Ab's Soap Box

My Tribute

2009-11-21T20:57:00.018-07:00

No, not a tribute to my blog. It hasn't been good enough to deserve such a thing. Ten posts in the last year? Wowsers. Not that I'm planning on improving or anything - I just needed somewhere to right down my memories and thoughts on my Uncle Bert. In other words, my tribute.

At this point in time, my uncle - great uncle to be exact - is not doing well at all. He became unresponsive three days ago, and though he has woken up a few times, he has generally been in this state. Just a week ago, he was up and about, writing, discipling, and encouraging others. Yet this turn for the worse has not really been a surprise. Doctors told him he wouldn't make it 'till Thanksgiving - a year ago. He has lived much, much longer than anyone ever gave him, and he has taken many dips up and down since then. Somehow, however, he always seemed to get back up on his feet and keep going, keep witnessing, keep loving and serving his Lord. Though I would never go as far as to say that his faith kept him alive longer than anyone anticipated, his positive attitude, even in the worst of all his ailments, made every one of his words echo with love for his Saviour. Not that he was literally saying "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus" 24/7. Yet, as I think about it, in a way he really was. The reason he was so optimistic about life was because he had faith. He knew that God's plan for him was a perfect plan. He therefore spoke every word in that light. The product? A whole conversation that may not even have the word "Jesus" in it, yet everyone who hears knows that Bert loves God. I think that is truly what being the fragrance of Christ means. It doesn't mean saying and thinking "Jesus" non-stop until death. It means living life, speaking conversations, and even sleeping sleep with the "glasses" of knowing that you are a new creation. A creation that has all its hope in God.

A little more about my uncle -

Yes, that great uncle. The mysterious one who lives in a grass hut in a tribe out in the wilderness of Africa. It seemed so distant. So surreal. Yet even now as I walk through he and his wife's house, I see evidence that such things were true. A plethora of animal carvings make it unnecessary to bother going to a safari. Traditional carvings in black wood of Afrikaners almost look grotesque hanging on walls and sitting on book shelves. Verdant hills demand the viewer's attention in pictures of Africa. His Africa. The Africa he spent fifty years in, telling others of Christ's love and atoning work.

He was the mysterious uncle that was coming to visit us. Somehow to an eight-year-old (approx.) like me, when I heard he was from Africa, I expected him to...you know...look how he was supposed to. Plates in his lips, piercings, skulls around his neck, etc. (note: no offence to anyone of African descent. This is just what I thought Africans who lived in tribes were supposed to look when I was eight.) When he got out of the car, much to my surprise and disappointment, he was normal. Just another of those boring grown-ups who do boring things and talk about boring stuff. That was the last time I can ever remember being disappointed with him. He sure didn't quite look like he was supposed to, but every other African legend I had heard suddenly came to life when he was around. Because of British influence in Africa, he had picked up many (odd to an American eight-year-old, I might add) habits. Becky and I would sit, almost in a trance, as we stared at him dunk his graham crackers into his tea. He would tell us stories of that far-off continent, lulling us into an ethereal state of dreaming about grass huts, voodoo, and snakes. Suddenly, without warning, he would start singing hymns, "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt," or "There's a Hole in the Bottom of the Sea." I think the "There's a hole in the Bottom of the Sea" needs a hole drilled in it for some of the substance to be drained out, for I remember Uncle Bert once taking Becky and me on a walk and singing that song at the top of our lungs - for the whole walk. And no, it wasn't a particularly short walk. My uncle was also very intent on getting us to learn Swahili, so everyday, out would come the sheet of paper with some new words to add to our growing vocabulary of necessary words to get by in Africa: tea, dog, spoon, thank you. And then would come the stories. I remember him once telling of how they had put their son down to bed for a nap in the afternoon. His wife went to go check on him, and low and behold, a very large snake (6-8 ft.?) was comfortably taking his nap on the floor beside the crib. Another time (which actually happened much more recently), Uncle Bert's wife brought some laundry to the laundromat. When she arrived, she found natives doing voodoo around the laundromat. Apparently, something had gone askew for the natives the day before, and after blaming it on the laundromat, then proceeded to put a curse on this building. Such were the stories he told, and sad was the day he left our house to return to that strange, distant place.

Several years later, Uncle Bert was forced to move back to the US because of his declining health. He eventually settled down in Denver with his wife. That was probably 3-4 years ago (?). Back then, the doctors didn't give him much longer to live. Ever since then, he has been up and down. He has such a will to live and to keep going for God's glory, but in a way, I can imagine that it would be very hard to die over the period of several years. Yet, leave it to Uncle Bert, he has never seemed unprepared to die. In fact, every time I saw him, I (sadly) was a little surprised that he seemed to be ready to be whisked off the face of this planet at any second. He had peace and was perfectly content to be here on this earth how ever long God wanted him to be here. He has never seemed to lack faith. He just keeps going on and on. Never has he "officially" retired. In fact, when I was at his house a few days ago, I saw papers he had been writing and books he had been studying. He's never stopped. All the in-home hospice care-givers know him and are in awe of him.

But really, how does he do it? How can he seem to always be living for Christ? Even as I was in his room a few days ago, he wasn't completely responsive, and in no way was he trying to recite verses. Yet, there just seemed to be this presence of peace and of joy. Despite the fact he most definitely wasn't sitting there trying to check off points of the Decalogue he had kept, he naturally was loving, caring, and obviously loved God. The reason he could do this was because he had his eyes on Christ and Christ only. We all get way too caught up in trying to keep little nit-picky things in the Commandments, and yet, if we are living in faith, these things happen naturally and without us looking like we're trying to keep every. letter. of. the. law. I love the illustration of how if we are in a boat, we're heading to a goal (Christ) and what comes off the back of the boat (the wake which represents our works) is just the natural product of keeping our eyes and goal centered on Christ. If we start focusing more on the wake, the only thing the world will see is our hard work at keeping the Decalogue. In other words we aren't in the boat to try to produce the wake. The wake comes naturally. If we start focusing more on the wake, the world won't see even a glimmer of Christ in us.

You know how you'll be going along living your ordinary little life and all of a sudden *BAMM!!* something will happen to make you re-think everything? That's how Uncle Bert has been for me. Every time I see him, I am reminded of how it is impossible to look on Christ and our works at the same time (another great quote I like to pretend is my own :D). His living in faith has given him that peace, rest, and joy that comes only from truly knowing and having a relationship with our God. Even in this whole slow dying process, he has seemed perfectly ready to die at any time. In fact, I don't think I've ever known anyone so ready and willing to die as soon as his Lord calls him. He's really made me even consider whether or not I could happily and readily die...right now. Just a couple months ago when I was working in the ER, a 16-year-old guy was killed in an accident. As I watched him breath his last, I almost started feeling frantic, wanting to know that he knew Christ and that he wasn't dying in unbelief. But there wasn't anything I could do as I watched his life slip away. Combining that experience with thinking about Uncle Bert and his life has really made me re-think what in the world I think I'm doing here and why so often I take this precious thing called grace for granted.

I have to say that as I typed out this post, "Day by Day" kept coming to mind as a hymn that definitely describes my uncle.

Day by day, and with each passing moment,
Strength I find, to meet my trials here;
Trusting in my Father’s wise bestowment,
I’ve no cause for worry or for fear.
He Whose heart is kind beyond all measure
Gives unto each day what He deems best—
Lovingly, its part of pain and pleasure,
Mingling toil with peace and rest.

Every day, the Lord Himself is near me
With a special mercy for each hour;
All my cares He fain would bear, and cheer me,
He Whose Name is Counselor and Power;
The protection of His child and treasure
Is a charge that on Himself He laid;
“As thy days, thy strength shall be in measure,”
This the pledge to me He made.

Help me then in every tribulation
So to trust Thy promises, O Lord,
That I lose not faith’s sweet consolation
Offered me within Thy holy Word.
Help me, Lord, when toil and trouble meeting,
Ever to take, as from a father’s hand,
One by one, the days, the moments fleeting,
Till I reach the promised land.

Bwana Asifiwe, or Praise the Lord!

Cinco de Mayo!

2009-05-05T15:18:00.003-06:00

No, I haven't died. I haven't even vanished. In fact, I haven't been doing much of anything except ignoring that (despicable) thing called networking. And yes, I do plan to ignore it for quite some time yet. I just figured I'd better post something before my name gets erased from the universe as one of those who has a DEAD BLOG. *gasp* No, my blog is not dead - just dormant.

Feliz cinco de mayo!

And they took out the embedded link for this one, but it's still worth it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQkA4vepmeE

Adiós, mis amigos!

Something Interesting!

2009-03-11T16:27:00.005-06:00

Okay, it's not that interesting, but maybe it's more interesting than my last post.

I discovered the other day that if you go to Michael's (or probably any other craft store), you can find really cheap gerbil stuff. Okay, $3.99 isn't that cheap for a hunk of wood, but it's a steal for something for your pet. I've been noticing that if if something has the word pet on it, people seem to think they can charge crazy amounts. For example, this house from Petco:normally costs $7.99. No kidding. And no. I haven't wasted my money on it. I just noticed it. It's crazy. It's literally a drilled out log with a roof glued on top (and I bet the glue isn't gerbil-safe!!). What makes people think they can make something like that cost so much?

Anyway, that's why I was super excited to find cheap-ish junk at Michael's. This thing probably would've cost at least $15:

And this thing at least $10:

Believe it or not, the one above actually used to have the hay stuff hanging down about an inch-and-a-half, but the evil gerbil with red eyes chewed it all off.

Both of these were actually made for birds, so the holes were pretty small. Of course with gerbils, this is never a problem because they just chew the hole bigger anyway. I also had to sand a couple places just so the AGS (American Gerbil Society - and yes, there is such a thing) wouldn't come and lock me up.

Well, that's my attempt at making a more interesting post. You either get really boring stuff or you get gerbils. Which would you prefer? Oh, neither? Sorry, I didn't have that as an option.

The Perfect Plot Pt. 2

2009-03-11T15:36:00.003-06:00

Yes, so here goes another one of those boring posts. Sorry. Maybe I'll get around to posting something interesting one of these days...

I was reading through a couple posts ago and realized what a crumby job I did explaining things, so I thought we'd try this again.

I realized how often I throw out the phrase "read the Bible as a whole" but fail to really explain what I mean by that. Everyone will agree that you should read the Bible as a whole - after all, it is one book, but I think a lot of people don't understand what that truly means. Assuming you read (and if you didn't, don't feel like you have to :-P) part one of this topic, I'm going to hopefully assume that you understand that I believe that everything in the OT points to the Christ event and does not manifest itself in the modern-day Christian.

I'm just going to look at Steve's comments on part one (thanks, Steve!) and attempt (I'll probably end up flubbing this quest) to answer and explain some of the questions. Steve, don't feel like I'm picking on you. :)

"Now, with that in mind, do you believe that verses can't be quoted, or sections of scripture memorized or meditated upon, for fear of taking them out of context?"

No, I don't believe that. I believe that we should memorize, have quiet meditation, and read selections of the Bible; however, there is a danger in doing that that we must be aware of.

1) If we cut a portion out of the Bible and don't have anything surrounding it, we're going to miss-interpret it. Prophesies that were being foretold about Israel will suddenly seem as if they're being told about us, and laws that applied to the Israel before the Christ Event will seem as if they're applying to us.
2) We tend to want to apply everything to ourselves and will apply those things if not understood in their proper context (not to say we shouldn't be doing a lot of the things in the Bible -but hey! that's living the law of love). However, we do have to remember that Christ fulfilled all the Torah and the whole OT for that matter.
3) People will get what they want out of the Bible. We've all seen how two people can interpret a passage two completely different ways. It's only natural because (unfortunately) we all come to the Bible with a mind that already has decided what it's going to find in it. This can lead to major problems, particularly in "proof-text battles" where two people are finding verses to fight each other with. Because of this, many people think that the Bible contradicts itself over and over. Not so. It has to be read and understood in relationship to how and when it takes place in the unfolding of the renewal of all things.
4) Christianity will (yet again!) look like lists of do's and don'ts. Many times when Christians are feeling down, they'll find a random verse that really helps them pull through. I'm totally all for that person being able to find comfort in a verse, but many times if the person had understood the Bible correctly in the first place, they wouldn't need to find a verse to help them at all. Just seeing God's faithfulness throughout everything and living in faith would be enough to help that person through. Don't think I'm being cruel in saying that a hurt person can't find comfort in the Bible. What I'm saying is that a Christian's ups and downs are all because the Christian doubted God. Whatever made that person think that God was not with them? Was it because they didn't have enough time to do their devotions that morning? If so, not true. Since when does God's grace depend on something we do?

Having said all of that, yes, I do believe that a Christian should meditate on passages and memorize. However, the Christian should be very careful not to fall into one of those traps.

"Another question that would pop out of this conversation, in the realm of Biblical theology, does the bible need to be re-organized to be chronologically accurate?"

No, but everything in the Bible must be understood in relationship to whether it came before or after the Christ event. If it came before, we should see how that thing points to Christ and how Christ fulfilled it, and if it comes after, we should see how it shows the outworking of the restoration.

"You made the point that since our human minds are corrupt and fallible, that our human reasoning is susceptible to make the wrong assumptions about scripture. I agree, however, aren't you depending on the mind to correctly assess "how the Bible fits together " even while using the system of Biblical theology?"

In some ways yes, and in some ways no. It is true that we must use our minds to understand things and that yes indeed, we are fallen and will therefore have holes in our thinking. However, I think letting the Bible interpret itself in the order of how it presents itself is much more fool-proof than taking it and applying it to ourselves. At some point, we are going to have to believe something. We can't just go around thinking nothing is the truth. We do know for sure that the Bible is the truth, and we have a lot better chance of interpreting it correctly if we let it interpret itself by leaving behind our preconceived notions (which is impossible to do :S). It's so, so hard to go to the Bible and try to understand what it means without all your years of getting something else ingrained into you interpreting it for you. But that's where we must have faith that God, through his mercy, is allowing us to grow and mature and to learn about him by his Spirit.

I was going to put all of this as a comment, but I realized how long it was, so I get a free post out of it! Thanks for the discussion, guys.

You Know You're a Homeschooler If....

2009-02-19T15:44:00.003-07:00

Just recently ran across these - they're pretty hilarious!

Your mom wished you'd stop reading and do something else for a change.
Your stacks of books to check out was taller than the librarian.
Your school bus was a 9, 12, or 15 passenger van.
You looked forward to turning 18 so you could finally vote.
Your father has told the check-out lady at Wal-mart, "We're on a field trip."
You had to decide what year you want to graduate.
You know a State Representative
Your mom went through an organic phase
You can tell which people are/were homeschoolers
You got to school and the teacher asks you if you've done all your chores.
You had to move dirty laundry off your desk before your can start school.
The signatures on your diploma all end with the same last name.
You enjoyed the pastime of watching public school kids walk home from school.
You had to look at the clock to see if you can call your public school friends yet.
You think that public-school-kid is an insult of the highest degree.
Your friends talk about waiting in line for seven hours to try out the new roller coaster in town, so you went and waited five minutes on a school day.
Your friends complained about a hard day at school, and you have to keep yourself from giving them "that homeschooling smile."
You hear the phrase "socialization" and laugh because you have more friends and know more people than your public school friends.
You have more siblings than sweaters You know what a 'Park Day' is You read for fun. You have suffered through Saxon Math.
All birthdays were school holidays You have ever finished your schoolwork before breakfast
You spend more than 2 hours each day reading and writing....voluntarily
You know what 'Unit Studies' are
You had more than 2 science experiments going on in your room
You know more than 1 Latin paradigm
You have ever spent the entire school day in pajamas
You regularly utilize words such as: "malingering", "tedious", and "indubitably"
Your IQ is greater than your weight
You checked out more than 10 books each time you visit the library
You have attempted to teach yourself physics
When asked about your GPA, you say: "Oh, probably 4.0."
You have no idea as to what rock bands are currently popular...but you can recite all of the stages of cellular mitosis (in order).
You actually wanted to receive books on your birthday
You absolutely despise being politically correct
Your bedroom was your classroom and your bed or floor is the desk.
You could get days ahead in almost any subject.
You recorded, planned and graded your own school work.
You forgot about the minor holidays until you see your dad sitting home in sweats or your public school friends ask you over the weekend what you did on your day off.
You didn't know what's spring break is.
You didn't know what an elective was
Your mom counted watching a war movie as history and playing out in the snow as PE.
You had more friends way older and younger than you than ones your actual age.
You can use the Mrs. Vick tone of voice.
You mention Miss Siebert, and everyone groans
You’re never really sure when it's ‘lunch time’, and you eat at different times everyday- depending on when the baby naps, and how long History took.
People shake their heads and sigh, because of your lack of ‘freedom’, and you smile because you know they just don’t get it.
Nobody knows who you are, and no one can remember your name.
Someone asks what grade you’re in and you’re not sure.
You are unaware of the current fads, fashions, and slang terms.
You can quote lines from Shakespeare, but not from South Park.
You can take the time to look at a tiny spider on a log
Your kids learn new vocabulary from their extensive collection of Calvin & Hobbes books
You have meal worms growing in a container...on purpose.
Talking out loud to yourself is a parent/teacher conference
You have to add the words: "homeschool, homeschooler, and homeschooling" to your computer's spell checker so it will stop marking them as wrong
You step on math manipulative's in your pre-dawn stumble to the bathroom
Your house in on the Parade of Homes List - for educational merchandisers
You find dead animals and actually consider saving them to dissect later

The Perfect Plot

2009-02-18T16:40:00.008-07:00

From Alistair MacLean's Circus

"Bruno smiled, brought out a wallet, handed some notes to Roebuck, who thanked him and left."

