Show And Tell: Computer Abuse
This is a screenshot of the program that helps me overload my computer periodically. In case you don’t know what you are looking for, here is a general break-down:
- Date/time
- CPU0/1 - Processor usage and temperatures, both cores
- Proc - Information about currently-running programs
- Fan - The RPM of the fan cooling the processors
- Disk - How much is being read from/written to the harddrives
There have been days when I have maxed out CPU0, CPU1, Disk, and the network indicators (not shown) while working. This is not a screenshot of that. The load is said to be at “11.9” in this picture. The highest number that I hit today was 12.6, but I couldn’t get a screenshot of that. Why? This load number is an indicator of how responsive the system is. Several of the things that are happening on the computer go into calculating the number and it gives a quick view of how hard it is being pushed. As a general rule, if the system load hits 3 then the system is pretty slow in responding to the user. If it gives any indication, while I have been typing this the number has been going between 0.0 and 0.2 on the side of my screen. 11.9 spells out major problems. So why was the computer so slow? Firefox was taking up 1/3rd of my computer’s memory and I had Windows XP open in VMWare. Once I shut down Windows XP, the system load dropped back down to the normal levels. Funny thing is that the computer was running that way all day yesterday without putting such a strain on the system.
To Marry or Not To Marry
When they found out that I was not dating, somebody once asked me why I wasn’t doing my part to find some good girl a husband. Like it or not, much of our culture is geared toward the idea that we will not be happy until we have somebody in our arms. Anybody who insists that they are happy is depriving somebody else of happiness. That is the case with this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul4P7HEn4qg
There is a valid point but it may also be untrue for a lot of people. In the video, the girl is ready to marry but must wait on a guy who is oblivious and eventually offloads the responsibility to God to determine when the time is right. Before considering it too far, let’s back up and begin with what the purpose is for marriage. The first marriage, if you believe the Bible anyhow, is that of Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2:18, we have an explanation for it:
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
That part of the story culminates in Genesis 2:23-25:
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
There is some debate over whether that last sentence was written by Adam or the editor of Genesis. Either way, this is the reason (whether people realize it or not) that marriages have existed for the last 6,000 years. People were not made to live alone and God created the first institution, that of marriage. Solomon, a wise king who is still revered in the middle east today, wrote that two were better than one and achieved more with their work (Ecclesiastes 4:9). There are whole books dedicated to the subject of teaching men and women to understand the differences between how they think. Many of my married friends assure me that those differences have saved them a lot of trouble as each spouse sees other aspects of situations that they had missed. Despite these benefits, there is a big movement today to do away with marriage or to redefine it. In his book How I Found Freedom in An Unfree World, Harry Browne wrote:
So decide first what it is you want. Do you want to live together? Have more time together? Sleep together? Enjoy sexual intercourse together?
All of those things can be accomplished without a legal marriage and without unrelated obligations that could inhibit the growth of the relationship and the individuals in it.
If you want to live together, the answer is to live together.
That doesn't require a license, a ceremony, engraved announcements, a written contract, a blessing from anyone. All you have to do is to live together.
While I agree with him that a marriage contract with the government is not necessary, I also have to take issue with the belief that marriages do not offer any benefits over, what he calls, “non-marriages.” Perhaps we’ll save that for another post. The arguments against marriage make it hard at times to see why we should get married. This is causing people to put off marriage and/or kids until after they obtain a degree and have begun a slingshot career. One 66-year-old divorced woman is currently making headlines with her first pregnancy. She works a five-day workweek as a managing director at a plastics and textiles firm. I suspect that this is what the video was arguing against. What point is there in waiting until old age to marry and have kids if you can combine forces earlier on and accomplish more? Now that I’ve explained a small part of the reasoning for this video, let’s take a brief look at why it could be wrong. Some men and women are heeding the call (ie. The Great Commission) to minister in dangerous places. If I were to recount some of the tortures that have been performed on the early women of the Church, it would make those who gasp at waterboarding to faint. Consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:19-22:
And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
There are many places in the Bible that encourage having kids in tough times. This is the only passage that I am familiar with that does not. That does not mean that we should stop having kids or even that men and women should remain single. Some have argued that, but I simply think that the parents should know what they are getting into. You have also the problem of personalities. If the wife blindly follows her husband, what will she do should he be killed? Or if the husband is rushed into marriage because he cannot care for himself, how would he survive without his wife? A marriage in this position requires both spouses to be independent while still relying on each other. There is no command or allowance in Scripture to find someone who is “compatible.” What you will find instead is mention of the contentious woman (Proverbs 21:19):
It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
or man (Proverbs 26:21):
As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.
and the ability to choose what we get ourselves into (I Corinthians 7:36):
But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
People who are both able to survive on their own will have ambitions. It is often assumed that the husband’s should trump the wife’s and it is on this assumption that many women do not seek purpose in life apart from that of a wife. Modern feminism goes to the opposite extreme and expects all men to bow before the woman’s ambitions. Neither of these is quite right. If the husband and wife, who are standing alone in peril, are not partners in their dream then their strong wills will breed contention. It is not good to wish to be in Hawaii when the wife feels that she can make an impact in Brazil. They must be united. That may be true in marriages that stay in “safe” countries too. There has been a long-standing debate over whether “ministry” or “family” should come first. A friend was quick to remind me that ministry should be built around the family, using it as a starting point. She is right, of course, but for this to happen the marriage needs to also be based on an understanding that the ministry will occur. How do you find someone who believes the same things? It is possible that this winnowing, or comparing of notes, can take some time. That is not to say that there are a lack of people or that only one person on the planet is a “soul mate,” but rather that people are diverse. For anyone who is trying to find a spouse, don’t worry. Those who have similar interests tend to find each other. You need not remain at home all the time and neither should you go out to town every night to watch for a Future Potential Spouse (TM). Do the things you should be doing anyway. Live the life that was given to you. One more note: Economic woes are not a good reason to hold off on marriage or kids. You should instead seek out God and learn how to survive better. There are numerous places in the Bible where this is commanded. In Genesis 8, God blessed Noah’s family and told them to increase and populate the earth. This was at a time when they had to recreate civilization from scratch.
