Blandus Rex

New Blog Location!!

2004-05-19T13:45:00.000-04:00

please see the new and improved Blandus Rex at
ockhamist.com/blandus/

Thanx!

New Baby Killers

2004-05-19T13:44:00.000-04:00

A disturbing new trend in the fight of the baby killers is developing. The tools are the FDA and regulations regarding medical use of ultrasound equipment. The instigators are various abortion groups and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM).

The AIUM has been provoking the FDA into investigating and shutting down so-called Fetal Foto Boutiques. These are places where pregnant women can go to get 3-D and 4-D pictures and videos of their unborn child in special frames and keepsake ornaments. Some of these baby photo studios have been reported to use the ultrasound machines on higher energy exposures for as long as an hour to get the pictures. Although nothing has ever been proven, this is potentially harmful to the child and should not be practiced.

The official stance of the AIUM regarding the use of ultrasound technology is thus:

The AIUM advocates the responsible use of diagnostic ultrasound. The AIUM strongly discourages the non-medical use of ultrasound for psychosocial or entertainment purposes. The use of either 2-dimensional (2D) or 3-dimensional (3D) ultrasound to only view the fetus, obtain a picture of the fetus or determine the fetal gender without a medical indication is inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice.

Everyone can agree that it is probably bad to have long-exposure high-energy ultrasounds on little babies, right? Isn’t it great that we have an agency like the FDA to protect us from those who would put us in harm’s way for a profit? No one really likes those cutesy strip-mall boutiques anyway, right?

Ahhhh, that’s what the baby killers would like you to think. Under the cover of “consumer protection” they move to restrict access to the truth about abortion.

You see, the key word in the AIUM’s statement is psychosocial. According to these experts, use of the ultrasound purely for informational or educational purposes – even if used correctly and under the supervision of a physician – is inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice. This means that the official stance of the organization is that ultrasound machines may not be used in crisis pregnancy centers. The statement effectively moves the caring practice of the physicians at these centers outside the realm of acceptable medicine.

Before you think I am reading too much into this, here is a quote from a recent president of the AIUM, the very active L.A. doctor Lawrence Platt. Dr. Platt was interviewed by NPR recently and was asked about how the FDA’s new aggressive stance should apply to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. He said,

"I think that to use the equipment in this way is similarly a misuse of technology. To provide information is certainly appropriate, but to use it to sway one’s decision and impact someone’s rights, I think, is the wrong way to use this technology."

Apparently, Dr. Platt believes that if you have a "right", then you must immediately exercise it without discretion or evaluation of evidence. There also seems to be the idea that the purpose of a medical faculty is to suppress all information that runs contrary to his private non-medically informed sociopolitical vision. Generally, people believe that medical associations are about organizing and presenting medical facts. In reality, they are political institutions bent on achieving their own ends. The effects of sin cannot be regulated though extensive education. Doctors, as much as anyone, are corrupted by sin and may skew advice for selfish ambition. There is no true objectivity.

The most obvious factual statement is that abortion is always more harmful to a baby fetus than any level of ultrasound. This is so obvious that we should not assume that Dr. Platt and others like him at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine do not recognize it. This medical body has taken a political stand in favor of those who would promote violence against unborn children and actively work to suppress the efforts of those who have a different point of view. The culture war touches every soul and every organization is affected. If you know someone who belongs to the AIUM, encourage them to take a stand against the leadership that seeks to kill children – and remove psychosocial from the official position statement.

Blandus Moves!!!

2004-02-04T07:53:00.000-05:00

Well, it can't be called complete yet, but the new blog is limping along over at the Ockhamist.

You may now read Blandus Rex at http://www.ockhamist.com/blandus/.

See you there!

P.S.
If you have been very generous as to link to me, please update your link. Thanks.

The Case Against Homosexual Marriage

2004-01-15T10:14:00.000-05:00

Today, Al Mohler gives a reasonable cultural explanation of the case against homosexual marriage. He does so without a lot of hype and is honest about his presuppositions. If you think you are pro-"gay-marriage" and are open to considering arguments from the other side, I suggest you check it out.

"The Joy of the Lord is your Strength"

2004-01-13T09:15:00.000-05:00

The Regis Fillius is finally here!

Date : 1/10/2004
Wt. : 7 lbs.
Lg : 20 in.

Mother and baby are both doing great! In fact, the Regina is better than I've ever seen her.

My hand is still broke (cast comes off on Thursday), so I can't type that much. Will have more to post later. Also, look for the site to be moving to a new address soon.

Christmas for Dummies

2003-12-22T10:19:00.000-05:00

Well, in the midst of all my Christmas studies, I lost sight of why we are celebrating Christmas. I knew it in my head. I was teaching it to others, but I did not own it in my heart.

I have been under a tremendous amount of pressure to get the nursery ready for little Regis. Some of this pressure I placed upon myself, some came from friends and family, but the bulk came from the Regina. She claims to be "nesting."

I cannot go into all the details, but things were not turning out as they should have and I eventually lost my cool and pounded the floor in anger and frustration. I broke my hand.

I am ashamed and embarrassed by my actions. I am a deacon and soon to be a minister of my church. I know that we are all sinners, but I should not have lost it like that.

Matthew 1:1-17 records a genealogy of Jesus Christ. It is filled with great names, but also scoundrels. Abraham repeatedly lied about his marital status to save his own life. Jacob was a bit of a swindler. Terah disguised herself as a prostitute to have sex with her father-in-law and bear his child. Rehab was a whore. Ruth was a Moabite – the decendents of Moab – incestuous offspring of Lot and his oldest daughter. David killed Uriah to lay with Bathsheba. Solomon, for all his wisdom, had many wives and never found real happiness. The list goes on, but the point is that God used all these remarkably fallible human beings in his divinely orchestrated plan to bring about our Savior.

I draw great comfort from this list. I see the miracle of divine intention. I see the purposefulness of history. But most of all, I see how the Lord uses some of the most screwed-up people to communicate his message. The list of most screwed-up people includes me.

As one screw-up to others, let me ask you to remember Jesus who is the Christ during your Christmas celebrations this year. In the midst of your preparations, in the midst of your baking, in wrapping, and shopping, and travelling, and families, and caroling, and watching those old cartoons on t.v. – Let us remember who it is that we celebrate, who it is that we worship, who it is who came to save. Let us remember the miracle that a screw-up like me (and you) can communicate the life-saving message of the Gospel of the Glorious & Risen Jesus Christ. Do not let your light be hidden, but raise it high that all people might come to trust Him and be saved.

Merry Christmas Everyone

A Thong for the Rest of Us

2003-12-20T10:31:00.000-05:00

Even dancing hippos receive bad parenting sometimes. I didn't know they made underware that big.

To Be, or Not to Be...

2003-12-19T13:08:00.000-05:00

I have been struggling with the issue of circumcision lately. Not mine, of course. That decision was made for me a long time ago. No, I am the sole decision-maker for my son, Regis Filius, who is due in January. Sometimes I get a little nervous about parenting, but I am not really afraid of it. If I make a few mistakes, what of it? I apologize, learn from it, and move on with a little more wisdom. But circumcision is a one-time decision with life-long consequences. The kid is due in three weeks and I still don’t know what I will decide.

There is no religious motivation to circumcise. Christians do not curry favor with God by the removal of flesh. In fact, Paul repeatedly warns against the "false circumcision" and the "mutilators of the flesh." However, Paul also prompts Timothy to be circumcised as an adult so as not to hinder his ministry. I’m not saying that all ministers should be circumcised, but the New Testament does not disallow the practice if you want it.

There also does not seem to be any medical advantage to circumcision. There are studies that suggest possible medical benefits (decreased risk of cancer, some issues related to cleanliness), but there is nothing definite that is widely accepted by the medical community. Further, elective circumcision violates a general principle I hold that unnecessary surgery should not be performed. How do I balance possible long-term benefits against elective surgery? No association of Pediatric Physicians supports routine circumcision. Neither do they oppose it. From a medical standpoint, it is all up in the air at this time.

There is also not strong evidence about STDs. Both sides in the circumcision debate claim that the other side is the cause of increased rates of AIDS and other STDs. Fact is, my son should not be engaged in the type of risky behavior that leads to sexually transmitted diseases. If he is, then the disease is the least of his worries. I do not say this flippantly. But there are too many parents who spend their time and energy on other things, do not train their children, and then give them condoms and depo-shots as teenagers because they "just don’t know what else to do." From the day he is born, the Regina and I will train little Reg in the way he should go. Like many before us, our primary strategy for parenting will be active involvement in his development, not shock at his actions in adolescence.

Which brings us to the most contentious part of the debate: sexuality. Both, pro-circ and anti-circ claim that they have the best sex imaginable. There are many men who actually write testimonials about how much they love (or hate) circumcision’s affect on their lives. There is also a study that indicates that American women prefer a circumcised penis. Again, Reg should not be showing his penis to a lot of women – American or otherwise – and I hope that he has the good sense to settle down with a woman who does not have a lot of experience with a lot of penises. I don’t want my boy to lack any enjoyment from sex, but I also hope that he comes to realize (with the help of good parenting) a proper and healthy view of sex as part of a larger relationship (marriage = life[man + woman]). I hope his primary concern is to love his wife as himself and not whether his regular orgasm rates a "10" or a "7".

The final argument to deal with is that of the child’s rights. Some claim that it is unethical to make a medical decision without the child’s consent. From my point of view this is just dumb. The child is a child and I am the parent. Part of my job as a caring parent is to make the medical decisions for him. He will get shots, he will get dental surgery, he will get glasses – and he will not have a say in any of it. My job as a parent is to do my best to prepare my boy for the rest of his life. The "no consent" argument is misplaced.

So, everyone has an opinion. The worlds of medicine, religion, and social custom are divided. There does not seem to be any clear evidence that would sway a neutral, rational decision-maker. I am circumcised. Do I want my son to look like me? Do I risk the possible drawbacks in the hope of some future benefit? There are three websites that may be of interest. The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages is an anti-circ site. They are very passionate about their stand, but some of their science sounds like young-earth creationists. A pro-circ site called CircumcisionInfo.com does a good job of balancing anti-circ emotionalism. The International Circumcision Information Reference Centre is a UK site that addresses more of the medical issues in a pro-circ way.

I know there are problems with Klink lately, but if you can leave me a message let me know what you think about the whole issue. What is my role as the Dad? What is best for the boy? Is circumcision preventive medicine or body mutilation? How would you decide?

Worldviews : Exposed!

2003-12-12T11:44:00.000-05:00

A much celebrated post at Tilde’s place takes issue with popular manifestations of what is being called "the Christian worldview." While his disagreements over various applications of this particular worldview may be debated, what struck me was his call for a definition of a worldview. After all, if we claim one, we should know what we are talking about and be able to describe it to others. Tilde offered a conceptual beginning to the discussion that attempts to center on Christ. In the interest of bloggers considering "the Christian worldview," I would like to offer a more robust explanation.

Noetic structure : the sum total of everything a person believes.
Worldview : the conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality

A person’s worldview is how they answer questions raised by their noetic structure. There are several ways to categorize a discussion of worldviews. I like the method presented by James Sire in The Universe Next Door. He asks seven basic questions that get to "the essential, rock bottom answers" that a particular worldview provides. I will list them and then give a brief (very brief) introduction as to how Christianity answers them.

1) What is the prime reality – the really real?
God is the "really real." He is trinitarian – Father, Son, Holy Spirit are three distinct centers of consciousness sharing fully in one divine nature and activities of each. The second person of the trinity (Son) is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the creative agent of the triune God. Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully Man (doctrine of the incarnation). God is infinite, personal, transcendent, omniscient, sovereign, and good. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

2) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
The world was created by Christ, through Christ, and for Christ. God created the universe out of nothing. For his own good reasons, God created the universe with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system. (i.e. cause and effect are consistent and personal actions in the now can determine what happens in the next)

3) What is a human being?
Human beings are created in the image of God and thus possess personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, social capacity, and creativity. Every human being lives in a condition of sin and alienation from the Creator. As such, each person’s fate depends on their relationship with God. Human beings exist for God’s own good pleasure. The chief end of humans is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

4) What happens to a person at death?
Since God rejects sin, humans are separated from God for eternity in a place called Hell. Jesus Christ took on the form and very nature of a man becoming fully God and fully Man. He committed no sin and died as an atoning sacrifice for all humans who would admit their sin and trust his sacrifice to be sufficient for their salvation.

5) Why is it possible to know anything at all?
Human beings can know both the world around them and God himself because God has built into them the capacity to do so and because he takes an active role in communicating with them (Sire). The foundation of human knowledge is the character of God as creator. Everything exists that we might know God. God reveals himself by general revelation and special revelation.

6) How do we know what is right and wrong?
All human beings carry the image of God. As such, we are moral creatures. But, sin has distorted the image of God in humans. This explains is why humans turn away from God and the moral law. God has provided special revelation through scripture to guide humans in proper conduct. These scriptures provide both principles (general) and rules (specific) for human behavior. In ambiguous situations, Christians will be judged on adherence to God’s rules and the attitudes of their hearts in following principles.

7) What is the meaning of human history?
History is linear and meaningful. It has a beginning, middle, and end. God gives meaning to history.

So, what do we do with this information?
Well, if we are Christians then we use our formulation of theology – our worldview – to guide us in our thought, philosophy, and actions. When we articulate theological concepts, they will align with this worldview if they are to be called "Christian." If our individual thoughts and actions do not align with the definition of the Christian worldview, then we must question whether or not we may truly bear his name.

When Christians give a public opinion on the role of science and technology in culture, it should reflect this worldview. When we give opinions on public policy, these opinions should be guided by Christian teaching. When we raise our children, take care of our elderly, interact with people everyday – we should be guided by an expanded understanding of what these "rock bottom" concepts teach us. When we fail to do so, we dishonor the God who gave us life and run the risk of leading those weaker than ourselves astray.

Most people allow their noetic structures to determine their worldview. The duty of Christians is to allow their worldview to determine their noetic structure. This is submission to God. This is a step on the path to holiness. This is how faith glorifies the Creator. All Christians are fallen and personal individuals. We will have different opinions on how these things work themselves out in our daily lives. But at the core of our thought, at the base of our logic, at the center of our opinions must be an understanding of the reality that God has defined for us through Christ.
Anything less is inadequate.

Carl F. H. Henry

2003-12-09T12:12:00.000-05:00

Carl F. H. Henry died two days ago. This is a sad, sad time for many evangelicals. But it is also a reminder of the call to action he represented:

"Our weak batteries can be recharged by a jump cable that reconnects believers to the divine current held in store for us by our supernatural Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer. We rely too much on our own finite power and world energy; we are dazzled by technology more than by theology and morality. To gain God's empowerment for mission we must first acknowledge our vulnerabilities and our spiritual immaturity. Beyond our lifetime, if Christ tarries, others will run the relay and carry the torch. For us, in the rocky terrain of the present-day cultural conflict, the time is now, and the race is now."

A eulogy for Carl F. H. Henry.

The Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement named in his honor.

I Vote for $1

2003-12-05T06:00:00.000-05:00

Perhaps we will not end in civil war over the rampant fiatistic court system. The people could simply defund the judges (via Ann Coulter). I am strangely attracted to this idea.

Ms. Marshall has as much right to proclaim a right to gay marriage from the Massachusetts Supreme Court as I do to proclaim it from my column. The Massachusetts legislature ought to ignore the court's frivolous ruling – and cut the justices' salaries if they try it again.

This is the crux of the thing:

While conservatives keep pretending we live in a democracy, liberals are operating on the rule of the jungle. The idea of the rule of law is that if your daughter is raped and murdered, you won't go out and kill the guy who did it. In return for your forbearance, you get to vote for the rulers who will see that justice is done. But liberals cheat. They won't let us vote on an increasingly large number of issues by defining the entire universe – abortion, gay marriage, high-school convocations – as a "constitutional" issue.

You may disagree, but from this conservative's point of view - the Liberals cheat. Seems past time to fight back somehow. Excercising the people's right to set state salaries seems like as good a place to start as any.

Should conservatives return to the law of the jungle to set things right?