From this sentence, we should be able to draw several conclusions that will in turn show us how to live.

Smiling is something people will do before giving you money.
If you want money, get people to smile.
Wallets are something that must be brought out in order to have the mullah flowing to your hands. Therefore, if you want the money without the smile, you will have to use your powers to somehow bypass the step about getting the person to smile.
If you are trying to get a friend, fiend, or homeless person to go away, give them money. They will thank you profusely (or not...) and will leave.

We now know how to get money and how to get people to go away. But wait! If getting someone to smile is one of the steps to "legally" getting money, how are we going to do that? We must find another sentence of the book to show us this important step.

"Bruno smiled inwardly as he heard of his own funeral being planned."

We all know that smiling inwardly will lead to an actual physical smile, so we're well on the way.
People find it rather funny to hear of their own surprise birthday parties being planned, or, in this case, one's own funeral. You must do something funny for them. Let the person "accidentally" find out about something special for them. This will cause the person to grin. The bigger the grin, the more money is forth-coming.

Congratulations! You now know how to get money!

Okay, feeling pretty confused? You shouldn't be. All I did was to take two sentences and tell you what to do because of those two sentences.

~~~

I can tell you're still not convinced. Come on! I gave you a whole new practical skill, and it was so extremely easy! All I did was take two random sentences and draw conclusions from those. Simple.

