10.06.07
Posted in Christian, Faith at 10:04 am by
I received an e-mail from a friend who is looking at ways to revitalize his ministry. A quote from the e-mail states that he and his wife are “…tired of feeding fat sheep”. Interesting choice of words and for those of us involved in the Lord’s church for quite a while I’m sure that they strike a chord. How often do we have to deal with folks who are happy “playing church”? You know, the ones who are there every week (or so) and who join in the singing and praise time enthusiastically - but can never be bothered to minister to others, whether it be in teaching a Sunday School class or visiting someone who is ill. They want fed, and fed, and fed, but don’t want to take that next step of feeding others. I’m reminded of Hebrews 5:11-6:3
We have a great deal to say about this, and it’s difficult to explain, since you have become slow to understand. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of God’s revelation. You need milk, not solid food. Now everyone who lives on milk is inexperienced with the message about righteousness, because he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature–for those whose senses have been trained to distinguish between good and evil. Therefore, leaving the elementary message about the Messiah, let us go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, faith in God, teaching about ritual washings, laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And we will do this if God permits. (HCSB)
I’m reminded of a chicken we had years ago. We got her along with several other chicks. They’d been hatched in an incubator and we bought them when they were just a day or so old. We put them with a broody hen to take care of them and raised them just like “normal” chickens. One by one they succumbed to various diseases, the inbreeding inherent in their background did not prepare them for the tough life of barnyard fowl. They were bred to be quick growers in a sterile environment. But despite the difficulties that little chick grew, and grew and outgrew her mother. The night the neighbor kid hopped into the chicken pen to steal dinner for the next day, Sheri saw him pick her up (she was white, easy to see and a tempting target for a thief) and then set her down, apparently deciding she was too heavy to run with under his arm. So she escaped dangers from disease and thieves and became a regular member of our flock. She’d come running at meal times and crowd right in with the rest of them. The ol’ rooster would breed her, just like the other hens. And yet, she never laid an egg. She never reproduced. It was strange, but since she was a favorite we let her run around and eat like crazy and enjoy life to the fullest - even though she did nothing productive at all.
And then, we had an upcoming trip to the US. We’d be gone for quite a while (just over a year) and our plan was to lock everything up in the house, entrust it to the neighbors who were good friends and head to the US for “furlough” (hilarious term that, but subject matter for another post). And the chickens had to go. There was no way to keep them while we were gone so we started “thinning the herd” and enjoyed a number of chicken based meals. When that one white hen’s turn came we finally understood why she was so unproductive. After we killed and plucked her I cut her open to finish the processing. And I’ve NEVER dressed out a chicken that was as fat as she was. Huge yellow masses of fat crowded her abdomen, packing her intestines and other inner organs so tightly that it was no wonder she never laid an egg. The fat had simply shut down the normal reproductive processes. She ate and ate and never reproduced - in other words she lived an unproductive life.
And many Christians are like that too. They are content to feed at the Lord’s table of bounty but never take the important step of reproducing their faith in another. For all intents and purposes, they are spiritual infants, not mature sheep at all. And they submerge themselves in such rich spiritual food that they become fat and complacent, afraid of venturing out and losing their rich repast. And so, time after time they are fed, and fed, and fed… just like that crazy chicken. We never got tired of feeding her, but couldn’t understand her non-reproduction.
Many of today’s preachers specialize in making fat sheep. They teach prosperity and abundance and comfort, somehow having forgotten that the Apostle Paul himself knew what it was to be hungry, naked, abused and shipwrecked. Somehow I can’t imagine the Apostle Paul being a “fat sheep”. He knew what it meant to use spiritual food for his own growth - and yet provide sustenance for others so that they too could grow and mature and reproduce themselves. He wrote in I Corinthians 4:11-13:
Up to the present hour we are both hungry and thirsty; we are poorly clothed, roughly treated, homeless;
we labor, working with our own hands. When we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we entreat. We are, even now, like the world’s garbage, like the filth of all things.
That doesn’t sound like soft, fat sheep living to ME. And yet, too many of those he labored to teach did not understand what it means to grow strong and reach out to others - reproducing one’s self spiritually and helping them to mature and reproduce as well.