“But that is different, there was nobody around,” some say. That is true. Take a look at Jeremiah 29. Verse 11 is a very popular one to quote, but try reading it in context. I don’t think economic uncertainty is that much different. Happiness is elusive for those who seek it. It is much easier to do the right thing and learn how to enjoy doing it. I’ll wait for now.
Democrat vs. Republican vs. ...
This morning I came across something that impressed me a fair amount:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/MN4V17BCF2.DTL
In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.
“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.
A Democrat is wanting more state control instead of federal legislation? That is awesome.
On the other hand, Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, seems to think that winning is more important than being able to live with himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy48BKd-1TI
Haven’t the Republicans traditionally stood for character and scruples?
Now, I am not a Libertarian. If you are, you are welcome to vote for me and help this party, but we are not going to build the party around Libertarian ideas. I am a Ronald Reagan, Strong Thurman, Lindsey Graham, Carol Campbell Republican. And winning matters to me. If it doesn’t matter to you, there’s the exit sign.
We can see how well that worked with McCain. Why don’t we return to some decent standards? I’ll get back to this a little further on.
When Ron Paul said the war in Iraq was illegal, I disagreed.
He disagreed? Has Lindsey Graham read the constitution lately?
Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
…
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
If we recharter the military every year or two, does the review get around this requirement? That is what our government leaders currently believe.
If you continue reading the Constitution:
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So… what is a militia? According to the Constitution they are to be trained by the individual states. I was unable to find a specific definition for the word at http://dictionary.law.com (there are often different definitions for legal purposes than for common), but Webster (Revised, 1913) says:
1. In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
If the men are being called for emergencies, then it is reasonable to assume that they have regular jobs as well. Since the militia is comprised largely of men who are being called away from their jobs, it really should be to defend their homes or those of their neighbors. We intentionally break this loyalty with professional soldiers by transferring them to new locations periodically.
What do you think? Am I misinterpreting the Constitution? Or are we overstepping the bounds to have a standing army, especially with soldiers stationed overseas?
Thomas Paine (who was a pain to many people but was highly influential in the creation of the United States government) said:
> Not a place on earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them.
While we are discussing Republicans, Democrats and their views, why don’t we find out what the difference is between a Republic and a Democracy. These are words that I look up for fun whenever I see a new dictionary. Almost without exception they are defined as each other in modern editions. If they are the same, why do we have a class of politicians who call themselves “Democrats” and another called “Republicans”?
The Army Training Manual (No. 2000-25, 1928-1932, since withdrawn) provides these next three quotes:
The didactic method concerning facts of history, social changes, economic development, and basic principles of our Government will be used without discussion and without argument, special emphasis being given to the fact that the United States is a Republic, not a democracy.
> Democracy,
:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights. Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. Atwood.
There are some Libertarians who are more Republican than men like Mr. Graham. Winning is not everything, and harping on the subject is not going to make them win. Being right matters a great deal also.
The other men I talk to who are a part of the Republican party agree that a lot was sacrificed to nominate McCain for the presidency. It was an attempt to take the middle ground and it failed. We need to aim once again for less spending, less taxes, and fewer regulations. Those used to be the ideals of the Republican party, and they are the reason that the Libertarian party is gaining popularity now. If you want the vote of the Libertarians, Mr. Graham, return to those core issues.
Incidentally, the Army Training Manual does define militia. It calls it the National Guard, which is now being used for [international missions](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17971410/). We are doing things wrong. I'm afraid Ron Paul has more right than a large portion of the rest of the Republican party.
Geek stuff: UnionFS on the Linux Kernel v2.6.30
UPDATE: I’m still seeing some hits to this blog entry, but it is no longer relevant as the UnionFS project now has a patch for 2.6.30. If you are having problems with it, there is a fairly quiet IRC channel (you may have to wait around for a bit) at irc.freenode.net/#unionfs.
UnionFS is a popular filesystem that is used to smash multiple other filesystems together while still keeping them separate. If this is the first time you have heard of it, the idea probably sounds very strange. Believe me, it is very handy. As of the time that I am writing this, we are at release candidate 6 for version 2.6.30 of the linux kernel. The UnionFS patches support 2.6.29-rc2 and Andrew Morton’s -mm branch is lagging at 2.6.28-rc2. With the new 2.6.30 kernel series, SquashFS is included and no longer requires its own patch (though there is no LZMA compression support as of yet). SquashFS is often used alongside UnionFS for the creation of live-cds. This is why I am tinkering with UnionFS on the new kernel line already. If you grab the UnionFS patch for 2.6.29-rc2 and apply it to the 2.6.30 kernel tree, this problem creeps up during the compile:
fs/unionfs/whiteout.c: In function 'create_whiteout':
fs/unionfs/whiteout.c:337: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
This is caused by the compiler being unable to find the fs_struct structure while compiling whiteout.c. My hack, which most likely would not be endorsed, is to add the structure definition to the file. If you open fs/unionfs/whiteout.c, insert this just under the #include directive:
/* From include/linux/fs_struct.h */
struct fs_struct {
int users;
rwlock_t lock;
int umask;
int in_exec;
struct path root, pwd;
};
That should get you on your way. By the way, before doing this, I had tried to include that header file. It caused a few other issues and this was just easier to cope with. As I said, it is a hack.