~~~

Now are you convinced?
No?
Neither am I.

~~~

However, I'm often surprised at how many people do this exact same thing to the Bible without blinking an eye (it's scary, but I'm in such a habit that I still do it sometimes). Is it just because it's a "Holy book" that people somehow feel like they can start reading parts without any relationship to the rest of the book? Believe it or not, the Bible is a real...live...book. Yes, a book. It is, of course, a very special book, and I would never deny its authority. However, I'm going to go as far as saying that this Book can (and should!) be read like any other book. In saying this, I mean that it should be read in order - not pulling random verses out for scrutiny without knowing any of its context. Just like those two sentences from Circus don't make a whole lot of sense without knowing where they fit into the story, individual verses out of context aren't going to make sense without knowing the historical context. The Bible has a plot. Not hundreds of little plots. One complex yet surprisingly simple plot. That plot is the most important and life-changing plot that a book could ever have, and yet, so many people overlook it. Instead, they see hundreds of little plots all showing us how to be better and wiser people. All these plots are actually facets of the Big Plot. What is this plot? It starts right back in Genesis when man died (spiritually), and the perfect, shalomic world was marred with the ugly reality of man trying to do instead of be. And yet God, out of His mercy, promised to bring life out of this seemingly indestructible death. This sets the action rolling, and the whole Old Testament is leading to the Christ Event. Each individual story in the OT is actually showing God's faithfulness despite man's faithlessness. It continually shows God keeping His promise of bringing life out of the woman who had brought death. And then the most glorious and profound thing happens. Christ does come (what do you know?), and with His coming, His life, and His death, sin, darkness, and death are conquered. Life has come out of death. The NT is the outworking of the Gospel, and it shows how all the "laws, prophets, and writings" were fulfilled in Christ. What an amazing plot! So simple yet so profound that most people don't even realize it's there.

Though I am *very* thankful to live in a Christian family and to be brought up as a Christian, I find it almost a little enviable to think that those who have never read or heard the Bible don't have all their preconceived notions about what the Bible is. Those of us who have been brought up as Christians have the distinct privilege of having some of our earliest memories as being told Bible stories. And yet, sometimes I think that's almost a curse. When we've been brought up like that, we have it ingrained into us that the Bible is just full of short little stories to tell us how to live. Though this isn't completely wrong, it falls very short of what is actually contained in the Bible. If a Christian ever figures out that the Bible is just one story, it takes many years of rewiring before he can finally get to a passage in the OT without immediately trying to apply it to himself as a moral lesson.

Yes, I am a little jealous of those who didn't have the privilege of growing up in a Christian home.

They pick the Bible up for the first time. They notice it's divided into many sections, yet they know from reading other books that skipping around in it is the way to spell disaster. Why ruin a perfectly good book? They start in Genesis, and they are immediately taken with the awesome God who creates all things to be good. Perfect. Shalomic. Things are perfect until - oh, why did they have to ruin it all?!? But wait! God is promising to restore them. Well, that ought to make them shape up. After all, in this world of reciprocity, you do something nice for others who have performed acts of kindness to you. Wait. WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!!! Again! How could they...? How terrible! What? You mean that God is still faithful to them? You mean He will still keep his promise to the people? A sense of awe and love for this God fills the person. What wonder! And they're immediately whisked away with this plot of God's saving work...

Oh, BTW, happy half-birthday to me. =)

Christians for One Another

2009-02-08T17:45:00.007-07:00

As I reached the one-year mark of my blog being in existence, I looked back on all the posts I have written. Many posts are just "blog material" (this is what I've been doing, etc.), but many of my posts are also a testimony of God's work in my life. When I post these "testimonies," usually it's just a conglomeration of what I've been thinking about for the last several days. I will have an issue that was brought up to me, either by someone else or just something I happened to be thinking about. After thinking about the certain issue for several days, that's when I finally sit down to right what I've decided regarding the issue. Of course, what I've decided isn't necessarily right, and I would be the first to admit it - I have many, many holes in my understanding.

Having said all of that, I do want to thank everyone for commenting on my blog. I'm not just thanking you because you happen to have wasted lots of your own time reading my posts, but I also thank you because I'm very selfish. Growing up in the faith is something that every Christian should be doing, but it is also something that is accomplished in multitudes of ways. One of the ways I grow is to be actively discussing an issue with someone. I have to be thinking it through for myself. This is one reason I joined a debate forum a number of months back. This is why I enjoy it so much when these issues come up in everyday conversation. This is why I started my blog. My blog is the place where I post what I have been thinking about, and I post things with the full intention of being perfectly 100% willing to discuss it with people. I love to discuss issues. It's one of the ways I grow in the faith, and I do think that it is absolutely essential to every Christian's life. Some very common excuses for not discussing differences of opinions on issues are:

1) I don't want to break up the body of Christ. Wow there. That's a little scary to think that man's fallen nature could break up or even separate the body of Christ. Does it seem possible that with all Jesus has accomplished in restoring us back to God that something we do could separate Christians from each other? No - I think that seems a very weak argument. Sure there are differences in what people may believe about certain issues and doctrines, but just because they happen to believe the opposite of another believer doesn't somehow mean one of the two people are not saved. There is nothing that anyone could ever do that would break up the body of Christ. We are the body of Christ - the living stones being built up together to be Christ's church. If you think that we could somehow break up the body of Christ, this is because you don't know what the body of Christ is. The body of Christ is about being united in Christ - not in externals such as having similar backgrounds, being of the same nationality, having similar interests, or even agreeing on a given set of doctrines. The body of Christ is united only in Christ. Nothing else. Of course there could be other similarities between brothers and sisters in Christ, but if there is not, it does not necessarily mean that someone has gone off the deep end.

2) I don't want to cause our differences to affect our friendship. Though this seems very legitimate, I think that issues can be discussed and come to a conclusion in love. Remember the law of love? It comes in here too. I would be the very first to admit that in the past, in my zeal to get people to understand the Gospel, I have not spoken in love. "Being preachy" is what they call it, and it does not come from a heart of love for others. Yes, issues can be discussed, and I do believe they should be. Your friendship should not be effected if you are speaking in love and remember that your common bond is in Christ - not in a given set of doctrines.

3) I don't want to discuss things because I don't want to look stupid. This is one of the lousiest excuses I've ever come across. How else can you know how to defend yourself unless you have the experience of actually having to do it? Coming back to what I stated earlier, one of the most beneficial things for me is to be forced to say what I believe about something and why. That's why my blog has also been good for me. It forces me to have to put what I believe into words instead of "ummm," "uhhh," and "let's move to a different topic." I believe that the Spirit works differently in Christians to force them to think. If you are never confronted with something you don't believe, you will never learn to defend yourself, think through what you believe, and convincingly know why you believe it. People pointing out errors in what you believe is actually one of the most beneficial things you will ever go through; it points out where the holes in your thinking may be. I see such a huge problem with Christians who will refuse to discuss issues with Christians they know don't believe the exact same thing. It is so good for Christians and will help them grow tremendously in their faith to have to think through and discuss what they believe. The body causes the growth of the body, and this growth is helped most by talking with, discussing, and encouraging Christians. I'm not at all saying that growing can't be done through agreeing on an issue. I'm not saying that at all, but I do believe that variety in the Body of Christ causes Christians to grow.

Having said all of that, you're probably wondering where in the world I'm going with all of this. Actually, I do have a plan.

I have gotten this very distinct feeling that people will only comment on my posts if they happen to agree with everything I say. This actually kind of makes me sad/mad that people will not challenge me in what I believe. Does this mean that they aren't thinking, or am I so unapproachable that they can't even disagree with what I say? Of course, I don't really see a problem with people agreeing with me either. =) I also get this feeling that if people so dare to disagree with me, they wouldn't dare comment with what they think is the hole in what I believe. They'll just keep quiet. However, I would like to suggest the opposite. Please disagree, but please also tell me what is wrong with what I am saying and why. I need you guys! You will actually be doing everyone a favor to discuss these things because it will help you to grow in the faith. The family of Christ is there to help each other to grow - not to just dismiss what they are saying as being wrong. I know I have numerous faults in what I say, and you will be doing me a great service to show them to me. Of course, this all has to be done in the law of love, realizing that any differences in opinion we have are not the big picture. The big picture is that we are restored back to God and that our great commonality is in Christ.

Thank you, everyone, for reading my blog. I do appreciate the time that people put into reading and commenting on it. Please don't get me wrong and think that I'm forcing people the discuss things. This is not natural, and I don't believe it's right, but if you feel so inclined, I would really appreciate discussion.

Christianity - A List of Rules?

2009-02-02T20:20:00.005-07:00

"Christians just always seem to get hung up on the cross."

This statement was made to me a few weeks ago, and it has kept me thinking. Though it seems like a heretical statement, the more I think about it, the more I think it is semi-true. When something, like this statement, seems so obscure, it keeps my mind ever-churning to understand the implications of it. Why would that person have said that? What have Christians done to make that person say and think that? I'm not really a self-conscience person until it comes to Christianity. As soon as Christianity comes up, I'm all ears to hear what that person thinks about it and why. Some of the time the person thinks what they think because we live in a fallen world, and they have not been renewed. Sadly, however, most of the time what they believe to be Christianity is the result of Christians getting in the way of the true Gospel.

Okay, I'll back up. A few weeks ago I was having a discussion with my Favorite Victim about sin. He told me that he just couldn't understand why Christians make such a huge deal out of sin. To him, it seemed that the only thing Christians did was to go around and tell the world that they're sinners because they did _____ and _____. After that, they go on to tell them that they need to go and repent and start doing _____ and _____. To him, it seemed odd that all Christianity was about was replacing one set of deeds with another, thus the statement about how Christians get hung up on the cross. It's the Christian's own fault that the world thinks that the only thing the cross means is Jesus dying for your sins and you having to replace your own behaviour with another set of behavioural laws. Though some of this may be true, there is so much more to the Gospel. When conforming yourself to a new set of standards is all there is to Christianity, no wonder people can't understand why people are so dogmatic to insist that they have the only true way. After all, Hindus, Buddhist monks, Muslims, and all other religious groups have to conform themselves to a list of rules too.

So what does the cross really mean to Christianity? Why is it even important to Christianity? The answer is not all about Jesus dying on the cross to save you from your sins, though this is true. It means so much more, and if the world knew what it meant, they wouldn't make statements about Christians getting hung up on the cross. The cross means the renewal of all things. The perfect, shalomic world in a perfect relationship with God had been shattered. We were estranged from God. This is the worst thing ever to happen, and all sin was, was a result of this estrangement. Sin is an act, but it speaks only to estrangement. All throughout the Old Testament, promise after promise had been made to renew this perfect relationship. Finally, Christ came and did what had been promised for so many years. He died on the cross, but he didn't just die to save us from our sins. In fact, it seems rather shallow and seems almost light-hearted to say that is the only reason he died. He died to end estrangement. He died to restore that perfect relationship between God and his image-bearer. Remember when the veil in the temple split when Jesus died? The temple had been the place where God would meet his people. The veil separated God from man, but when it split, it signified that God was no longer separated from his people. Estrangement was at an end, and it still is! Sin is still in this world, because the final consummation of all things has not come, but sin is no longer an issue. Sin is defeated because estrangement is defeated. That is what the cross is truly all about. Our relationship we so longed to have and kept trying to reach up to God for had finally been restored -- not because of something we did but in spite of everything we had ever done. The cross is not just about Jesus dying to save us from our sins. It's about so much more!

Because so many Christians don't understand what sin really is, the true meaning of the cross, and what it has accomplished, they live with 5,000 laws to show the world they are Christians.

When people try to replace one set of living standards with another in the name of "Christianity," they are actually being a hindrance to the Gospel. People see them and think Wow, look at them. They must be Christians. Thank goodness I'm not a Christian. I wouldn't want to have to act like that. They might even see a Christian's standards of living and think Oh, that wouldn't be too hard to do. I'll just do _______ and _______ and "earn" my way to heaven. Is that any kind of good witness to the world? No, I don't think so. Now please, pleeease, not for one moment think that I'm being antinomian. I am not saying that we should go out and start showing the world that Christians are immoral. Christians should live the law of love. We hear this all the time, but what does it really mean? It means that because of what Christ has done and because of his renewing work in our life, we should live into who we are as his image-bearer. This doesn't mean conforming yourself to a set of standards. Anyone can do that - yes, even the world. Living the law of love means living in a way that shows our love for God and for others. Living the law of love does not mean forcing the Gospel down someones throat - even in the name of trying to save them from hell fire. It does not mean forcing your set of standards on other people. It means showing them the love of Christ in your actions, words, and deed but not doing it in a way that makes people see your self-righteousness. I think that self-righteousness is one of the biggest stumbling blocks there are. We are to live as the fragrance of Christ. I can not stress enough how this does not mean to conform yourself to something. The fragrance of Christ means loving others (yes, even non-Christians), and allowing Christ's light to shine through us. Christ's light is not to shine through us because of something we are doing, but it is to shine through in spite of us. We and our self-righteous "hey everyone! Look how good I am" attitude is the biggest hindrance the Gospel will ever face.

Perhaps if Christians would live out the fragrance of Christ instead of saying Do this, Don't do that, people in this world would see the true light of Christ shining in us, and they would not wonder why Christianity is a list of rules.

So Father, help us!

All Men Are Created...Equal...?

2009-02-01T17:23:00.002-07:00

As much as people (particularly in America) like to say it, I'm becoming more and more perturbed at the inequality that I see. No, I'm not just talking about illegal immigrants getting to live for free. I'm talking about Christians attempting to fulfill the Great Commission.

What? Aren't Christians (if anyone) supposed to live the law of love and realize that one is not better than the other? And yet, in the modern mission movement, this seems to be the opposite of what really happens. There are several steps to convincing people they should be going on mission trips. The first is to to convict them and make them feel very sorry for all those poor people that live in the slums. Now as good as this may, they go about it in a completely wrong way. Instead of telling these people, "Hey, guys, these people (notice people) are in need of help. There are Christians there that are living without food, shelter, or clean water, etc.", they show pictures of children with bloated bellies and people that have suffered from leprosy. They put the title "The poorest of the poor don't know Christ. Wouldn't Jesus have wanted you to help them?" Okay, fine. Maybe Jesus would have wanted you to help them, but put yourself in their shoes. They're living. They know they're poor. They're continually being ignored. Yet, don't you think they want some independence? Do you really think they want to be on websites with degrading titles over them? Do they want to have to depend on "those rich Americans who just throw money around"? How would you like to get your picture taken and a few months later find it on websites with big letters over it saying "The poorest of the poor..."? Wouldn't you feel just a tad bit used? Maybe even a big looked down on?

This is always something I think about as I'm looking at books with these "poor, helpless children" and am watching something about a different country. It's something that really bothers me how Americans (I'm just using 'Americans' as a generalization for anyone who fits what I'm talking about) can't take part in those poor peoples' lives. Just in the way they talk about them suggests that somehow they're superior. They don't actually want to know each person's story. In fact, they don't really care about them. They just send the money off, knowing they have done a good deed for the poorest of the poor and check it off their list. This is something I run across time after time as I look at websites, books, or even watch things on TV about poorer countries. People can't be bothered. All they want to know is that they're doing their good deed for the day. Particularly in short-term mission trips, people will not take a part in anyone's lives. They'll pay money to go there, do their good deed each day by fixing a church roof or painting a school. They will then go on to gawk at the people who are living in such terrible conditions, feel kind of sorry for them, go to their 5-star hotel for the night, and go home with their hundreds of pictures of the poorest of the poor living in terrible conditions. Now I'm not saying that no good has come from any of these trips, but so many people go on them with a completely wrong attitude. They go on their "holy trip" to somehow make themselves feel like they're done something worth their taking up space on this earth. And these poor people? They're used as the object by which these people gain their holiness.

It's not right. It is just not. Do you think that these people really want to have pictures taken of them and be shown at home where people will 'humm' and 'haaa' over them, or do you think that they just want to be shown a little love - true love? The kind of love that they actually feel like they're worth something and that the people that are there with them really truly care about them and want them to know the love of Christ? For myself, I honestly don't think that these people who are going to these poor countries are being much of a good witness to the people. These people don't want to be gawked at. They want to be treated like normal people.

Happy Birthday!!

2009-01-21T21:05:00.002-07:00

Happy Birthday, Steve! Not only do you get the honor of having a post congratulating you on your long journey around the sun for the twenty-fifth (?) time, but it's also the first post on my blog for this year! Don't you feel honored?

Here are nine new extremely useful words to expand your knowledge of the English language.

carperpetuation - the act, when vacuuming, of running over a string or a piece of lint at least a dozen times, reaching over and picking it up, examining it, then putting it back down to give the vacuum one more chance

elbonics - the actions of two people maneuvering for one armrest in a movie theater or airplane

lactocartomangulation - man-handling the "open-here" spout on a milk container so badly that one has to resort to using the other side

phonesia - the affliction of dialing a phone number and forgetting whom you were calling just as they answer

aquadextrous - possessing the ability to turn on and off the water of a bathtub with your toes

disconfect - to sterilize the piece of candy you dropped on the floor by blowing on it, assuming this will somehow remove the germs

frust - the small line of debris that refuses to be swept onto the dust pan and keeps backing a person across the room until he finally decides to sweep it under the rug

Peppier - the waiter at a fancy restaurant whose sole purpose is to be walking around and asking diners if they want pepper

telecrastination - the act of always letting the phone ring at least three times before you pick it up, even when you're only six inches away

I hope you find many meaningful times to use these words in the years to come.

Yes, It's Bad

2008-12-12T16:12:00.002-07:00

Yes, the blog is getting work done to it. That's why it looks so bad...

What Do You Represent?

2008-12-08T19:27:00.002-07:00

Like I've said in the past, I am a member on a debate forum. I don't post on it very often because there are about twenty atheists for every one theist. If you say anything that sounds the slightest bit theistic, you will have about ten people picking apart everything you say within about five minutes. It's pretty hard to keep up with it all, and if you don't reply, they assume you've converted.

One thing I've noticed over and over is how they will pick on one thing someone says and immediately apply it to every person of that religious group. If someone uses incorrect punctuation, they'll start picking on that. If someone says anything that anyone can twist into being illogical, they'll pick on that (never mind the fact that atheists can be just as bad about it). One thing that really makes me upset, though, is how so many atheists will say that they're so tired of Christians telling them they're going to hell. So many Christians don't know anything more to say than, "Jesus died on the cross because you're a sinner. He loves you, so you should pray 'this pray' and believe Christ. After that, you need to obey this list of rules." Though there is nothing wrong with this, it misses so much. It talks nothing of our depravity from God and how Jesus is the one who fulfilled the Old Testament and ended estrangement from God. One of the biggest issues people have on the forum is why Christians think that they can force their moral standards from their 'holy book' on people who are "free?" Just recently, I saw this post:

"There are certain words that should be avoided by atheists, rationalists and free thinkers in their writings and conversations. They can, however, be frequently found in the writings of theists, the irrational and those who prefer not to think.

This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive list. I’m simply suggesting the most common words I encounter in religious and philosophical discussions. They reflect a certainty about reality that thinking people don’t accept. I’ll present them without comment, but please feel free to provide your own.

1. Truth
2. Absolute
3. Proof
4. Right
5. Wrong
6. Immoral
7. Unconditional
8. Unquestionable
9. Undoubtedly
10. Never
11. Always
12. Sin
13. Evil
14. Damned
15. Certain"

Though this may show how theists "reflect a certainty about reality that thinking people don’t accept," I think it shows even more how someone who is still estranged from God has a natural mind, and without the Holy Spirit cannot see what the world really is.

Lately, however, One of my biggest "pet peeves" is how they will go around looking for extreme beliefs that some Christians hold, and they will apply it to every single Christian. For example:

"Salvation Army
I never realized these folks had such an odd requirement. But I have no doubt they can produce a Biblical passage that supports their rule."

Of course, there is nothing that says that every single person (or that even one person) in the Salvation Army is a true Christian, but just because the Salvation Army is supposed to be run by Christians, they assume that all of its rules reflect Christianity. Unfortunately, this happens way too often. People will make rules that don't actually have anything to do with living into their identity as the children of Christ, and they will say (or show to others), "I do this because I am Christian." As soon as that happens, people will immediately assume that you represent all of Christianity, and they will assume that every single Christian believes that same thing. No wonder people think that Christianity is just a huge list of rules...

Do you live out the fragrance of Christ by living out of love, or do you live a life that people look at and see a rule book? If you live a life of love, people will see the person of Christ - they won't see a list of rules. They will see you living into who you are and being content in it. If you don't live into your identity, people won't see Christ. What will they see? You. You keeping a list of rules because that's what your "religion" requires of you. At that point, you might as well be apart of any religion - Hindu, Buddhism, Islam, you name it. There is something common with all of those religions - they all require you to keep lists of rules! Christianity is about living by faith and living by the law of love. No, don't mistake me for being antinomian. Living in faith and by the law of love will cause you to live in a way that truly shows your love for Christ and others.

Hi, Ben -chomp-

2008-12-05T21:58:00.004-07:00

Olga sends her greetings to you, Ben.

Recessive Genes Galore!

2008-12-01T19:34:00.021-07:00

Go ahead and groan. It's another post on genetics. Yes, it is the sad truth, but I'll try to make this one short and snappy.

A couple months ago I took in a family of gerbils who had been dumped at a pet shop. There were three pups plus the mom and dad. One pup was lilac, and the other two were black. Both of the parents were black, and it wasn't really any surprise that they happened to have the gene to make a red-eyed gerbil. I figured I might as well take them in, considering I've sold so many other gerbils in the past. Their colors weren't particularly neat or highly sought after, but I figured I might as well do it since they were free. Here are the genetic codes for the parents:

black - aaC-D-E-G-Pp <---I know the parents carry recessive 'p's because the lilac pup that came in the litter had red eyes.

lilac:

Nothing particularly exciting. Nothing very out of the ordinary.

If you don't want to end up with lots and lots of gerbils, you have to separate the female and male right before the female has a litter. Obviously, the male and female hadn't been separated, so she was due to have another litter. She had it. Six squirmy pups - four with black eyes, two with red eyes. I figured there were four blacks and two lilacs. Here is one of the black-eyed new-born pups:

At about five days, I started noticing that there seem to be a few different colors.

And then they started getting their peach fuzz:

They then started to look like gerbils at about ten days:

They finished getting their fur, and I could finally tell what colors they were:

nutmeg - aaC-D-ee-G-P-

black - aaC-D-E-G-P-

lilac - aaC-D-E-G-pp

sapphire - aaCc[chm]D-E-G-pp - sapphire is actually lighter than lilac, though it's hard to tell in this picture.

burmese - aac[chm]c[chm]D-E-P-

What the burmese will turn out to look like:

Maybe no one else gets all that excited about genetics, but I found it extremely fascinating to see that two black gerbils could produce all these colors - in one litter. Just knowing what their genes are, I know that they could have even more colors. Because of the colors of pups they had, I now know that both black parents have a lot of recessives:

aaCc[chm]D-Ee-G-Pp

MEH!

2008-12-01T17:45:00.002-07:00

Yes, it is true. Only four months and two days until Beth's birthday. No, I'm not saying "meh" to her birthday, I'm talking about the word meh itself.

Yes, you heard it, folks! According to World magazine, meh is becoming an official word! Indeed, this is time for celebration.

"Need a word for an expression of indifference or boredom? The new Collins English Dictionary published by HarperCollins now has an official way to say it: "Meh." The expression will find its way into the dictionary's 30th anniversary edition after gaining popularity on an episode of the television show The Simpsons in 2001. In the episode, Homer suggests taking a day trip with his children. Bart and Lisa are nonplussed by the offer. "They both just reply 'meh' and keep watching TV," said Cormac McKeown, head of content at Collins Dictionaries."

There you have it, Beth. Your wish granted even before your birthday occurred.

Persecution

2008-11-14T10:06:00.012-07:00

Persecution still happens. Somehow in our protected little world the thought of it doesn't cross a lot of Christians' minds. It seems a thing of the past. When people think of persecution, they most likely think of missionaries getting eaten by headhunters or Christians being burnt alive in the jungles of Burma (modern-day Myanmar). What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that those things still do happen, and it has never stopped.

Here in America, the worst thing that could happen to a Christian is getting scoffed at by the media or to have someone call them a name. Somehow when this happens, Christians seem to think that it is something terrible and they put the name "persecution" on it. However, Christians in America would very rarely ever lose their job because of their faith, nor would they be put to death for their faith. I am very thankful for the protection that we do have here in America, but this easy way of living a Christian life tends to create a lot of false Christianity. These Christians would turn from their faith as soon as something better turned up or as soon as Christianity didn't seem to be in favor.

I sometimes wonder if you would be more blessed to live under persecution and to have to grow up in the faith through that way than to struggle against the stream of the Western World. There is a lot of persecution going on in the East today. I often find myself wondering if it is not more blessed to live under such persecution where Christians and non-Christians have such a sharp contrast and where Christians are forced to grow up in the faith because they have little or nothing. Wealth, riches, and freedom are often a stumbling block to Christians in the West. They someone think that they did something to deserve what they have instead of how it really is - God, through His grace, providing for us our daily needs.

My thoughts turn particularly to the persecution in India. Hindus have never been all that friendly toward Christians, but after a key Hindu leader was killed, Hindu activists assumed that it was the Christians' fault and immediately started persecuting them. Though the persecution is happening all around India to a certain degree, it is particularly bad in Orissa and Mangalore. Many people have been beat unmercifully, and many more have even been burned to death. Still more people have been put into prison, only to die from the bad conditions. Hardly anyone in the West knows about it, yet it has had catastrophic effects on many, many people there.

In no way am I saying that it is easy to live a persecuted life. It isn't fun to be tortured or to be put to death. These people do need support, and they do need the grace of God to make it through such hard times. Those are not the only people being brutally persecuted. China, as soon as the Olympic games were over, started cracking down on Christians throughout all of China. In Somalia Christians are being beheaded.

Those of us who have the freedom to be able to live a Christian life without persecution should be praying for and supporting our family in Christ. We should be praying that God would use the persecution to strengthen the body of Christ. We should also pray that by the grace of God, these Christians would stay strong in the faith - even in the face of death - and that God would use their circumstances to help them to grow up in the faith.

The Folly of the Exclamation Point

2008-11-12T17:02:00.003-07:00

The exclamation point.

Something used way too often by some people and used only when it is needed by others.

Using exclamation points is a dangerous trap for many people - especially when they want people to take them seriously. Some people use it anytime they would raise their voice - even slightly. Other people use it whenever they find something to be interesting. In the case of someone writing a paper about something they enjoy, the exclamation point would come after every sentence.
The problem with exclamation points? There are many.

It gets very irritating for the reader to realize that if they glance down the page, every single paragraph has an exclamation coming after the last sentence.
It starts to make the reader think the author is totally unstable both in emotions and in character.
It makes the reader think they're missing something important - why does the author think this is interesting enough to keep using exclamation points? Did I miss something?
Ever had someone try to make you excited about something that isn't interesting? You know how extremely bored you get? That's what it is like to have an author SHOUTING AT YOU and trying to get you to be excited over something that is boring.
Once the reader figures out the author doesn't seem to have a key with a period on their keyboard, they start shutting down and just get irritated by how poorly the author writes.
After this, the reader starts laughing about how amateur this author seems to be - no matter how hard a subject the author chooses.
The reader, finally so disgusted with the overuse of the exclamation point, slams the book closed. They then decide that the author's knowledge on the subject is inadequate.

Only one exclamation point per paragraph. Period.

The Chiropractor or the Manipulative Osteopath?

2008-11-03T20:01:00.002-07:00

There are several things that most people in the Western World seem to be addicted to: chewing gum, talking on phones, caffeine, staying up late and complaining about being tired the next morning, and getting their backs worked on. All the addictions up to getting your back worked on are brought upon your own self. When it comes to injured backs, however, there is nothing that can be helped. It seems to be somewhat hereditary, and it is painful.

Most people, when confronted with an injured back, head straight off to the chiropractor. Others, however, head off to their osteopath. So, what are the similarities and differences, and which one is better?

Both...
...try to rid you of aches and pains.

Osteopaths...
...also put an emphasis on trying to cure respiratory and digestive problems.
...try to keep a person's radiation exposure down by trying to get by with as few X-rays as possible.
...usually have to spend more time with a patient, but the patient doesn't generally have to go back for a second treatment after an injury.

Chiropractics...
...only concern themselves with aches and pains.
...greatly rely on X-rays.
...usually have to have their patients come back for several treatments per injury.

So, what is the difference? It's all in how they approach how to fix your back.

Chiropractics, on the one hand, move bones. When your back is injured, it is most likely because your spine is no longer properly aligned. Your spine is what supports everything, so that puts pressure in places there should be none. A chiropractic's approach just moves the bones. Unfortunately, the muscles and fasciae that surround those bones have all ready moved to their new location, so when the bones are moved, the muscles will actually just pull the bones right back to the injured location. Throughout each treatment, the muscles are slowly moved to where they need to be again.This is why it often takes several treatments to finally get the bones where they need to be.

Osteopaths, on the other hand, work on the actual muscles. They will work to bring the muscles to where they need to be and not worry so much about the bones. This causes the muscles to pull the bones to where they need to be. With the muscles all ready in place, there is really no need to worry that everything will "spring back." These muscles pulling the bones back in place often leave the patient rather sore, but the results are often much better.

So, for your next back injury, what will you do?

What? You mean this blog sometimes gets updated?

2008-10-28T21:27:00.029-06:00

Looks like it has been about twenty-eight days since I've posted...

Believe it or not, I actually haven't gotten sucked into the black hole of being a non-blogger. In fact, someone has actually been pulled (miraculously) from that void.

That's non other than the only Rjentina! Becky, I've only known you for the past 15+, and you still take me by surprise once in a while.

But wait! There's more news in this realm of blogofying! A blog has also been resurrected (yeah, other than mine...)! The great Roozer is back to annoy us!

I'm getting the feeling that this is very random.

You can thank my new batch of gerbils for that... I'm still trying to catch up on sleep from their party they had two nights ago. You see, I went to Petco to buy (another) water bottle for the gerbils. While I was there, I noticed they had a whole litter of gerbils (plus Mom and Dad) up for adoption. Considering the fact I was all ready breeding, I figured I might as well take them and sell them with the rest of my gerbils. Big mistake. That was the noisiest night I have ever "slept" through. I'm not really much of a light sleeper, and I couldn't even sleep through them. First they pawed behind their water bottle, making a huge racket every time the glass bottle hit the glass cage. I took the bottle out. They went over to the box and started pawing in there. After another long while, I couldn't take it anymore. I took the box out. They then started jumping, hitting the top of the cage with a loud thump ever time. No, I didn't take the lid off. I decided I should put something in there before they suffered from brain damage from hitting the top so hard. I put a wheel in the cage. Another big mistake. Finally, I was so fed up with them that I wanted to kill 'em all. Instead, I stuck them in the closet with the door closed. I managed to get a few hours of sleep before The Beast started buzzing. They look so innocent until you try to sleep... At that point, they turn into ravenous giants trying everything in their power to keep you from sleeping.

We went to Breckenridge for a week. Considering most of you have probably been to Breckenridge, I decided to skip out on the "beautiful scenery" pictures.

Of course, my wondrous green pillow came along. Thanks to The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbookand my biology course, I am now terrified of hotel rooms and condos. Why? Germs! Thank goodness I had my green pillow to comfort me. Unfortunately, my pillow didn't do all it was supposed to do. It was okay to sleep on, but I kept waking up with my neck aching...of course, this might be because I was also terrified to move in my bed. I knew that the one place I was sleeping was clean, but I wasn't about ready to touch any of the other sheets, quilt, or the wall. Someday I've got to get over this... Our house was filled with many odd yet fascinating things...

And you stare into those eyes and wonder how anyone could be so cruel... Okay, enough of that. This guy was all ready dead -- and mounted. I tried to talk Becky into wanting one of these for our green room. Besides the obvious problem of it taking up most of a wall, I though it would look great.I had all these strange dreams of actually getting some reading done in Breckenridge. I don't know what possessed me, but I brought up five books to read. How much did I get read? Well, if you add everything together maybe a 150 pages?...
Every morning I got to wake up to this guy looking down at me...rather disturbing.
This dude was even more disturbing...
But most disturbing was this cat right next to my bed! How much worse could a vacation be?!?

Becky is taking lessons on how to do self portraits.

Ben is getting a little better at it...

Lots of games!

Well, I was supposed to win, but...

Becky looks like an ad for a casino - I look like some who has actually been playing at a casino.
Becky's toothbrush frequently attacks her. It's because our dentist buys his toothbrushes from the Zulu in Africa. This tribe always curses the color red because it's the color of blood. This attack was a little worse than the ones that have happened in the past. In fact, it was so bad that she had to push on her neck to shut off her trachea and esophagus in order the keep the toothbrush from going down. Ben and I finally had to pull on the toothbrush with all our strength to keep it from going down. We will be shipping this toothbrush back to them directly, stating we aren't completely satisfied with it.

I'm sorry to say, I don't think she'll ever quite be the same.

Our amusing magnet on the fridge. By the way, since when do we put apostrophes every time we add an s?

This house had luxuries so bountiful that I even got my own thermostat!

It's always nice to relax on the porch with a good book - in the middle of a snow storm.

And then I had the sad reminder of what I got to do the day we got home. Speechify.
Okay, enough vacationing.

I started Popper #40 this week! Yippy! All I have to look forward to is another etude book! I have to say that my etude book is actually the International Edition, so it doesn't look quite like this one, but it's in about as good of shape. I think my cello teacher has had his book for his whole cello-playing career. Every time he takes the pieces of it out of his drawer, he says, "As you can see, this book has been well loved." And I always think, "Well, maybe it's in that bad of shape because it's well hated..." I don't have very many warm, fuzzy feelings when I think of this book. More like a tingling thumb. I think I'll stick with Rick Mooney next time. His at least have cool titles.

And finally, a very mini lecture/soap box. Here's what happens if people don't know how to witness to their own generation:

Amazing Grace?

2008-10-01T16:29:00.002-06:00

I came across this video as I was looking for a different video of Amazing Grace that I had seen in the past. Besides the singer singing sharp for most of the time, the words are, well, interesting. Very reflective of how our culture wants peace but doesn't know what the root of war is and doesn't know what the implications of having a world that gets along perfectly are. Try taking Christianity out of this, and you'll have a hopeless mess to deal with. If this is their definition of amazing grace, I'd hate to know what their definition of peace is...
Oh, and since when did Judy Collins write Amazing Grace? That was a new one for me...
Even though it's rather sad, enjoy getting a laugh out of this one.

Iraq War Anniversary Vigil

Recommendation

2008-09-28T16:10:00.002-06:00

Just wanted to say if you don't all ready, be sure to read the weekly updated Stick With It! cartoon. I've been getting a big kick out of Steve's cartoons - they kind of remind me of The Far Side. If you're having a bad week, this comic strip will make it that much worse...uh...better.

Homeschooling

2008-09-27T16:15:00.002-06:00

"You're homeschooled? Oh...."

You immediately see the brand getting stamped on your forehead. You know suddenly know you get up at about 9:00 PM every day and walk around in PJs for the rest of the day. You know that you aren't as smart as before and that the random questions trying to prove how bad homeschooling is will start coming like bullets. You know you don't know how to be at all social, and you know you know absolutely nothing about pop culture. You know you wear the same thing just about every day - and you don't really care. You know that you do nothing all day and that you have lots of extra time to do whatever you want.

"Wow, it must be nice to be homeschooled," as they slowly back away.

Every homeschooler reading this will know exactly what I'm talking about. It's no secret how often homeschoolers get treated like this. In fact, there are a lot of inside jokes that homeschoolers pass around about such situations.

I'm so tired of it, though. Every time you're around someone who doesn't quite approve of homeschooling you constantly feel like you have to try to prove that you're not actually scum off the bottom of the bucket. While taking tours, tour guides ask what school you go to. As soon as they find out that you are homeschooled, they say, "Oh, that means you need to learn something." They then proceed to give your mom teaching material and start asking you a bunch of random questions that not even the "smart public schooled kids" would know. If you don't happen to know the same set of random facts as your tour guide, they attribute it to you being homeschooled.

The truth about homeschooling? We end up doing just as much school as those in a public school. On a regular school day, I start working at 6:45 AM, and if I don't have any distractions and only take a 1/2 hour for lunch, I get done at 5:30. These "regular" school days don't happen very often, however. I have plenty of stuff on top of it. I have a cello lesson on Monday, speech class and orchestra on Tuesday, I will soon have a class on Wednesday night, I have a class on Thursday night, and that only leaves Friday without anything extra. I'm not trying to prove what I do each day, but I'm just getting plain sick of the blank "wow-you-must-not-have-to-do-anything" stare.

And on top of that, they think that homeschoolers are anti-social. I think the only reason for this thought is that there happen to be more public schooled kids than homeschoolers. As soon as homeschoolers are around homeschoolers, they don't usually have much problem talking. Do notice that public schooled kids are good at talking to other public schooled kids, but they don't really have any idea what to say to homeschoolers.

I found this article someone had written who was against homeschooling. I just want to pick it apart a little bit.

News flash: Not everyone is qualified to be a teacher. A lot of parents can't balance a checkbook or find Iraq on a map -- let alone teach their young-uns Algebra & Geography. Just because you love little Johnny does not qualify you to be his teacher. It takes a good education as well as a love for children to be a competent teacher. The education and intellectual well- being of our progeny are too important to be left to rank amateurs. My mom and dad loved me but it was a 6th grade teacher that instilled in me a love of reading and writing.

True, but those who are willing to homeschool their kids are going to be the ones who will go to the trouble to learn their material. If they feel inadequate, they will get curriculum and other sources to use. Think of it another way, though. If a parent has eight kids to homeschool, think how many times the parent will have to teach a student the same material over and over from scratch. Homeschooling parents have got to be about the smartest people on earth. Think of it yet another way. If your parents are public schooled, they decide to homeschool you, and public education is against this, what are they saying about their own schooling system? That their students they're producing aren't smart enough to teach? Seems a little ironical to me...

Home schooling a small child stunts his emotional and psychological growth. It's at school that a child learns how to communicate with his peers, respect those different from himself and to work as a team to accomplish goals. No, matter how loving and nurturing a home, it can't replace a school as a crucible for social development.

Oh please... I have never yet come across a homeschooler who doesn't know how to communicate to their peers, let alone know how to respect others.

A dog that's been confined to a kennel for years will not make a good pet and a child who's been confined to his home during his formative years will find it extremely difficult to adjust to the real world. We don't need any more Jerry Dalhmers and Paul Hills let loose on our society.

Wow, it makes it sounds like we're chained to a tree or something. I think you would have to try pretty hard not to expose someone to the real world.

Most parents who home school their offspring are religious zealots. These impressionable youngsters who are captive to the rigid dogma of their parents are robbed of the wonderful diversity of ideas and cultures that thrive in our public schools. If the number of kids being home schooled continues to grow our democracy will soon resemble the theocracies of Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Isn't it our job to bring up our own kids to be Godly? Nothing about homeschooling robs a child of the diversity of ideas and cultures. You get that everywhere you go. Take WalMart as an example... Maybe even Colfax?

This is a rant. I have no great solution to the problem. I just wish the public could be educated a little about homeschooling.

Christianity, the East, and the West

2008-09-14T16:41:00.002-06:00

My cello teacher and I have much the same interests. We both like history and philosophy, and we both like to discuss things. However, we both come from opposite ends of the spectrum. He is very "new-agey" and very much into the East. Every few years or so, he will head on off to India for several weeks and come back with the latest and greatest on Hinduism and Buddhism. Being very pluralistic, he doesn’t really have any problem with me believing God. To him, everything has their own way of getting to their goal, so he will willingly play along with whatever strange ideas I have. He will talk about God as a real, living being that has complete and sovereign power over everything, yet somehow, I know that he doesn’t happen to be talking about the same God that I am. We discuss things back and forth. I get pretty much one sentence to say everything that I want to say on the subject, and he will continue to take up the rest of the time. He may never realize it (and may not care to realize it) that he has been one of the most influencing people over my life. Not in a bad sense, but probably in exactly the opposite way he was trying to have an influence over me. He has been the one that has made me realize that I am old enough to know what I believe and why I believe it. He has been the one that has made me do a lot of study and thinking. He is very good with words and can pretty much put any idea of his into words. When I want to discuss something or try out my new idea on him to see if I can manage to say everything in one sentence, it becomes almost a competition with him to see who can say something more clearly. Being of a very logical mind (for how logical a natural mind can be), he doesn’t just like short little shallow answers to things. He truly wants to know what you personally believe and why. The little "Gospel Message" that so many Christians try to share with this generation just doesn’t quite seem to do it for him, and saying, "Jesus came and died on a cross to save you from your sins (even though you may think you’re a pretty good person) so that you could go to Heaven" just doesn’t quite make him jump up and down saying he wants to become a Christian. Not only has he heard it before, but it seems rather illogical. After all, just simply saying that Jesus died for sins (as if that’s the only reason he died for us) will make him just think, "Okay. I’ll just try to live a really, really good life, and if I goof up, oh well. Oh, and by the way, who is this guy named Jesus? I don’t think this is any different from any other religion. All they’re telling me to do is to conform my life to a way of living just like every other religion. Why should I choose Christianity over Buddhism?" And with his humanistic thinking, he would go on to continue with his Eastern religions. Because he thinks pretty logically, only logical answers that can be backed up will make any impression on him. In talking to him, I try really, really hard not to dig myself into holes (which he’s pretty good at getting you into) and to think logically, yet quickly. He’ll give you all the time in the world to think up an answer, but if you start to say anything (even one word) and then suddenly find yourself not really knowing what to say, he’ll tell you what he was going to say and quickly move on. End of opportunity to say anything. Through all of this, I have started studying quite a bit just to try to get my feet on the ground enough to say something that he won’t laugh at and find lots of problems with.

He really has gotten me to think about the East. Why is it that the East is scared of the West, and yet the West embraces the East? There are countless examples of eastern countries that refuse to admit Westerners (it seems particularly Americans) into their country. If you’re on this end of things, however, Eastern philosophy, religion, and its people are embraced. How could this be? In America, everywhere you go, you see books on its philosophies, religions, foods, cultures, and religious practices (such as yoga). I think that part of the problem goes back to America feeling as if they can’t get to any absolute that is indeed an absolute. This leaves an empty void and because nothing happens in a vacuum, they try to fill this void with something new and mystical. They move on to a religions where they are required to conform their life to a set of given standards in order that they might eventually find this truth that they they so earnestly are looking for. They want to do something. They want to conform to something that will make them feel as if they are accomplishing something and helping them feel their life is worth something. The East has found their way of spiritual accomplishment, and the West wants to find it too. Because of so much restriction in so many eastern countries, many of them have moved here. Many of these people after an amount of time will give up their Eastern clothing, food, and music (though in no way am I saying these things are bad), but religious ideas will be the very last thing to go. In a culture that is so open to Eastern ideas, they are not going to let it go. They know that they are feeding the fire, and they are not going to give up their religion. Why would the East want to keep away the Westerners though? Think about how our culture differs from theirs. The East is very big into tradition. America (and particularly America) doesn’t like tradition, especially after their heritage. They want to stand out, and they want to make advancements. In fact, America is a very proud country that doesn’t want any other country to out do their accomplishments. The East, however, is more laid back. Religion is their life and tradition. They have higher things to look for than earthly gain. However, tradition is the key. Since the ‘60s, America has broken away from Christianity being a tradition. In fact, the East and the West have taken two different paths. The West is science oriented and puts a big effort into advancement. Religion is looked upon as a weakness (though they fill it in with worshiping themselves and the universe). A person is measured by how much they have and what their income is. In order to have more of an influence, you must have more money and a higher position. The East on the other hand, has religion as its main priority of the day. They do a lot for their religion and gods. Family and tradition are a huge part of their lives, and whether they have a lot doesn’t really seem to matter. This is the reason so many people, tired of the daily rat race, will retire to the East where they can live without any worry of gaining more and can spend a lot of time feeling good because of what they are doing. As David Wells says in Above All Earthly Powers:

"Western preoccupation with the self and with what is therapeutic leads naturally into a disposition that is amenable to Eastern ideas, and Western moral disorder makes Islam (and Hinduism and Buddhism) look like a haven of moral sanity."

And is all of this going to stand up to some guy (in the eyes of a non Christian) named Jesus coming and dying for some "mistakes" that we could mend ourselves by following simple Eastern philosophy? No way. If you know the philosophies behind humanistic religions, it is quite easy to see the differences between humanistic religions and Christianity. Humanistic religions all have several things in common: they are built after our human nature (particularly the gods), they all require you to do something, and they all require you to conform your life to a given set of principles. This is quite opposite to Christianity which is about faith in a God who sent His son to restore the perfect relationship we had with Him before the fall. It is not about a set of rules, but it is about living in faith in light of who we are (the chosen sons of God). We don’t do anything. We be someone - the ones that His Spirit is daily conforming us to the character of Christ. Christianity can’t even be said to be a religion. Religion is conforming yourself to rules to reach a goal. Christianity is a restored relationship with God himself. If we understand this, we would (and could) talk about Christ to others in a way that would not make Christianity seem like any other religion floating around in this world. We must study to find answers to cultural questions and not ignore them. We must pray that God would help us to reach out to those in a way that would cause them to see Christianity for what it really is. As Luther says, if you can’t preach the true Gospel to those in your generation, you don’t know what it is about. They didn’t just all wake up one morning and decide to believe something that seems absurd to us. What they believe has been building up and leading up until now. Work and study hard to understand today’s generation and culture.

Going Green!

2008-08-26T14:36:00.009-06:00

I have finally repented and come to realize that the environmentalists are right. Green is the best. I have started reforming my life. It was a little difficult to make the first few moves, but now I'm starting to spend more money.

First I painted our new room green:

That weekend, I went down to Albuquerque and got a new organic cello. Of course, I was careful not to litter along the highway and not to disturb the path of the tornado on the way home.

That's the extent of my effort in that direction.

Democratic National Convention, Go Home.

2008-08-25T10:01:00.003-06:00

All I can say is that the media seems to be more excited about it than anyone else. They seem to think that this is Colorado's golden age. The truth is, I have only heard one person say that they're excited for it - and that was my cello teacher. Supposedly, Denver is supposed to benefit much from this whole convention, but I have heard very few people say that they might benefit from it. One family might benefit from it because they own a restaurant downtown. We benefit from having a zoo downtown because we got one quartet job. This job is for a feminist group's dinner, who will be protesting what the Democrats did to Hillary - not even something I want to play for. This morning, the newspaper added a whole section dedicated to the DNC, thicker than the rest of the newspaper put together. Isn't there anything else in the world worth talking about besides a bunch of Democrats have a week-long party downtown? What about world news? But no, they have to make a big deal about their Obamanable candidate actually coming to Denver! What news!

Media: Be quiet, and find something worth talking about.
DNC: Go home.
Me: Shut up and quit getting worked up about things that don't really matter.

End of rant. End of story.

NASA Sponsors Course on How to Talk to Aliens

2008-08-06T10:45:00.004-06:00

I found this article on Ken Ham's blog, and I kind of got a kick out of it.