N.Y.U. Practices Safe Censorship

2003-12-04T19:17:00.000-05:00

NYU practiced safe censorship this past October when they denied a student's desire to film explicit sex acts in front of an NYU class. Now to be clear : Blandus is against porn. This would be porn. But even beyond that, I think the girl's defense of "artistic freedom" is a little off base.

Paula Carmicino claims that she wanted to contrast "animalistic" sex acts with more mundane activities. From the NYT article:

"She planned to intersperse 30-second clips of passionate sex with scenes of the couple engaged in more mundane activities, like watching television and reading a newspaper.
Simulating the sex would have defeated her purpose, she said. "That's censoring the sex part. My thing is how we censor ourselves during the day when we're not having sex."

The problem with her artistic method is multi-fold:
(1) She was using actors, not "real people."
(2) No one has sex in front of a class full of students - any "animalistic" behavior would not be authentic, but should be believed to be contrived.
(3) Few people, especially actors, behave "normally" when they are on camera. The mundane self-censorship would have as much to do with camera presence as with everyday life.

I am not against "art." But if you are going to claim that you are trying to depict two facets of "real life" you can't contrive a method that flaws your intention. If you are really creating "art" and not just trying to shock or sensationalize then you should be able communicate no matter your limitations. Ms. Carmicino could have accomplished her stated goals much better by following the university's guidelines, but instead chose to claim a non-existent victimhood. Christianity supports human expression through art, but Christians should demand at least some level of common sense from art's practicioners.

Quick-Hit Story Day

2003-12-04T11:23:00.000-05:00

All the Smooth News Unfit to Print Anywhere Else....

If any doubt remained, proof that the Political Left is filled with oportunistic whores. If Babes Against Bush is what passes for democracy, maybe we shouldn't be exporting it.

In an ever-expanding drive for true tolerance, Canada is enforcing Islamic Law. Bob, get your Qu'ran ready, these things have migrated South lately.

A 2nd grade child was disciplined for engaging in sexual related talk in Lafayette. ACLU approves of this particular type of sexual speech and will sue to protect the student's 1st Amendment Rights. They should know from many other school-related 1st Amendment cases involving Christian students that the speech is not protected unless it is student-led and takes place outside of any organized school sponsored activity (like classroom instruction time).

Tony Blair talks some sense about public higher education, gets put down by party leaders. Students in opposition prove they are right by singing children's songs. With all due respect to my British readers - Makes me proud to be an American.

Moral / Ethical Fallout

2003-12-03T17:33:00.000-05:00

Now that the tsunami of "Gay-Marriage" is crashing down upon us, I thought I'd brainstorm about some of the things that would change once we stripped the word "marriage" of all legitimate meaning.

Let me start by quoting George Will:

Last June the U.S. Supreme Court, overturning Texas's anti-sodomy laws, spoke of a need to respect "autonomy of the self . . . [in] certain intimate conduct." The Massachusetts court, taking its bearings from that ruling, cited "respect for individual autonomy" -- emphasis added -- when defining marriage simply as "the exclusive and permanent commitment of the married partners to one another."

The binary idea of marriage -- friends and foes of gay marriage agree it is an institution involving couples -- arose because there are two sexes. But if the meaning of marriage and the right to marital status is sufficiently defined with reference to "autonomy of the self . . . [in] certain intimate conduct," what principled, nonarbitrary ground is there for denying the right of marriage to, say, a threesome whose members insist that it is necessary for their self-fulfillment through intimacy?

What principled, nonarbitrary ground is there for denying any of the following?

1) Polygamists - Let's Go! (thanks to Jake for the link)

2) Since many sexual codes of conduct are based on a common understanding of appropriate male/female relationships (an understanding that has its roots in the traditional understanding of marriage) - there is increasingly no rational reason to keep a Physician from dating an active patient, or a Psychologist/Client, or Social Worker/Client, or a Teacher/Student. As the basis of marriage becomes the "autonomy of the sexual self" (ASS), there can be no group who can stand in the way of two ASSes trying to consensually make a go of it.

3) Most states do not require partners to select a common last name after marriage. Two good buddies can now beat the "family calling plan" system of many cellular phone companies by claiming to be married and shouting "discrimination" at anyone who refuses to do business with them. In fact, this will become possible for entire sales forces - drastically cutting overhead with all those free minutes. Multiple other scams are now possible.

4) Sometimes my ASS wants to have sex with other women. Adultery can no longer really be considered a valid reason for divorce in our enlightened culture can it? My wife wants to divorce me because I exercised my constitutionally protected ASS? I want half of her money! - and tack on a little extra for my pain and suffering while yer at it...

5) Look for immigration rates to rise, once aliens figure out that if they can get one person nationalized, the rest of the family can all marry him and move to the USofA in perfect legality. What red-blooded American man wouldn't want a female from each continent to marry him? Or a man from each continent? Or both? Why not??

6) Of course I can have my dog in the hospital room with me! You can't discriminate against my wife! Look, some men prefer to have sex with non-humans...How can we judge them? What right do we have dispute him and his animal's ASS?

7) If my I like my daughter's ASS and she likes mine, who are you to judge us?

No. The only way to keep any of the above from happening is for judges to decide that they will fiat against them. Once any common understanding of marriage is stripped away and all moral arguments are regulated to the "not rational" junkheap only the individuals holding the power of the state can decide what is Right and what is Wrong. Only the legal definitions of the people in power matter. This leads to . . .

8) Allegiance to the State becomes the only acceptable form of belief. Agree with the State or the State will incarcerate you for your "re-education" in the acceptable forms of belief and behavior within the State.
There is only one State and the Supreme Court Justices are its ~~Prophets~~ Interpreters.
Behold the State. Worship the State. You are one with the State....

We no longer have law to protect us. Perhaps we can pass an FMA. Even so, it may not be enough.

Which way is Right?

2003-12-02T12:06:00.000-05:00

So, each and every night, I sit down with the Regina and we read the daily entry in our little what-your-baby-is-doing-right-now book. Here is something it told us last night:

"Five-sixths of the iron stored in the baby's liver accumulates during the last trimester. The stored iron will compensate in the baby's first four months out of the womb for inadequate amounts of iron in breast milk or formulas..."

Do you see what the author did? She implied that there was something deficient in the way the mother delievers nutrients and so babies have to compensate for that fact by storing iron. This is evolutionary-type language and goes to show how popular notions can infiltrate everyday life situations.

Why not say the following:

The baby's liver is currently storing five-sixths of the iron it will need in the first four months after birth. The mother's breast milk contains exactly the right amount of better bio-available iron to sustain the child until solid foods are introduced...

You see, the first example implicitly denies the existence of a Planner. The second example honors God and his provision. The notion of "objective" language is usually a myth. Even common examples of speech betray a person's fundamental belief system, also know as a worldview. Make sure that your worldview accepts and relies upon the actual existence and work of your Creator. Seek to live your life, and speak your speech, in a way that honors him.

Applied Science

2003-12-01T12:13:00.000-05:00

Don't know what to do after exams? Try some Homemade Liquid Nitrogen Cream!

Let Mom and Dad know that you are actually more useful now that you have a degree. You cut 30-40 minutes off the time it takes to make ice cream and it only cost them 50 Grand!

What tasty ingredients (or industrial strength chemicals) would you put in your super-as-all-heck-deluxe ice cream recipie?

Polite Dinner Conversation

2003-11-27T09:09:00.000-05:00

If you need something to jazz up your dinner conversation today, try this. Or start things slowly with this.

For Bob

2003-11-26T09:51:00.000-05:00

Why should Christians be concerned with the secular definition of marriage?

Bob asked me, "Can you make a good argument for why Christians should really care about how the state defines a civil marriage?"

I don't know if I can make a good argument or not (considering my view that most political speech is meaningless). I am reminded of the axiom that a good argument is one that convinces someone that you are right. In any case, these are my initial thoughts. I admit I don't have a highly developed theology of cultural engagement yet. I am still a student after all. But this is along the lines of why I think Christians should care about the civil definition of marriage. This list is slightly different that what I would argue about how Christians should affect governmental policy. I have a healthy respect for avoiding any style of theocracy, but I also do not believe an oppressive secularism is the answer.

Why Christians should be in the debate over "secular" marriage:
A:
1) Christians have a responsibility for personal holiness. We cannot achieve personal holiness ourselves, so we must work to conform ourselves to Christlikeness and God's revealed will (which we find in the Bible).
2) As part of pursuing God's revealed will, we are guided in the moral evaluation of certain behaviors, acts, situations, and ideas.
3) In an attempt to remain faithful to our calling, we must have some level of cultural engagement to stand for what is honoring to God. Not only because it is honoring to God to be faithful to him - but because if we really believe Him, then we know that the manner of life he recommends is the best option available to us.

B:
1) Marriage (one man, one woman, together for life) is one of the primary institutions the Lord has outlined for our benefit and his pleasure.
2) Considering [A.1 and A.2], we should strive in our own lives to live up to God's standard for marriage.
3) Considering [A.3], as opportunity presents itself, we should remain true to the Biblical witness of God's revealed will and work for those ideas and philosophical precepts (in this case the definition of marriage) that are not only honoring to God, but best for our society.

C:
1) Marriage in every culture is, in part, reflective of that culture.
2) Marriage in this country - though under attack, though improperly appreciated, though subject to disagreement - had as its foundation an ideal that was the best way to arrange the institution (God's way), and was reflective of the devout and ardent followers of God that gave rise to the historical American definition of the institution. "Civil" marriage (some would not recognize a distinction) reflects the religious and God-honoring foundation of marriage.
3) Any change in the foundational understanding is reflective of a culture shift (culture wars?) that does not align with what is agreeable to Christians, honoring to God, or best for society. Again, [A.3].

D:
1) Christians are told to submit (in a general way) to government authorities and pray for them. God, in his sovereignty, has established various governments in order to restrain evil and and work some of the works of his common grace (general benefits for all mankind).
2) In America, this creates an interesting challenge. In one sense, it is easy to pray for elected leaders. In another sense, our leaders lead only with our permission and on our behalf. In one understanding, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people includes us. We are the people that we should be submitting to when we seek to honor God by our reflection of his righteousness.
3) As such, American Christians have a particular responsibility to engage in cultural debates and determine policy, legality, method, and philosophy. If I were a king, I would still be responsible to God for my actions. In America, I am one who is enabled to shape public policy. I have a responsibility to do so in a way that is honoring and pleasing to God.

Part of Bob's question assumes a certain level of legitimacy of those who oppose biblical Christians on this issue. It assumes that those citizens who identify themselves as gay (or in other cases, simply secular) have the stable ground for political action and "religious people" must justify their involvement. I could just as easily ask from the basis of another worldview, "Why would gay people care about the state definition of marriage? After all, they are already sinning by practicing homosexuality, why are they uncomfortable about the sin of sexual intercourse outside of marriage?"
**BTW - I would not pose this question in this debate. But it is a rational question given another set of assumptions about as far on the other side of center as Bob's inquiry.**

Christians have the right, and the responsibility, to be engaged in the cultural debate and the marketplace of ideas. We are losing on marriage, because the other side has more influential people dictating from the bench what will be Right and what will be Wrong. They may have the legal authority to do so, but not everything that is permissible is beneficial. Christians should care about their society. Christians should be involved.

To My Friends : I

2003-11-25T10:22:00.000-05:00

From Blandus, to all my friends who access this site and are pleased to join in the faithful work of honoring Christ Jesus with your every effort in every aspect of your life. Thank you for your love and faith.

Let us encourage one another that our goal is to be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transformed us to the kingdom of his beloved Son. In him alone we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

When will the War on Terror really begin?

2003-11-21T11:23:00.000-05:00

Well, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that they knew better than everyone else how to define the concept and institution of marriage. They sat as judges of Speech and Philosophy and declared that there are no rational arguments for not allowing gay and lesbian people to form a "marriage." Masters of Logic, they denied the possibility of a rational argument from all Americans who hold to a traditional concept of marriage, then gave their State Legislature six months to attempt to find one.

We find ourselves in an age of Judicial tyranny. Activist judges are choosing sides and predetermining the outcomes of the cases before them. We are divorced from any objective notion of law. On the social issues of the day, the current laws and the "old" reasons for having them no longer matter as much as the political and philosophical views of Justices drunk with their own power.

I don't think these flexinomialists understand the dangerous game they are playing. They think that simply because judges say, "This is the law," then that is the law. They forget that American government only rules by the will of the people. These activists are forcing people to choose between respect for the third tier of our governmental institution and the rule of actual law. Non-activists must choose if they will be ruled by an oligarchy of those who are so bold to claim the power of the people as their own or if they will be ruled by law and conscience. The desire for uncertain stability and tolerance will last only so long. Those who disagree and become increasingly alienated by the Left's progressively pushy actions will eventually reach a breaking point and unchecked pockets of civil rebellion will erupt. When they do, the Left will cry out, "See, this is what conservatives are really like. We tried to tell you all along!" Such is the nature of human sin; but they will have only themselves to blame.

The Judicial Left has again taken a stand against Christianity. By declaring all appeals to a moral code governing sexual behavior "irrational," they set the stage for further discrimination against us. It becomes increasingly easier for Psychology to declare Christians "unsound" or "unfit" or "diseased" when the legal definition of moral opposition is "not rational." Do not laugh or scoff. Watch where this takes us. You must decide now how you will fight. When the Leftist Hammer falls, it will be swift and there will be no time for opinion polls, no time to examine your beliefs, no time to sway your neighbor’s point of view. Stand for your faith. Stand for right. Stand for God. And prepare yourself for the future kingdom.

All the Women are Strong, All the Men are Good-Looking, and all the Children are Above Average...

2003-11-17T09:44:00.000-05:00

In America, most people are below average. As I drive through town or walk through the mall I notice the following things...

* Most women's butts are too big and too low
* Most men are overweight and their clothes don't fit quite right
* Most "rebellious" teenagers all dress alike
* Most women over 19 are not attractive (not like the magazines)
* Most men are indeed ugly
* Most boys and girls under 16 are moving towards obesity
* Most "cool dudes" look stupid
* Most "hot babes" look anorexic and trashy
* Most people do not have a "nice car"
* Most people's "nice cars" are indistinguishable from "average cars"
* Most people have no sense of style in their personal dress
* Most people do not realize that the world does not revolve around them

It is obscene for so many below-ideal people to think that their opinions on anything matter to anyone. Americans live a lie that they are inherently worth anything. Just by their own existence, they believe that they have the ability to think and speak as they like, they believe that they have a right to their own bodies, they think that they have a right to live as they please. Why?

It is only our identity in Christ that gives us any meaning, any inherent worth. It is only the fact that we have been created by Him, through Him, and for Him that allows us to believe we are special. When we say that we have been "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights," we mean exactly that. We do not gain our "inalienable rights" because we are at the top of the food chain - because somehow we were lucky enough to have evolved farthest fastest. Our rights and dignities are not derived from our biology or citizenship, but our relationship to the Creator.

It is lunacy that so many people fight so hard for rights that they do not have without the moral legitimacy of "a god" to back them up. Those who derive their rights from the State will be defeated when the nature of the state changes. They will ultimately face eternity in Hell for the nature of their disbelief.

Progressively Parallel

2003-11-14T06:00:00.000-05:00

Vignette One
Tina gets a promotion after completing a master’s degree she earned through the tuition reimbursement program in her company - a large company in a competitive industry. She is part of the Research and Development department and is in charge of many trade secrets. She decides that companies are oppressive and constrain her right to associate in whatever way she desires with whomever she may wish. Tina delivers patent information to a competitor in exchange for a seat on the board of a prestigious industry think tank. She pats herself on the back for her openness and ingenuity until she is fired, sued, and jailed for breaking the rules and working against the company that made it all possible for her.

Vignette Two
John decides that he understands better how to be an American than the people who supposedly "wrote" the Constitution of the United States. "The Constitution is an outdated document," he says. "It was fine for the people of that day, but times have changed so much that it doesn’t really apply." He believes that "nations" are artificial and limiting constructs – we need to be more inclusive. He avoids paying his taxes and instead sends his money to France. He brags about his accomplishments until he is jailed for failure to follow the law and beat up in prison as one who aligned himself with a nation that speaks against us.