Blair Holt -> HR45
A bill has been introduced in the House that is numbered HR45, “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009”:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45.IH:
It is so-named because of the events mentioned in Section 2(a)
(6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.
Here are the stated purposes of the bill:
(1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth;
(2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms;
(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; and
(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.
And it aims to restrict:
(i) any handgun; or
`(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device;
It does exclude “antiques.” The most obvious question, to me, is whether the bill would have prevented the shooting in the first place. If it could, would it make the world more safe for others as well? According the Chicago Sun-Times (by way of PoliceOne.com):
CHICAGO, Ill. A two-year dispute led one gang member to fire multiple gunshots at another gang member on a crowded bus last week, killing an honor student, law enforcement sources said Sunday.
Michael "Mario" Pace, 16, is charged with one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder in the Thursday shooting that claimed the life of Julian High School student Blair Holt, 16, who was not the intended target.
Facing identical charges is 15-year-old Kevin Jones, who sources said gave Pace the gun. Jones knew Pace wanted to use the weapon to try to kill someone Pace had argued with on an almost "daily basis," possibly over a girl, sources said.
[ABC Local](http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news&id=5295070) reports:
An angry Chicago Public Schools CEO offered this sobering thought Friday morning, that Blair Holt has become the 20th Chicago Public Schools student to die from gunfire in this school year.
They also mention that Ronald (Ron) Holt, Blair's father is a police officer:
As a long-time police officer, Ron Holt has seen the worst the streets can show. He says he and Blair’s mom, Annette Holt, taught their son courage and leadership and that he showed that Thursday when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire.
That was a show of courage, and it is definitely worthy of notice. One more quote from the Chicago Sun-Times should bring this back around to show why HR45 is now before Congress:
“They’re just children,” a frustrated Ronald Holt said of those charged with killing his son. “You wonder where it comes from. What causes a child to wantonly and blatantly hatch such an ill-conceived plan? To go out and do something like this? What makes them do it? Where is this coming from? What are the influences?” It is those questions that Holt, a Chicago Police gang-crimes officer, and Blair’s mother, Annette, a Chicago Fire Department captain, are vowing to work to answer by pushing for more youth-mentoring opportunities, better gun laws and other initiatives aimed at curbing juvenile violence.
These articles and Mr. Holt's background make a pretty good case, don't they?
The Chicago Sun-Times also has a [feedback blog](http://blogs.suntimes.com/neighborhoods/2007/05/gang_wars_kids_with_guns_in_th.html) where one of the discussion-starters included this:
Julian High student Blair Holt was a citizen casualty in a gang war. His alleged shooter, some say, was a victim too. Michael Pace, 16, has been described as a mixed up kid “with a short temper and a bad attitude” who grew up in poverty without a father and with easy access to “blunts” and guns that led him to his breaking point. Same goes for 15-year-old Kevin Jones, who police say gave Pace the gun to do the shooting.
Which would you blame more, the easily-accessible guns or the lack of a role model? The drugs or his father? Or do we all have some personal responsibility?
I was out for a walk with my sister in the country on a night roughly two years ago when one farmer's guard dogs decided that the road belonged to them. The closest that they got was about 3 feet -- just out of arms reach -- with their teeth bared. I did not have a gun, though one would have made me feel more confident in the outcome of a fight. Instead, I prepared to take the dogs on and hoped that if they made a move I could kill them before they did the same to me. Suppose that they had attacked me and I had died defending my sister. Could we outlaw dogs? Would we restrict access to them?
At the least, we should campaign against owning more than one. Or we could limit people to chihuahuas, since they make lots of noise and can't hurt you too badly. Their yaps would be enough to alert you that an intruder was nearby.
If we immediately made all dogs without special licenses in this country sterile, the problem of being attacked by them would solve itself since most would die out. Anybody who wanted to buy a dog needs to be registered and have their fingerprints and mental health records examined. If they are prevented from breeding without a special license, then there is accountability. That would have prevented my near-attack.
Please pardon the sarcasm. This is how I view HR45.
The problem with this bill is the same one that occurs in most bills. It does not prevent short-tempered people from doing something stupid with a gun that is already in their possession. And just like Mr. Holt was not able to constantly be around his son to protect him, we cannot expect any government agency to be around to prevent such things from happening.
Go read the bill for yourself. It deals with prosecuting the people who are responsible for these events after they happen. There are stricter background checks that are put in place, along with randomly-chosen verifications that will inconvenience the majority of legitimate gun owners. Since they are random, there is no guarantee of anything. Stolen guns would also be untraceable because the new "owner" is not going to register it. We all know gangs incriminate themselves by following these laws. This bill will even increase the demand for such untraceable guns.
It is hard to ask how this prevents the shooting in the first place without sounding stupid. The effectiveness of the bill becomes even more bizarre when you see that Michael Pace and the guy who gave him the gun, Kevin Jones, are both facing the same charges. Could you explain to me again what this bill is going to do, apart from antagonize people who are trying to defend themselves?
Let's discount the warm, fuzzy feeling we get for looking like we are doing something.
How can we expect healing if we do not love?