Do fat sheep need fed? Yes, they do. And yet they ALSO need to be stretched and exercised. They need to be challenged and perhaps even driven from the table to the surrounding community so take some of the banquet to those who are starving from want of spiritual food. How do we manage to do this? I don’t have all the answers, but will continue to seek them - starting with myself as we seek ways to take the message of God’s good news to a dying world.
Permalink
09.25.07
Posted in Christian, Faith, Firearms, Freedom at 10:20 am by
Hoplophobia - An unreasoning fear of instruments (weapons). Hoplophobia is a term that was coined, if I recall correctly, by the late Jeff Cooper. It is an excellent term and describes well those who fear instruments more than the hands that wield them. The very heart and soul of the anti-weapon movement revolves around the idea that individuals are not responsible for their actions, rather it is the object that spurs the criminal to commit the act of violence. This is simply idiocy. It does not take into account the millions upon millions of owners of weapons who do NOT commit crimes of violence. Such an attitude is akin to looking upon all men as potential rapists - because, after all, they’re equipped to do so. Or considering all women to be potential prostitutes - because, after all, they are equipped to exercise that activity. And that’s no to mention the slap in the face of the billions of honest poor upon the planet when we are told that high rates of criminality are due to poverty. What about the billions of poor who do NOT commit crimes? Or the rich who commit crimes?
Criminal activity does not stem from availability of weapons. Nor does it stem from the presence or absence of the Y chromosome. Nor does it stem from poverty - or lack thereof. It stems from the “heart” of the criminal, from his or her way of thinking and manner of justifying his or her actions.
And yet, too many people fear the object, the implement, the instrument - rather than fearing the person who wields that instrument. The person who is capable of utilizing a firearm to commit a crime is also capable of committing crimes via other means. Many, many criminals have extensive “rap sheets” in which their criminal life is partially recorded. I say partially because all that’s there is what they’ve been arrested for or convicted of - not every thing they’ve ever done. And time after time you’ll see the same person guilty of utilizing anything from a broken bottle to a pilfered firearm to commit acts of violence. Often the same person will be guilty of physical aggression with a wide variety of objects, from their own hands to a pool cue to a broken bottle to a baseball bat to a firearm. So why are firearms singled out? Because of their perceived ease of use. And also too often due to the inclination of the people who vilify them to desire to use them themselves. It’s amazing to see the hypocrisy of the anti-weapon campaigners. Many of them have weapons themselves - and yet seek to deprive others of their lawful use. Why? Because of the evil that lays within their own hearts and their fear that others may have that same evil within.
We should not fear inanimate objects. We should fear the latent evil that resides within a considerable portion of the population. And our goal should not be to remove weapons but rather to remove the desire to commit violence against others. And that can only come about by a change of mind.
Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God Romans 12:2
Permalink
Posted in Christian, Faith at 9:52 am by
“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.” - Jim Elliot - written on October 28, 1948
Those words were penned by Jim Elliot just over 7 years before he and four other men were killed while contacting an indian tribe in Ecuador. Indeed Jim Elliot gave up his life in his desire to serve his Lord and Savior. The blood of these men served as fertilizer to prepare the soil of the hearts of their killers to receive the Gospel message. Within a short time after their death the entire village where their killers lived had come to Christ. Some would say that their deaths were a waste, but in this manner their lives were given that others might gain eternal life. I thank God for such men as Jim Elliot who have fixed their eyes upon a goal much loftier than any on this earth.