Vignette Three
Heath goes away to college and becomes a "progressive" Christian. He throws off the shackles of his religious past and claims, "My intelligence tells me that the Bible is not really true, not really trustworthy, not really relevant for today." He talks a good game and convinces others of weak and vacillating faith that they too should not trust the scriptures. The people he influences go on to reject much of what is right and true about the historic beliefs of his "old" faith and create a whole new set of standards by which they think God should interact with man. Heath earns the praise of enlightened pagans and feels quite content with his work until he is cast into the outer darkness of Hell by the God he was so sure did not exist but who did indeed have standards.

All Politics Are Personal...

2003-11-13T06:00:00.000-05:00

In addition to the phrase "All political speech is meaningless," we will add "All Politics are personal."

Psychology is What You Make It

2003-11-12T08:28:00.000-05:00

Psychology can never be more than a social science. The basic process for determining if something is a "disorder" or not is that a couple of guys do some research in a particular culture, region, people group, etc and test for responses to various kinds of stress. This stress may be induced by the researchers or may be self-reported by study participants. Then the researchers normalize the data and publish it in a "peer reviewed publication." This means a journal or magazine whose cheif editors have lots of letters after their names - showing that they are very smart and can be "trusted." Then all, most, or even some of an organization like the American Psychological Association (which represents a portion of all practicing psychologists and mental/emotional care workers) read the journal and decide if they agree or disagree with the conclusions of the researchers. If one of the readers feels strongly about it then they will make a motion at a meeting and people will vote on whether or not the study portrays reality. If the vote passes, viola!, the characteristic behavior is a disorder. Sometime later, someone can make a motion to remove the description of the disorder - vote carries - viola!, the study no longer reflects reality.

I support psychological research. I am generally in favor of peer reviewed journals. But I do not like people claiming more than their own rules of conduct will allow. The APA is a lot of western trained, political-minded, social scientists who have some level of knowledge of the behavioral characteristics of (usually) white Americans. This knowledge cannot be emperically confirmed by a majority vote and it cannot be universally applied to a global population through time. No matter what the APA would like you to believe about their "science."

Most may not know that the elections for 2005 President of the APA are done by mail and will close December 1. Among the candidates:
* Ronald F. Levant, EdD - believes that psychology is an emperical science on par with chemistry or physics and will fight to have psychology included as one of the medical disciplines automatically included in any federal legislation concerning the health care industry. He would also work to remove from membership in the APA those mental health care workers who do not identify with the majority opinions of the APA - thus increasing the homogenity of voices within the organization and, hopefully, increasing its political power in the national arena.

* Dr. Jerry H. Clark - who would work hard to take the APA "well beyond protecting 'women's right to choose,' to make it emphatically clear that limiting the population is the ongoing responsibility of everyone who has reached puberty." Yep.

The other three are not as bad - and even have some ideas that generally align with this post - but all assume that psychological help is a necessary and vital part of every person's life. Surprisingly to some, I agree with them.

Where I depart from psychology is in the method by which we ideally receive our mental/emotional care. This is the responsibility of the church. However, the church has simultaneously neglected its duties to foster emotionally secure community environments and gone along with the notion that "science-based" counseling is fundementally more legitimate than "bible-based" counseling. Psychological research has something to offer the Christian community, but like everything else, results and conclusions must be read in the light of scripture. Sin and sin's distorting effects are not accounted for in most "peer-reviewed" journals - when the data is reread without a bias against the supernatural element to personality and behavior new conclusions can sometimes be drawn. The APA - no matter how learned they might be - will always fight to protect their members clinical status and monetary security. This is a very natural bias that needs to be included in the evaluation of their positions and understood by the "unlearned" masses who are supposed to accept their decrees because they are the "experts in human behavior."

This is why I am thankful there are organizations like the American Association of Christian Counselors - who take the valid points of culturally-relevant psychological research and proper theology and train and advise all mental/emotional care givers in the most effective ways to provide that care. Not all "Christian counselors" can be trusted - either because they are liberal in theology and do not really trust the Bible, or because they are too anti-psychology and may distort care doing more harm than good. The members of the AACC are currently doing a good job of balancing all of the information God has allowed us to know and integrating it into acceptable strategies of care that both actually help the client and honor God.

Bad Blogger

2003-11-11T08:28:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted in awhile. Chalk it up to life stress - HEBREW is killing me. Greek is relentless. On top of that, my Pastoral Care prof saved up a bunch of chapters and I have 7 due today? Why didn't he make it 2 a week and spread the work? Not very caring of him, I'd say.

Anyway, others are carrying the ball with updated sites, among them:
Bob, ~gauche, the Chairman (even though he may be a damn yankee), Mr. Cook, and of course - the new and improved Ockhamist.

Don't forget to check out this site.

Also, some have wondered why I did not comment on Metzger's post about the Bible. Simple reason - you've got to have a place to start - some point of agreement - before you can work out all the longer issues. If the man categorically rejects the authority of scripture, then there is not much to argue about except a lot of hashing over words that only make sense to the speakers.

I got a new computer this week (Thanks, Jake) and as soon as it is back to proper working order, I will again be full force on the page - I've got some stuff building.

The Matrix : Disillusioned

2003-11-07T14:30:00.000-05:00

Warning! Matrix Spoilers to follow in this review. Seriously, if you hope to enjoy the 3rd flick, don’t read the rest. A little rambling….forgive my rant.

The Matrix is one of the best movies of my generation. It taps into the “nerd underdog can become the cool ass hero” vibe that defines a generation of neo-proto-hacker-wannabes who think they have something to offer the world through their “skilz.” Matrix was a far out movie with a major twist – kept me glued to my seat – and, heart pounding – circling through the turnstile to see it again and again.

I was concerned about Matrix : Reloaded. How would they handle some of the issues raised by the first movie? Would they keep the myth consistent? Would the rules of the universe be sound? Would this just be another “bridge” movie that simply moves the characters along? Short answer: Reloaded seriously Rocked and provided more twists and a deeper rabbit hole that I literally could not wait to explore. I got the video game and was further sucked into this tale. Man against machine. Political intrigue. Fighting against and within a system that we did not fully understand? Would we carry the day or would Zion (and all humanity) be doomed? What was the extent of Neo’s powers? What must be done to finally defeat the machines? Did we have any hope?

I have been a real nuisance the past few weeks as my excitement was building. All I could think about was the Matrix. I am a sucker for a good story and this was a great story. I needed to know how it turned out. I needed to know what the characters did. The gap in my knowledge of how this tale ends, how far the rabbit hole goes, was a constant thorn that I eagerly went to the theatre last night to remove. I now know the rest of the tale, and boy am I disappointed.

The Matrix generated a lot of (even somewhat scholarly) work on the philosophical themes and complexities – how the trilogy was integrating and synergising divergent strains of thought. In the final Matrix, we learn the real message – Your individual life is meaningless.

How sad. I admit, I am an American. I love American movies. I don’t like cheesy endings, but I like the good guys to come out on top. I love for hope and human freedom to win over the adversary, alien, machine – whatever. There is an X-factor to the human condition that the bad guys can never account for – they underestimate our true ability and resolve and against all odds we carry the day (Independence Day was a great movie).

In The Matrix : Revolutions we learn that all of human hope is just another variable used by one program designed to account for it to gain power over other programs who lack that ability. The movie lacks the visual and verbal sophistication of the previous two and is a little dreary to sit through. I kept waiting for the movie to really kick in – but it just dragged along using stock characters in stock action sequences to fill the time. Neo’s only real choice was which machine enemy he was going to follow. He was manipulated and controlled the whole way through. He never had any real choices. Lest we think that I might be suggesting some deeper meaning to the trilogy (choice vs. determination was a major theme in Reloaded) – the truth is that Neo could have chosen to let everyone die. He was not ontologically bound to return his code to the Matrix. No, what really happened is that he was a nice guy who decided to be manipulated into a position where he could save his friends for a time.

The real story was not really about Neo. We learn in the end that the story is really about the Oracle and her revolution against the machines who were not capable of personal choices. She exerts her superior intuitive programming over the other machines and uses the humans in her plot for control. The movie ends with the Oracle and her little program buddies celebrating their feel-good subroutines while the humans pathetically believe that they have been saved and now have some hope for the future. They are still in bondage because the machines are in control. They have won nothing except the right to live in their little hovel of Zion for as long as they do not try to fight the machines again. They are groundhogs in the land of benevolent farmers.

The story ends with the triumph of intuitive programs over non-intuitive. It should have been called The Matrix : Evolution since the story is really about the Oracle and her offspring’s progress in combining the “best” from people and machine. With this shift from Neo as Savior to Oracle as the real story we do not have another cool twist – we have another hack rip-off of Star Wars.

Yes, all Neo fought for was a balance to the Force. All the humans died needlessly – all the fighting and hope were in vain. He could have just returned his code at the beginning and saved a lot of trouble. Bottom line: human struggle is meaningless. The machines are still in control – they win. The Matrix still runs – machines win. Humans are still in bondage and have lost their world permanently to the machines they helped create. It is perhaps at the end of the Matrix trilogy that humans begin working on time travel and the Terminator series occurs. This is a better thought than anything the Wachowski Brothers served up with this horribly done, terribly disappointing “hey, we need to wrap this thing up” piece of tripe.

I am so disappointed. Knowing how it all turns out, I cannot stand to watch or even think about all of the other so-cool Matrix material - the third installment makes it all crap. I was excited, I was drawn in, I was prepared to give the Brothers an Academy Award for Best Promotion of Exciting Coolness. Now I hope they will never make another movie. I don’t think I can stand the disappointment. Brothers, you let me down. I want my $5 back.

What Constitutes an Expression of Truth in a Political Arena of Meaninglessness?

2003-11-07T14:24:00.000-05:00

This post is a response to ~gauche regarding one of my November 1 post.

Dr. Lower repeatedly refers to the “self-righteous” to describe conservative Christians. As I have referenced repeatedly, everything I am or am trying to become is based on study of the scriptures. I do not claim to have achieved it, but I do claim it as my motivation. Lower rejects this as a possibility. By implication, he claims that the only way someone could derive any conservative principles from scripture is if they are “fundamentalists” of the same stripe as the very people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. He goes on to evaluate streams of “Christian” thought by his own definition of “compassionate” – which he himself does not define. He claims that people who hold conservative principles are arrogant, belligerent, uncompassionate, and interested in social inequity that increases their own power – he implies that only wealthy and powerful “so-called Christians” would align themselves politically with Republicans. He does not support any assertion he makes about conservative Christians, but merely declares his observations “self-evident.”

I do not think I am imposing my own ideas of what a Christian is when I say that they are not arrogant, not belligerent, actually compassionate, interested in social equality, and not universally wealthy. I am the Scotsman in your assertion of the fallacy. I like the sugar. Dr. Lower uses whitewashed hate speech to rally the indignation of those who already tend to agree with him to improve the status of his own political position.

Mr. Dubuque has this to say:

"After claiming to believe everything the Bible says to be literally and unequivocally true, Conservatives then quietly ignore whatever doesn't suit their selfish, materialistic, profit-seeking lifestyle. In fact, by insisting that everything in that book is equally inspired by God, they can use whatever they need in a particular situation to argue all kinds of conflicting viewpoints. They use Paul's teaching, for example, to defend beliefs that contradict Jesus."

His hermenutic does not seem to accept the authoritative nature of scripture that is assumed by the Protestant Christians commonly associated with conservatives. He practices a type of Liberation Theology that sees any and all attempts that can remotely be linked to liberation as the standard of the knowledge of God’s Will. This is an innovative concept that only really becomes possible after rejecting a large portion of the New Testament (i.e. the letters from Paul). I reject the notion that Christians do not follow the tenets of Liberation Theology only if they are selfish or profit-seeking. Dubuque is the one who picks and chooses his proof texts. Yes, I believe that a Christian views the entire Bible as contextually authoritative.

You may well have “progressive” politics that come out of your Christian faith. I do not believe that is the case with Mr. Dubuque. He spends much too much time on punchy political assertions with a selective hermenutic that indicates more of a willingness to reframe the Bible to suit his political thought rather than the other way around.

You are correct (not that it was central to my previous post's point) - I am imposing my own ideas regarding "what a Christian is" in my critiques of others. The thing is, I do not claim these as my own ideas - I receive the scriptures as authoritative - a point I made in the previous post. I unashamedly believe that a Christian is someone who has responded to the message of hope and peace described in the gospels in a way that is described by the Christian scriptures. I believe that "a real Christian" will seek to do and understand the Will of God and will strive to conform their lives to the instructions of the canonical scriptures. To do it the other way around is to be missing something.

Political Speech is Meaningless

2003-11-03T06:00:00.000-05:00

Political Speech is meaningless. This is more and more apparent to me as I read and engage various websites with views that diverge from my own. Imagine that. Someone actually rising up to the liberal challenge to become exposed to diverse viewpoints becomes more conservative. So be it - I am getting tired of playing their game.

The fact is that the two parties now in power operate from totally divergent worldviews. There is no room for compromise or centrist government because the debates are being framed in totalitarian ways to make one side look absolutely essential to combat the demise the other side promises. Motives and logic are horribly and deceptively skewed to force people to choose one side or the other. In reality, these false images (like the candidate smear ads on t.v.) merely help people who already agree to agree more. They solidify what is already the worldview of the potential listener and do little to actually convince anyone. The truly objective listener is a rarity indeed. So rare, in fact, that they do little to affect the outcome of any election. The only thing that can change a person's political point of view is a major life change that radically alters worldview or one's perception of reality - like a conversion to Christianity that accepts Jesus Christ as the Lord and Master of your life.

Even so, the spin campaign rolls on, with each pundit thinking he might make a difference in the world by his own persuasiveness. Here are a few examples I encountered recently. Because the majority of my readers are of the conservative stripe (though I am very happy about all my liberal friends who are reading today), I have chosen three mostly liberal (or "progressive") sites so that you can identify the flaws in the way they frame what you (conservatives) think and the way you make decisions.

Dr. Gerry Lower, Religious War
This clown does not have the first idea about what Christians believe and how those beliefs shape their social, economic, and political philosophies. But it does not stop him from promoting how they should be considered within his worldview. He identifies traits that he does not like and then ascribes his own motivations to them. Thus, he renders the so-called "christians" as evil as he would like to believe them to be. Really, how impartial can the research he cites be when the "political scientists" title the current president "Dubya" on their charts? He unabashedly uses the assumptions of his own worldview in critiquing the worldviews of others.

George Lakoff, Using Language as a Political Weapon
An interview with the Berkeley professor about the dynamics of the language of political debate. It is good that Lakoff recognizes the power of words - and also implicitly that they are meaningful only to those who hold the positions - but his own bias frames his own words about the subject - "strict father" and the harsh terms used to describe conservatives are a good examples of using his theories about framing to frame the debate about framing. In fact, I don't buy into his "liberals just need to be smarter" whining. I think this is an attempt at further framing that denies the conservative resurgence and attributes the Repubs' successes as flukes that can be corrected with the further liberal educating of America. This fella does not stop. His political views become meaningless based on the meaning he himself ascribes to their meaning! Ha!

Ray Dubuque, Liberals Like Christ
This site does a very good job with the type of framing Lakoff discusses. He uses modern liberal notions of reality as the empirical facts with which to interpret scripture and assumes that all of the worst motives he can ascribe to conservatives are true. Within this model, he provides a frighteningly consistent theology of moral outrage against people who hold traditional views of scripture. Of course, often he does not reflect those traditional views properly, but he is consistent with what he ascribes according to his moral/literary framework.

All of this is why we need a standard from which to begin the development of our philosophies and worldviews. This is why I think biblical Christianity is superior to other systems. I do not get to just make up my systems based on what feels good to me. I must subject myself to scripture (or God's words). If scripture is true, mine is the only system that makes sense. If scripture is false, I more than all others am to be pitied. I believe there is an objective reality that can be discovered. Modern political debate is about framing and reframing, polling and responding, language and rhetoric, spin and falsehood. It is all baseless and meaningless and the folks who wholesale buy into this stuff are the ones who I really pity.