~~~
Yes—it is true. If you’re an American, your tax dollars are being used by a government agency to teach a course to students on how to talk to aliens! This is serious stuff. We’ve never seen aliens, never had any messages from them, never heard from them. They have not visited earth, and we don’t know how to reach them. But we are using tax dollars for this blind-faith idea!
However, if tax dollars were used to teach students on how to talk with God, who stepped into history in the person of Jesus Christ so we could see Him on earth, who gave us a whole book (the Bible) to reveal all we need to know about the universe, who did visit earth as a man, who tells us how to reach Him through prayer—well that would not be allowed! That would be called religion—and you know, the “separation of church” and stuff!

It’s okay to have faith in aliens—just don’t have faith in an infinite God who has communicated to us through His Son and through His written Word! The article on this begins:

English students at the University of Wyoming are being encouraged to consider the possibility that humanity might one day make contact with aliens and then not know what to say. “Interstellar Message Composition,” a creative writing class, is believed to be the first of its kind to engage writers in a potential cosmic conversation, say its founders. “We’ve thought a lot about how we might communicate with other worlds, but we haven’t thought much about what we’d actually say,” Prof Jeffrey Lockwood, the course leader, told ABC News.

You can read the rest of this article at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1989062/nasa-sponsors-course-on-how-to-talk-to-aliens.html

There is so much talk going on about aliens, one wonders if this is all meant to prepare people for some great delusion!

ICC MEETING IN PITTSBURGH
Several AiG staff have been at the International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, which ends tonight (Wednesday). This ICC event is held every 4–5 years, and AiG’s Andrew Snelling, one of the world’s most respected creation scientists, has been deeply involved once again. Dr. Snelling, with a PhD degree in geology from the University of Sydney in Australia, is the editor-in-chief of this year’s Sixth International Conference on Creationism (co-sponsored by the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Science Fellowship of Pittsburgh). Previous research papers for the ICC by Dr. Snelling have been awarded for technical excellence at two ICCs. I’ll have more about the ICC meeting in a future blog.