Permalink
09.17.07
Posted in Christian, Faith, Religion at 4:34 pm by
Over the years I’ve collected a fair number of Bible translations. Studying how different people rendered the same text in various ways helps one to get a better grasp of the original meaning of the text. After all, the Bible wasn’t written in English or Spanish or Portuguese - it was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic - only one of which I can decipher slightly. So when I find a different translation I pick it up if possible. Well, then I decided to catalog what I’ve got, to get an idea as to what all is on hand. Not counting electronic Bibles like in www.e-sword.net ’s program, I’ve got 29 translations in three languages and a copy of the New Testament in Greek. Here’s what’s on hand at this point in time. (NT) denotes “New Testament Only”
English
New American Standard
Holman’s Christian Standard
New International Version
Good News For Modern Man
James Moffatt
Revised Standard Version
King James
New King James
The Message (NT)
Live It Now(NT)
Charles B. Williams (NT)
Berkeley Version
The Living Bible
International Children’s Bible (NT)
Spanish
Nueva Versión Internacional
Reina Valera 1960
Reina Valera Actualizada 1987
Reina Valera 1995
La Biblia Para El Pueblo de Dios
Dios Habla Hoy
A Viva Voz
Bernardo Hurault y Ramón Ricciardi
La Palabra De Dios Para Todos (NT)
La Biblia De Las Américas
La Biblia En Lenguaje Sencillo (NT)
Traducción Del Nuevo Mundo de las Santas Escrituras
Portuguese
João Ferreira De Almeda
Nova Versão Internacional
Linguagem De Hoje (NT)
Other
Nestlês Greek New Testament (NT)
Permalink
09.01.07
Posted in Christian, Faith, Firearms, Freedom, Friends, Politics, Religion, humor at 9:02 am by
The piece below was written as a “birthday post”. The idea of a “Birthday Post” was started by fellow Pistol Packing Preacher Charles Graff. In years past Charles would post a controversial subject, attacking some “holy cow” of the shooting sports in a well thought out manner. People would rise to the bait and the dust and fur would fly. Then he’d own up as to how it was his birthday and folks would realize they’d been had. Over the years others have attempted to follow his example, but few have shown his skill. Some would merely say something like “Hillary Clinton’s right. I’m going to destroy all my guns” or some other such transparent effort. As I type this it is the day before my 42nd birthday. I’ve been cogitating on what kind of post to put up for 364 days. 
Over the past week I’ve put some more thought into the matter and finally decided to “go for it”. I’m guessing that the post below will generate some heat from certain quarters - or it could actually get ignored. Only time will tell. My question at this moment is, “Do the guys know me well enough to realize it’s a joke?” Surely by now SOMEONE realizes I’ve got an extremely weird sense of humor. We shall see what we shall see, as the butler said when he looked through the keyhole.
And, furthermore, to show that I’m not a completely insensitive person, I DIDN”T post the original 2007 birthday post on the forum. First I asked a fellow conspirator and radical thinker about it. Well, ok, the posting won’t occur there. Instead, I put up the first piece which is immediately below this. It’s more of a general “birthday post” instead of the pot stirring one I’d typed up yesterday.
All the recent talk about flat guns has put me to cogitatin’ a bit about them. I know that Jeff Cooper was a real proponent of the bottom feeding 1911 family of firearms, but for serious, dependable, defensive work, the semi automatic just doesn’t cut it.The semiautomatic is plagued by a host of weak points which can cause problems when it is called upon to defend one’s life. The weakening of springs in the magazine lead to failures to feed and/or eject (depending on design), the easily deformed magazine lips which also provide feeding problems, the strength (or lack thereof) of the recoil spring which can cause problems for proper feeding, not to mention the need to run pretty much full bore ammunition through them to ensure that the slide will reciprocate properly, all are inherent design flaws.
For defensive use you need a gun that’s likely to go “BANG!” each and every time you pull the trigger. If you get a dud while shooting a semiauto, you need need both hands to run the clearance drill prior to continuing with what you were doing. On the range this is an inconvenience - in a firefight it can get you killed. Yes, you can learn to grasp the slide between your knees or use other means to clear a dud or other failure to function, but most of the procedures to do so are not very safe to execute, unfortunate word there, execute…
Yes, I’ve owned (still do) and carried semi automatic pistols - back in my wet ears years. In a 22 for plinking they are a blast and the jams and malfunctions are not too much of a hassle since they’re almost invariably used on the range and not in defensive situations. But for pure reliability? A good revolver will out shine any semi automatic in that department. You can load anything from wax bullet to full bore hunting loads and they’ll keep on tickin’ - with no fussing around with finicky springs, barrel ramps and other such nonsense. You can load any kind of bullet profile from round ball to full wadcutter to jacketed hollow points to shot loads - and it will feed and fire them all.
I know there’s no way some of you will give up your slide action flatguns, and that’s OK. But you really should consider the danger you expose yourself to by relying on them for defensive work. I guess the best way to sum it up is: “I sure hope you never have to bet your life on one.”