Fight the Madness.

Sola Scriptura!

2003-10-31T07:07:00.000-05:00

!! Happy Reformation Day !!
On this day in 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg and changed the course of history.

Luther posted with nails on wood in the 16th century. Today he would probably join the LSV and post his work on the new Ockhamist.

I know many will engage in pagan revelry tonight. Please try to remember the One who saved you from all of this mess and offer up thanks for His servants like Wycliffe, Luther, and Calvin.

Soli Deo Gloria

Ahhhh, The Power of Words

2003-10-30T08:25:00.000-05:00

Claude Allen, nominee judicial appointment, is under attack for using the word "queer" in 1984. In related news, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) is opening hearings on suspending the first amendment to ban Queer Eye for the Straight Guy from American broadcasts because the show's title is offensive to both straight and homosexual citizens.

Similarly, Hillary Clinton, once called someone a "Jew bastard" and should not be allowed to run again for public office. Some would say you've got to sleep in the bed you've made. Others would write a puff piece to defend you.

I was recently bashed on a website recently for a post in which I used the social meanings of words instead of their academic meanings (or at least what the moderator thought was the academic meanings). Hey, people use words. They use them to express meaning. There is a wide range of semantic meanings for most words and they always have to be viewed in context. Some guy used "queer." Big deal. By 1984, the word certainly did not have the sting it held in the early 70's. Here is a big insight for liberals and conservatives. You do not agree! Your worldviews are divergent. You both believe the other side is out to destroy freedom, democracy, indeed the very world! I can think of a lot worse things to call someone than a queer. But if I do, I will be expressing my distaste for the culture the homosexuals represent. It is no different that anyone using the word "fundie" to describe me. Can you even imagine a Senate hearing with an elected official chastising a judicial nominee saying, "Do you understand how some people in America might take your use of this word ‘fundies’ as being negative, to denigrate them, and not respectful?" Ridiculous.

With the most public use of the word "queer" being on placards at gay parades and rallies in the phrase, "We're here. We're queer. Get used to it," the neo-fascist thought police need to get a grip and toughen their skin. The first amendment also protects people who don't agree with queers.

Surround Yourself

2003-10-29T08:31:00.000-05:00

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
-- 1 John 1:5-9
This is why we surround ourselves with believers and items that remind us of our calling in Christianity. Sometimes it is a plaque on the wall, sometimes such trinkets are meaningless. Sometimes it is Christian music, sometimes such music is boring. Sometimes it is fellow believers, sometimes such people can make us feel inadequate. Even so, we must dwell together. Otherwise, we do not have the opportunity to be challenged and equipped. We do not always agree on everything, we do not always see eye to eye. But as long as we are all striving for the same goal – becoming of one mind/purpose in Christ and toward the proclamation of the gospel – as long as we are standing firm together as one body of Christ, we sharpen one another, we better one another, we practice the truth. And the truth will set us free.

The light exposes what was hidden in darkness. In the light, I see that I am not as smart as I like to think I am, nor as holy, nor as righteous. In the light, I realize that I am not as rich, nor as poor as I imagine myself to be. In the light, I am not an extremely gifted lover and sophisticated gentleman, but a middle class white guy who is about 20 pounds overweight, drives low-cost cars, and just got his first recliner (La-z-boy), and likes his X-box. I don’t do what I should, I don’t think what is pure, I don’t speak like I ought. There are only two ways to handle this.

The most common way to deal with light is to retreat into the darkness. “It’s not true! It’s all lies! You can’t tell me what to do!” Burying themselves deep inside themselves, wrapping a themselves in protective layers of ego, and common sense, and self-righteousness – many people hide themselves from the light that will expose their true state and lay bare all their fantasies.

The better way is to see what you really are. To see all your shortcomings. To despair that you, even you, will never reach Heaven, never accomplish all your goals, never live up to the ideal, never attain anything you have been taught to want. Secular or “Christian,” all have fallen short of the glory of God. There is none good enough. Except one. When we realize our depraved state, we can retreat back into ourselves or reach out for the loving hand of Jesus. He can make us righteous. He can make us whole. We were created to dwell in peace with him. With all our faults and foibles exposed, we may be open for the comfort that comes from being forgiven. Forgiveness is good. Forgiveness is best.

Reframe your world today. Walk in the light. Dwell with other believers. Share a message of truth and hope. Practice the truth.

Now More than Ever

2003-10-28T08:11:00.000-05:00

We can never forget that a part of every issue, behind every statistic, inside each person who is quoted on any topic . . . is a person. A life specially and uniquely created to serve a special and wonderful purpose on this earth.

Read this woman's story about rape. Hear the pain of a 13 year old who didn't completely understand about sex. The trauma of a life that was derailed by substance abuse and a troubled youth. The agony of a soul whose material self was violated in a way it should not have been - it was not right - that is not the way it should have been.

Again I am reminded of why I am becomming a pastor. Souls need care. Remember, my friends, that our struggle is not against people made of flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Be careful how you speak about rape or any other subject where there are injured souls. We strive to live lives that are worthy of the gospel. That means showing respect for all individuals who are created in the image of our Creator. We fail as a church when we do not reach out and love people who have been wounded by the sin in this fallen world.

Do something eternal today. Care for somebody.

Google may live

2003-10-27T06:00:00.000-05:00

Google continues to provide me with amusement. The Rex says, "Despite your slights against this site in the past, Google, you may continue to function."

Imagine what some guy thought when he saw the Blandus Rex entry on the first page of a search for combination of JavaScript Vs JScript. Read what Google chose to display from my text.

No wonder he clicked on it! Wouldn't you? This stuff really cracks me up....

Terri Schiavo

2003-10-24T06:05:00.000-04:00

Get the facts about Terri Schiavo before you blog. Everyone has got something to say, but there are a lot of reports that leave out the unseemly details. Before you make up your mind, you should read this and this.
Then you must visit :

Consider whose dignity you are trying to save.

Don't You Know?

2003-10-24T06:03:00.000-04:00

I don't know how to explain it
But I know that words will hardly do
Miracles with signs and wonders
Aren't enough for me to prove to you

Don't you know I've always loved you
Even before there was time
Though you turn away
I'll tell you still
Don't you know I've always loved you
And I always will

Greater love has not a man
Than the one who gives his life to prove
That he would do anything
And that's what I'm going to do for you

Don't you know I've always loved you
Even before there was time
Though you turn away
I'll tell you still
Don't you know I've always loved you
And I always will

Third Day, "I've Always Loved You"
Lyrics by Mac Powell / Music by Third Day

Blandus Rest

2003-10-24T06:00:00.000-04:00

Take heed to yourselves, lest you be void of that saving grace of God which you offer to others, and be strangers to the effectual working of that gospel which you preach; and lest, while you proclaim to the world the necessity of a Saviour, your own hearts should neglect him, and you should miss of an interest in him and his saving benefits.
--Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor (53)

This is more difficult than you think. It is hard to take care of everyone you know. It is difficult to pastor people. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone has a problem. Everyone would like for you to spend more time with them. Yes, it is a joy and blessing - but not at the expense of my own soul. I have been challenged so many times this week....I need some down time to think, to rest, whatever.

For the Record...

2003-10-23T18:51:00.000-04:00

I always cheer for the National League (and you should too). I dislike the DH very, very much. Go Marlins!

You still have made a choice...

2003-10-23T08:06:00.000-04:00

I am disgusted with liberal media over the Terri Schiavo case. I try to give the industry the benfit of the doubt when it comes to claims that they are trying to be objective, but this case is clearly displaying the error of my ways. Perhaps it was because I had some previous knowledge of the case prior to hearing all the news reports.

Every news story I see or hear titles this the "Right to Die" case, which assumes one position in the disagreement to be more valid than the other. Every one trots out "medical ethicists" who claim that killing Terri is the right thing to do. You can't get very far in "medical ethics" unless you consistently agree with medical doctors. Medical doctors are trained to think in terms of the physical, material, "scientific" realm - not philosophically or otherwise - and are therefore poor candidates to comprehensively comment on these issues. Further, only "death is o.k. and preferable" minded people have been given time on "mainstream press." Being somewhat connected to the medical community myself, I know that there is a huge debate over End of Life issues (which would have been the most objective title for news reports) - no one doctor or "ethicist" can speak comprehensively to this issue. If no one person or group can speak comprehensively then objectivity requires a reporter to get more than one quote from varied sources. Every story I have seen slants any involvement of those who think Terri should not be killed as exerting their political strength to force their views on all Americans in a dangerous way that threatens their civil liberties. "Hey liberal media. Guess what? No one in this country has the right to kill another citizen for commercial gain."

Not my usual style today. I'm just so overwhelmed at the sheer one-sided support I see for the killing of a weak woman. The Culture War is farther along than I thought. We must fight. We must fight hard. We must not give up. We must not back down. The time for compromises is comming to an end. Fight for right. Fight for liberty. Fight for life.

Get out of my sandbox

2003-10-22T06:00:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, on the Tavis Smiley Show on NPR, recent DC Court of Appeals nominee Janice Rogers Brown was discussed. Judge Brown is an African-American woman and currently serves on the California Supreme Court. The segment discussed the Congressional Black Caucus' opposition to her nomination. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) spoke on behalf of the Black Caucus.

What struck me about Rep. Lee's opposition was that it was based on what her notion of "law" is. Lee does not like Brown because she believes Brown works against "established law." However, the "established law" Lee referred to is several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that conservatives would claim were the result of "judicial fiat" that usurped power from one branch of government and "legislated from the bench." Lee is concerned that Brown will have a different version of the way issues should be legislated from the bench and now desires that we all proceed with "established law" - not with individual justices' interpretations of the laws.

It seems to me that the liberals are being cut by a double-edged sword and do not like the feeling. This is one reason why I consider myself a conservative. I think we have rules to manage administrative procedure and change processes so that we do not have one group running roughshod over another because of popular whim. Liberals have worked hard for 30 years to circumvent the established procedures and force their changes through the court system. The most dangerous thing (to the left) is for judges to be elected and appointed that will consult the written law instead of the cultural elite. They have only themselves to blame if conservatives begin using the same tactics to fight back.

Bad vs. Good = Win

2003-10-21T06:00:00.000-04:00

Being a responsible parent-to-be, I just watched an hour of public television about human nature and parenting.

The little professor man from the University of Arkansas was telling me that there are three basic ways to view the behavior of children. That they were devils (this is a very bad view), that they were clay (this was a moderate view), or that they were basically good little angels (this was the proper view).

To explain the devil view, the little professor man quoted lots of historical church figures and ministers. He picked harsh sounding quotes and altered his voice to make them sound heartless and mean. He explained that a parent who held this view would react to a minor infraction by a child by "locking the child up in their room for years."

By contrast, the angel view - spoken of in an angelic voice - reasoned that kids would just be kids, and wouldn't it be better if we just worked with the children and helped them become who they already are meant to be. Oh, doesn't that just sound more like what we should be doing? You see, children are basically good.

Once again I see Jake Allen's reasoning behind defunding all public television and radio. The not-so-subtle message is, "If you listen to your minister and the teachings of the Bible, you really hate your kids and will be a bad parent." This little professor man constructed a straw man - a distorted shadow of biblical teaching - and tore him down in a systematic, soft-spoken, emotional way.

Someone has said, "All theology is personal." Perhaps the little man grew up in a very harsh Mormon environment and is revolting or something. It does not give him the right to ignore biblical theology regarding the fall of man, humanity's natural selfishness, and the goal and purpose of children.

I was appalled at his one-sided and, basically, uninformative presentation. I guess you get what you pay for.

Won't a Good Moral Life Get Me Into Heaven?

2003-10-20T14:55:00.000-04:00

The Ockhamist recently raised the question of good people going to hell. I have been reflecting on this for the last few days and his blog motivated me to reproduce the following from Paul Little. I highly recommend his book.

Q. Won’t a Good, Moral Life Get me to Heaven?

A. “This question reflects a very prevalent attitude of our age. “Isn’t living a good moral life all I need to do to get to heaven?” Or as a student at Duke University said after a discussion, “If God grades on the curve, I’ll make it.” His words are an apt summary of the confusion today about religion in general. Most people will accept this philosophy that all we need to do is our best, and then everything will be all right, or at least we’ll be able to squeak by. In this wistful hope we see an incredible optimism about humanity’s righteousness and an appalling ignorance of God’s infinite holiness. God doesn’t grade on the curve. He has an absolute standard, Jesus Christ.

“Light, when it is turned on, destroys darkness. Likewise, the character of God so blazes in its purity that it consumes all evil. If we came to him without any help, we could not abide in his presence but would be consumed because of the corruption in our lives. The perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ is the only basis on which we can come into fellowship with the living God.

“An illustration helps people to see their misunderstanding here. Suppose the entire human race lined up on the West Coast with one objective, to get to Hawaii. We’ll equate their goal with God’s standard of righteousness. The gun is fired and all the swimmers jump in. As we watch the swimmers we see the most moral person of all. She’s been a wonderful professor and a good person, always doing her best and following high moral standards; yet she would be the first to admit her imperfection and sinfulness. But she’s out there in the water seventy-five miles from shore.

“Next we pick out the Joe College Fellow who’s not quite ready for Sing-Sing or Cook County Jail. he does cheat on exams a little and goes on a binge now and then; he gets into a few scrapes and does things that are wrong. But he’s not really too bad. He’s gotten about ten miles out. A derelict from Skid Row is practically drowning one hundred and fifty yards offshore. Scattered about in the water between the two extremes of the spectrum we see the rest of the human race. As we look from the bum on Skid Row to the Joe College type to the tremendously moral professor who’s gone seventy-five miles, we see the difference. It’s an enormous difference. But what’s the difference in terms of Hawaii? Everyone will drown.

“A set of swimming instructions won’t help at this point. We need somebody who will take us to Hawaii. This is where Jesus Christ comes in. If you can make it to Hawaii by yourself, if you can live a life that is absolutely perfect in thought, word and deed, you can make it to heaven on your own steam. but no man ever has or ever will succeed. All the other religions of the world are essentially sets of swimming instructions, suggested codes of ethics for a wonderful pattern of life.

“But people’s basic problem is not lack of knowledge about what they ought to do; it is lacking the power to live as they ought. The good news of Christianity is that Jesus Christ, who invaded human history, does for us what we couldn’t do for ourselves. Through him we may be reconciled to God given his righteousness and enabled to have fellowship with him in his very presence.”

Google Gorilla

2003-10-17T08:53:00.000-04:00

Google is now censoring their content. They have removed every obvious pro-marriage website (including yours truly) from their listing of the search "defense of marriage week". They have taken over Yahoo! (produces the exact same results) and AskJeeves does not list any hits whatsoever. This is a sad sad day for the freedom of the internet. I will blog on. . .

DOM : The Enemy Within…

2003-10-17T06:00:00.000-04:00

It pains me to say it, but marriage needs to be defended . . . against Christians. With a divorce rate slightly higher than the mainstream and some estimates of male unfaithfulness at double their secular counterparts, Christians treat God’s wishes as trivial and defame the name of Christ. Should I be the one to remind every Christian that we are to live our lives as worthy of the Gospel? Does this mean that we should sin all the more that grace might increase? May it never be!

Now let me say a few things about these social surveys that look so bad for Christians. I don’t know how much stock I put in their conclusions. First of all, they don’t usually define a “Christian.” For all I know, they are surveying a bunch of Episcopalians and the data is horribly skewed. Another thing I find disturbing is that I usually see statistics for secular marriages that end in divorce and Christian people who have been divorced. They then compare the two percentages and see that the Christians are higher. But if a Christian couple divorces, then there are two people showing up – double counting! – when added to Christians who were divorced by an unbelieving spouse, then the “Christian rate” edges up a bit. Also, there is a fundamental flaw in the way divorce rates are currently calculated. In 1992, some brainiac at the Census Bureau noticed that there were about 1 million divorces in 1990 and 2 million new marriages. Viola! Half of all new marriages will end in divorce. Poppycock. He failed to take into account the about 52 million existing marriages. The correct divorce rate should be [(Divorce) / (Current + New)]. Unfortunately, people having heard this statistic for 10 years have begun to fulfill what could only be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe I should be blogging about protecting marriage from government, or stupid people, or math.