GOODBYE TO A FRIEND
A friend of the AiG ministry passed away recently, Christian educator Les MacLeod of Santa Rosa, California. Les was a key person in setting up major events for me and other creation speakers in northern California (including at his Christian school, where he was a principal and a teacher). I recall these meetings as being very well attended, including one major conference in a large auditorium Les and his committee rented in Santa Rosa one year.
For more about his life (the service will be held today), go to:
http://www.legacy.com/pressdemocrat/DeathNotices.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=114764724
Our condolences to Carol (his wife), children, and other family members—please pray for them today.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

~~~

Christian, Wake Up!

2008-07-29T20:06:00.002-06:00

I like to be in control. Last night I realised yet again how helpless we really are. Growing up in America, you somehow have this feeling that all things can be controlled and that circumstances can be solved by thinking about what to do. We have be working on a landscaping project. We had some drainage problems, so last night we were digging a trench. It was getting late, and it was rather dark. Someone pointed out that there was a fox next to our house under the bush watching us. We were all rather tired of the whole digging thing, so Dad took off chasing the fox. He was almost by the house when somehow he tripped and fell straight down our window well head-first. There was a brief second of shock as everyone saw this happening, but then my siblings took off running and screaming. I'm more the type that just freezes up and can't do anything. Finally I ran for the house to get the phone. I could hear Dad yelling, so I knew he was at least conscious. It's at times like this that you realise how totally out of control we are, how fragile life is, and what really matters. It's at times like this that you'll often hear people say, "I actually prayed." Someone called 911 just as I looked down into the hole. My dad was on his back with his feet up in the air. His left ankle was snapped right off. His leg and his foot made a 90 degree angle with his foot going to the left. Ugg. The ambulance and firetruck came and somehow got him out of there. They got him to the hospital where they found that his ankle/leg was broken in four different places. They had to do a surgery within six hours to clean it out because the bone had been sticking out and he had been cut. They did so, and it went well. He will be going in for surgery again tomorrow to try to get it all straightened out. He will have to have surgery again next week. With him going in head first, it is amazing that he doesn't seem to have anything wrong with his neck or back. As I was trying to get to sleep last night, I started thinking about how the only certainty we have is the certainty of uncertainty. Why is it as soon as something like this happens, we're all on our knees praying? When we have had things pretty easy recently, we start thinking that we can live autonomously and we feel like we're in control of everything. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we shouldn't be praying when something traumatic happens, but shouldn't we feel just as dependant on God whether we're in some major crisis or not?

Maybe this incident is my wake up call.

Cats

2008-07-24T14:14:00.013-06:00

I don't like cats very much. I never have, and I probably never will. No offense to anyone who has one and loves it to death.

Cats are very sneaky creatures. Most people decide they love cats when they get them as kittens. As the kitten bats yarn and does pretty much what a cat is "supposed" to do, you hear all the "Ahhh"s. As the cat grows up, people decide that their cat isn't quite as fun as when it was little. If they spoiled the cat from a young age, they now wake up with claw marks all over themselves just because the cat wanted to go out. The cat is already starting to own the master. Cats know how to make up for thoroughly scratching their pets, however. With a purr and a curving tail, they'll soon take your heart once more. We won't talk about the scars left over from that eventful night, however. Cats eventually get you so tuned in to their schedule that they will have you up before the crack of dawn to get them breakfast if they so desire. Why is it, however, that the human pet gets more and more attached to their master in the shape of a lump of purring fur? Is it the fact that their master sits on the their lap as they read a book, pawing at every page as they turn it? Or is it the fact that the human pet likes allergies? I never will figure it out. As a cat eventually gets old and worn out, the human now starts feeling a pang for when their evil, sneaking master might die. They do everything to comfort it, from helping it onto cushions to sleep at night to buying and blending special cat food for their bedraggled cat that no longer has any teeth. And then it dies. Oh, what a sorrowful day! Pictures of their lost master are hung everywhere to remind them of their days in bondage. A special plot of land is bought to bury their furry "friend" in, and the vet sends a sympathy card. After several years, they finally get over it. Then they repeat the same mistake - for the third time in fact - and fall for that cute little kitten with the blue eyes.

As you can see, I don't really like cats, and in my opinion, cats are good for nothing much more than catching mice. There is one cat, however, that even I like. He doesn't shed, and he doesn't leave you with a runny nose, eyes watering, and sneezing. The Pink Panther. Cool, calm, and collected, he takes care of himself. He solves his own problems, never bothering you to let him out.

Now, that is my idea of a cat.

Siamese and Burmese Gerbils!

2008-07-22T10:15:00.012-06:00

I finally found a siamese and a burmese gerbil. I have been looking for these two colors of gerbils for quite some time, and I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw them for sale. These two colors are relatively new, and they are both difficult to find in Colorado. Well, now I've got them both. Two young males. They are probably close to ten weeks old. I don't plan to breed them, but I may do so around the Christmas season. I have a couple young females that are about the same age that I think would produce some nice colors (and spots!).
The siamese: The burmese:The two together:

Evil Mango trying to frighten his soon-to-be victims:Mango soon found out that the siamese had sharper teeth and that the burmese had a bigger temper, so he backed off and is now the bottom of the pile.Three happy gerbils that were not so happy for me to put them in a box.I've had them for a few weeks now, but I still haven't named them. They'll probably forever be "Siamese" and "Burmese". I also have the two young females that are unnamed.

Who Are You?

2008-07-13T15:55:00.018-06:00

Recently, I finished reading Francis Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live?. Though I found it to be a little depressing to realize how society is deteriorating, I also found it interesting to see how much the thoughts and philosophies of a time determine what happens.

One obvious thread that follows through the whole book is how man thinks of himself. With a Christian base, we know that we are the image-sons of God. We are His special creation. We did not happen by chance, and we are not machines. We are recipients of His grace and love. Following history through post Roman times, this idea becomes less and less. Today, people reject it all together. When did it happen, though? It certainly didn't happen over night, but how did we get from point A to point B? In this post, I hope to give a very light overview of how this happened. In each paragraph, I will be addressing different time periods. Please don't get the idea, however, that because they're in different paragraphs, they have nothing to do with each other. History builds on itself. This essay also builds on a past article I wrote about Art and History.

The Middle Ages - After the breakdown of the Roman empire, many technical things about art were forgotten. The art in catacombs was very simplistic, yet it portrayed real people in a real world. By the mid-sixth century, realism was abandoned, and artists had a preference for the fantastic and unreal. This art became characterized by symbolic mosaics and icons. One good thing about this was that the artists made their mosaics and icons as a witness to the observer and strove for more spiritual values in their art. The bad thing was that in this form of art, nature and humanity were completely set apart. This art had beauty, but in its zeal to express spiritual ideas, it missed the fact that real people in a real world which God had made were important things. Finally, a humanistic element was added. The authority of the church started taking place over the Bible. Depicted in art, we see that man is able to merit the merit of Christ. Later in the Middle Ages, the Catholic church did start using this idea to their advantage. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas, started to turn man's thinking to become even more humanistic. Thomas Aquinas relied heavily on Aristotle for his ideas. Pope Urban IV had forbidden the study of Aristotle in universities in the year of 1263, but Aquinas managed to have him once more accepted. There was a result of this acceptance. Look at Raphael's The School of Athens.
Plato, Aristotle's teacher, is the one with his finger pointed upwards. This represents how he pointed towards absolutes or ideals. Aristotle, on the other hand, is the man in the middle with his hand spread out towards the earth. This represents his emphases on particulars. Aquinas brought this emphases on individual things into the late Middle Ages' philosophy, and it set the stage for the Renaissance. Starting with man alone (as in looking only at particulars), there is a huge problem with trying to explain the meaning and ultimate meaning for these particulars. Humanism has never found a way to arrive at universals or absolutes that gives meaning to morals and even existence itself. There was some good that came from Aquinas's teaching. Before, there was little or no emphasis on the normal, everyday world. These things do have importance because they were created by God. However, his emphases on autonomous particulars did have a big effect, and it set the stage for the Renaissance.

The Renaissance - Aquinas's thinking was soon felt in art. Art had been flat and without depth. Mary and Christ were not portrayed realistically. However, there came a change. Giotto (1267-1337) started giving man and nature a place. Then humanism struck again. A strong liking for everything ancient, especially from Greece and Rome, came about, and it became clear that the human autonomy that many of the Renaissance humanists had in mind referred exclusively to the non-Christian, Greco-Roman world. Renaissance humanism steadily went toward modern humanism in that man is totally autonomous and independent. Man was placed at the center of all things. Many advances in art were made during this time as man and nature were placed higher. Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci made huge strives in the field and were both quite successful. Man was portrayed as being perfect, and his humanistic features were capitalized on. Man was proud. Man was confident. Man was independent. Eventually, there came a shift toward Plato’s ideas of universals. Leonardo da Vinci tried desperately to paint these universals, but on his humanistic base and with trying to find his universals by observing particulars, he never was able to. To sum up the Renaissance, we could say that the main thrust was confidence in man and the seeking of what could give meaning to life and what universals could give morals and life itself meaning.

The Reformation - Before starting, I must remind everyone that the Renaissance and Reformation were happening at the same time. As the Renaissance was happening in southern Europe, Reformation ideas formed in the north, but they were at the same time. The Reformation dealt with the same basic problems as the Renaissance, but the Reformation thinking gave drastically different answers. John Huss’s keeping with the true teachings of the Bible taught that man could not be independent. Man could not earn his salvation either. With a Renaissance frame of mind, Aquinas stated that man’s will was fallen but not his mind, resulting in people thinking that they could simply "think out" all problems and come to a conclusion. With the Reformed view, however, the Bible is the only final authority. I am not stating that the Reformation was perfect. It had its problems, but with its Biblical base, it had no problem explaining the meaning of individual things because it had its universals. The Renaissance taught an autonomous man, but the Reformation taught there was an infinite-personal God who cared about them. With its teaching of man’s centrality of all things, the Renaissance could come up with no meaning for life or for particulars. With a Biblical base, man has dignity because he is the image-son of God. He is not programmed. Along with man, all life had dignity, and with this teaching, all people were made equal and were all equally guilty because of the fall. Because all were equal, anyone could come to God through Christ. The Reformation both understood the greatness of man and the cruelty of man. These ideas came out in art also. Ordinary people and ordinary events were seen as being great, so artists started painting people and nature. Rembrandt was an important artist of the time. One of his paintings, Raising of the Cross (see below), shows his thoughts.
Notice the man in the middle who is raising the cross. This is Rembrandt himself. A self portrait of who he saw himself being. He is noble, but he is also cruel. He too raised the cross of Christ, along with all of us. Rembrandt’s paintings are lofty, but they are also down to earth. Of course, the Reformation didn’t bring about social or political perfection, but it did bring about a vast and unique improvement to society. Because of their views on man being fallen, they realized that government needed checks and balances. This brought opportunity for freedom in society without chaos. Look at Paul Robert’s Justice Lifts the Nations below.
This mural shows how Paul Roberts realized that man was fallen and that he needed absolutes to live by. Justice lifts the nations. Lex Rex. The law is king. This thought change of the Reformation was in northern Europe. Meanwhile, the Renaissance ideas in southern Europe were not going too well.

The Enlightenment - Coming off of Renaissance ideas, France, looking across the channel at England, saw this change that took place in England. To be quite frank, they were very impressed. They saw the problems in their society, and they saw how England had changed without little or no bloodshed. They wanted to do the same. Voltaire, a famous French philosopher, saw this "Bloodless Revolution" and wanted to model their own revolution off of it. France tried hard to reproduce the same conditions as England ended up with, but with Voltaire’s humanistic Enlightenment base, their revolution resulted only in bloodshed and chaos. France declined so much that the authoritarian rule of Napoleon Bonaparte resulted. The Enlightenment started with man absolutely, and it ended in chaos. The Enlightenment taught that man and society were perfectible. Deism was their religion. To them, God had indeed created the world, but He no longer had contact with them. With this world view, they started looking back to pre-Christian times to find meaning and value.

Modern Science Takes Off - I must pause to say that the rise of modern science was also happening at the same time as both the Reformation and the Renaissance. Early Christian scientists believed that science did not conflict with the Bible and that because of the rationality of God, every occurrence could be traced back to its antecedent. The world was created by a reasonable God.

Modern Times - First, I must be sure that everyone reading this understands that if there are no absolutes, particulars have no meaning. I am not just talking about absolutes in morals or values, I am also saying this about existence. Without absolutes, particulars become very fragmented. Modern thinking started with questioning how we know anything. Epistemology, the theory of how we know what we know, was the result. Before modern times, all non-Christian philosophers had several things in common. First of all, they believed that man was rational and could gather enough information about particulars to make universals. They also rejected all knowledge outside of man. Second, they took reason very seriously. They accepted the validity of reason and believed that with the mind, one could decide what is true and what is not. And finally, they were very optimistic. They thought that they could establish by reason what reality is, but if they failed to find it, someone later would. Coming into modern times, a new shift took place to make modern man what he is. Science shifted to everything being in a machine. This pushed God the edges of their system, and it also equally left no place for man. Man as man disappeared, and instead, a form of determined, behavioristic machine took its place. Cause and effect was applied to all science. In this closed system, there was no place for morals, and man became part of this machinery. Life became pointless and without meaning. This all set the stage for Darwinism which stated that nature was all about survival to the fittest. Ideas about reason leading to pessimism also came about during this time. Thus, a mad scramble to find optimistic answers to meaning and value outside of reason was started. Kierkegaard (1813-1855) stated that non-reason is equal to faith and optimism in the same way that reason is equal to pessimism. Modern man became a man of dichotomy, and there came a separation of meaning and values. If man is a machine, there is no longer any place for a loving, personal God, freedom, or significance. However, man, still being created in the image of God, cannot possibly live like machines. They must go against reason to come to a conclusion that says they can. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) stated that in reason, everything is absurd. The will can act in any direction, so one should authenticate oneself by will in this purposeless world. In other words, one should do something to distinguish themselves from the world. This could be going as far as committing murder, or it could be volunteering at a nursing home. Reason is not involved with this, and nothing can show which direction the will should take. However, Jean-Paul Sartre could not even live with these values. He signed the Algerian Manifest which declared the Algerian War to be dirty, thus assigning a moral value to an event. He made a value judgment, not a leap of non-reason. He also later came to the conclusion that an individual may have a "final experience" that encourages them to think life has meaning. This final experience cannot be put into words, and it goes against reason. Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) proposed that drugs be given to healthy people to help them find "answers" in their own heads. This important drug was going to be called Soma because Hindu gods took this drug to keep them contented. Later, he openly advocated the use of drugs. This emphasis on drugs brought many rock groups into being. Hinduism and Buddhism, being introduced into the Western World, were the next leap into non-reason. These Eastern religions grope for a non-rational meaning to life and values. This spread over Western culture very quickly after Huxley’s emphasis on drugs. People tried the "drug trip," but it soon turned to an Easter religious trip where one would seek truth in one’s head with no reason. A period of psychedelic rock sprung from this because people wanted to find the experience without the drugs. The word God became the word God. No content could be put into it. George Harrison, the former Beatles’ guitarist wrote "My Sweet Lord." Many people thought he had turned to Christianity, but they soon heard the word "Krishna", a Hindu name for a god, being chanted in the background. There was no content in the name God, just a religious feeling or experience. There was no distinction between good and evil. One manifestation of God in the Hindu religion is Kali, a female god with fangs and skulls around her neck. Cruelty became equal with non-cruelty. God started to be used only for manipulation. Stepping to art, we come to the Impressionists, some great ones being Monet, Renoir, Pissaro, Sisley, and Degas. They only painted what was brought to the eye, yet they questioned the light rays even hitting their eyes. Thus, their painting have a rather dreamy, hazy look. With his modern thinking, Monet came to the logical conclusion that reality becomes dreams. Post-Impressionist painters such as Paul Cezanne and Van Gough tried to solve these problems by finding a way back to reality and absolutes. They too failed.
Cezanne reduced nature to basic geometric forms to search for the universals to tie all particulars together. This gave nature a very fragmented, broken appearance. Picasso brought together the ideas of fragmentation, the noble savage, and African masks, which was becoming popular, and painting with these ideas. This marked the birth of "modern art." Marcel Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase (see bellow) carried the fragmentation idea further.
In fact, the human being completely disappeared. This chance and fragmenting idea led to the absurdity of all things. Jackson Pollock (1912-1956) painted with the express purpose of showing all things to be chance. In one painting, he put a canvas horizontally on the floor and dripped paint from cans which were suspended and swinging from the ceiling.
Even this shows that he could not live by those principles. Even the swinging can of paint to create a picture by chance is going to follow universal laws of this earth. In a way, instead of this piece of art being art, it is anti-art. In the field of music, Schoenberg used his music for the vehicle of modern thought. He rejected ritual and invented the 12-tone row. There is perpetual variation, yet no resolution. In pop culture, music gave the younger generation a very fragmented view of the world. Films, seen by so many people, also showed this, especially from the ‘60s. Movies from this time show what happens when man tries to live like a machine and in non-reason. These ideas spread from mainland Europe to England and then to the United States. A generation gap took form because the older group of people from the United States still held to their old ideas of morality. However, the younger generation was being educated with this kind of philosophy. They then realized that their parents’ values were founded on nothing but dead tradition. As a Christian-dominated consensus weakened, two values were taken up: personal peace and affluence. Personal peace is the idea that you don’t want to be bothered with anything. You just want your own peace, and you don’t want to be bothered by anyone else’s problems. It does not matter whether hundreds have died in a natural disaster. You just hope it does not affect you. Affluence is just how people want more and more. They will do anything to get more. These two ideas are dominant in our society today. In the early ‘60s, many students questioned why they should be educated. They were told that they would have a better chance of making more money. They then asked why they would want to make more money? The answer? Well, so that they could send their kids to school. No wonder they revolted. To them, life was perpetual. It had no meaning. Soon, drugs were brought into the picture. Again, drugs (this time LSD) were thought of to introduce into water. The hippie movement believed that this was the answer, and off they went. They revolted against their parents’ ideas of personal peace and affluence. They wanted more to life, but drugs were not the answer. The optimism of drugs ended when key people overdosed and ended up dying. This generation ended with the same two values. Personal peace and affluence. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr., stated that law was based on experience. He also said that truth is just whatever the majority vote happens to be. Frederick Moore Vinson said, "Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes." All is relative and comes from experience. There are no absolutes. These were the kinds of ideas that were at play. The only absolute allowed was the absolute insistence that there were no absolutes. They tried to create the perfect law constructed on nature, but this didn’t work either. Nature is both cruel and non-cruel. There began a group of "special people" - the elite - who would get to decide the arbitrary absolutes, and people were perfectly willing to give up their liberties step by step in order to pursue personal peace and affluence. The authoritarian state came to fill the loss of Christian principles. The idea of determinism started to become dominant. With this, people can blame anything a person does on the way the environment conditioned them. Society can bring what society wants, so all they had to do was construct the right environment to get people to "behave." The people who manipulate society have quite a bit of influence. In fact, they control what is taught in schools down to the lowest grades. Genetic engineering was brought into place to "help society." People accept the idea of manipulation because they have no absolute laws. They think that what is gives no clue to what it should be. Thus, it is quite easy to impose arbitrary absolutes on people. Arthur Koestler suggested that a chemical element be developed to bring man to tranquility. He also suggested that the community put this special chemical, along with a birth control pill in drinking water to force the community to accept it. There is a problem, however. Who is to be the one that controls all these controllers? The elite, of course. This group of elitists will be king. The law being king will become the king being law. Another way of manipulating is through subliminal influence. This is a way in which a message will be flashed so quickly you can’t see it throughout a film. By the time the film is over, all you can think about is what that message said. Though this way of manipulation is illegal, with arbitrary laws, it could become legal if it looked like society would benefit by it. The media is also a huge way for manipulation to get across the crowds. The media has a certain way of telling you only what they want you to think about a certain situation and leaving out other "non-important" facts. Overall, some are uncomfortable at best with the situation of our society, but most will not go to any trouble because they are just pursuing their personal peace and affluence. Here is a very good example out of Cornerstone Cirriculum's catologue from 1998 on how art change from the Renaissance/Reformation to modern times.

From the Renaissance and Reformation period:

From the Impressionist period:

From the Post-Impressionist period:From modern times:What Pollock might have painted:All of this has happened because of the ideas and philosophies behind it. In Francis Schaeffer’s How Should We Then Live?, there is a rendition of the twenty-third psalm that sums up what has happened in the progression of humanistic thinking throughout the ages.

They began- I am my shepherd
Then- Sheep are my shepherd
Then-Everything is my shepherd
Finally-Nothing is my shepherd

So, who are you? Are you the image-bearer of God who has something to live for, or are you one to follow humanistic thinking and to reject the fact that there is a loving God whose image we are created in? Though, all these thoughts about society can be quite depressing, we must remember to live by faith, living into who we are in Christ and remembering that He is ultimately in control.