Can we be happy that somebody has been healed if we do not follow our Lord’s example in loving them?
Women are Healthier
Some new Canadian research states that Estrogen makes women healthier. In addition to the long-standing knowledge that it makes bones more durable and muscles more elastic, we have a study that says it also controls inflammation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8047321.stm
The really short version:
Oestrogen seems to hobble an enzyme which blocks the inflammatory process.
The intent is to use this information to make men healthier. After explaining the methods employed in testing, the article ends with a question that the researchers still wonder:
But writing in the journal, the researchers said: "A question remains: will men be amenable to the idea of being treated with an exclusively female hormone?"
The answer should be a resounding “No!” Everything that I have ever heard about why guys should take lessons from girls in how to live came back to mind after reading this article. Some of those have included choices in how we eat or recommendations to not press ourselves so hard. But there are some things guys just can’t control. One of those is how they were designed. Of course the article states that this ability to be healthier for the nurturing of the young is the result of millions of years of evolution. So we’re improving things, right? I doubt it. My first rejection of this new course of action is on the grounds of principle. Wouldn’t a man with a more robust immune system, who could better protect the pregnant woman, be a prime candidate to have his “superior” genes passed on too? We give evolution entirely too much credit. Or follow first premises blindly. The second reason that I don’t think we are improving matters is because there is a readily accessible anti-inflammatory that works well already. It does not require extensive lab work or manipulation and is safe for virtually everyone. There is also the added bonus that it builds up the immune system at the same time. This wonderful item is called garlic. As if men, in general, didn’t already have enough problems with too many estrogens, we want to add another source. That would tend to push men toward infertility which in turn will help to kill off the precious evolutionary leap that women have made by slowing reproduction even farther. No, let’s not do such a brash thing. Please.
Creation or Guided Evolution?
There has been quite a debate over the creation of the world for more years than I have been alive. This post is not an attempt to cover the science aspect (you can find that from Creation Science Evangelism, Answers in Genesis, Exploration Films or any number of other places). Here I aim to explore what Scripture says.
With Genesis 1:1, we have the establishment of time:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Somebody who is very observant would notice that the rest of the chapter is tied together with the word “and.” There are very few words that could be used to imply that something happened and God reacted to it. That begins to happen in verses 26 and 27:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The first word of verse 26 does demonstrate that each “and” means that the next action happened afterward. Here we have God speaking of all of the other creatures that he formed. If in doubt, read the next four verses also.
Not only does the word that ties this chapter together indicate that this is a defined sequence (i.e. God created dry land and then caused grass to grow on it) but we also find that it is organized into days:
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 8 And God called the firmament [sky] Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And so it continues through the sixth day in verse 31.
Some people claim that each day is representative of an age and that the various periods overlapped. The overlapping is necessary for their view because the plants were created (verse 11) before the sun (verse 14). As silly as that might sound, it is not a problem for the way that it is literally written.
There was light before the sun was created. It was, from my understanding, consolidated on the fourth day. If we look at this from an evolutionary point of view, we have problems with the plants being able to sleep as they do now. If you have constant light, there is no reason to close up for the night. It is a minor issue but it would be there.
Let us step back just a moment. Logically, if these were not equal periods of time we could work six days then take an hour break before getting started again and not break the Sabbath that was commanded in Exodus 20:8-11:
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
I did do some more research on the word “day” before writing this. The Strong’s Hebrew number for “day” (3117) is also used to define periods of time; however, when I looked up the passage in Hebrew (Aleppo) and did a word search, those verses did not come up. It is a different form of the word that is used as Strong’s deals with word roots. I could see that that would be confusing since my understanding of Hebrew is not very deep either.
There is also the problem of death in the world. It is recorded that every day (except the second), God looked on what he had made and saw that it was good. On the final day of creation, we find this:
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
If everything was good, was death considered to be good?
Before the flood, we didn’t have permission to kill men who had killed others. Killing of animals was not for food because permission was granted for that after the flood, explicitly. Genesis 9:3:
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Animals were killed for sacrifices only, unless people were doing it contrary to command. Every death was a very strong reminder of what their sin was.
The plants were given for food and sustenance to repair our bodies as they were worn down by our work. Yes, decay existed at the first (I believe) but it was also balanced to allow immortal physical life before the fall.
In the OT, physical and spiritual death are generally linked closely. I believe that the spiritual death occurred instantly when they sinned. They were severed from the communion they had enjoyed with God and wanted to instead hide from him. They were also cut off from the Tree of Life. In fact, God said that if they continued to eat from it, that they would live forever. Death is clearly a punishment. With the church today, we often neglect the physical. Remember communion. Christ’s body was broken for our healing; his blood was spilled for our forgiveness. The theme was carried from the Old Testament to the New. 1 Corinthians 11:24,25:
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Animals were punished by our sin. God cursed the ground because of Man. In Romans 8:22, Paul said:
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
The animals certainly did not have to worry about thorns or starvation before Adam sinned and caused the ground to be cursed (Genesis 3:17-19). There is no scientific reason that they could not live forever like man could. All of nature groans because of the actions of mankind. This is not because of man’s existence (as many claim) but because he has failed to do as God has prescribed. God’s law is not written to keep us from enjoying life. It was put in place because it is the only way that we can live with each other and not destroy ourselves. Rejection of God’s commands automatically turns society toward the worst. If, on the other hand, many of these so-called consequences already existed before the fall then aligning ourselves against God’s commands is nothing major. It is certainly not worthy of what we find in Nahum 1:2:
God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
I think we wrecked things.