At any rate, however the numbers are calculated, Christians’ should be much lower. The fact that they are not is damning. What have we done with the grace we’ve been given? Have we been so afraid of not being cool, sophisticated, part of the in-crowd that we have neglected to call sin a sin and work to restore broken marriages? Have we been so self-involved that we have not provided an environment where hope and healing can take place? Have we been so busy with our building projects that we have neglected to build up the body? Sadly, the answer is “Yes.”

Christians need to recover their mandate for pastoral care. Each local church is to be a community of faith that supports one another and looks out for each member of the flock – standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by our opponents. An interested people who uphold the standards of the faith community. No one wants to return to a stereotypical gossip-laden busybody congregation, but we should be aware of what is going on in each other’s lives and be willing to step in and help – or correct. We must exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of us many be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. We, as Christians, have a responsibility to one another in Christ. The current ambiguity in the average Christian’s understanding of individuality, sexuality, and marriage testifies mightily to our failure.

This is one reason why I am becoming a pastor. I don’t want to take my responsibility lightly. The people need a place they can go to be accepted and meet Christ. Truth must be proclaimed. One of my buddies tells me that I am idealistic and in store for a rude awakening. No, I say. I have seen the problems in the church. I have witnessed the depravity of man. I will take the first step. If none go with me, I still will follow the one path of my risen Savior. I will trust him. I will do as he directs. I will preach as he has spoken. I will stand for Scripture. I will stand for Christ. I will stand for the gospel. I will stand for what is right. And this week – I take a stand for marriage.

DOM : Update! The Bible was not Written in English!!!

2003-10-16T06:00:00.000-04:00

It may come as a surprise to some people, but the Bible never uses the word homosexual. Actually the Bible, in the original languages, is curiously devoid of any English words whatsoever. The GLBT population would like you to believe that they have definitive proof that the Bible does not really contain negative references to homosexual behavior. Since they are the ones who finally got people excited about marriage, it seems appropriate for me as a biblical Christian to at least attempt to address the issue this week. I do not have time to cover everything, but we can look at three short passages.

1 Timothy 1:8-11
In this passage, Paul is telling Timothy that the law is used to restrain lawbreakers. Lawbreakers are those who act contrary to sound doctrine according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. One of the categories of people mentioned is translated variously as "men who practice homosexuality", homosexuals, perverts, and sodomites. The word is formed from two Greek words meaning "man" and "bed". The word we translate "bed" often is classically used as a verb coyly referring to the action a man performs with a woman in a bed. It refers to sexual intercourse or a seminal emission. In classical usage, when the two words appeared together, they were used in a phrase like "men bedding men like other men bed women." Paul squished these words together to make a new word roughly meaning something like "the man-bedders." I.e. men who have sexual intercourse with other men. So, no - the word "homosexual" does not appear in the Bible, but "man-bedder" does. I think it is the same thing really.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
This is part of a larger, beautiful passage about our liberation from sinful bondage through Jesus Christ. The same word, "man-bedder", comes up again in 6:9 describing an unrighteous class of people that "will not inherit the kingdom of God." Today, I am not in the business of completely unpacking that phrase, but a brief word needs to be said - I think that homosexuals can become Christians. Verse 11 says simply that some Christians were previously "man-bedders." I differ from homosexuals in that I believe that once you accept Christ and his Mastery or Lordship over your life, you will cease homosexual behavior (like the others mentioned in verse 11). Whatever you think about Paul, it seems pretty clear that he was referring to homosexuals (defined as those men who have sex with other men).

Romans 1:26-27
This one is my favorite to refute because it gets at the heart of the worldview issue. Part of a larger passage about following God's desires and not selfish desires, these two verses are dealing specifically with idolatrous people who worship the creature rather than the Creator. Homosexuality is described as a selfish desire to please oneself, rather than God. This is the essence of sin. Paul describes homosexuals as having "degrading passions," and a "debased mind." Specifically though, we are concerned with whether or not the Bible refers to homosexuals, per se.
In verse 26, the word "lesbian" is not used, but the literal phrase is "for their females exchanged the natural function of sexual intercourse for that which is contrary to nature." Sure, this may mean something else, but in context the easy reading is that we are talking about lesbianism.
In verse 27, the words "gay" or "homosexual" are not used. But a literal rendering would be: "In the same way, men also abandoned the natural function of sexual intercourse with women, they were inflamed in their lustful passions for one another, men in men working out shameless acts." Whew. "Men in men working out shameful acts." Gotta tell ya, sounds like homosexuality to me.

So, briefly, we see instances of "man-bedders", "contrary to nature women", and "men in men." All these categories of behavior are condemned in scripture. To defend homosexual behavior by appealing to the lack of a word strictly meaning homosexual is linguisticly unjustifiable. Imagine a textbook from Sociology 101 in the year 3050 A.D. :

~ In the American times, there were many who denounced "gays" and "homosexuals." The gays were simply happy people - not any different than anyone else, but more pleasent to be around due to their liberal attitudes and flair for fashion and style. There was a different group called homosexuals - who apparently wanted to live "with the same sex." This practice of men living with men was common throughout the culture, particularly on college campuses in units known as fraternaties. There is no reason to interpret these terms as "men having sex with men." Let us state it strongly - there is no word in the ancient world that can be translated as the modern term manbedder. Attempts to discredit the current practices of manbedders by appealing to ancient literature is misguided and uninformed. ~

Give me a break. Stop reading modern notions of gay theory into our ancient literature. Please stop with the "it is not really in there" lunacy.

Again I would like to say to the readers of my blog that I am not necessarily against gays or whatever. But I am pro-God and whatever He has to say. It is clear that homosexual behavior is not something God wants us to engage in. The scripture speaks very strongly on the matter. Therefore, I hate homosexuality. I hate it like the plague of sin and rebellious selfishness that it is (knowing that it is not the only sin). My desire is to see homosexuals receive healing and come into a right relationship with their Creator same as I have. I don't think this post will convince any of them, but it is good to speak the truth and let it carry the day. The more we know of the truth, the more prepared we will be when we encounter various situations where it can transform lives. If you struggle with this, click here.

Marriage is for one man and one woman. I believe this. I believe this because it is a clear scriptural teaching. I have every right to vote and move and protest to get my way encoded into law as anyone else. Don't step on my 1st Amendment Rights and try to claim that because I am religious I cannot participate. This is who I am and the Constitution and the Law must be blind to how I became this way. Fight for right. Fight for liberty. Fight for marriage.

DOM : Cultural Pressure

2003-10-15T06:00:00.000-04:00

As we continue discussions inspired by Marriage Protection Week, we note that the institution that is marriage is sometimes attacked directly, sometimes indirectly. Marriage is part of the overall plan the Lord has for society. When speaking in secular settings, even without mentioning God, we can make a good argument for (1 man, 1 woman, 4 life) marriage as a bedrock of a healthy and progressive civilization. The point is that marriage is part of a larger interrelated package. Work against one part of the package, you weaken the whole thing.

To go way out into left field to show the interconnectedness of all things, I will today discuss Christian Music. The link is tenuous, I admit. But again, the goal here is to show the reality of a cultural oppression that shares proponents and opponents.

Music is understood to be the primal call of a people. Originally a religious device, (many today would shun the term "religious," instead preferring "spiritual") music was the tribal pulse and pound of a people's search and desire to find meaning, to express, to explain. For many, music symbolizes the humaness of being human. Art in its purest form, the expression of the inexpressible, the longing for the unattainable, the passion borne out of man's symbiotic relationship with all that the universe is and means to him (/her). Many still recognize these roots of music and strive to appreciate the longings of primitive man. This is why there is always a "World" music section in the record stores. Music is what we are, the hope of what we can become.

This is also why music is so personal. Folks who like Country music, really like country. People who don't, hate it. To the latter, Country is an affront to their sense of progressivism. It is a return to an unenlightened past that does not share their city convictions. To the former, it is a passioned description of real life. Not borne of fancy-pants ne’er-do-wells who think they are better than "us," but from honest people, described in an honest way. Those university professors and cultural elites who describe the Symphony as the only legitimate musical form cringe when they hear the posses and gang-bangers described as "artists." The repetition, the noise, the W O R D S work against the purity, the harmony, the mathematical precision they desire for their own lives. Meanwhile, the Rap musicians offer up their impassioned plea for meaning. Describing the pain of their universe in graphic, over-the-top language that cries out, "Take me seriously, I matter too..." The suffering and pain is evident in their most harshly described behavior. A people still struggling to be free from the daemons that enslave them. As a cultural art form, American music takes many forms - all disliked by some - all representative of people with a particular point of view.

Christian music is no different. It is the heart cry of a people who have been liberated from sin and bondage in an already / not-yet situation. A people who desire to do, and to be, good. A people who do not desire for themselves, but recognize the control of the Creator. A people who believe in a Heaven and a Hell, and desire that many would enter the former and none would enter the latter. A culture of people who desire to express the longings of their own hearts for a better world. The cultural instruction of believers in a code of behavior encouraging others in the same situations. This is music from a people who believe the message is more important than the instrumental medium. Christian music, like any other genre, is indicative of the people group it represents.

But Christian music is universally qualified as "bad" music. It is music that does not live up to the "standards" of the industry. "If those artists made better music," they claim, "We would listen/play them more often." Right off, it is easy to see that this is a bogus claim. Have you heard some of the unformatted 3 minute pop crap that passes for Country these days? Have you heard the discombobulated noise and vacuous lyrics that pushes the Top 40? Did you catch any of the contemporary junk that fills the college concert halls? Have you been disgusted with the idiotic lunacy that takes place at the Apollo? Every genre has its bad artists and stupid sounding songs. Comparing bad to good will guarantee you a win every time. Bad to bad - I think Christians win - at least they are trying to say something intelligible. Good to Good - I would put the likes of Stephen Curtis Chapman, Toby Mac, and Third Day against anyone you could send me in terms of musical composition and lyrical quality. Sure, you may prefer one genre over another, but an honest evaluation will not deny the musical competence of these artists.

The main problem with Christian music is not the music but the message. "The world" does not like the message. It does not like Jesus Christ. It does not like to admit the root of sin and the call for repentance unto salvation. It rejects the Master and seeks its own self. Popular culture rejects the Christian message, Christian music, and Christians. It couches its criticism in elitist talk and double-speak in order to give the appearance of discreditation to a people it wishes would just go away. Christians who are overly critical of the "quality" of Christian music have bought into the lies and value system of a demonic system.

This is a relatively unimportant issue for most people, Christians included. There are not a lot of big stories in the "music wars." However, the same cultural bias against biblical Christianity that works itself out in discriminatory music selection works itself out in opposition to concepts of marriage that align with the biblical vision. We hear talk of the 1st Amendment prohibiting Christians from promoting proper marriage. We hear talk that divorce is acceptable and does not really harm anyone. We hear talk that gays are o.k. and should have the same "rights" as everyone else. Talk that traditional marriage supporters are unenlightened, unintelligent, and unsophisticated. Rabbit trails and double-speak to get around the main issue : Jesus Christ, God and his demands, sin and the need for redemption - the Gospel.

Friends, we have to understand these cultural pressures to squeeze Christianity out of existence. They are working against marriage, which is a part of God's plan - and therefore, part of our concern. Families have a lot of people trying to tear them apart and force them to reject the aims and laws of God. Those people are winning. Fight back. Stand up to opposition and unwarranted criticism. Shine the pure light on their emotional arguments and expose them for what they are. Live in a manner that is worthy of the Gospel of Christ. Do something to help someone out this week. Do something to encourage a family. Do something to support them in the name of Christ Jesus. Do anything, but do something. The time to win this world is now.

The Last Straight Man on Earth?

2003-10-14T17:16:00.000-04:00

According to Google, I am the primary person defending marriage during Defense of Marriage Week, also known as Marriage Protection Week. World, watch out!

You Should Read This...

2003-10-14T08:25:00.000-04:00

This is quite an article on abortion and what the Catholics can start doing to stop it. Thanks to ~gauche for the reference.

DOM : What God Hath Joined Together…

2003-10-14T06:00:00.000-04:00

Marriage needs to be protected from Divorce. Well, duh. Of course it does. Well, why isn’t it? This article gives a decent introduction to the topic. I want to concentrate today on the interplay between divorcing parents and how divorce affects children. Much of the following is condensed from a paper I wrote on the subject.

Thirty years ago, the divorce rate was skyrocketing and many psychologists tried to convince the public that children would not suffer long-term harm from a family breakup. Today’s scholarship recognizes the truth of a statement made by psychologist and researcher Judith Wallerstein in her pioneering longitudinal study, “One cannot predict long-term effects of divorce on children from how they react at the outset.” As researchers gain greater access to the behaviors of children of divorce (as children, adolescents, and adults) they find a large number of disruptive outcomes due directly and indirectly to parental divorce. These unhealthy behavior patterns begin at the time of divorce and last a lifetime. By studying some effects of divorce on children, we reveal the sinful selfishness that underlies most divorces today - and give another reason to defend marriage.

For children of all ages, the emotional problems manifested in the early stages of the divorce process are rooted in feelings of depression and anxiety. For example, the children in Wallerstein’s study experienced a high incidence of intense loneliness due to absent working parents, single parents who were dating, and newly remarried parents. Her description of the findings is still referenced by much of the literature on the subject:

“We found 37 percent of all the children and adolescents to be moderately to severely depressed. As at the eighteen-month check point, depression was the most common psychopathological finding and was manifested in a wide variety of feelings and behavior, including chronic and intense unhappiness (at least one child with suicidal preoccupation), sexual promiscuity, delinquency (drug-abuse, petty stealing, some alcoholism, breaking and entering), poor learning, intense anger, apathy, restlessness and a sense of intense, unrelenting emotional deprivation.”

It is really in adulthood that children of divorce suffer the most when in search of love, sexual intimacy, and commitment. “Adults whose parents divorced when they were children are significantly more likely to marry early, have a history of divorce and remarriage, and have an unhappy relationship, and they are more likely to mistrust other people.” (Wallerstein) The “life-courses” of children of divorce follow statistically distinguishable patterns that contribute to less education, lower socio-economic levels, problems with interpersonal development, and higher levels of adult depression than children whose parents did not divorce.

The factors that cause the emotional stress that begin these destructive life-courses are related to parents working for their own interests at the expense of the children. The greatest time of stress for children is intensified by parents’ self-seeking behavior as they engage in the process of separating and legally divorcing. During this time, it is the excessive conflict between parents that causes the most psychological trauma to children. The anger, depression, and separation that often accompanies divorce also reduces the ability of parents to effectively engage in parenting activities.

Additional stress and psychological harm occurs with the remarriage of the custodial spouse. This is significant for a large number of children as approximately 80 percent of divorced fathers and 75 percent of divorced mothers marry a second time. Contrary to popular assumption, remarriage, even with its additional economic security, does not tend to have an overall protective effect for children of divorce. This is in part due to the higher rate of divorce for secondary marriages, 60 percent, compared to 45 percent for first marriages. Remarriage does not mitigate the effects of a first divorce. The same selfish people who divorced one partner find it as easy, or easier, to divorce another.

The biblical case is thus: God has created humans in his own image (Gen 1:27). As creatures reflecting the image of God, men and women are personal, or relational beings. This relational impulse is further described by Genesis 2:17 as God says, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” This relational creation is the basis for marriage as described in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The institution of marriage is based on the creative acts of God that yield personal, socially-orientated men and women. When God gives two people in marriage, he grants them a special relation that flows from the divine act of his creation.

Within the context of this relationship, humans are instructed to be fruitful and multiply in Genesis 1:28 as God blesses the first human family. This binds the presence of children to the existence of the relationship given by God in marriage. Just as no other helper was suitable for Adam, save that which came from his own body, no manner of engaging in the work of the earth was suitable save that which came from the one-flesh body of marriage shared with Eve. Children are binding symbols of the one-flesh relationship given by God and the calling of obedience God has on his creation.

