the predestination issue, keep from starting a debate. I’m debating with too many people as it is on the matter elsewhere. For a much better and longer explanation, I highly recommend A.W. Pink’s book, “The Sovereignty of God”.

Pete Versus Mailbox

2004-11-22T15:54:00.000-08:00

It happened like this:

I was just minding my own business on my way back from one of my jobs on my bike, when I reached up with my hand to adjust my hat, when WHAM! I creamed this stinking mailbox on the side of the road. I had a nasty headache, and no idea what I had hit, so I turned around to look at what I had so reverently brained. A mailbox just covered with signs of guilt met my glance: It was open, shaking violently, and had been turned 90 degrees so that it was aligned perfectly with the curb.

I did manage to make it home without further incident. Joe had several snide remarks to make about it though...

Church Leaving/Finding

2004-11-21T10:00:00.000-08:00

I've gotta say, I am not a fan of bouncing around finding a new church. I feel alone and sad every time we visit a new place. But, that's where God has put us, so, I'm making the best of it by appearing as cheerful as I can. I mean, I'm glad to be out of WPC personally, especially after reading certain e-mail dialogues, but I was used to it there. I knew everybody there. Now I've gotta start all over again. I just have to keep telling myself that this is where the Lord wants us, but I can't help wishing that... oh, man, I'm not gaining anything, am I?

There was a new youth choir deal starting there... and it was just getting organized and gathering more people when we left. I want to sing in it... I want to praise God with other guys. Not by myself.

Bla, sorry everybody, can't help it sometimes.

The Winter Woodles

2004-11-21T09:46:00.000-08:00

Yessir, we are all starting to begin the Winter Woodles...*screams* And not just any Winter Woodles, this is THE Winter Woodles. 'Cause see, you can't have the Winter Woodles in Summer, Spring, or Fall. Those are the Summer Subjections, the Spring Contagion, (hey, I couldn't think of any other "s" beginning maladies) and last but by far the most feared, the Fall Affliction... ahh, terrible! We all were lucky enough to miss THAT one.

Anyway, our family has recently been presubjected to, no, preaffected by the Winter Woodles. I had it the least bad, Chuck hasn't had it, mom got the second badist (that isn't a word, I know, but it sounded cool) and dad, oh, dad has definitely received the brunt of the Woodles. you see: HE STILL HAS IT! *screams again*

Whelp, I'm gonna go sit in my room and shiver with thoughts about
the coming Spring Contagion... it's going to haunt all of us! muwahahaha.

Science Results

2004-11-15T21:23:00.000-08:00

I turned my science paper in last week so I just got the results back... 106% (With, obviously, extra credit) out of some 90 questions... The tests take me forever.

I was being my normal, nice, sweet self preparing for this week's test, when my thoughts were suddenly joggled. I grasped the situation. I had just been brained with hacky-sack. The culprit? Chelsea Eaton, sitting there with a horrored expression on her face. She began a series of apologies and excuses (more of the latter)... She is SUPPOSED to have been trying to hit Brian, but I don't think that's a likely story. :) Girls just have something against me, that's all.

Whelp, no class next week due to "Thanksgiving break" which I won't be taking off anyway... but at least I can forget class.

Gotta hick the sack pretty soon... interesting day tomorrow. ;)

Science

2004-11-13T09:45:00.000-08:00

Whelp, I've gotta science test coming up on Monday at class... Yahoo. Ya know, why can't I just do all the important subjects... I mean, things that are going to help me if life. Staring through a microscope for hours while I identify stupid looking bacteria thingies just doesn't cut it. Oh well, I guess it's better than PLAYING MY GUITAR OR SOMETHING USEFUL! I'm moody. "So, dear, what did you learn at science class today? Did you have fun?" "Uh, yeah! It was just great! Had a ball. Learned so much I might just try and forget it." *goes to room and shuts door* "NOT."

I guess the real reason that I really don't enjoy that class is because I'm not really accepted there. All the other kids belong to class "dude" and I refuse to try and be like them to make myself feel a little better. I even get made fun of sometimes. It's kinda hard not having any friends to talk to anymore. I mean, I've got Chuck, but even she understands that I need to talk to a guy sometimes. Oh well.

Clever Little Johnny

2004-11-13T09:42:00.000-08:00

Little Johnny had just been put to bed for the umpteenth
time and his mother's patience was wearing thin. "If I
hear you call 'Mother' one more time, you will be
punished," she warned him sternly.

For a while it was quiet, and then she heart a small voice
call from the top of the stairs, "Mrs. Jones? Can I have a
drink of water?"

Uh-Oh... Resighting Time

2004-11-12T13:08:00.001-08:00

While I was hunting, I dropped my gun pretty hard on a rock... Actually, it was scope that hit. So, just to be safe, I took it to the range to see if I had thrown it off at all. Evidently I had, because the first shot I took at a hundred yards produced a yell and an imediate disqualification from the stupid little shack on the hill. I had hit the guy's steel crossbeam about a whole foot away from the bull's eye. Oh well, I guess it's resighting time for me. Last time, it cost me 35 bucks and 2 hours to get it perfect. Not to mention that the place I go to has a jerk for a moderator. He screams at you if you miss your target. I'm in for it.

Has anybody else had experience with sighting in a scope? Not fun, eh?

Death of Yassar Arafat

2004-11-12T13:01:00.000-08:00

YEAH! Arafat finally died, 9:00 am (Palestinian time)! He is supposed to have died of AIDS... A lot of his supporters with high places were trying to keep it a secret, so the New York Times says.

If Peroutka would have been successful in his campaign...

2004-11-09T17:01:00.000-08:00

...He would have been kicked out of office so fast he wouldn't even have had time to put his shoes on.

He says he will abolish the Federal spending on schools. That's approximately $50 billion a year. Public school activity would suddenly come to a screeching halt without that Federal cash. I personally think that that's a great idea. Federal power shouldn't be on the level where it's interfering with people children and their education. It's not constitutional. But the vast majority of the US uses the public school system. There would be a major outcry from millions of families. Suddenly abolishing something that has been in existence for decades is simply not the way to do it. The same goes for Medicare, women in the military, governmental limitations, taxation, and many other issues. I don't think Peroutka realizes the fact that he would not be the say all as president... I mean, anything he would like to pass as a law or abolish would have to first go through the Senate and the House of Representatives. You can't just get up there and suddenly make changes in a nation which has been going downhill for decades and is very far-gone at this point. Right and wrong doesn't apply in this case to reality.

In Proverbs it says to be wise ever so many times. I don't believe that it's very wise to try and make sudden changes at all. It just wouldn't work.

Now, I think Mr. Peroutka is perfectly right and biblical in pretty much everything he says he would do. (The only big thing I disagree with him on is his would be foreign policy.) But, I would not have voted for him this year for the reasons stated above. We need to ease our country back into the conservative beliefs. This recent election has showed that evangelical Christians and many other people are waking up to that kind of thinking. Bush isn't what I'd call a conservative, but he's more so than Kerry. More Christians turned out to vote than they have in years and years. If our country keeps going down the path that has started for itself not so long ago, then in 2 or 3 decades, Peroutka might be an ideal president.

Those few that voted for Peroutka need to face reality. They want a perfect America and they want it now.

Granted, Bush has some very basic Christian principals really messed up... such as admitting that Christians and Muslims worship the same God and other issues such as abortion and homosexuality. But he is, I believe, the beginning of what will end in the future with a Michael Peroutka presidential administration.