New Age Christianity
It has been almost 9 years since my first conversation with (what I realized was) a New Ager. At the time it was very difficult to figure out exactly what he believed. In fact, I never succeeded. Every time that I had thought I understood his thinking, he would gently tell me that he had not said that. He and his wife were flying to Romania to adopt one of the street children that have been orphaned in the middle of all the political problems. I commend him for that. What is hard to understand is why one would have beliefs that cannot be explained. I hope the child he adopted finds a better belief system. This afternoon I read Francis Schaeffer’s book Escape from Reason and, for the first time, might be able to understand why people have begun to believe their religious ideas can be so aloof from regular thought. But ideas have consequences. From the beginning of the book, the author uses a series of graphs to make his ideas clear. They seem arbitrary at first but become more comfortable toward the end. One of the main reasons for these graphs is to trace the evolution of our rational for life. By the end, Schaeffer has shown how there is a disconnect between what is considered rational thought and the “religious experience.” Logical thought is “downstairs” while religion (or any “hope”) has been relegated to an “upstairs” where logical thought is left behind. You’ll have to read the book if you want a better explanation. My intent was only to give a cursory understanding that makes this quote understandable:
The evangelical Christian needs to be careful because some evangelicals have recently been asserting that what matters is not setting out to prove or disprove propositions; what matters is an encounter with Jesus. When a Christian has made such a statement he has, in an analyzed or unanalyzed form, moved upstairs.
This rung a bell. In the last few years I have heard a number of preachers say that it did not matter if it was proven that Jesus did marry and have kids (as fictional books such as The DaVinci Code have alleged) or if it was proven that Joseph had gotten Mary pregnant. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Justin Martyr was convinced to study Jesus after a kind, old gentleman followed him when he went out to think (as good philosophers were supposed to do). The man demonstrated how Scripture was logical and, further, how the prophets had foretold Jesus’ coming. If we cannot logically explain why we believe what we do then we really have no reason to continue believing it. In the store the other day, a random stranger handed me a card with 1 Peter 3:15:
Instead, exalt Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you to explain the hope you have. [ISV]
Let’s stay away from a New Age Jesus, shall we? The ratification for the Nicene Creed (AD 381) reads this way:
And those who say "There was a time when He was not," or that "Before He was begotten He was not," or that "He was made out of nothing;" or who say that The Son of God is of any other substance, or that He is changeable or unstable,--these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes. [quotation marks added for clarification]
Nuclear Fallout
A couple years ago I had read about a new study of the effects from a nuclear power plant exploding in Chernobyl. That has dramatically reduced the amount that I worry about a nuclear attack. There are still effects but they probably will not mean the end of humanity.
Last night I was attempting to explain this to a friend and he was not buying it. Instead he challenged me to do some more research this week on nuclear explosions. I did a search for “Nuclear fallout effects” on my favorite (so far) search engine, Google.
The results are slightly bemusing. We have the effects from atomicarchive.com (that I linked above) which even goes into detail of how the weather and different colored clothing affect the burns you receive during the initial blast. It has a map of the fallout projections from 250 United States cities being attacked:
The discussion last night centered on whether all life on this planet could be destroyed if every existing nuclear warhead were launched. The numbers quoted were in the range of 65-70,000 existing atom bombs.
I don’t believe they would destroy all human life. It would be dramatically changed, but not fully destroyed.
Wikipedia claims that 65,000 nuclear warheads was the peak and that many of those have been partially dismantled (though not destroyed). The Federation of American Scientists claims that there are a little over 23,000 atomic bombs in existence right now. Only ~8,200 of them are operational.
That is still a lot of damage. But there is no way that everyone in every country that has these atomic bombs is going to hit every square foot of land. Even suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots don’t aim for places that have only a single person present. They aim for crowded places or locations with “important” people.
Wouldn’t the nuclear fallout get everyone? Let’s move on down the list of articles from that initial Google search. There was an article from The Straight Dope (you have to like their tagline):
The article ends with a fairly nice explanation of events:
Radiation deaths subsided after seven or eight weeks but latent effects continued to appear for a long time. Fetuses irradiated in the wombs of their mothers were subject to high rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, and birth defects–many kids were retarded or had unusually small heads (microcephaly), stunted growth, or other afflictions. Cases of leukemia surged in 1947 and peaked in the early 1950s. Additional problems included other cancers and blood disorders, cataracts, heavy scarring (keloid), and male sterility. However, no genetic damage was detected in children conceived after the blasts. Oddly enough, notwithstanding all the calamities visited on the Japanese by the bombs, the two things everybody now expects to happen in a nuclear war, mutant kids and the land glowing blue forevermore, didn’t.
Did you catch that? Children conceived after the blast did not have any detectable genetic damage. There were problems with those exposed to the blast itself, even in their mother’s womb, but our bodies are pretty resilient.
Pigs that are released into the wild begin to grow tusks again. Wikipedia says this about “wild boar” (no it was not where I originally learned this):
Wild boars, descended from domesticated pigs, are present in significant numbers in North Eastern Australia. Considered an exotic pest, they are hunted for both sport and population control. They are aggressive and are known to be a vector for tuberculosis.
That is odd from our current outlook on life, isn’t it? Here’s another article from that first search:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1605122.ece
The title is “City air worse than nuclear fallout.” Here’s a quote:
Estimates suggest that a lifelong smoker might on average lose ten years of life because of the habit, while someone who is severely obese (defined as a body mass index score of more than 40) at 35 might lose four to ten years.