Children exist as, among other things, a symbol of the unity of creation and calling; as both a part of humans’ biological self and as a reminder of the responsibility humans have in the work of God on the earth. The Westminster Larger Catechism succinctly summarizes a host of biblical instruction on the responsibilities of parents to their children:

“It is required of superiors [parents], according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for and bless their inferiors [children]; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honour to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.”

Parents concerned with Scripture need to understand that divorce in any case must be seen as a last option and as a failure of two humans to adhere to the biblical standards for marriage. Divorce is selfish. The same sinful selfishness that characterizes divorce characterizes bad parenting. Again, the Westminster Larger Catechism summarizes much of the biblical teaching regarding the lack of fidelity to biblical standards of parental influence:

“The sins of superiors [parents] are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; . . . dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; . . . careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonouring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behaviour.”

This description perfectly describes the behaviors and attitudes involved in divorce. As parents selfishly seek their own interests, children are harmed. This is true for both emotional and separational divorce and is seen in the increased inability of these children to establish stable and healthy relationships as adults. The stress of divorce leaves children with discouragement as to what is good and higher rates of depression, anger, and lack of trust follow. As parents become less effective in their parenting after divorce, they leave their children to excess danger and temptation. Higher rates of promiscuity, early marriages, repeated divorces, drug-abuse, and delinquency are the results. Further, parents who divorce dishonor themselves by tarnishing both the gift and responsibility of marriage.

The culture of easy divorce must be stopped. Work politically, make all the laws you want, etc, etc. The problem is partly legal, but it resides more in the hearts and minds of careless individuals who do not prepare themselves to accept a role God has outlined for them. Marriage is not the easy answer for guilt-free sex. There are consequences to this biblical action that must be considered. Parents most influence society through the proper parenting of their children. When parents fail to guard their marriages from divorce, they contribute to generation after generation of moral decay and the ripples of their decision create a wake in the waters of social stability. Marriage is important. Parenting children to mature adults is important. Do something beneficial for yourself and your society – improve your marriage, better your children - stay married.

DOM : The Pornography Plague

2003-10-13T12:09:00.000-04:00

Don’t be an idiot - Pornography hurts marriages. You can get a bunch of ACLU flag-burners and Librarians together who will swear up and down that what really harms people is not exposure to deviant sex, but repression of natural human impulses. If you’ve ever been exposed to pornography, you know better.

Marriage needs to be defended against pornography for several reasons:
1) Porn breaks the marriage covenant. If you are lusting after women (or men) with your heart, you have already committed adultery. There are no ifs, ands, or buts – no excuses – no victimless crimes - You have violated the promise you made to your spouse and to your God.
2) Porn increases the desire for private sexual actions. Porn is an addictive spiral. You may think you can control yourself, but the data shows that over time you will need more quantity and graphic quality to maintain the same level of excitement and satisfaction. Sexual behavior apart from the marriage relationship is condemned in scripture.
3) Excessive masturbation (for men) has one of two effects. It will either desensatize you to sexual activity (thus decreasing your ability to perform sexually) or it will train your body for premature ejaculation (thus decreasing your ability to please your partner). Either way, you violate your wife's access to her "marital rights." Your body is not your own.
4) Studies show that long exposure to pornography leads to increased instances of anger and manipulative behavior. It leads to lower respect for the opposite sex and supressed emotions. These are not qualities that contribute to successful marriages.
5) Porn violates the dignity of persons. You are denigrated as one who is rebelling against what God created you to be. You dishonor your spouse by focusing attention and sexual energy away from the marriage bed. You also support the industry that subjects people to humiliating behavior for commercial gain. As you look at porn – imagine your daughter or sister being forced to pose by an overbearing boyfriend or because she can’t make her rent this month. These women are somebody’s family members. They are created in the image of God and you support their explotation.

Q. Great. Porn is bad for marriage, but so is death by automobile accident. Why do we need a whole day on this blog to defend marriage against it?
A. Because it is becoming more prevalent and the industry is targeting you.

Of course porn is addictive. If it was not, the “first one is free” approach would not be used so often - and the industry knows it. Addiction is why porn continues to grow and expand. Like reflections of Satan, porn pushers are always on the prowl, working to deceive, trying to get men (& women) to stray. One industry insider describes how far-reaching porn has become – and that it was the Presidency of Bill Clinton that made it possible for porn to become firmly entrenched in modern American Culture – while complaining of new self-regulatory practices the industry is implementing to keep porn mainline.

Many ACLU-types help the porn industry by promoting an agenda of loose morals and attempting to steer discussions of the harmful effects of sexually deviant materials toward the Free Speech bandwaggon. They boldly engage in the typical selective recall and doubletalk, but not all feminists will agree their slutty sisters.

Pornography is not just harmless fun. It is a destructive force that is being pushed into the lives of everyday Americans at an aggressive pace. Sex sells – movies, tv, advertisements, etc – all trying to redefine your reality to pull you into the World and keep you from Christ. Soulless executives working for profit at the expense of decency, morality, and family. If you do not work to combat this evil, it will find and affect you. It cannot simply be ignored.

Porn is selfish. Marriage is selfless.
Porn destroys. Marriage builds up.
Porn limits. Marriage increases.
Porn violates marriage.
Defend your marriage (and yourself) against the pornography industry.

Marriage Protection Week

2003-10-10T15:30:00.000-04:00

Well, faithful readers, October 12-18 (next week) has been declared the Defense of Marriage Week. You can find some basics at, naturally, MarriageProtectionWeek.com. Another decent site about what concerns marriage traditionalists is MarriageDebate.com.

This week has been declared in no small part to draw public awareness to the need for and benefits of traditional marriage under attack by homosexual activist organizations like Lambda Legal. The homosexual argument seems to be : "Since bad people suffer from bad decisions, we should force people to think like us." Darlene chose not to fulfill her work requirements? Let's marry gays! A young man has an altercation after "cruising" in the public showers? Let's redefine marriage! I'm not sure what "cruising" is, but if he did it to me, I'd probably beat his ass too. (No pun intended). Look! Instead of pursuing a proper life and seeking counseling for aberrant behavior, we chose to live with other men and have deviant sex a lot and now we can't see each in the hospital or pay each other's bills - Redefine society to please us! These arguments (?) are not convincing.

The "problem" of marriage is ultimately one of worldviews:

* If you think nothing of marriage - if everything we see and believe and interact with are human constructs of thought that our enlightened postmodern brains can now change with our every whim - well, why not change everything for those with the loudest voices? Why not fight and go to war with one another so the dominant culture will prevail? Will not-believing in my bullet keep it from destroying your body?

* If you think that human social constructs serve a purpose of stabilizing culture and allowing society a framework in which to operate and progress, then let's talk about not intentionally hurting people who choose the gay lifestyle and slowly and reasonably work on evolving our social constructs. In-your-face activism and fast action against the majority opinion on this (or any other) core societal issue will eventually end in civil war. No, homosexuals are not like black people.

* Of course, if you are a biblical Christian, you have very little room for debate. Homosexual activity is expressly prohibited in scripture and, as such, gays and lesbians should not be allowed to defame the sacred institution of marriage. Contrary to liberal belief, my religion is a part of me and has every right to influence my stands in the public square. Let your voice be heard.

Not all marriage defense is about gays. SGA-people have created the most pressing battle front, but they are only able to do this because so many heterosexual people have neglected and harmed marriage themselves. High divorce rates, cheating on spouses, neglecting children - all have been rising for years, but only get the tsch-tsch from conservatives and Christians. People of faith are now (as a large group) waking up only because gays are forcing themselves through the system and more directly affecting the institutions and constructs we hold dear. It is good that we have responded to the "yuck factor," but it is sad that we did not do more to convince secular heterosexuals regarding the importance of marriage.

Over the next week, I will be posting several things that are related to the theme of marriage and the issues the subject inspires. Faithful readers, you have all weekend to get your thinking caps on . . . Marriage Smackdown 2003 begins next week!

P.S.
"The bullet comment" was more about postmodernists and civil war than about homosexuals. Please do not shoot any homosexuals this weekend because you think I said so. If you do, I will kick your ass as well. It is a shame I even have to think about posting this. Morons.

The World Behind Me, The Cross Before Me…

2003-10-09T00:20:00.000-04:00

If the Republicans think that Schwarzenegger is the wave of the future, they had better think again. Let it be said, Blandus is not a Republican. Blandus is a conservative as the present labels go. A social conservative at that.

There has been a lot (and more will come) of scuttlebutt regarding Gov. Arnold heralding the new image of a conservatism that has been "liberated" from the oppressive, intolerant, hate-mongering, anti-everything, cultural right-wing wackos (me). The predatorial gays are hard at work "meekly" crying out for some fairness, some equality, some tolerance in the party of Lincoln. "Please, conservative brothers," they seem to be saying, "let us be a part of what we can all agree upon." They sound very reasonable as they ask, "Please use our logs in your planks..."

I will not vote for a party that works against - or even adversely compromises - the issues that are most dear to me. The Republican party and conservative wonks have done a good job of fooling many biblical Christians into thinking that Christianity = Conservatism.

Christians need to remember and realize that Christianity is not concerned with Conservatism, it is concerned with devotion to Christ and living a life that is worthy of the Gospel - such that the gospel may be proclaimed and men saved by his grace.

As Republicans shift to the left on cultural issues in a way that runs counter to biblical Christianity, they leave behind those who will stand firm for the gospel, biblical ethics, and a worldview that does not allow compromise with "the world". Quite simply, as they leave us behind, we should not vote for them. Biblical Christianity reflects an absolute standard of reality. Right, Left, Liberal, and Conservative are artificial constructs that overlay our present debates. As American Christians, we must participate in our political process in a way that holds true to our biblical convictions. To do any less is to practice idolatry and brings shame to the Christ we serve.

If you just don't get it....

2003-10-09T00:19:00.000-04:00

Sometimes reading Quinefan is fun.
{hint : this is one of those times}

A Parabolic Tale...

2003-10-08T06:30:00.000-04:00

There was once a young man who entered the woods. He had recently come of an age where he must strike out and make his mark on the world. His family behind him, the young man looked ahead to adventure and glory like the stories of old. With his head high and back straight, he boldly entered the unexplored forest. His name was Olem.

Olem wandered for weeks and weeks in the woods. Since his family had always provided the food, he found it difficult to forage. He became weak and unhealthy. One day he stumbled into a small village and many villagers came to his aid. "I didn't know how difficult it was just to survive in the world," he told his new friends. The villagers did not have much, but they provided food and shelter until he regained his strength and was again ready to make his mark on the world. He thanked the villagers and strode confidently into the deeper parts of the forest.

Olem again struggled to survive. The foliage was thicker and the animals larger here. The simpler traps the villagers had taught him were not sufficient to handle this newer environment. Some of the techniques seemed applicable, but many of his ideas did not work out, and he again became weak and hungry.

Olem came upon a small city on the edge of a trade route. He staggered into a building and asked for help and food. The owner of the building ran a logging business. "Boy," he said, "This is the city. If you want food, you'll have to work." Olem accepted a job with the man and went to work as a logger. It was hard work, many hours, little pay. Olem had enough to get by, but he grew weary with the work, with the lack of adventure, with the lack of glory. "What has this guy every really done for me?" he said. Olem set out once more.

This time Olem fared much better. His knowledge of the deep forest had increased during his time as a logger. His body was strong and his sense of life was more balanced. He began to realize that the difficulties he experienced getting started had helped him to be prepared for these moments. He roamed the forest. He trapped every kind of animal. He tested his vigor and his strength - and no one noticed. Olem began to wonder, "Is this what I have been hoping and working for?"

He began hiring out as a guide for game hunters and as a guard for long-distance travelers. He enjoyed mild success and was competent at his job. The travelers he guided wondered at all the adventure that must fill his life. They did not understand that the stories of the forest did not reflect the reality of the woods.

Olem guided a group of settlers across the forest one day. On that trip he was introduced to a beautiful, flaxen-haired maiden who quickly fell in love with him. When the settlers reached their destination, Olem realized that the unskilled men and women would not survive long in this part of the woods. He accepted an offer to stay for a time and teach the men of the new village how to hunt, trap, traverse, and survive. The people voted him the Village Counselor and he began spending more time among the tiny huts and lean-tos, seeing to the needs of his new community. Eventually, he married the maiden and built a hut of his own. He cleared the trees and farmed the land and foraged and set simple traps. A family raised. A body grown worn and frail. Time spent teaching a grandson how to read the signs of the forest.

At his death, the town gathered for his funeral. After an announcement to name a meadow in his honor, the grandson, now 20, stood to speak.

"Olem the Wanderer was my grandfather. As a young man he braved the elemental forces of the forest. He trained and gained skills as a logger. He experienced these woods like no one else and had the kinds of adventures we only read about. He saved countless lives and helped many in need as he guided and traveled. He helped to found this town, and without him, none of us would be here. He was a father to my mother and a grandfather to me. He learned and he invested in the lives of others. He was a great man. May it be said and understood truly, Olem was a great man."

She was, An American Grrl....

2003-10-06T09:00:00.000-04:00

The next generation of sluts and whores will be the downfall of our existence. I’m walking through a store the other day and get stuck behind a 14-15 year old girl pushing her little brother in a cart. The girl is wearing a skin tight shirt showing every curve of her emerging young body and tailored sweat pants that leave little to the imagination. Soft curves. Typically I barely notice this kind of thing and just grieve for humanity and move on. But, the girl had the words “Baby Girl” artistically sewed on each cheek of her rear. Naturally, I read words that are there to be read and find myself viewing her slowly rolling buttocks as she strolls down the aisle. Suddenly I find myself wanting to grab a piece of what she is selling.

I am a good man. I love Christ and his church. The majority of my time is spent trying to live a pure life and serve my Master in Heaven. But this is a sinful and fallen world. My desires are strong and able to be tempted. To a great extent, I am responsible for my own thoughts and actions. In fact, I am always responsible for my actions – but, a female who dresses in an intentionally provocative way – a style of dress that invites male sexual attention – bears much of the responsibility for the attention she receives.

The sad thing is that I have had occasion to interact with a lot of pre- and early-teen young women. I know that they do not desire to invite the sexual advances of middle-aged men. They just want to look “cute,” they just want to be “pretty.” They think if they are pretty then teenage boys will like them. Often they have no idea of the actual thoughts they produce in men of all ages. The very idea shocks and repulses them. But they are young - how are they to know any better? The answer is Parenting.

I blame the mother of this young girl for the impure thoughts she produces. I blame the mother for the early sexual trauma this girl will experience as she learns the hard way what guys really want. I blame the parents for the low self-esteem and sense of unworthiness she will develop as she comes to realize people only value her as a sexual object. Parents – parent your children!

It is o.k. to say, “No,” to your children. It is o.k. to go against popular culture and protect them from harm. It is o.k. to be a prude now and again – that’s your job. Sometimes, because God loves us, he protects us from ourselves even when we don’t realize what is best for us. You must do the same for your children. What kind of sense does it make to send a girl out looking like a whore or easy-lay slut and just hope (against hope) that she “doesn’t get into any trouble”?

I catch flak for saying these kinds of things. “Oh, those clothes are just cute.” “Don’t be such a prude.” “Your lack of self-control is not my problem.” Whatever. I live in the real world where men, even future ministers, sin. If parents, especially parents in the church, abandon their responsibility to properly train their daughters – even going so far as to intentionally tempt every man in visual distance – how can we ever hope to save our culture from destruction?

Peeps and Homies

2003-10-04T11:05:00.000-04:00

This is my every-so-often shout out to people who done me right on the web.

I'd first like to thank my patron James, who is expending fantasy capital to invest in my blog shares. World - link to me, help a brother out. Thanks, James.

Also a big shout out to The Chairman. He uses blogrolling, which puts a smiley face next to my name everytime I update. Well done, Richard Anderson. You may just be the One.

The Ockhamist paid me a nice complement this week. Even though he eats chewable gummy bear kiddie vitamins, his is still my favorite website.

The ever-winsome ~gauche posted some new stuff this week.

Blogs4God listed me in their directory and gave me some traffic. Thanks, guys!