The original “2007 Birthday Post” can be found in the complete article.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
08.19.07
Posted in Christian, Faith, Religion at 4:24 pm by
One of the biggest problems I see when folks read the Bible is a lack of proper understanding about the Bible and how it was written. If one uses a bit of logic when analyzing the Bible one can more easily understand what is written there.
The Bible is set up in two main divisions; the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament”. Jesus said “Not a jot nor a tiddle will pass from the Law (Old Testament) until all is finished (completed).” On the cross He said “It is finished.” The Old Testament is still an important book, but Jesus the Christ died to bring it to an end, to complete what was foretold therein, and to set up the NEW Testament whereby we can now come into the presence of God, our Creator. The night before He was crucified the Lord said “Take, eat, this is my body.” And then as He passed the cup He said “Drink from it, all of you. for this is My blood that establishes the covenant; it is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:26-28) He was establishing a new covenant (testament) whereby many would be able to come into the presence of their Creator.
So, the New Testament is the more important of the two major divisions in the Bible. The Old can still teach us many things, but the way of the New Covenant is only found in the New Testament. The New Testament is divided into books. And the books can be divided into categories. First, there’s the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all contain the story of the life of Jesus Christ. They are similar and yet different because although they each tell the story of the life of the Christ, they are told according to the perspective of the person doing the writing. Matthew and John were Apostles of Jesus the Christ. They write what they saw and experienced as they followed Him. Mark was a companion to the Apostles and some say he was related to the Apostle Peter. Luke was a companion to the Apostle Paul and was also an excellent historian. Yet the four tell the same story, from different perspectives.
Next comes the book of Acts, ‘The Acts Of The Apostles” as some call it. It tells how the Church started and relates happenings from the early years of the Christian faith, ranging from the Ascension of Jesus the Christ to the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul in Rome.
The greatest number of books are comprised of the epistles. The epistles were letters written by Apostles and other prominent leaders in the Church to Christians and churches around the world. They are letters detailing how one should live according to the new life found in Jesus the Christ.
Finally we have Revelation or “The Apocalypse”. Many people jump right in there to see when Jesus the Christ will be coming back, hoping to “break the code” and have a solid date for His return. They waste their time. The message of Revelation can be summed up roughly as follows: “Those who are faithful to Jesus the Christ until the end of their lives have nothing to fear. They will overcome and will be rewarded.” There are no instructions on “how to be saved” in Revelation. One of the most mis-used verses in the world (Revelation 3:20) is actually a call to a CHURCH (folks who had already come to Christ) to open the door and allow the Lord to enter and sup with them. Read the context!
One of the greatest fallacies in Christian circles is attempting to find the way of salvation in the epistles. The epistles were written to churches and to people who were already members of Christ’s body, they contain information about WHAT HAPPENED at the time of salvation and even MORE information about HOW TO LIVE as a christian. But they do NOT contain information about HOW TO BE SAVED.
Here’s an analogy to help understand this assertion. Let’s say that you want to buy a new computer, but don’t know how to go about it. If I lived in your town I could give you help in figuring out the process and in picking out the computer you need and helping you to get it set up and running. But then I leave town for some reason. Later I write you a letter. There’s no need for me to tell you how to purchase a computer - you HAVE one! But now, how do you maintain it? So instead of advice on how to obtain a computer my letter would tell you how to keep it running good. I might go into detail about some aspects of the purchase process that you already underwent, with an eye to helping you understand the why of some detail or another, but the gist of the letter would be “Here’s how to keep your new computer running well and how to avoid problems.” That’s essentially what the epistles do, they explain how to keep that bright, shiny new life running smoothly - with occasional mentions of what happened when you obtained that new life to clarify a point or two.
The gospels don’t contain much information about how to be saved. They detail conversations between Jesus and the Children of Israel - who were still under the old covenant and thus were promised salvation through obedience to that old covenant. There are some glimpses into the future, such as when Nicodemus visited Jesus one night and towards the end of Jesus’ ministry when He was explaining “the next step” (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16 for example) But over all they are similar to the epistles - teaching folks how to live as Children of God.