By contrast, atomic bomb survivors who were exposed to high levels of radiation within 1,500 metres of the hypocentre of a blast could expect their lives to be shortened by an average of 2.6 years, according to research published online today in the BioMed Central journal Public Health. All of the risks studied showed a similar, relatively small increase (about 1 per cent) in mortality rates among a given population.
Does that put things into perspective? No, I still don’t want to be around nuclear radiation. But perhaps there is hope if nuclear war did break out.
Genetic Engineering
Two friends who don’t know each other sent me links to look at today. The first was an article inspired by all of the H1N1 (“Swine Flu”) hype:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/05/05/Swine-Flu-Update.aspx And the second is a video entitled “The Future of Food”:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food How are these related? Perhaps I’ll give a little information from the article first:
On February 27, 2009 it was confirmed that an influenza vaccine maker, Baxter International, had released a mixture of seasonal influenza viruses mixed with unlabeled live bird flu viruses to facilities in Czechoslovakia, Germany, and Slovenia. Baxter, which is waiting for a license to manufacturer bird flu vaccine, explained it was an "accident" and that no harm was done.
On April 23, 2009, the world heard the first news reports about a mysterious pig (H1N1) and bird (H5N1)and human hybrid influenza virus that was making people sick near a Mexican pig farm. By April 30, the WHO had issued a Phase 5 "Alert" warning that the world was facing an imminent pandemic influenza epidemic on the strength of several hundred cases of "swine" flu and less than 10 confirmed deaths.
There was quite an outcry over the mix-up with the bird flu and influenza. I hadn’t quite put these two things together yet but this is a new thought. If the problem is man-made, there are several possible views that could be taken. Some people would say that it is Obama trying to gain more power. Discount that idea, please. The news media and politicians will jump at the chance to appear active (even if it does cost a lot) and it is a great way to distract us from how little Obama and everyone else is able to do about the “recession.” An alternate idea would be that this is a mistake or that we are dabbling with something we don’t understand as well as we like to think. That is more or less the position that the video took on our food supply, but before turning to that let’s quote the article one more time:
In all the chaos that has Americans running to drug stores to buy face masks, closing schools to wipe desks down with rubbing alcohol and avoiding public transportation, there is action being taken behind the scenes by politicians and government health officials to prepare the way for implementation of future quarantine and mass vaccination of citizens with experimental vaccines and drugs that have by- passed normal FDA regulations for demonstrating purity and potency of pharmaceutical products.
The answer to a problem is to push through a solution that we have not verified. Ouch. Necessary at times, yes. A good idea? Not really. Remember Murphy’s Law?
If anything can go wrong, it will.
It also turns out that the models we have based our preparations on for this “pandemic” are not from a strain of the flu (Influenza) after all. It was strep. But before we let off genetic manipulation, let’s turn to the video. It’s an hour and a half long and I am unable to do it full justice because moving pictures are hard to quote. You may wish to watch it when you have a chance. From the beginning of the video I was a little dubious of the contents, but I’m afraid that changed when they began to talk about the lawsuits brought against farmers for patent infringement. These lawsuits have all but forced many farmers to stop storing seed from the previous year for the next – even those who have inherited the farm from their fathers or grandfathers. In order to avoid patent infringement they are buying the seed from seed suppliers each year. The grounds for these lawsuits have to do with genetic markers that have been placed in the modified crops. Cross-pollination with another farmer’s field is enough, it seems, to contaminate your own plants. Because the supreme court and patent office have deemed the work patentable, it doesn’t matter that you have not ever bought or planted genetically modified seeds. One of the major reasons for the outcry and worry over genetically engineered food is that we are essentially using viruses to modify the plants. They are the best invasion and replication method that we know of. My biggest complaint is that the video producers want more regulation and required testing of the genetically modified foods. That is probably good for some things (which is a rare concession from me) but to disallow these patents would solve many of the problems also. Without the monopoly allowed by them, many farmers would begin to use their own seed again. The recovery from this will be slower than the fall into it, but it is possible nevertheless. Subsidies are another item that the video touches on. This is one point that I especially agree with. The people should be able to choose where their money is spent. I’d rather pay the full price of something up front than to have 1/10th of it spent behind my back so that it appears I am paying a lower price for it. This goes for Ethanol too. I’ve said enough. There is more in the video, and they are not as conspiratory as I had expected. The genetic engineering is having an effect though. Some allergies are to the genetic changes rather than the original – though not all allergies come from this (that would make for another post sometime). Just a few things to think about.
The Choice; A book review
A couple days ago a friend said that I absolutely had to read The Choice by Og Mandino. Immediately. So I borrowed it. The book was published in 1984, which means that it is not a new book. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything since a lot of modern books are rubbish, and the fictional plot complained about the same thing 25 years ago when it was published (which is not too surprising). The story begins almost immediately with the achievements of an insurance salesman in a blossoming career. He is literally weeks away from becoming one of the senior VPs of the large company that he works for when Father’s Day interrupts his weekly routine. He realizes that his sons are growing up and he is missing it. Like so many stories of the same type, he resigned almost immediately and moved into the country to become an author. This is where the story makes itself out to be unique. The main character, a man named Mark Christopher, is a self-help book fanatic. It was through reading them that he learned to be the best at sales and management for his former occupation. He takes that knowledge and writes his own book. As the main character struggles to publish his manuscript and then succeeds, The Choice covers many of the real issues that have to be faced. It did not end when Mark’s book became a best-seller but instead probed even more deeply into the heart of matters, asking:
He [a man Mark Christopher was visiting and respected] waved at the newspapers on the coffee table. "Even now, as you and I talk, people are killing each other in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Northern Ireland, Cambodia, Namibia, Chad, Guatemala, Lebanon, El Salvador, and Ethiopia -- not to mention all the other terrible crimes that take place, daily, in every city and town in the world. We steal from each other. We cheat on each other. We brutalize each other. We crawl over each other in our race for power, wealth, and fame. What good is it for believers like you and me to spell out a long list of success principles that we know will work, that we know will guide people to a better life if they follow them, when they can't even obey ten simple commandments. We light candles in the darkness, but we manage to attract only moths. So why should we try? Why should we make any attempt to rescue this human race that may not even be worth saving?"