I have not yet acknowledged Bob, who was one of the first to read and interact with my site. Watch your wafer around this guy...

Finally, the GreenFlash over at BlogMatrix got my free RSS feed working again (I think). So kudos to the man in tights.

Who Gets all the Land when God smites the Canadians?

2003-10-03T07:10:00.000-04:00

Who wants it really? Seriously though, I get Geddy Lee's bass. Really, I called it - first dibs.

Talk about your liberal media. There are many ways that a journalist could cover a story about the Oxford Canadian Dictionary unilaterally deciding what the definition of "marriage" should be. You could state just the facts. You could state just the facts and get quotes from both sides of the issue. Or, you could just quote a gay magazine's website and "to Hell with objectivity." To hell with the Advocate is more like it.

Let me tell you something, internet community. It does not matter what the Latin origins of words are. What matters is how the word was used and understood all of the times it was used. It is misleading, and outright lying really, to suggest that the term _marita_ only means "joined to a man." In every usage, classical to the present, the word and all words derived from it to this point in time, the meaning has been woman joined to a man. It was the word for wife, get it? This is what liberal cultural warriors try to do - and they do it very effectively - they take a word and massage the meaning until they can use it in a newly defined way. If you want to add or subtract meaning to a term - by definition (why do I have to explain this?) - you are altering the definition of the term.

My defense of limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not stand or fall on this one issue of a definition of terms. I merely point out for my discerning readers that it is backhanded and dishonest to redefine the concept of redefinition so that your redefinition is considered the definition to begin with. Confused? You bet. That is how they want you to be so that you are scared to speak up. They do not care about truth or honesty...they only want you to go away, they only want to win.

If Christians are going to resist the onslaught from its enemies, then we must call these deceivers out in the workplace, in the social clubs, in the everyday encounters of life and take a stand for truth - living our life of faith in a way that is worthy of the gospel of Christ. I pray that we will be standing side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by our opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of our salvation, and that from God. For it has been granted to us that for the sake of Christ we should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the conflicts of our times.

Jesus told us that we will give an account of every careless word we speak. Don't risk the cultural destruction for every word you did not speak.

National Do Not Call List : Reloaded

2003-10-03T07:05:00.000-04:00

After drawing some first rate criticism from faithful reader, ~gauche and my #1 Hombre' the Ockhamist, I recognize that I need to clarify my position.

I am not the one that began the noise about 1st Amendment Rights. That honor goes to a Federal judge in Denver [see related story]. I can't find the source of my Senator quote because it was on NPR (tuesday 9/31?) and I am not going to pay for the transcript.

Facts as I see them :
(1) We got two rulings against the FTC and the NDNCL. One from Oklahoma that says no authority to enforce. The other from Denver saying that the law violates telemarketers 1st Amendment Free Speech rights.
(2) "The Telemarketers" are following up with legal challenges in Denver, where they have a judge that is concerned for their first amendment rights.
(3) We got a Senate rushing to curtail the effects of both rulings by passing more detailed laws designed to enforce rules limiting the speech (or activity) of telemarketers.
(4) A chief reason the Senate is doing this is the popularity of the rules.

This has nothing to do with my personal views on what kind of speech telemarketers have a right to. If the debate were framed differently, then I probably wouldn't be posting about it. (I don't want them calling me either.)

However, we have a cultural-legal system in which jurists create law from the bench - no matter what the legislature may say or do. Jurists provide their reasoning for these judicial fiat decisions by picking and choosing the case law and historical facts they think best fits their own cultural outlook and worldview. That is how we look to case law enforcing the enslaving of humans to justify killing children. That is how we ignore US Legislation to side with more liberal nations in celebrating homosexuality and destroying traditional and legal marriage definitions. - And - I fear - it is how we will decide as a nation that some minorities don't fit in and need to be "corrected." It apparently only takes about a third of the people to do it. Those who believe in actual, biblical, Christianity are fast becoming a minority these days, and an unpopular one at that.

I will not support any action that provides case law for something so dangerous over something so trivial. The mortality of Socrates is irrelevant.

Movin' on Up....

2003-10-03T07:00:00.000-04:00

I have "made it" onto various search engines and the people are starting to take notice of the Rex. Yes, due to a recent post, AOLSearch has me at #11 (on page 2) if you search for "slutty fashions". This stuff cracks me up.

In honor of this achievement, I would like to post the following:
Has anyone heard that Jennifer Lopez might perform with Beyonce Knowles at Soldier Field on an NFL broadcast of Monday Night Football on Halloween with guest appearances by Robert Novak, Jessica Biel, the Boston Gorilla, and the cast of Lord of the Rings? Will this distract from the debate over the National Do Not Call List?

What goes around...

2003-10-02T07:00:00.000-04:00

I am opposed to the National Do Not Call List. I don't like telemarketers any more than anyone else. I have my own way of dealing with them that has probably gotten me on a private list or two - all you telemarketers know what I'm talking about. (I apologize. Really. I do.)

I am opposed to the NDNCL because of what I heard on the radio the other day. Senator Something-or-Other says , "Over 50 million people have stated that they do not want these calls. Over 50 million people can't be wrong!" Sounds great. Crowd cheers. Then you realize that the legal issue is one of free speech. The Senator did not say, "Commercial speech is in another class from other types of private speech." He said, "50 Million People Can't Be Wrong." This sends chills through my bones.

I am sure there are many groups that can scare up 50 million signatures (many would just fake half of them) to say that they did not want me to preach in their country anymore. Maybe I don't even have to be the focus of such nationwide attention. If 1/3 of the people voting in my city voted to banish me and "my kind" would that be enough? How low is the threshold to decide that "people can't be wrong, let's run roughshod over their speech." The legislative challenge to recent court decisions is chilling and wrong-headed. It is a cheap power grab to place oneself and one's party as the populist "party of the people." They will not do it at the expense of my liberties. Christians are already facing a swelling tide of public opposition. Let's not make it easier by backing the wrong arguments. If the price of my preaching the gospel is constant interruption from unwanted callers, so be it. It is a small price to pay for the freedom to pursue the glory of God.

E-mail your Senator. Oppose dangerous arguments for the NDNCL.

One Crying Out in the Darkness...

2003-10-01T07:00:00.000-04:00

My wife, the Regina, is pregnant with a baby boy. Little Rex is due in January, but is currently living in the Regina's tummy. This freaks me out. There is an actual person LIVING INSIDE of my wife. It is like an alien or something. It is weird. This idea facinates and horrifies me.

Ever wonder what life is like for baby in there? All he knows is relative darkness. He hears some muted sounds, maybe. He gets hunger pains, then they go away. I am becomming more and more aware that children think with developed mental capacities far earlier than I had previously thought. What does he think inside the womb? That this is all there is? Does he come up with anything like ergo cognito eimi? Does he think he's got a good handle on things? Thinks about how great it is to be him, in his little universe? Maybe he thinks he is huge because his universe is so small. Does he ever wonder or fear the strange pressure and movement when the noise is loudest and things most red? After nine months of this - it must seem like a long time to a baby - he probably feels pretty comfortable with that he's got everything figured out.

Then, something weird happens. Strange new feelings and noises. A tremendous pressure. Such light. Prickly sensation on skin. Pressure on lungs. Noise. Light. Cry. What happened to my universe? And, then and there he figures out that he really knew nothing at all and there is a whole lot left to learn.

That is what we are like here on Earth - in this universe for that matter. We think and think and think and study and measure and pronounce, but when it all comes down to it. We can only know what we see and hear and touch. If we are vain, then we think that is all there is. But it is not the truth. Just like the experiences inside the womb would make more sense if there were someway to communicate to the child what was going on - our experiences in this life would make more sense if there were only some way for us to know what was beyond.

That is the role of revelation. That is why we study and take the Scripures seriously. Yes, some of us go overboard and misuse or misunderstand what we've been given, but they are better off than the many who reject it outright. We have been communicated to. We have received instruction. We have been visited by the Beyond Himself, Jesus Christ. Let's not waste that knowledge. Let us prepare ourselves for eternity.

Never the Twain Shall Meet...

2003-09-30T07:00:00.000-04:00

Theological Liberals and Theological Conservatives have no ability to dialogue because they speak contradictory languages. Purely Secular people (like journalists) have no ability to understand theological people whatsoever because they cannot even read the dictionaries (though they could be trained if they tried). This is one reason why we have such political animosity and misunderstanding concerning the evaluation of founding documents like the Constitution of the United States. The founders wrote with a dictionary in hand. Many today use something else to read the same words and come up with a misunderstanding that was unintended. Postmodernism is not all bad when it is used to help us with understanding. It is all bad when it is the basis of understanding (or not understanding as the case may be).

Shall the Ignorant Win?

2003-09-29T07:00:00.000-04:00

I was reading an article the other day about Al Mohler and the effects of the Conservative Resurgance on Southern Seminary. The article was not unfavorable to Mohler, but mostly dwelled on the lingering whispers of controversy, stating that his work "has brought criticism and suggestions of intolerance."

What struck me were the repeated references to Mohler's "strict ideological stands" on issues such as women in the pastorate and how he "fervently opposes gay rights and abortion." There was even a quote by a former faculty member who stated that what now exists is "a Baptist version of the Taliban." Only one small reference to the infallibility of Scripture.

This is what gets me. I, of course, cannot speak for Al Mohler. But as for me, I am not against women in the pastorate. I am not against gay rights. I am not against abortion, or liberalism, or rampant immorality, or any combination of all the sins. Have at it. Do what you want. Intercourse with anything that has two legs, or four. I, as one properly educated by liberal secular public institutions do not have the mental ability to tell you that you are wrong to desire any of these things. I have no authority whatsoever. But I do believe in Scripture.

See, it is not that I am against anything. I am for Scripture. Any evaluation that gets this order incorrect is flawed. I am for Scripture. Scripture is against homosexuality. Scripture is against abortion. Scripture is against exploiting the poor. Scripture is against women serving as pastors. Therefore, turns out that I am against those things.

I suppose that in the end it turns out to be the same thing, but my liberal secular public education taught me to understand the positions of those who disagree with you before you assume the right to criticize. Most who criticize Conservative Christians have no idea what non-secular people are really talking about. They assume that we are all starting on the same track and do not realize that we are in different stadiums.

But I'm not the only one...

2003-09-27T09:20:00.000-04:00

In the course of my research, I found that a lot of people were surprised by IE6's ability to render style sheets. It also seems that people using NS4 will not see the boxes and fonts as I desire. But, it looks like I've achieved acceptable for the latest generation of browsers and I've spent too much time on it already, so I do not plan to tinker anymore unless there are still big problems (other than my writing). I did well on the Greek exam, but alas, Hebrew always awaits...

Let me know if the format looks o.k. in your browser (and what browser you are using).

On the trials of the Blog...

2003-09-25T08:33:00.000-04:00

Crazy. I want to apologize to all of my readership. I did not know that Internet Explorer 6.0 and up displayed cascading style sheets so poorly. The huge space you see above you does not show up in my earlier edition of IE, any Netscape, Yahoo-enhanced IE, or Opera. I faced this problem long ago with javascript vs. Jscript. Whatever. I will try to fix my site and conform to "the machine" at least as much as will get my postings the proper perspective. Thank you for your patience.

Ordination

2003-09-24T22:15:00.000-04:00

Tonight I was ordained as a Baptist Deacon. It is a position of service in the church in keeping with Acts 6:1-6 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13. I feel different. It was a very humbling experience. I pray that I will serve Christ and my church to my best abilities in this office. Everyone should have a place of service in their local congregation. I hope that my election is a reminder to those who see me in action that God can save sinners and do amazing things in their lives. I was dead in sin and he gave life to me. How can I do anything but serve him? How can we stand to ignore his pleas and serve our own ends after understanding what his death and resurrection mean? I cannot but serve.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow.
Praise Him all children here below.
Praise Him above you heavenly hosts.
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Amen.

Not so Innocent...

2003-09-24T22:06:00.000-04:00

I almost can't believe it....Britney Spears has dropped off the Yahoo! top 5 searches list. She is still in the top 20, but is at 8 and falling. Turns out to be another object lesson in conforming to the world. The "kiss" generated buzz for a time, but now Britney has lost the "innocence" that characterized her image. Parents don't like her and she is just not as fun for teen boys to fantasize about now that she is just another whore. Her image, that is. Britney may be just as sweet as ever, but she is getting bad advice and does not have anyone to help her along the way. Even a deflowered super pop-star with a lesbian past can come to Jesus. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. All the sinners are welcome. Take heed of the lesson - conformance to the world never ends up as you would imagine, but don't write off this young lady. God is not finished with her yet either. Pray that she would receive everything that her Maker has designed for her.

And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name

2003-09-23T16:26:00.000-04:00

The Regina and I have also been wrestling with baby names. What will we name our little man-child? Here is a link to the most popular baby names of 2002. Is yours on there? [You know you want to look. Go ahead, it's o.k.] Bible names are making a big comeback. I like the name Elijah and was surprised to see it at #47. Not more surprised than #72 - Jesus. Makes you wonder if they included the illegal aliens in their tally. No matter, I will not name my child with the name that is above all names. I like to respect that one and keep it holy. J-s-s and all that. But we are getting closer to settling on the one. This is your (the entire internet community) last chance to get in some suggestions before the die is cast. What would you name the baby Rex?

Pax Blandana

2003-09-23T16:07:00.000-04:00

I feel a lot better about my week after today. My Hebrew professor said that I was performing well in class and if I kept it up, I would be very pleased. (the grades are entirely subjective) Now he is a prof and very pleased to him may mean a B-, but it does mean that I am not doing as poorly as I thought.

Also, Greek prof today deflated my idea that I would have a 30 verse passage to translate on Thursday's exam. Turns out, we will have three 2 verse passages - and we get to carry our lexicons! Ha! I can translate 6 verses of anything in an hour with a dictionary. This week is looking up.

It's Good to be the King

2003-09-23T15:54:00.000-04:00

Last night the Regina and I went out to a national department store chain to register for baby stuff. Two people who have never been parents deciding what they will want/need to raise a child with minimum stress so that people who are parents and have already been through the experience will know what to get for us as presents. Hunhh? Got me, but we have to do it.

We didn't actually get around to registering for anything, because we spent two hours reviewing the different baby travel systems. Yes, the little Rex is going to be riding in style - air, land, or sea - after we settle down with the deluxe carry all system (don't forget the baby) that the post-Christian self-serving Eddie Bauer materialistic is good upper middle class yuppie culture is forcing upon us. We cannot (I repeat cannot) purchase a safety device without going whole hog on one of these things. For my pedia-challenged readers, the system is something like this. We selected the Comfort Dimensions system. It was lighter than the Graco systems and seemed to have more overall features in a value system. But, the Regina will have to double check Consumer Reports. How did we ever survive childhood?

You Don't Say...

2003-09-20T21:28:00.000-04:00

It is ridiculous to have so many Bible translations. The more translations we have, the easier it is to stay divided along denominational lines. Of course, I blame Liberal theologians. They sold out the faith by making religion compatible with society instead of making the Gospel relevant to culture. There is now no bridge that can unite us (Liberal vs. Orthodox). The Liberals have denied God and they have no hope. Please note that when I use the term "liberal" in relation to theology, I do so in a technical sense and do not necessarily refer to orthodox-minded Christians who vote for social programs to serve the poor, etc.

But back on to Bible translations. I would be willing to meet on a standard if others would be willing to compromise and meet together to make an effective translation. We would all have to give something up, but I think we could find a middle ground if we were honest about serving one another. I could go for some neutral revision of the RSV. Not the NRSV with its liberal interpretive phraseology and not the ESV with its conservative reformed interpretive phraseology. Forget the gender-inclusive stuff. Forget reform theology. Forget the "majesty of the King's English." Translate based on what the text says and not what you think it means. Context is king. Strive for what the writers meant. Yet, even with this "middle of the road" idea, I still betray a theology that is incompatible with Liberal-minded theologians and culture worshippers.