So that leaves Acts. Acts DOES demonstrate several instances of conversions. If you’ll sit down and read through Acts several time you’ll start to see what’s happening. Make a list of each occasion of conversion - starting with Acts 2. Note what all happens in each and every circumstance. There’s a common thread contained in them all. The details are different from case to case - but there’s a common denominator in EVERY conversion in Acts. What is it? I’ll leave that to you, gentle reader, to look into.
Is is important for us to learn to read the Bible properly. It is important for us to learn to put things in context and use our heads to think through the message. God wrote in the tongues of men in order to communicate with men. Use your head and allow Him to show you the way - through the Word He has written through His Apostles and Prophets.
Permalink
08.17.07
Posted in Christian, Faith, Religion at 8:16 am by
I’m a dinosaur, in many ways, I suppose. This fact is brought back to me each time I return to my earthly homeland. My memories include a time in which the mere possession of firearms was nothing to be surprised at and my family often enjoyed them at various family gatherings. It was natural and part of life. Dad and Mom raised me to be polite. It comes natural to say “Yes, ma’am.” Or “No, sir.” and to address folks older than myself as Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. And Dad raised us to sing each and every verse of every hymn - unless there was a sound doctrinal basis for skipping a certain verse.
And it’s that last part that I want to yack about today. Hymns - an ancient part of our faith. An integral part of our faith. A rapidly disappearing part of our faith. Many of the old hymns are wondrously crafted and are impressive expressions of the Christian faith. “He leadeth me, o blessed thought, O words with heavenly comfort fraught! What e’er I do, where e’re I be, still ‘tis God’s hand that leadeth me. He leadeth me, He leadeth me! By His own hand He leadeth me! His faithful follower I would be, for by His hand He leadeth me. ” “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine, o what a foretaste of glory divine! Heir of salvation, purchase of God, born of His Spirit, washed in His blood! This is my story, this is my song, praising my Savior all the day long; this is my story, this is my song, praising my Savior all the day long” “Be not dismayed what e’er betide, God will take care of you; beneath His wings of love abide, God will take care of you. God will take care of you, thro’ ev’ry day, o’er all the way; He will take care of you, God will take care of you.”
Those are just a bare sampling of some of the hymns that have run through my head these 30+ years since I learned to sing them. I’m reminded of a song I heard on the radio that went something like this: “Lookin’ up at the hymnal in my mama and daddy’s hand, though they were singing different notes, somehow they made them blend. I don’t remember the sermon, the only thing I recall was listenin’ to my mom and dad make the sweetest sound of all.” And I DO remember hearing Dad and Mom sing harmony. And Dad and his brothers. And… etc, etc. Folks back then could SING. One of my favorite memories is of attending an area wide Mennonite gospel sing somewhere north of Wichita, Kansas. The boss’ dad invited me and the other hired hand to go. The two of us were the youngest there by about 20 years. Those folks rolled out the old hymns with a simple, acapella harmony that was fantastic to hear. They sent an impromptu volunteer octet out to practice. It was volunteer as in “George sings bass!” And “Martha sings alto!” We sang two hymns while they were practicing then they came in and sang two hymns. If there’d been a recording studio right there they could have cut a record right then, such was their mastery of the music.
But somewhere along the way we got “music ministers” and “praise bands” and other enemies of the old songs. What a travesty to hear “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now am found, was blind but now I see! When we’ve been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we’ve no less days to sing God’s praise than when we’d first begun!” Huh? Say WHAT? When we’ve been WHERE? Sheesh! Don’t folks have a brain in their heads? “Amazing Grace” IS one of the most beautiful melodies of all times. What a treat to hear it on bagpipes, one of the most haunting melodies ever. But it’s precisely because of the lyrics that this song is so beautiful. Verse one leads into verse two which prepares the way for verse three before verse four wraps it up. You can’t cut ANY of the verses without killing the whole hymn. Each verse builds on the prior one to bring about the entire message. And yet I’ve seen it butchered time after time by the “It’s too long, we MUST cut out a verse” crowd. The weird thing is that then they’ll go on to sing some inane “praise chorus” forty-eleven times - far exceeding the time needed to sing “Amazing Grace” the way it was meant to be sung.