These are quite the questions and there are a lot of small stories in circulation that are often used in reply. Life is hard but we have been given the ability to make it just a little more bearable for others. I have little hope that I, by myself, will change the world. But it isn’t the world that I have been called to change. It is a calling to aid in the lives of individuals instead. Throughout the book I was amazed at how much Mark Christopher attempted to point people to God with such a scant knowledge of Him. Near the end it was revealed to the man that because of the influence he had gained over others that his decisions had even more power before God than those of many other people. This is a wise warning for those who are teachers and leaders. He finally made a decision concerning his own life during a speech, though it took a while to get it situated in his own life:
Henceforth, each morning, I will awake and fall to my knees and give thanks to God for the gift that only He can bestow -- a new day.
Many other aspects of that final speech are stated at an extreme which I believe is balanced in Scripture. Most people in the “rat race” need the extreme arguments in it to jog them out of their complacency enough to see that they really do control much that happens in their lives. Won’t you do the same as Mark Christopher said in the above quote? Celebrate the life that we have been given. And, no, that is not the full meaning of “The Choice” from the title. You’ll have to read the book for yourself to find out what it is. One disclaimer since some of you do watch how language is used around you: The word “Damn” is abused several times in this book.
The Institute of Delicious Whale Research
While searching the internet for a temporary logo to place on a website, a very odd picture was returned in the search results:
I think the website is a joke and it certainly elicited a laugh from me. Take a look. If nothing else, perhaps we can look forward to finding whale meat in larger chains such as Wal-Mart or Migros in the very near future.
Courage
A friend today said that one of his fellow-students, when asked to write a paper about what courage was, wrote “This is.” and handed it in. That’s bold, and he was rewarded with an “A.” Here are some actions that are more bold. A man we call Justin Martyr wrote to the Roman Caesar, boldly announcing who he was, because of the reasons that the Christians were being persecuted:
To the Emperor Titus AElius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.
From the third paragraph of his letter:
But lest any one think that this is an unreasonable and reckless utterance, we demand that the charges against the Christians be investigated, and that, if these be substantiated, they be punished as they deserve; [or rather, indeed, we ourselves will punish them.]*
This is really amazing. Not only is he advocating that anybody who has done any wrong be punished, but he is even saying that if the church was told about it that they would punish the people themselves. That is somebody I would have thoroughly enjoyed being around. Unfortunately he was whipped and then beheaded in AD 168. A man named Ignatius was torn apart by lions more than fifty years before that (AD 111) for publicly reproving Emperor Trajan. The emperor was in the middle of worshiping his gods for a series of victories he had achieved and was not amused.** Just because something is billed as “Christian,” does not make it above reproof. Justin Martyr made this clear in his letter to the Caesar. Paul said something similar to Timothy (II Timothy 3:16,17):
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Using Scripture to reprove those who do not believe it is folly. The man who kindled a desire in Justin Martyr to seek out the God in Scripture instead explained how the prophets had predicted Jesus’ coming. This reproof is for our own – the Christians. One final tale of some of the early men who moved the church comes from shortly after AD 400. A man named Epiphanius, a Bishop of Salamina in Cyprus, stood very much against the worship of anyone other than those in the God-head (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit). He stood in the tradition of Justin and Ignatius, whether he realized it or not. Epiphanius admonished people to not erect images of the saints (including Mary) or to worship them in any way:
Beloved children, be mindful not to bring any images in the church, or to erect them over the graves of the saints; but bear God constantly in your hearts.
It is recorded that he ripped down a curtain at a church he visited because it had a painting of Christ or some other saint and recommended that it be used to bury someone in. He commanded that they not put up another like it because it was contrary to our faith.*** As was simply demonstrated by my friend’s classmate, courage is putting your own comfort on the line. When your life is at stake, you delve deeper to be absolutely certain that you are right. How sure are you of your beliefs?
- For Justin Martyr, see the first volume of The Early Church Fathers. It contains a collection of his writings (The quotes are from his First Apology) as well as an account of his trial. Also see Martyr’s Mirror, pages 111 and 112. ** The story of Ignatius I borrowed from pages 105-107 of Martyr’s Mirror. *** The story concerning Epiphanius came from page 171 of the same book.
Ghosts and the Supernatural
A few nights ago I had the opportunity to go to a Bible study that was going to be on the topic of ghosts. It was one of those odd things things that you decide to do because you are both curious and hope it will be sane. Call it ego, but I wanted to be around in case it wasn’t.
The study had come about because of Matthew 14:26:
But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, It is a ghost! and they cried out in fear.
Some other translations render it with different words: spirit, apparition, etc. The question was over whether the disciples believed in ghosts.
The answer to that one is pretty obvious. One of the other men at the study pointed out that if they hadn’t before, they certainly did at that moment.