~~~

Francis A. Schaeffer. How Should We Then Live?. Illinois: Crossway Books, 1976

We've Got a New Blogger!

2008-07-07T10:40:00.002-06:00

Welcome to the world of blogging, Jason! I can assure you that in this life, it will be the one thing you regret most.

http://shalomistheword.blogspot.com/

Natural Selection

2008-07-02T16:55:00.004-06:00

Often when talking to an evolutionist or reading their materiel, you will run across the phrase natural selection. This phrase is often used when trying to prove evolution. Because it is so strongly associated with evolution, many people will get scared off by it, assuming it may as well be evolution itself. Natural selection isn’t in and of itself bad. It’s the application that evolutionists use that is bad. A simple definition may clear up some problems. Natural selection is simply the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common. Sounds like a lot of garble, but it really isn’t. Let us look first at how genetics work before understanding what natural selection is all about.

Many people get scared off by genetics as soon as they see all these random letters and Punnet squares. It’s really not that hard. In fact, after breeding gerbils, figuring out genetics has become rather addicting for me. I figure out genetics like other people would do Sudoku. After I’ve unlocked something new about a gerbil’s genes, all I can do when I go to sleep, is try to figure out what their offspring might be. Just for the sake of not boring you all before I even get to natural selection, I’ll keep this very simple. On a chromosome, there is a specific place where a gene is located. This place is call the locus. There are seven known loci that exist in gerbils: A, C, D, E, G, P, Sp. Each of these letters represent how the locus will affect the gerbil. For example, the A gene controls whether the belly will be white and if there will be ticking. For each letter, there is a dominant gene (A, C, D, E, G, P) and a recessive gene (a, c, d, e, g, p). The capitol "A" will make the belly white, but a lower case "a" will make the belly solid with the rest of the coat. The two gerbil parents always give the a pup a set of letters (the letters represent the gene). These letters may be all dominant letters, all recessive letters, or some of each. The dominant gene will always be the one that shows up in the gerbil. If one gerbil parent gave a pup an A and the other gerbil gave a pup an a, the A will be the gene to show up in the pup’s coat, making that pup have a white belly. The only way to make a recessive gene (a, c, d, e, g, p) show up in a pup is for both of the parents to give the pup a recessive gene. In order for the pup to have an "a" show up in their coat, making them have the same color of belly as the rest of their coat, would be for both parents to give it an "a." Now, because both parents give their pups a set up genes, each pup has two of each letter. Thus, if one gerbil parent were to give the pup an "A" and the other gerbil were to give the pup an "a," the genetic code for its A gene would be "Aa." If one gerbil were to give the pup an "A," and the other gerbil were to give it an "A" also, its genetic code for the A gene would be "AA." And finally, if one gerbil were to give a pup an "a," and the other gerbil were to give the same pup an "a," the pup’s genetic code would be "aa." This can be repeated with all letters. For now, we’ll only focus on the A gene and the P gene. The A gene controls the color of the belly. The dominant gene (A) makes the belly white, while the recessive gene (a) makes the belly the same color as the rest of the coat. The P gene determines whether the gerbil’s eyes will be red or black. The dominant gene (P) makes the eyes black, and the recessive gene (p) makes the eyes red. It also has a lightening affect on the whole coat. Now, let’s learn something about their actual colors. This is an agouti gerbil: notice its black eyes. This gerbil does have a white belly, though you can't see it.

An agouti gerbil is the most basic color of gerbil. It wasn’t until about 30-40 years ago that they started being able to get colors besides agouti. The agouti gerbil has a white belly, meaning that it had to have an "A." We don’t know whether the second A gene is upper or lower case. Remember, there can be hidden recessive genes that won’t ever show up unless they get paired up with another recessive gene of the same letter. Notice that the gerbil’s eyes are black, meaning that it had to have a "P." It may have a "p" as its second letter, but that will not show up unless it is paired up with another "p." We will use the "-" to show that we don’t know what the second letter out of a gene is. Thus, this agouti gerbil’s genetic code for the A gene and the P gene is A-P-. Now, by knowing this agouti’s parents’ genetic code, I can say that this gerbil has a recessive gene for the second P gene and a dominant gene for the second A gene. Therefore, we know that its genetic code for the A gene and the P gene is AAPp. If I were to breed this gerbil with another gerbil that had the same genetic code, all the gerbils would have the dominant A for their A genes. Since gerbils can give either a dominant or a recessive gene to a pup, however, a recessive "p" will probably be paired up with another recessive "p" about half the time. Since both genes have to be recessive for it to show up in the gerbil’s coloring (as is the case here), the pup will have red eyes. This gerbil’s genetic code for the A gene will be AA, and its genetic code for the P gene will be pp. Because the p gene also lightens up the gerbil’s coat, this is what a gerbil with AApp genes will look like. It is called an argente.

This is just a very basic explanation of how genetics work. There are also many ways in which some of the other genes will work together to make a completely different color of coat. If you are wondering how the Punnet square works into all of this, it is just the way in which you can easily organize your genes and see how many variations you could possibly have with a given set of parents.

I may have lost many of you through that lengthy explanation of genetics, but I think it will make natural selection easier to understand.

There really isn’t a problem with natural selection itself. It is in how it is applied to evolution that is the problem. It is often said that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. When natural selection is in action, the "selection" will only be selecting information that already existed. Face it, with everything you already know about genetics, you don’t see any possible way that you could arrange all those genes to make, say, a hamster, right? Sure you can make variations off of a gerbil that may cause the gerbil to look completely different that your original gerbil, but it is still not a hamster. Evolutionists basically will say that natural selection can add new information to the genetic code. This is not true, however. Natural selection only works with information that is already there.

From a creationist’s perspective, natural selection is the way in which organisms possessing specific characteristics survive in a given climate better than those who don’t have those characteristics. Those without the characteristics diminish in number or die. This can be seen in even noticing where certain people groups settled. Those with darker skin tended to settle down where there was much sunshine and heat. People with light complexion tended to head up north where there wasn’t as much sun and heat. Because people stayed in their own people group, darker skinned people married darker skinned people, producing babies that had darker skin. Of course, there could be recessive genes that could have caused a baby to have light skin, but in a hot, humid, bright climate without sun screen, light-skinned people aren’t going to do as well because they will run into radiation problems.

From an evolutionist’s perspective, natural selection is the way in which new information is put into genetics, causing a completely different organism to come from two parents which were the same.

Natural selection is not necessarily a bad phrase, but if you do not define what you mean by natural selection, you may lose a few friends over them thinking you have gone off the deep end. Natural selection is a very real and true thing, but not when it is used interchangeably with the word evolution.

Judy Collins

2008-06-29T15:38:00.003-06:00

About a week ago, an orchestra that I am in played a few pieces with Judy Collins. It was for some national children's hospital convention they had decided to have in Denver. Because Judy Collins grew up in Colorado, they thought it would be neat to have her perform for the convention. Though I'm sure we were a pretty poor follow up for the Boston Pops, we did play a few numbers with her. Just having been around her for that long, I have a few things to say about her...

Some good things about her:

She was born and raised in Colorado, and that's always a big plus.
She has a clear voice, and she sings in tune.
She pronounces Colorado correctly when she's speaking.

Some not-so-great things about her:

She looks like a barnyard hippie who would be making tea in Boulder.
All her music sounds the same - like music straight out of the '60s.
Even though it was written in the contract that she would practice with us, she just sent out her pianist to sing in falsetto.
For her first song, she didn't us any warning besides a backward glance. No wonder she didn't have much an orchestra to back her up...
She doesn't pronounce Colorado correctly when she's singing (one of those singer things...).

It was a very strange experience, and I don't think it is one I would care to repeat. Judy Collins is definitely not my favorite pop star. I don't have any idea who is, but not her.

A Rock Concert Without Electricity?

2008-06-29T15:23:00.002-06:00

My sister and I were lounging around on the trampoline a few nights ago and were talking about random things. One of these random things was how funny it would be if, during a rock concert, all the power turned off. I can imagine all these people who were previously waving around, suddenly feeling very conspicuous and wondering how fast they can get out of there. The soloist(s) would be left yelling at a blank microphone. Only the first three rows of the audience would hear them, and they would realise how bad they sound. The drummer would be as loud as ever, and the guitarist would be left pinging notes out of his instrument. Everything is dark, and people realise how ridiculous it all was. Their emotions are turned off like a light switch, and they are left standing there to think. Then the backup power comes, the lights turn on, the smoke starts up, the amplifier turns on with a bang, and the soloists don't sound so bad. Everyone is startled because the noise starts up once more so loudly and so suddenly. But they go right back to waving around and being drowned out by their emotions.

How easily our emotions are turned on and off, but do we let that get in the way of trying to learn more about God? Our we always in such an emotional hype that we don't even give ourselves a chance to think and to ponder?

Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri

2008-06-24T14:29:00.058-06:00

Yup, we drove through the best part of the United States. Flat ground, green trees, wheat, corn, cows, bugs, humidity, sweat, windmills, tornadoes, and never a turn in the road for hundreds of miles. You guessed it! The Midwest.

We drove to Topeka, Kansas the first day. Jacob thought he would like it, and he was excited - for the first three hours of nothing.Of course, the green pillow had to come along.

Windmills that take more power to mix their concrete base than they produce in their lifetime.Evil, evil oil drilling...An oasis in the middle of Kansas! Bet you can't guess where this sign was from...I was a little surprised how many of these types of signs are wandering around in the middle of Kansas.A Kansas mountain! Gahh...brings back bad memories of a book I was forced to read.After not such a good night of sleep, I was very glad to find the green pillow waiting for me in the car.Ben started pouting when I told him he couldn't use it. He started tattling on me, so I let him have it.Jacob even got to be a privileged one to use it. Jacob is very sensitive to light.I thought for sure that Ben would like to hear the same story for the third time...
...but he wasn't. I think that Hawaii would benefit from a few more of these signs.

Believe it or not, I don't think I have ever seen a real live pig. Not an experience I would care to repeat...A great license plate.

I think I have just about perfected the skill of taking pictures of oneself.Ben, on the other hand, hasn't.

I have even gotten pretty good at taking pictures of several people.

Ben enjoying misery.

One of our favorite places to stop. This one wasn't any ordinary rest stop, however...

...It was a quality award winner!
No wonder! It had a three-in-one hand washer! 1. squirts soap onto you 2. sprays water at you for a long time 3. blasts you away with air.

It was even made by MoDOT!

And this rest area had vending machines!I wanted all three 144 free black cats...

...but then I saw what they looked like.

Finally in Missouri... The stadium behind the sign is where the Kansas City Chiefs play.

Some excitement passed us! And some more!And some more!Yippee! A Motel 6!Then all my hopes were dashed. We passed it up. A dead snake. This building brought back fun memories.

When I started acting really weird just thinking of that building, Ben attempted to have a few of his wise ways ware off on me.It didn't work too well.Almost to our destination - Columbia.

And we returned to our colorful Colorado.

Cement or Concrete?

2008-06-24T13:47:00.005-06:00

No, it's not an option.

You know that white/gray stuff they use for sidewalks? Do you know its ingredients?

water
aggregates (sand, crushed stone, etc.)
chemical mixtures for various reasons

AND

CEMENT

Do any of you know what cement looks like? This:

I don't know about any of you guys, but I have never, ever been able to build something that is strong out of this fine, powdery stuff.

And this supposed "cement" shrine?I would like to meet the master who got cement to stay in that shape.

I am going to go eat an egg. Here is a picture of it:Confused? You should be. I was just showing you what it's like when someone talks about a cement sidewalk when cement is only an ingredient of the sidewalk.

No, it's not an option. It's not like deciding whether to say Either or eIther. Cement and concrete are two different things, and unless you want people to think you have no knowledge of building materials, please call the white/gray stuff concrete.