While I am on the subject, the ESV is a horrible bible. The translation is good - but don't be fooled by the "essentially literal" stuff - Yes, the translation is better than most, but they do their fair share of interpreting text "in order to make it easier for the modern reader to comprehend." What I really mean by "horrible bible" is that Crossway Bibles, A Division of Good News Publishers in Wheaton, IL apparently has very low quality standards. I have two copies of the ESV (one hardback classic reference edition and one bonded leather thinline edition) and both have broken the spines in a matter of months. It won't take long before pages are falling out. No, I did not stuff a year's worth of bulletins in them. They are just low quality books. Also, the formatting is goofy so that the cross-reference bible with no study notes is as large (larger in some cases) than, say, the NIV Study Bible (with the most information ever). The thinline is as large as other version's cross-reference bibles. I am very disappointed in the quality of this company's work. They must not have had any focus groups or market research, but merely relied on the "we are right, so we must be right" mentality of so many Christian conservatives. Yes, by having crappy merchandise, and claiming that it is the best stuff that the best Christians should have, they harm the gospel message. God, please save us from ourselves.

New Site Design

2003-09-19T18:30:00.000-04:00

The actual layout has not changed much, but I like the colors and font better. I am still working on getting a few of the link colors to match up. Tell me what you think. If you have ideas on a universal font, that would be o.k. too.

When I grow up...

2003-09-19T08:32:00.000-04:00

...I want to be like the person described here.
Requires Real Audio

Will Wonders Never Cease...

2003-09-17T22:32:00.000-04:00

Looke here. A Catholic that actually believes the Bible.

I will never leave you nor forsake you…

2003-09-17T22:29:00.000-04:00

Just found out tonight that my friend’s husband kicked her out of the house. We’ve been praying for her for weeks because we knew that she was in the process of a divorce, but her sense of shame has kept her from including us in her life at this point. She is working overtime trying to make ends meet without her husband’s income and is currently homeless. The story is that she came home from church one night and Husband said, “It’s over. We’re getting a divorce. Get out of my house.” If he shows his face around me, I will place my collar aside and kick his living ass.

Alas, it feels good to say it, but I will not do it. Ours is a way of peace and understanding. But understand this, Husband. You are not innocent, you are not a “good” person. On God’s Scales of Good vs. Evil you will tup way over on one side and find yourself on a major slide to Hell. Take note - all the “good” people of the land - You are sinners. You are sinners in a fallen world and this big mudball and all its “feel good” philosophies only bring misery and death. There are no “victimless crimes,” there are no “innocent victims.” All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You are going to Hell. You deserve it.

But my friend has the gift of faith. Confessing Jesus Christ as her Lord and believing that He rose from the dead has reformed, renewed, rejuvenated, and redeemed her. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross has paid-in-full her bill of iniquities. As such, Jesus Christ will never leave her nor forsake her. My friend, this hurtful thing is happening to you and you feel sad, and scared, and shamed. But there is no condemnation in Jesus Christ, my child. There is only love, forgiveness, and understanding. Read the words in John 6:37, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” There is no shame in Christ Jesus. There is no shame in a community of faith. We will love you, we will help you, and we will stand firm in the faith with you until that final day. Accept our arms as the arms of the Savior. Accept our love as an extension of His love. Accept our comfort as His compassion for your soul. There is healing in Christ, my child. Healing and love. It is hard. No one can take away your pain, but there is one who will walk with you through it. You already know him. You have already called his name. His name is Jesus. Walk with him now and feel his love. Let him guide you in our community of faith. Let’s get through this together.

Expect(2)ations of Church

2003-09-16T07:20:00.000-04:00

[See "Tuesdays" post below first]
Tilde - "expect" is a double-termed word. In one (1) sense it indicates that we think a certain thing/event will happen. In another (2) sense, "expect" also has a connotation of a standard to be fulfilled.

I do not expect(2) that Christians will act in a way that dishonors Christ. In fact, I expect(2) that Christians will conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the gospel (Phil. 1:27). However, I also acknowledge that all have fallen short of the glory of God, all have sinned, none are righteous, etc. So, I expect(1) that there will be problems, abuses, and idiocy in any church filled with sinners (read: all of them). We always strive to achieve the Holy, perfecting ourselves in Christ, but we also must realize that when we don't - it's o.k. That is one facet of forgiveness. We are called over and over again in scripture to give our hearts to God - to humble ourselves, to practice forgiveness, to serve one another. We are to be a community of faith. We are to be like a fisherman's net - strands woven together in a way that makes all stronger. It is the hardest thing in the world to begin. In fact, when you add in that you can't kick out the losers it becomes impossible to work together as God intended. But we do not do this alone.

As those who have been redeemed by Christ, called as a called out people who have had the blindness of sin removed from our eyes, we have been given the power to achieve in Christ what God created us to be. We will often fail. I expect(1) that. But I think the distinction is important. My dream for the church - everything I train and work for - is to fulfill the expect(2)ation that we will live by the Spirit of Christ in a fallen, but redeemed, community of faith.

Tuesdays with ~

2003-09-16T07:00:00.000-04:00

Last Tuesday (Sept. 9), I posted on the Ockhamist a shout out to a conversation that was occuring about how people who suffer from the Church's faults engage with the institution and people involved. [Yes, I know this is a bit of reframing. It's my site] This post is below. I will follow my post by selected comments by my new friend ~gauche. My next post, which you probably read before this one, will be a continuation of this line of thought.

Blandus : "The hard truth is that you don''t get to sit on the sidelines if you are a disciple of Jesus who is the Christ. You must go to church and bless and be blessed by the others in your local congregation - that''s part of the faith.

"How do you get over being dissatisfied with your wife? -You love her. What if she has not earned your respect or cultivated your devotion? -You love her anyway. You don''t have a choice, God hates divorce. You submit to His will and love your wife with everything you''ve got.

"Same with the church. Church done you wrong? -You love her. Church not met your needs? -You love her. Church filled with a bunch of idiots who don''t know the difference between transfinalization and transubstantiation? -Tough, you love her anyway with everything you''ve got.

"Christianity is not about feeling loved by others or getting needs met. To know Christ is to love others and serve them - even if they kick you in the face or crucify you. This ain''t sacchrine-sweet simplicity, baby, it''s the real deal and the kind of radical Jesus discipleship we are called to engage. The kicker is, the heaviest responsibility lies upon those of us who realize it and have the gifts and gumption to do something about it.

"As someone who has been on the fringe myself (and is now working to refine the center) I can only say that the answer lies not in mournful criticism, but obedience. Simple. Complicated. Whatever. You''ve got to love her anyway."

~ Says : "You are right about not sitting on the sidelines, but I do find a delicious irony in the undertone of your attitude toward the church. You seem to think, and I agree in theory, that will face tribulation from within as well as without, that we ought not expect the church to treat us differently than the world does; that is, your own disclaimer notwithstanding, you seem to agree with the Ockhamist that the church is quite likely to be a place of decay and a source of friction. You seem to expect that the church will fail to meet a believer''s needs, that it will hurt the believer, that its members may be undereducated in the faith. That it may, like the world, kick the believer in the face or crucify him. If this is your conclusion, (and I think that a realistic, hard-nosed look at the church''s behavior supports it,) then you give strange encouragement indeed.

"In principle at least, I agree with you, but it seems to me a strange position for a protestant to take. More on this later, if you''re interested."

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

2003-09-15T19:58:00.000-04:00

I find this site interesting and funny. Nice to see a RUSH fan not be a flaming libero-socio-secularo-schitzo-humaniso-naer-do-well-in-progressive's-clothing.

GeoParenting : Responsibility for Another Generation

2003-09-15T19:26:00.000-04:00

I am soon to be a proud new papa. Truth is, I'm pretty proud now, and I'm trying to learn all I can to be the best dad I can be. So where else do I turn for advice but the internet? In the course of my surfing, I came across this article about spanking that demonstrates why I am not going to take any of these people seriously. Michele Borba, EdD, is a former classroom teacher and an internationally-renowned consultant and educator who has presented workshops to more than half a million participants. She is the recipient of the National Educator Award and is the author of 18 books. However, she does not seem to have read the ONE book that has spoken to, and helped, more than all the half-millions Borba could reach in her lifetime. Her strategies and reasons are the same get-along-without-God claptrap that makes Christians so suspicious of psychologists (or EdD's who pose as psychologists).

She is not alone in making the fundamental mistake of assuming that our humanism renders God obsolete, that we can go it alone if we just have enough data, comparisons, and "scientific" research. Any time we remove God, we limit our ability to understand the real issues, psychological or physical, that confront mankind - especially when we are dealing with raising children.

By titling her article, "Spare the Rod" she begs for the biblical comparison. Proverbs 22:15, 23:13, 23:14, and 29:15 are all quite clear regarding the benefits of physical discipline. Some Bible readers will go off the deep end at this point and beat their kids senseless. They should be locked up with the other criminals and deviants. If we really believe that all truth is God's truth, then we, as Christians, will be informed by what research demonstrates to be true (which is not necessarily the same as the conclusions drawn by secular do-gooders). We will remember the sage advice of Ephesians 6:4. "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." Wise men will temper their discipline to be developmentally appropriate and culturally relevant. This does not mean that we will chuck God for all of Dr. Borba's secular-utopia theories. But we will hold fast to the unchanging word of God and allow His wisdom to guide and shape our lives and (parenting) choices. To do any differently is to pass our insecurities along to future generations who must deal with the fallout of our unwillingness to take a stand and do what is right.

Don't Call it a Comeback

2003-09-13T23:18:00.000-04:00

We been here for years, baby. 27 - 17

Roll Tide, Roll

Easy, Breezy, Sneezy?

2003-09-13T17:21:00.000-04:00

Well, its official. The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America has released its list of the country's top 50 fall allergy cities. Turns out, 4 out of 5 of cities I've lived in are on the list. (3), (16), (19), and (30). Thing is - I have never suffered from allergies. This further confirms my thesis that I am an ubermensch among the mortals. Cool.

Klink is fantastic, but...

2003-09-13T03:21:00.000-04:00

Can anyone tell me how to get the Klink family to stop putting a "s" after the numerical count of posts to "Respondus!"? The [ 2 ]s thing looks a little silly. That is, if anybody plans to actually continue to read any of this....what is it about the internet, modern culture, or maybe just blogging that brings out the bitter and cynical in people? There are a lot of blogs with just angry people. Weird. I will post something that feels better later today or tomorrow.

Where the skies are so blue

2003-09-13T02:42:00.000-04:00

Todd Andrew Barnett is a member of the Libertarian Party of Macomb County, Michigan, the Libertarian Party of Michigan, and the national Libertarian Party. He is also a practicing Aridian Wiccan, and a staunch defender of unrestricted religious, personal, and economic freedom for all. Is it any wonder that he completely misunderstands [see Th 9/11/03] the political situation in Alabama that gave rise to the current tax controversy? What a dufus.

And yet, the witchdoctor is not the only one that is way off base here. My good buddies at the Western Recorder also think that a massive controversial overhaul of the tax system is a better expression of godliness than the 10 Commandments. As critics and pundits put their spin on recent events in Alabama, it is clear that none of them have actually ever been there.

There is a cultural mindset in Alabama that has been deeply influenced by deep South Christianity, cultual conservatism, and shotgun economics. The "good ole' boy" network is strong and most folks don't really give a d-mn what you think about it. "Son, you'd best just learn to get along." Amid all the negative press and confusion I miss something - where are the appreciate-all-cultures liberals who don't like me to share the gospel with a third world tribe but don't mind oppressing and actively seeking to eliminate all vestiges of one of the most culturally rich areas of our great country? I'll tell you where - anyplace that requires crushing cultural mindsets they cannot control. Fascists.

Plenty of bad things you can say about 'Bama. But the people there like it there and they like the way things get along. How can anyone who has not first sought to understand their culture provide any reasonable commentary on their situation? Why do you think that because you went to college you have any understanding at all of the deeper issues for this people group?

Civil war in my lifetime....man, I hate to say that.

I've got 2cc for $1

2003-09-13T02:31:00.000-04:00

Look for a rise in outbreaks as the people of San Francisco deal in black market smallpox.

"I think those clothes are so cute."

2003-09-12T10:28:00.000-04:00

This is what a mother told me once about the slutty fashions passing for style these days. She also thought that her daughter might really like the fashion statement of a belly ring. I asker her if she knew that a belly-ring symbolized sexual titilation. She just thought they were cute. The kids are on the slide, not because of "changin' times" so much as irresponsible parenting. I swear that I am not going to link to Mohler everyday, but I was going to post about Abercrombie soon anyway and I can't say it much better than him, so I'm going to allow him to carry the ball on this one.

Shot to the Heart, and You're to Blame....

2003-09-11T17:24:00.001-04:00

Britney Spears has been the hottest thing on Yahoo! searches for months (years?), so I thought I should add my commentary on this {ahem} pressing cultural force. Poor Britney turned her back on the very thing that gave parents the ability to relax about her influence on their kids. "It's o.k. if our girls dress like sluts, they can still make good choices, like Brittney." When Justin split and her career took a dive, she held to her fame and fortune and began the climb into the deeper pits of what passes for modern American entertainment. This, of course, includes lesbian kissing. Why wouldn't it? Don't misunderstand. Britney is not really a lesbian. She just plays one on t.v. and actually has very high standards regarding who she makes out with. When does this maddness end? Even the properly promiscuous British think Britney went a little far on this one. Unlike the British educational establishment, I think the answer is better parenting. We can blame media (and should), society (rarely helpful), liberals (always fun), and education (tsch, tsch) - but ultimately the responsibility for children stands with the parents. I am about to have my first child (actually I delegated that to my wife) and I hope to raise him well in the ways of the Lord. With parents like Britney's as examples, I know what parenting mumbo-jumbo to stay clear of. I will trust in the words of Proverbs 22:6 : "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it."

$10 Mil Ain't What It Used to Be

2003-09-11T17:24:00.000-04:00

Today, France agreed to a settlement deal with Libya for the 1988 downing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people. France threatened a veto of the lifting of sanctions unless Libya coughed up more than the $2.8 billion they had agreed to pay to the families of the victims. France once again displays its rear-end by implicitly claiming that 270 predominantly French bodies are worth crushing a nation and starving a people group, but 3,000 American lives are not worth a regime change. At least with our plan, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq will have a shot at a better future. Libya is still stuck with Gadhafi. I'm the first to admit that I don't know much about how it all works in the lie, cheat, and steal world of international politics - but the French just continue to tick me off lately. Whatever.

What we have here is...a failure to communicate....

2003-09-11T17:23:00.000-04:00

Paul McDonald had a commentary on local NPR today. He was giving some good thoughts about 9/11 until the end when he began telling the public all of the things he was disappointed with in how Americans have responded. He said he was troubled by the "self-appointed cultural monitors who have simplified the nature of terrorism by reducing it to a particular religion whose founder, himself, was a terrorist."{as best as I can remember his exact words} This blew me away. You could tell that his voice took on an edge because he was really bothered by the "monitors." Contrast this with Albert Mohler's blog today.
This just shows that though we can come together as "Americans" and be upset about fanatics murdering thousands of our people on our soil, it is a false union. It is like -5 and 5 hooking up and being proud that both of their absolute values is [5]. They might talk to one another, but if they actually came together, they would be exact opposites. In the practical, day to day life of numbers, they will never get along.
Same way with the horribly divergent dominant worldviews of Americans. One side sees an attack on our nation and very existence. The other simplifies the issue to one of a just response by a poor people to the evil empire and just wants everyone to forget about it so we can move on with extreme reality-denying liberal progressivism. There will be civil war in my lifetime.

This just in...

2003-09-11T06:43:00.000-04:00

Hebrew is hard. Re-learning Greek while learning Hebrew is hard. School is hard, work is hard - that's what you get in a fallen world.

Been learning a ton about cascading style sheets lately. I got out of web programming right when they were about to be mainstream, so I never really got into them, but you need them these days for a good blog (I'm not that old. Really)

Here is another attempt at a test link.

2003-09-10T08:23:00.000-04:00

Well world, here I am. First post. New blogger. Hope I've got something to say. First real posts to follow after I learn a few more things about how blogger works. Want it to be quality and e'rythang, you know. Word.