Last time we were up north we got slammed (emotionally speaking) time after time as folks butchered one old hymn or another and we listened to what passes for “church music” today. I will NOT attempt to sing a new song the first time I see it. Not unless I’ve had a chance to analyze the words to see if I can sing them in good conscience. The message is in the words, and if they aren’t true I won’t sing them. It’s that simple. There are songs I refuse to sing - because they are abominations doctrinally or I’d lie if I sung them. And I won’t repeat the same six words for eleventy-nine times, for me that falls under “vain repetitions” - as in the Lord told us not to use them in our prayers so why should we sing that way?
And then, the missionary convention. Each year the National Missionary Convention meets in one city or another around the US. Missionaries come from all over the world and people from all over the country come to learn about missions. Theoretically the convention serves various purposes. To encourage and build up missionaries, to raise up new missionaries for the work around the world and to encourage churches and individuals to actively support missionaries by way of financial, prayer, moral and emotional support. Yet when it comes to those of us who have spent 40 years or more on the field, we’re basically told “You must bow to the current fads amongst our churches. Your emotional needs are of no concern to us.” How so? Each and every main session is lead by one “praise team” or another. The largest churches in the area vie with each other to see who can come up with the least traditional time of singing. That’s all well and good. After all, we’re attempting to reach out to the younger generation and to draw them into the Lord’s work. However, not once have I seen a time of praise set aside for the veteran missionaries. People who have spent their lives working on the Lord’s mission field have “come home” - to a land they all to often no longer recognize. They spend their lives adapting to another culture, learning new songs, learning the books of the Bible in another language, feeding others spiritually, serving, conforming to a foreign culture. And when they return “home” they are again forced to conform to a foreign culture with no thought given by the organizers that long term missionaries have emotional and spiritual needs too.
You see, the Apostle Paul admonished the church in Ephesus to “speak to each other with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”. Note that the emphasis in this passage is to lift EACH OTHER up via song. And that’s what the old songs do for us dinosaurs. They lift us up, they encourage us, they state our thoughts and give words to the undergirdings of our faith. They express our beliefs and give words to our hopes, fears and desires. Why not take a time in the “Nitty Gritty” session to sing the old songs? I remember the last time we participated in the “Nitty Gritty” session. The time of singing was lead by folks who probably had never even heard the old hymns. Here they were supposedly trying to build up and encourage veteran missionaries - but never once sang the songs that carried us out to the mission field and sustained us there over the years.
Yeah, I’m a dinosaur when it comes to music. I don’t expect others to conform to my tastes nor to share my enthusiasm for the ancient words of our movement as expressed in the ancient tunes. However, why does no one seek to at least allow those of us “old timers” a time of refreshing as well?
There’s a certain church I love to visit when up north. Early service has a “praise band” - with a country twang. They sing the new songs and it’s a joy to share with them - except for the occasional butchering of old hymns (singing them to a new “melody” - but often changing the words as well which REALLY messes me up). And then the second service is geared towards the “old folks”. Yep, I’ll probably be at least 20 years younger than anyone else there except the preacher and the sound/video folks. But they sing more of the old hymns in the second service (First, second and fourth verses - I always look to see what’s wrong with verse three) and my soul can once more breath freely and rejoice. Yes, I’ll be in both sessions - but the songs in the second session speak more to MY soul and spirit than those in the earlier session do.
Being surrounded by speakers of one’s third language, one gets used to speaking and thinking in a different way from how one grew up. It’s a fact of life - folks don’t speak like me, I speak like them (as much as possible). And yet, when I hear Portuguese or English spoken, my ears tune right in. As we were returning to Colombia earlier this year, I heard some folks speaking in Portuguese behind me. I turned and addressed them in the same language, enjoying the sound of their voices and their accent that clearly said “Brasil!” to me. Wandering through the streets and stores of Pereira we have heard folks speaking in English various times. In each case the sound clearly carried over the general hubub of the city. The same works in music as well. Each style speaks to different folks, usually depending on how, when and where they were raised. No, I don’t mind singing to others in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs according to their musical tastes. But oh that others would speak to me in my “song language” as well occasionally.