The Arctic and Global Warming

2008-06-18T10:39:00.003-06:00

Recently, Jeff posted this article as a comment on my last global warming post. I thought it was a pretty good article, but I wasn't sure if any of you would look at old comments, so I decided just to post it. I haven't looked any of the information up to see how reliable it is, but I know the dating of the earth is off. I don't know how much other evolutionary bias is on this article, but it is nice to see that not all evolutionists believe everything the EPA says.
~~~
Alaska's Polar Bears: Going With The FloeBy INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILYJune 16, 2008 4:20 PM PTEnergy:

The green light given by the Fish and Wildlife Service for oil drilling off Alaska is being portrayed as an OK to hurt polar bears. But there are so many polar bears, it's the drillers who should worry.

Environmentalists rejoiced last month when Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne declared the polar bear endangered. The designation gave them a poster pet for the dangers of global warming and a club to bludgeon oil companies.

Last week, however, there was a break in the ice, so to speak. New Fish and Wildlife regulations gave legal protection to seven oil companies that plan to search for oil in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast if "small numbers" of polar bears and Pacific walruses are incidentally harmed over the next five years.

The Associated Press went ballistic, proclaiming that less than a month after the polar bear was listed as endangered, "the Bush administration is giving oil companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in the pursuit of oil and natural gas."

What the administration is doing is honoring contracts signed in February, before the polar bear was listed wrongly, we believe as endangered. Fact is, polar bears aren't endangered, either by oil companies or climate change.

When he made the listing, Kempthorne noted that exploration in the Chukchi Sea was exempt. "Polar bears are already protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act," he explained, "which has more stringent protections for polar bears than the Endangered Species Act does."

Listing the polar bear as endangered was a political decision made under political pressure.

The Mineral Management Service estimates we could recover 15 billion barrels of oil plus 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from the Chukchi Sea's 29.7 million acres. Oil companies enjoyed a similar exclusion in the Chukchi from 1991 to 1996 and in the Beaufort Sea since 1993 with no effect on the bears.

In fact, there's no proof of a single bear being harmed by oil operations in Alaska since 1993. Since 1960, when the Alaska oil hunt began, only two oil-related bear fatalities have been documented.

The world polar bear population is at a modern high and growing. Mitch Taylor, polar bear biologist with the Government of Nunavut, a territory in Canada, puts the current population at 24,000, up 40% since 1974. Some 2,000 of these bears live in and around the Chukchi Sea, where the oil companies purchased leases worth $2.6 billion in February.

Taylor says that, contrary to greenie hype, climate change, particularly in the Arctic, is not pushing them to the brink of extinction. They have and will continue to adapt to their environment.The ice-loving bears have survived warmer periods than we are experiencing now. The most recent such period occurred 6,000 and 9,000 years ago, and it was even warmer between 110,000 and 130,000 years ago, long before the first SUV hit the road.

In a report to Fish and Wildlife, Taylor stated: "No evidence exists that suggests that both bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions." Taylor stressed polar bears' adaptability, saying they evolved from grizzlies 250,000 years ago and as a distinct species about 125,000 years ago when natural climate change occurred.

From caribou that have thrived for 30 years as 15 billion barrels have been pumped from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska to marine life thriving among drilling platforms that act like artificial reefs off the Louisiana coast, evidence says oil exploration and the environment can coexist. Katrina ravaged Gulf of Mexico oil facilities and not a single drop of oil was leaked or spilled.

Oil companies are criticized for not using their "obscene" profits to find more oil but then attacked when they want to. Lift the polar bear's endangered status. Drill in the Chukchi. Drill now.

Pachelbel's Canon

2008-06-14T10:01:00.002-06:00

If anyone has played in an ensemble as a cellist for any length of time, you will hear them complaining about Pachelbel's Canon. I, too have my complaints, and, being a cellist of a quartet, I am fortunate enough to get to play it at nearly every wedding I play at. To my relief, brides usually walk fast, so I only have to repeat the same eight notes four of five times.

Do me a big favor. Never, ever request Canon. And if you have to, don't hum the violin part. Hum the cello part to acknowledge all the pain the cellist is having to go through to make that piece possible.

Swimming

2008-06-13T20:45:00.001-06:00

This week I started swim team. When you haven't swum for nine months and you get into a pool and the coach suddenly tells you to do 100 yards of freestyle, you get very tired.

On Monday, we did 1.5 hours of breaststroke.
On Tuesday, we did 1.5 hours of butterfly.
On Wednesday, we did 1.5 hours of freestyle.
On Thursday, we did 1.5 hours of flutterkick/backstroke.
On Friday, we did 1.5 hours of starts and flip-turns.

I can't wait to sleep in tomorrow morning.

I am sore.

End of story.

Global Warming?

2008-06-12T09:07:00.005-06:00

According to April and Becky, it was snowing in Beaver Creek this morning. Not only that, it was snowing hard. Global warming? I don't know... It kind of appears that Colorado is cooling, though scientists think it's getting warmer. In my opinion, I think we should just all start putting lots of pollution into the atmosphere so that it will snow. That would cool things down. Don't like the idea? Okay, maybe it's not such a great idea. Looking at some arguments from both sides, I have come to some conclusions on global warming. I don't want to look at each argument for and against global warming because that would literally take hours, but I just want to point out some obvious things wrong with the global warming idea.

First, scientists love to blame people for 99% of all global warming problems. In fact, one lady, who had been convinced people were the sole problem of global warming, even aborted her child so that she could help save the planet. I was not only shocked but horrified that such measures should be taken in the name of "saving the planet." Back on topic, however. One of the very common phrases used with global warming is the phrase "the greenhouse effect." The greenhouse effect is simply the process by which certain gasses (principally water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) trap heat that would otherwise escape the earth and radiate into space. Basically, we can't live without it, but scientists seem to think it's just about the worst thing that has ever happened. There are a few basic facts about the greenhouse effect.

1) Because of the industrial revolution, huge quantities of coal, wood, natural gas, and gasoline have been burned to generate electrical power to keep society running. As a result, we have, indeed, been generating a lot more carbon dioxide and putting it into the air.
2) The population of the earth is greater than it has ever been. All these "extra" people have produced a lot of carbon dioxide.
3) Humans only produce approximately 3% of the carbon dioxide produced by natural processes on the earth.

Because of the first two facts, worries about global warming have been generated. We know that carbon dioxide is a big participant of the greenhouse effect, which helps to warm and maintain this planet. We also know that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily over the last seventy years. Since carbon dioxide is a big factor in the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse effect warms the planet, won't that result in global warming? Not exactly. Although all of the conclusions are based on sound scientific reasoning, reality hasn't happened quite like that. See the two figures below to see what I mean. Notice that the carbon dioxide concentration is in parts per million (ppm).

The top figure does, indeed, tell us that the carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing in concentration. Now look at the second figure, but before you get panicked about all those spikes, look at the y-axis. Notice how the temperature is going up by increments of tenths of a degree. In total, this graph shows 1.2 degrees Celsius. That's not much. Also notice how the temperature change doesn't match the change in carbon dioxide concentration. Once the second graph hits about 1925, it averages out to be about the same temperatures every year.
A more accurate graph of the temperatures would look something like this:
It seems that this is a much better way to graph temperatures. Twenty degrees Celsius is going to make a difference. 1.2 degrees Celsius is not. The way in which the carbon dioxide is added to the air is also important. When we burn fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is not the only gas that is released. There are many others also. In fact, some of these gases reflect the light instead of absorbing it. This actually reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth, causing a cooling effect (maybe that is what happened in Colorado).

We know for sure that the greenhouse effect is not being enhanced enough to cause global warming. Because of this, the majority of atmospheric scientists believe that global warming isn't a problem. A poll conducted at the Institute of Science, Technology shows that only 17% of all the atmospheric scientists believe that global warming is a problem. The majority (53%) said that global warming is not a problem, and the rest (30%) said that there was not enough information to make that decision.

So, why is global warming made such a big deal? My guess is that politicians choose it as a popular thing to talk about to show their debating skills. Unfortunately, it seems to me that most politicians don't even realise that global warming isn't a problem. I think it's just another one of those great debate topics that people throw into the pot of things for politicians to argue about. It's a shame that people aren't more educated on the topic and that innocent lives are lost because of their ignorance.
~~~
Dr. Jay L. Wile. Exploring Creation with Physical Science. Indiana: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., 2000
Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Morag Turner. URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-495495/Meet-women-wont-babies--theyre-eco-friendly.html (11 June 2008)

Vintage Indy!

2008-06-10T16:16:00.003-06:00

Well, Ryan had a great idea. A post on Vintage Indy!

First of all, I would like to know how many stunt doubles he has. I'm not totally convinced that someone 65 years old could do all that he did...

There was a "magnetic box" close to the beginning. It was so magnetic, in fact, that Indy could throw bullets from across the warehouse, and the bullets would go directly to the box. Do you know how magnetic of a box that would have had to be? VERY. And the really stupid part? Once they finally got "the box," they could pull off magnetic items that stuck to it. It seems to me that the Russians, who were looking for the box, would most likely have some metal in their shoes or that they would have metal in their mouths. They didn't stick to the box at all. Very odd.

The human-dragging ants were rather funny. Just crawling over the guy, these ants could drag him into their hole. Impressive.

Some things I learned from the movie-

1. Did you know that if you climb into a lead-lined refrigerator right before an atomic explosion, you'll survive?
2. Did you know that you can survive riding down three water falls in an open car?
3. Did you know that you can sword fight with someone on two separate cars, going quite fast, and through the jungle?
4. Did you know that if you comb your hair, it's easier to die?
5. Did you know that a plastic skull full of plastic wrap is highly magnetic?
6. Did you know that magnets only work if they're visible?
7. Did you know that cutting open a mummy looks like cutting open a burlap sack?
8. Did you know that people can swing from trees like monkeys?
9. Did you know that all Indians set up secret entrances?
10. Did you know that all lakes were previous UFO landing sights?

I found it rather disappointing to find out that the whole thing *surprise, surprise* had to do with aliens. Like there aren't enough alien movies around all ready...

Is the movie worth seeing?
No comment.

Okay, yes, I will comment. It was a lot of fun to see a dumb movie that you can laugh about, but, like Steve says, you could debate whether Pirates of the Caribbean or Vintage Indy was better. It was fun, though.

Need Help!

2008-05-31T14:09:00.002-06:00

In case no one has noticed, I haven't been posting as frequently as I would like to. One great excuse is that I simply haven't had a whole lot of time to post. Another reason is because I don't know what to post about. Any ideas of things I could write on? Any serious ideas? I know I have enough funny ones coming...

The Art of Studying History

2008-05-31T14:08:00.000-06:00

The past couple of years I have been doing a history curriculum in which the author teaches history with a much different approach than most. I wasn't too sure about it at first, but I'm liking it more and more. The difference? Instead of having to memorize random facts, people, places, and dates, it gives you a huge overview of history. Within each subject, it narrows down on specific aspects, but it still keeps history in the broad sense. Why would this make any difference? It sure cuts down on memorization! After doing this, I feel like I can remember more than if I did history with just the traditional approach, and history just makes a whole lot more sense. Instead of pointlessly memorizing random things, it puts everything into a huge picture which can't be understood unless if you're looking at everything that happened before it and at the time. I guess this history program could be called a study of humanism. With each person you're leaning about, it makes you ask two questions. 1) Who (to the person that you're studying) is God? 2) Who, then, is man? Each of these questions is very easily answered after studying their lifestyle, occupation, and impact.

For example, if you were to look at a painting from the Reformation period and this particular person was of the reformed mindset, you would most likely see some everyday, ordinary things. Chances are, you would also see nature in the picture. Before the Reformation when the Catholic church had so much control, the only thing people thought should be painted were important things such as high positions in the Church and Madonna and Child. This was because the people living then were under such an illusion that they thought the ordinary, everyday man didn't have any importance. The only people who were very important were people that had positions in the Church. After all, to them, the Church was the gateway to Heaven. With this mind set, everything earthly was considered bad. Thus, nature and ordinary things were never painted. During the Reformation time period, the truth was starting to be made known. What a shock it must have been to those people to hear that the only way to Heaven was through the Son! The church started to lose their power and authority. The ordinary man and activities were painted. God created nature, so that, too, was painted. As the Reformation was getting underway, the Catholic church started to realise they were no longer the top dog, so they started commissioning people to paint them again to try to get the people to once again believe the Church was the only way. This is only one example of how much you can tell about a person's beliefs through the art of painting and sculpting.

Another way you can tell a person's beliefs is by what music they write. During the Middle Ages when the Catholic church had so much control, people weren't really aloud to sing in church. The monks in monasteries were the ones and only ones to sing. They had the "right way" of doing things, and they were the important people. Ordinary people weren't going to sing at their services. As the Reformation rolled around, however, people like Luther and Zwingli started writing hymns that the ordinary person could sing. They were also in languages that the ordinary people spoke - not Latin. Coming through and out of the Reformation, people started writing pieces and songs that also reflected their beliefs. Because I know how many of you love Bach (or should...), I'll pick on him. Because Schaeffer can say it a whole lot better than I ever could, I'll just write a quote from his book, How Should Then We Live?.

"JS Bach (1685-1750) was certainly the zenith of the composers coming out of the Reformation. His music was a direct result of the Reformation culture and the biblical Christianity of the time, which was so much a part of Bach himself. There would have been no Bach had there been no Luther. Bach wrote on his score initials representing such phrases as: "With the help of Jesus" - "To God alone be the glory" - "In the name of Jesus." It was appropriate that the last thing Bach the Christian wrote was "Before Thy Throne I Now Appear." Bach consciously related both the form and the words of his music to biblical truth. Out of the biblical context came a rich combination of music and words and a diversity with unity. This rested on the fact that the Bible gives unity to the universal and the particulars, and therefore the particulars have meaning. Expressed musically, there can be endless variety and diversity without chaos. There is variety yet resolution."

Throughout my study of history, I have found it extremely interesting to follow all these ideas through. Because of this history I have done, the different theological ideas and practices started making sense as far as why they did what they did. Nobody just wakes up one morning and decides to start a reformation. There has to be something leading up to it. This happens all through history. After doing just a little bit of history, it becomes evident that, to steal the expression, nothing happens in a vacuum. Everything that happens is a direct result of what has happened before and what people did in response to that.

I would strongly suggest that if you haven't already, read Francis A. Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live?. It is a very easy-to-read book, it's not dry, and it has plenty of pictures. It basically follows these ideas through Rome all the way to modern times, and it says it much better than I do.

History has continuity! Wow, I learned something this year...

Interesting Article

2008-05-15T13:42:00.002-06:00

I just recently ran across this article about problems with short-term mission programs. I have long seen that there were problems with it, but I haven't been able to nail it on the head. This article does, and I would highly recommend that you read it.

http://www.csm.org/articlewhymost.php

My Thoughts on Hawaii

2008-05-12T17:15:00.020-06:00

Wow, finally a post!

Before I say anything, I have to clear my name on the "neighbor" picture. That was actually taken at the Polynesian Cultural Center with people I didn't even know. We walked in the gate, they put the leis on us, they posed, someone snapped a picture, they walked off and did it with the next person. No choice in the matter, and it all happened within probably about thirty seconds. Everyone gets it done to them. Notice in my post I never said that the people in the picture were my neighbors. :)

Here is a picture of our neighbors and me:

The yacht club:

Sailing!

Sailing again!

"Scenic Picture"

Overlooking Honolulu and the tall ship (Falls of Clyde)

The tall ship
A place for cannibalistic activities

Overlooking Honolulu again

Wild chickens (they're everywhere there!)
Some beach

Another picture of the tall ship

A stingray

A model of the USS Constitution

An outdoor emergency warning system - on a fake palm tree

USS Missouri

Hawaii struck me as a very laid back place. People don't really have much to do (at least from what I saw), so as soon as they finish work, they all head down to the beach where they surf/sail/canoe/snorkel until the sun goes down. At that point, they all tromp up to the grocery store (still with beach attire) where they buy dinner. They then head home where they go to bed and do the same thing the next day. Surfing and being Hawaiian is their religion. I sometimes think that they take their surfing more seriously than Coloradans take skiing or riding (if that's possible). Caucasians are by far the minority. I felt like I was albino there. Everyone that we came across was very nice. Even the security guards in the airport were cracking jokes. I was starting to get a little skeptical of all the "aloha-ing" and "mahalo-ing" thinking that they were putting it all on for the tourists. Though this is probably part of the reason, they really do truly say that in everyday life. It seems to me that many of the native Hawaiians are poor. The "real Hawaii" behind the tourist Hawaii isn't really all that kept up. Unlike here, there are hardly any new cars. If there is a new car, it's probably a tourist who rented it. There are hardly any bikers there. I think I probably saw five professional bikers (spandex and all) in the time I was there. All the roads are 35 mph unless it's a highway. If that's the case, the speed limit gets bumped up to a whole...55 mph. Wow! Something that struck me while I was there was the fact that the poor people who live there really don't get to travel anywhere. They could drive across the island (probably takes 1.5 hours) and stay there, or they could pay $600 for an airplane ticket. They're pretty stuck there. Would I go back? I haven't decided yet. I loved it there, but if I went back, I think I would like to take up surfing and do a whole lot more sailing. If any of you ever get a chance to try sailing, go for it! It's well worth it.

May Day Pictures (like no one has seen enough...)!

2008-05-03T12:56:00.009-06:00

I'm sure that no one has seen enough May Day pictures, so here are some more.

"Mommy! They're walking a robot down the sidewalk!"

"You do the hockey-pokey and you turn..."

Mark looks on in disgust.

The Johnsons laugh at our failure.

Beth still can't quite believe we didn't see them on the roof.

Becky vows never to have anything to do with May Day again.

Hawaii (HA-vah-ee)

2008-04-28T19:53:00.004-06:00

Our neighbors invited us to go to Hawaii with them. It was fun, and we got to practice the hulla on the beach every morning. What a life... Oh, yeah. And we won't talk about the leis. :S

On a Lighter Note...

2008-04-07T19:42:00.007-06:00

One of my gerbils was jumping onto the top of his water bottle and chewing on the wire holding it up. Of course, since I have a new camera, I had to get a video of it. :)

My two, three-week-old pups learning how to eat (and steal food):

Some gerbils sleeping with their pups:

Don't say it, Steve...

Benny Hinn and Goats

2008-04-07T19:21:00.003-06:00

Couldn't help but see a hilarious similarity between Benny Hinn's "test subjects" and these goats.

On the subject of Benny Hinn, I can't help but wonder why the "catchers" don't fall over too, but that's for a different post.

More Atheist Talk

2008-04-06T17:09:00.002-06:00

I came across this list of questions that an atheist wrote to try to get Christians to sound stupid. These questions are excellent examples of what you would be faced with. If you can't come up with a good answer to each of these questions, you'd better think twice before entering into a debate with an atheist.

~~~
Why won't God heal amputees?Yet supposedly heals anything that can by itself heal naturally?

How can a mother enjoy Heaven knowing her atheist son is suffering in Hell?

Why do good moral atheists go to Hell and evil immoral Jesus-accepting-Christians go to Heaven?

Why is God obsessed with testing our faith when those found of skeptical inquiry will all be led to Hell?

What finite sin deserves infinite punishment?

Why do we deserve Hell for something Adam and Eve did?Should we charge grandchildren with the crimes of their grandparents?

Why do we deserve Hell for not being as perfect as Jesus?

Why does the creationist account of the creation of the earth contradict with all of science?Is a test of faith worth the damnation of those deterred from God because of this fact?

Why would an omniscient author create such a barbaric and scientifically literate book with all the knowledge he could provide.

What about animal sacrifice entices God so intensely as to have pages and pages on how to do it?

Why is religion so demographic?

Why do people of all religions claim God speaks to them if there's only one God? Is God speaking to Hindus? Isn't that misleading for God to do?

Why does God want us to stone our rebellious children?He specifically says his words are perfect and should never change.

Why did God drown innocent babies in the Great Flood?

Why does God want us to stone non-believers and worshippers of other gods?He specifically says his words are perfect and should never change.

Why doesn't God want women to talk in church?He specifically says his words are perfect and should never change.

Why does God want us to stone people who work on Sundays?He specifically says his words are perfect and should never change.

Why did God demand so much killing and destruction?

Why did God enlighten only one specific small area of the world? Did he no forsee the immense conflict this would bring?

Why has God planted so much evidence of evolution and non-designed world?

Why would God combine our breathing and eating channels into one single orifice?Think of the lives this slipshod design has cost.

Why do so many creatures have completely useless features that evidence evolution?

In natural disasters, many people die before having accepted Jesus. Why strip their chance to get into Heaven so viciously?

Why do we still have gurus like Jesus today tricking people into believing they can perform miracles? Why should atheists disregard these gurus yet accept Jesus as the only true miracle worker?

Why does God condone slavery?

Why does the Bible say that God would direct a Holy War, and the murder of millions of people. And yet condemn mass murder as morally incorrect?

Why did God only inform Christians about "the truth" and not everyone else?

Why would God allow atheists to ask you a bunch of questions that you cannot answer, how can you save souls without the right answers to give them? (my note-this is a terrible thing an atheist could ask. How much more personal could it get?)

Why would God have Adam marry Eve who is his own daughter and then later make it immoral to mate with your own off-spring?

Why would God create the sun at the end of the week after he created the difference between night and day?

Why would God allow Darwin followers to discover all those millions of fossils which can be used as evidence to disprove the storyline of his authorized book, the Bible.

Why is the earth no longer square shaped.

Why did God not give us the free will to be perfect Christians without lieing about it?

Why did God not trust women to head up and to lead his early Christian churches?

Why did God call Paul to replace Jesus and his teachings, is it because Jesus did not communicate the message clear enough?