Permalink
08.14.07
Posted in Christian, Faith, Politics, Religion at 8:50 am by
Thanks to Hot Air for posting Michelle Malkin’s interview with Robert Spencer about his new book “Religion of Peace, Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t” . Robert Spencer eloquently shows how Christianity has been maligned by those who espouse some kind of moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam. It is an excellent interview and I highly recommend you listen to it.
Permalink
07.09.07
Posted in Christian, Faith, Politics, Religion at 8:30 am by
While the western press pays a lot of attention to the islamic attacks on foreign/western troops, not much attention is given to the widespread intra-muslim fighting. Some mention may be made about the Sunni or the Shi’ite factions, but little is published as to WHY they are at each other’s throats. Well, today I listened to an interesting interview by Erick Stakelbeck of a former jihadi, Dr. Tawfik Hamid. Towards the end of the interview published on Hotair this week, Dr. Hamid mentions why there are so few (if any) suicide bombers of Shi’ite persuasion. It turns out that the Shía branch of Islam allows for a “temporary marriage for enjoyment” (lasting one hour) to the members of this belief system. In other words, the young Shi’ites do not have to blow themselves up in order to obtain sexual gratification. And that also explains why the Sunni branch is looking to destroy them - they have corrupted themselves by adhering to such liberal interpretations and practices. The Sunni apparently see them much the same way that Fundamentalists in the US look upon certain “mainline denominations” which not only condone but even encourage a wide array of immoral activity amongst their adherents. Some have even gone along similar paths as the Sunni by bombing abortion clinics and killing people they consider to be abominations.
Now, I do not condone nor approve the liberal tendencies found in the US, Europe and many other parts of the world. I believe strongly in the sanctity of marriage and the holiness of the sexual union within the bonds of marriage. Nor do I accept the sexual union of members of the same sex to be “marriage”. But if one wants to cleanse the world of such things, little good can be done by way of violence. The Bible teaches us to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice” (emphasis added to distinguish from the suicide bombing mentality of Islam) and to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind”. (Romans 12:1-2) There must be a change of “heart” - a different way of thinking - in order to bring about lasting change. That is where we must focus - on helping folks to think through the consequences of their actions and to choose a different way of living because they want to, not because we’ll kill them if they think or act differently from us.
Permalink
07.06.07
Posted in Christian, Faith, Religion at 11:20 am by
Lately I’ve been “listening” to what atheists and evolutionists have to say. Atheists are pretty much stuck with evolution but not all evolutionists are atheists. Some are agnostic, some are “theistic evolutionists”. It’s a weird world out there, to say the least. Anyway, I was reading on Michelle Malkin’s site Hot Air yesterday. They posted a couple of videos about people who had converted from “Christianity” to “Islam”. The fun part was reading the comments. A lot of agnostics and atheists hang out there and their comments can be quite revealing as to their attitude towards those who have a strong belief in a Creator. It can be amusing to read their condescending comments about stereotypical ideas they have towards belief in a deity.
JayHaw Phrenzie wrote:
I do not see how these people can believe that Mohammed rode to Heaven on a winged horse when clearly a burning bush wrote the ten commandments and a virgin woman gave birth to gods son who dies for sins that you were responsible for (even though you weren’t even conceived) but later came back to life and apparantly disappeared again right after that so that he could come back just in time for the armageddon that is coming after all good christians rise through the air to join god on Mars or Venus or wherever they rise up to.
It takes an Atheist to truly appreciate how deluded both sides are on this one.
my invisible man can beat up your invisible man!
While RushBaby chimed in with
My Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) can beat your invisible man!
It takes an agnostic to get a snapshot of the entire melee.
I look at agnostics the same way as I do moderates. LAZY!!!Pick a damn side!!!
This knee-jerk reaction of insulting Christianity on a thread is really simplistic, juvenile and completely irrelevant to a topic about why a person’s conversion is considered network-worthy news.
Esthier on July 5, 2007 at 2:27 PM
You can insult my favorite fictional chracter all you want and I won’t get mad.
If I really and truly believe that all religous people are deluded fools that rely on fantasy to gget through their lives (and I do, BTW), then why do I have to show deference for your fantasy?
If you see a deluded person walking down the street talking to his invisible friend, are you required to respect his belief?
I have no respect for any religion and I will not pretend like they deserve any respect.
All religions are shams. Some are more blatant than others (Scientology), some are more toxic (Islam) than others, some have had a few beneficial effects (Christianity), but they all have one thing in common.
They were all invented by mankind as a way controlling people. And they are all bullshit.
Someone converting from Islam to Christianity or vice versa means no more to me than someone deciding to watch Harry Potter instead of the Lord of the Rings.
Personally, I find such reading to be educational. A look at how people think, or don’t, can help one to understand them and the world around us all. The all too typical atheistic snobbery shown by folks who “have reason on their side” actually shows how deluded they themselves can be. While looking down their noses at folks “who believe in an invisible man”, they themselves believe in a reasoning, thinking, planning nothingness. If indeed there is no creator (as atheists allege) then all we are left with is a non-personal, irrational process of evolution by sheer chance. And yet, the evolutionists refer to the Darwinian alleged process as though it were actually a person with the capability of choosing rationally from a variety of choices to bring about the desired outcome. In other words, they make the evolutionary process into a form of deity with the ability of rationalization and creation through purposely chosen means.
For example, Psychology Today published a little blurb that says:
It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing.
Note the use “it is no coincidence” and “alternative means”. So the process wasn’t by chance (like evolution supposedly teaches) and since the women were covered from neck to toe then the “no coincidence process” purposely chose an “alternative means for women to advertise their youth”. And they say that belief in a creator is delusional? Belief in such a reasoning process of a non-personal evolutionary sequence is much more so!
And this is not the only such example. A prime example of this type of anthropomorphizing the “evolutionary process” (actually, making the supposedly non-personal process into a thinking, reasoning ‘being’) is found in an article from the New York Times, written by Dr. Patricia Brennan. Here are some excerpts taken from this article.
Part of the answer, she has discovered, has gone overlooked for decades. Male ducks may have such extreme genitals because the females do too. The birds are locked in an evolutionary struggle for reproductive success.
Somehow, generations of biologists had never noticed this anatomy before. Pondering it, Dr. Brennan came to doubt the conventional explanation for how duck phalluses evolved.
In some species of ducks, a female bonds for a season with a male. But she is also harassed by other males that force her to mate. “It’s nasty business. Females are often killed or injured,” Dr. Brennan said.
Species with more forced mating tend to have longer phalluses. That link led some scientists to argue that the duck phallus was the result of males’ competing with one another to fertilize eggs.
Dr. Brennan realized that scientists had made this argument without looking at the female birds. Perhaps, she wondered, the two sexes were coevolving, with elaborate lower oviducts driving the evolution of long phalluses.
If a male bird had a long phallus, the female tended to have a more elaborate lower oviduct. And if the male had a small phallus, the female tended to have a simple oviduct. “The correlation was incredibly tight,” Dr. Brennan said. “When you dissected one of the birds, it was really easy to predict what the other sex was going to look like.”
Dr. Brennan argues that elaborate female duck anatomy evolves as a countermeasure against aggressive males. “Once they choose a male, they’re making the best possible choice, and that’s the male they want siring their offspring,” she said. “They don’t want the guy flying in from who knows where. It makes sense that they would develop a defense.”
Dr. Brennan suspects that when the females of a species evolved better defenses, they drove the evolution of male phalluses. “The males have to step up to produce a longer or more flexible phallus,” she said.
Other scientists have documented a similar coevolution of genitals in flies and other invertebrates. But Dr. Brennan’s study is the clearest example of this arms race in vertebrates.
Interesting how she refers to an “evolutionary struggle”. As though the process were fighting against itself. As though the ducks could choose what characteristics, what set of genes they wanted to be hatched with. Perhaps she believes in re-incarnation with a twist - you choose what improvements you want “for my next time around”! At any rate, the alternative to a Creator of the world makes no more sense, in fact it’s full of conjecture and supposition and is not based on fact. The logical alternative to the Dr.’s reasoning about “co-evolution” is that both the male and the female ducks were created by the same designer. That is why both the lower oviduct and the phallus are similar in length and design. Why did the Creator design them this way? That is a good question, and perhaps some of their ideas are similar to the reasoning behind the design - or maybe not. But to believe in a reasoning non-reason or chance is at least as hilarious as “believing in an invisible man”.
Permalink
« Previous entries · Next entries »