~~~

And that's just a few. As you can well see, atheists have plenty of logic. Most of their questions just have to do with them not knowing that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. A lot of these questions are almost funny, they're so ridiculous, but they make you think. I've found that I grow the most in my faith when I am challenged in such a way. Sadly, it is mainly the Christian's fault that atheists live in such an illusioned world. Christians have created for themselves many questions like this just because they don't understand it themselves. We must strive to know more. We must ask God to reveal to us His truths in His Scriptures. We must remember what we've learned.

As Pertaining to Debating with Atheists

2008-04-04T16:29:00.002-06:00

I'm afraid this is going to be more a rant than a lecture.

About a month ago, I decided to join a debate forum. I was tired of people getting offended for what I said, and I was especially tired of people running and hiding as soon as I tried to discuss anything. Okay, this is mainly my fault. I kind of have this way of saying everything I know about the subject in five minutes so that by the time I'm done, people are so sick of hearing about it that they leave. I was excited to start debating with other people that would actually listen and argue back. My favorite thing to debate about, however, is theology. Unfortunately, this forum didn't have too many Christians on it. Even the section for talking about religion was mostly atheists coming in and telling everyone that they're nuts. After even a couple days of this degrading way atheists talk about Christianity, I couldn't stand it. I left. However, it has gotten me to think why it is so hard to debate religion with atheists.

1. In my experience with atheists, it seems that many of them grew up in a Christian family. Having had this background, many of them have all the arguments, and they can even pick out instances in the Bible to use against you. For example, someone told me that they would never want to become a Christian because the God of the Old Testament was very harsh, cruel, and unjust. Well, nevermind the fact that they're completely missing the point of the whole Old Testament, but they had enough background to make these conclusions.
2. They're fighting not only against you as a Christian but also against themselves. All people innately have a sense of needing a supreme being. All people also innately have a sense that they are separated from that supreme being. Because of the fall, we are indeed separated from God. All people (even Christians) try to do things to bridge the gap that is between God and man. Think of the Tower of Babel. The people were building a tower up to heaven, signifying that they thought that they could bridge that gap between their God and themselves on their own. Well, believe it or not, atheists also have those feelings. Instead of making the real God their God, they make nature itself and man their god. So, even though they would never admit to worshipping themselves, they are indeed trying to bridge the gap between what they know to be higher than they. All that to say, when they're telling you that there isn't a God, they're having to ingrain that into themselves also.
3. Atheists, in general, tend to be very dogmatic. You are wrong. Even if you're right, you're still wrong. They have all the "good arguments" under their belt, and they know how to use them. They know the weaknesses of Christianity (in natural wisdom), and they know how to use them against Christians. They believe whole-heartedly in science. They have to see everything for themselves. Christians don't. Doesn't that seem a little strange to them?
4. Atheists, for the most part, are very logical people. They've worked out the logic in their arguments, and they know how to use them. Christianity, on the other hand, is not ever going to appear logical to the natural mind. Atheists see this, and use it against Christians. As I said before, they know the "weak" part of the plan (though we know there isn't actually a weak part).
5. It all comes down to faith. Even though atheists think they can see and know everything by science, they actually can't. They don't actually know everything. They don't know for sure that it rained for 2.7 million years to fill up the oceans, and they didn't know that there was a "big bang." Believe it or not, they weren't actually there to see it. Even if they claim they were, I don't know if they could survive the rain that long. :) However, on the other hand, we have Christianity. We, too, have to have faith. Much more so than atheists (though I'm beginning to think that it would take a whole lot more faith to believe atheism). We must have faith that we don't have to see everything. We can definitely (and should!) think about things, but when it comes down to whether you believe in God or not, that comes down to whether or not you are in Christ.
6. Okay, I can't be totally hard on atheists. I know that many Christians use pretty puny arguments against them, causing them to think that Christians are these loony, weak people that believe in some guy named Jesus. It is going to seem absurd to them, and when Christians use some not-so-great arguments against them, it's going to confirm their suspicions. Think deeply before you talk to them. Can you fully explain what you are talking about? Do you know what you believe? How do you know what you believe? Don't forget that for the most part, atheists do know what they believe in, why they believe it, how they believe it, and how to defend themselves. You aren't going to convince them because that comes down to faith, but if you represent Christianity to them as being some organization for people who need help, you're not going to be doing a single good thing for them. If you just stand there with a blank face while they're lecturing you, it's only going to confirm it in their mind that the theory of evolution is far superior.
7. Talk to them out of love. <---One of my biggest problems I face when debating. Don't forget you're representing Christianity to them. If you get all hussled up, they're going to see that you can't defend yourself. If you just start shouting at them with no logic, their suspicions are going to be confirmed. Be patient and listen to them. Don't just bark back at them. Think. Show the love of Christ to them by how you speak to them. Don't get mad at them.

To sum this all up, I just want to say that atheists (in my opinion) are some of the absolute hardest people to deal with, but I also have to remember that it's not my work that's going to get anyone saved. It's God's work. Faith.

Music

2008-03-20T19:29:00.003-06:00

Well, as many of you know, I have well expressed my opinion that bluegrass, in general, is not worth listen to. To me, it sounds like a bunch of people who have been out on the ranch, belting out some tune they happened to put empty words with. I don't like the sound. I don't like lots of chromatics. I just don't like it. Does that mean it's bad? No. Yet, why in the world can you put a rockus beat to it, flash strobe-lights around, say it's bluegrass, and agree that it isn't bad? Why would you sing about Jesus, put a beat to it, call it bluegrass, and yet still agree that it's okay? Just because it's talking about Jesus? The words might not be bad if you read them, but when you drown out the words with music so that you can only vaguely hear the words "Jesus rocks" every so often, does that mean it's okay? Does that mean I think it's bad? Not necessarily. In fact, this is only my personal preference. So why am I making a big deal about it? Because I don't think people know what "bad music" is. So, what is bad music? I think that when trying to figure out what "bad music" is, there are several things you must take into account.

1. The culture-In our western culture, we're pretty tame as far as music goes. Ever heard of the missionaries who go to African countries, hear them playing their African drums, are shocked at what they're hearing, and immediately tell them that they must reform their taste of music?

It's cultural. There's absolutely no reason to force those Africans to stop playing those African drums and reform to our western taste of music unless if there's some demonic reason they're playing them.
2. A lot of what is good music and bad music has to do with what the culture thinks is good music and bad music. Using the example from before, if the Africans are playing what would be considered rock music in their country, chances are it wouldn't really be reverent to play for worship.
3. It has a lot to do with how you've grown up. If you've grown up around a classical-music-only group, chances are, you wouldn't think too highly of rock music. During worship, you most likely would feel uncomfortable with having a worship team. If anything, you would feel that you're being irreverent to God in playing such music during worship. On the other hand, if you've grown up around it, you aren't going to feel that you're doing God justice if you worship with hymns only.
4.It has a lot to do with what the words say vs. what the music says. For example, you could have some contemporary worship song that has basically good words (besides the fact that most of them say absolutely nothing), but it could have such loud, obnoxious music that you wouldn't even be able to hear the words. Does an offertory using the words from "Be Still My Soul" fit with rockus, loud music? Absolutely not. The words are calling you to be still and calm and to walk a life of faith, yet what is the music calling you to do? It's calling you to get riled up. The two don't match eachother; therefore, I don't personally see that this would be considered good music.
5. Having grown up with only listening to classical music, I kind of have the view that rock music is mostly associated with a worldly way of living. Of course this is a rather warped view considering there are perfectly sincere Christians who love their rock music. So what makes rock music so bad? One big reason is because most of the words aren't all that great. Also, the music really can cause you to get caught up emotionally in it. I don't know about you all, but I like to be pretty in control of myself. In worship, I don't personally believe that God is calling us to be hugely emotional. I do believe we should be happy, but not because of some outside emotion-producer. I think it should be because we know who we are in Christ. You can be happy and joyful, but that's not the same things as being out of control. I think that much contemporary worship music today stresses on emotion. It makes you feel good because of the music-not because you know who you are in Christ. Just for a quick example, I think of the Newsboy's "Blessed Be the Name of the Lord". First watch the video

Now read the lyrics:

Blessed be Your name In the land that is plentiful Where Your streams of abundance flow Blessed be Your name And blessed be Your name When I'm found in the desert place Though I walk through the wilderness Blessed be your name
CHORUS: Every blessing You pour out I'll Turn back to praise And when the darkness closes in, Lord Still I will say Blessed be the name of the Lord Blessed be Your name Blessed be the name of the Lord Blessed be Your glorious name
Blessed be Your name When the sun's shining down on me When the world's "all as it should be" Blessed be You name And blessed be Your name On the road marked with suffering Though there's pain in the offering Blessed be Your name
CHORUS
You give and take away You give and take away My heart will choose to say Lord, blessed be Your name I will bless Your name
CHORUS
Blessed be the name of the Lord Blessed be Your name Blessed be the name of the Lord Blessed be Your glorious name
You give and take away You give and take away My heart will choose to say Lord, blessed be Your name *Repeat*

Says hardly anything, right? Yet, the song gets you so emotionally worked up that you think you're listening to something great and you really feel "close to God". Of course, this is only my opinion, and I'm not saying there's a "right way" to worship. This is just the way I see it having grown up the way I did.

So, after saying all of that, what is good music? I think it has nothing to do with the label that is put on it (classical, bluegrass, rock music, etc.). And just because something has a beat and a drum doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad. I think you must determine whether something is bad by if the words agree with the music, if the words are saying anything good, if the music is causing you to become so emotional that you're living into an illusion, and if the music/words are causing you to think bad thoughts or do bad things.

New Twist to Father Abraham!

2008-03-19T14:27:00.000-06:00

Tackle Football!

2008-03-02T15:07:00.001-07:00

Presidental Elections... sigh

2008-02-21T14:44:00.001-07:00

If I had to choose one time for being the worst time of year, I would probably pick election time. The country becomes so torn apart that a civil war nearly begins. Suddenly, everyone's true colors come out. People, who used to be friends, suddenly become enemies and mini-wars are started in individual neighborhoods.

I remember reading an article in the newspaper some time ago (I've learned better now :). I couldn't help but notice that a candidate for presidential elections 2008, Hilary Rodham Clinton, spoke in Colorado for the first time. The article started by telling that Clinton knew how to beat all Republicans. It then proceeded to tell that Clinton wants to be a president who is concerned about global warming, solar power, and wind power. Of course, since I'm a sister of someone who knows better, I've heard the anti-global warming/everything else lecture so many times. I'm not falling for that trick again. Had Clinton even considered the fact that it would take so much more energy to make all these solar panels and windmills than it would be just to use water like always?

After reading the article, I was fueled up to go lecture someone on the cost/benefit analysis and to start lecturing everyone on why Clinton would make such a bad president, but then, I stopped. I remembered something. God was in control. It was He that had power over all things and nothing I could ever do would alter His glorious plans for eternity. It was He that protected our forefathers on their way to America, and it was He that had allowed Bush to be elected (for better or for worse), and it was even He who allowed 9/11 to happen to His glory. If Clinton is elected, it will also be His plans. And what do we know about His plans? They will glorify His name.

It's hard (and most of the time impossible) for us to see how bad things could work together for the glorifying of His name, but that's where faith comes in. How hard it is for us to realize that everything that happens is according to His plans! And, no, I'm not saying that we should all isolate ourselves from the world in our lonely mountain cottage and just wait to die, but we must also realize that even though we can't see the grand scheme of things, we have the assurance that all will work together to His glory and that all things are apart of His glorious plan.

Am I saying that we should never take part in elections? After all, it won't really matter if we vote or not. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that it's not worth having a bad day over things that don't seem like they're going the right way. We must have faith to believe that all things are according to His plan.

There Are Great Uses for Gerbils!

2008-02-14T20:23:00.008-07:00

So, after resupplying my stock of gerbils yesterday, I started to realise how great they are for our environment. My room has taken on such a wonderful, earthy savour, and everything is once more in balance. Here are a just a few great things gerbils will do for you:

Have a surplus of meal worms? These little critters will keep you down to just a few.

Need a cheap paper-shredder? You got yourself one.

Need to dig a foundation for your house? Just stick several hundred of these on the case, and you'll be in business in no time.

Want less sleep? Here you go!

Tired of not being distracted from school work? I can guarantee you that they will help your problem.

Are you in the medical field and need to draw blood on occasion? I'll get you one of my meanies. "Here you go. Just hold this nice, friendly, furry gerbil for a few minutes..." I can guarantee that the kid will enjoy this kind of blood-drawing much more than the typical "force the syringe up your arm" method.

Tired of having empty space in your room? These are great for taking care of that problem.

And that's just to list a few...

Okay, it probably sounds like I hate my gerbils. Actually (as I'm sure everyone of you knows), I really do enjoy breeding my gerbils, and I try not to kill them too often. Now Ben on the other hand...

So, here are some pictures of my new little critters:

Sage sitting on The Litter

Mango (he's impossible to take of!)

Sage and Jasmine's litter (two days old) There are actually six of them, but one is hiding.

Kiwi (I'll be breeding her with Mango)

Sage, Jasmine, and Litter

And those are my new ones. Besides that, I have Oreo and Olga. :S

Hallmark Day!

2008-02-14T20:12:00.002-07:00

Valentine's Day should be banned. There. I've said it. Do you know how much happier the whole country would be if it were? Not only would husbands not have to worry about supplying their wife with bountiful gifts, but elementary schools could also skip out on the hours (I'm sure!!) it takes to make all the valentines. Face it. Not too many people like Valentine's Day, and the people who do? Well, let them find sometime else to do what they want to do. You know, I think that the only reason Valentine's Day stays "in business" is because stores keep them in business. After all, if it weren't for stores, I have no doubt that holidays such as Saint Patrick's Day and Labour Day wouldn't be observed. Thank goodness for those stores! They give us a day off of work once in a while.

Honestly, though, if that's the only good reason there is to keep a holiday in existence, it should be put to rest.

There Is a Reason It Was Invented...

2008-02-07T18:20:00.000-07:00

hi...i thought i wuld right a post on how confusing it is when pple right like this and i am buying more gerbils next week...punctuation is very stupid because they're going to be black and white and yellow...do u like snow...guess what...i had to shovel a few days ago...we didn't get the snow blower too work but a neighbor got they're's two chug...........

You know exactly what I was talking about, right? What do you mean it took several times of reading (or at least slow reading) before you could decipher the meanings of all my random phrases/sentences?

Well, after reading several gerbil "business"- related emails--and re-reading--, I came to the conclusion that, yes, it does matter whether you use punctuation, paragraphs, capital letters, and correct homonyms.

The earliest writings had no punctuation, no spaces, and no capitalization. Until the eighteenth century, punctuation was only used for people who were reading aloud. Eventually, however, people become so confused about whether you were talking about the winter or the bear, that punctuation was also used for people who were reading silently to themselves. Whether you're shouting or whispering, you shouldn't have to read things over and over in order to finally grasp the meaning (unless they're writing in a high vocabulary level). Punctuation actually developed dramatically when large numbers of Bibles were being produced. These Bibles were designed to be read aloud, and the copyist began to introduce a range of marks to aid the reader, including indentation, various punctuation marks, and an early version of capitals. Having all this punctuation helped greatly in the clarifying of things written.

Unfortunately, many people have taken to writing everything the "fast, easy" way. Doing this probably actually takes more time to be processed when you think of how much time the recipient of the writing spends reading a single sentence.

Homonyms! Bye, by, buy; to, too, two; there, their; they're; etc. Believe it or not, it does matter whether you use the right homonym or not! Do you have any clue how confusing it is to read something when the writer used the wrong homonym? Very. "Next vacation I'll go with them to by some clam chowder. >:\ It was two bad there car stopped working last trip. "

~~~

There. The lecture for the week. Hopefully somthing more interesting soon.

A Blog for Lecturing? Why not?

2008-01-31T22:28:00.000-07:00

For any who know me at all, you know that one of my favorite past-times is lecturing people until they're ready to run out of the room screaming. Well, finally, when my sister was ready to throw me out of the house, I came up with the grand idea of starting a blog for lecturing on things. In the past, I've always been rather skeptical of blogs. After all, it seems a little odd that people would force their friends to use their own time to hear about what they've been doing. That's what Christmas letters are for, right? This is a lecture blog. That's not what blogs are usually used for, but I think it's a good use for one. Having this blog will hopefully ensure that my friends will no longer have to be submitted to the torture of hearing me rant and rave. Please only visit my blog if you feel like being lectured and if you feel like lecturing back. I didn't create this blog just to hear my side of things. I want to hear everyone else's opinions too! Even if I don't know you, feel free to comment and disagree/agree. If I start lecturing you about something other than when I'm writing something on this blog, please feel free to remind me that lecturing is what my blog is for.

Having the first lecture of this blog behind my back, let the festivities begin! *drum rolls please*