OK, fair enough. Now what? I was ready to move on to 1 Samuel 28, but the person next to me saw that I was looking up the passage and said that the pastor who was overseeing the study would get to it eventually. So I waited.
We began to cover what a ghost was: a disembodied spirit (standard dictionary definition). 1 Corinthians 15:52 is well-representative of when Christians believe they will receive their new bodies:
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
In other words, we believe that we will receive our new, “sanctified” bodies at the resurrection of the dead. Half an hour later or so we did get around to 1 Samuel 28:
10 And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
11 Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.
12 And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.
There are two possible conclusions that we can make from this passage. Both rely on the witch’s surprise to see Samuel (who, if you read the rest of the chapter, you will find was quite dead).
The first option is that she was inexperienced and did not expect it to work. I find this unlikely as her reputation had advanced far enough for Saul’s servants to know about her. The second option is that she expected to see her spirit guide who would tell her what to say. Seeing Samuel startled her.
The general consensus was that the spirits of deceased humans are not allowed to walk around on this planet – even by request. Great, that is the conclusion I had hoped they would come to. Any apparitions that are not mirrors or something similar are probably demonic. Most people are terrified of what they see. It makes a lot of sense.
Then someone brought up the passage from Matthew 17:
1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
OK, fine. Jesus was still living. Elijah (Elias is coming from the way that it is written in the Greek) was called up to heaven in a chariot of fire. II Kings 2:11:
And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
He was one of two (possibly three) men in the Bible that is reported to have not died. Enoch is another, and some people believe that the Apostle John did not die. That’s a long, unrelated discussion so let’s take a look at Moses. Deuteronomy 34:
4 And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.
5 ¶So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
Moses died, God buried him, and nobody ever found the grave. But God said that he would die instead of passing over into Israel’s promised land. This was a problem for me.
It is easy enough to accept that the witch saw Samuel as a spirit. To see Moses, Elijah, and Jesus together creates a problem if they were all recognizable. Two of them could, logically, have living, breathing physical bodies. One of them could not – especially if we receive our new bodies at the resurrection.
After thinking it over for a couple days, I think that the best solution is a better understanding of the natural order of things. Disembodied spirits are not allowed to remain on this earth or return to it. They also do not have physical bodies for now.
The word “supernatural” means that it is outside the realm of what is natural. Not what we think is natural, but what really is natural. God has the ability to break the natural rules when He chooses. He did put the natural laws in place. I’m going to say that these are probably both instances where He has chosen to do that.
If you happen to be reading this and don’t believe in God, you will probably find the thoughts absurd. But then there is no reason to believe in a resurrection and transformed bodies if you don’t believe in a god. Guess I’ll have to leave the post at this. I hope that it makes sense to the rest of you.
The Soul of Prayer by P. T. Forsyth; A book review
I’ve been reading through Leonard Ravenhill’s recommended reading list. It’s been going slowly, but I’ve enjoyed all the books so far. The latest has been P. T. Forsyth’s The Soul of Prayer.
The book has a lot packed into its pages. The author is a theologian and has made a study of the topic of prayer. He quotes using Latin, Greek, French and even German but is generally understandable in English only. In just over a hundred pages he does his best to get you to rethink how you pray. He succeeded with me.
The two failings that I saw in his book were how radically he made some statements and that he took Evolution theory as solid.
Several statements bordered on heresy, at least in light of today’s culture. One such statement was a reversal of John’s writing that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). He said that it was not so much that way “but that love is God.” The sexual revolution, which came well after this book was published, has tried to make love a god and that skews how we would understand Forsyth’s statement. Despite this and similar remarks, I believe each serves a purpose. I also won’t be quoting Forsyth in general theological discussions.
The problem with Evolution theory is still hotly contested in many circles and perhaps I should post a write-up eventually of why it disagrees with Scripture. The usage of it did not appear until the final four pages of The Soul of Prayer and I was very startled to find it. It was very similar to C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity in that it is a very solid book all the way through until Evolution was invoked.
Apart from these two issues, I was very impressed. The author expounds on many aspects of prayer. They range from the reason for praying in Jesus’ name to how our prayers commit us to action.
This is one of the few books that I will have to read more than once to fully comprehend everything the author is saying. There is a lot about prayer that I am only beginning to understand, but I’ll recommend this book to others who are trying to learn.
I’ll close with a quote from the book. It was in the final chapter where Forsyth is stressing that prayer is not about weakness.
Strenuous prayer will help us to recover the masculine type of religion -- and then our opponents will at least respect us.
Matthew 12:36 - every idle word
The passage mentioned in the title is a very familiar one for many Christians. Here is the full verse:
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Sometimes it is used against profanity, which I agree is not a good use of language. Some men have used it as an excuse to shun small talk for a time. A few have even taken it so far as to avoid acknowledging when another wished them a “good day” out on the street.
Is that what the verse means?
Yes and no. Yes, we should guard our speech and make it useful. Mindless prattle can easily turn to gossip and there are always better things to talk about.
But language serves a purpose. I believe it was from Phillip Yancey that I read that the beings we run into every day are eternal beings. The people that we spitefully use will be around forever. Can we justify not talking to them? How can we not do our best to affect them for the better in eternity?
What are words for anyhow? Are they not a tool for communication? If you read about Body Language, it seems that 93% or so of our communication in general conversation does not come from the words used.
If I were gripping a baseball bat tightly and preparing to swing it at you while saying I enjoy your company, it creates a bit of a conflict. Which would you believe? There becomes a split between the body language, the vocal tone, and the words.
Let’s step back for a few moments even farther. Suppose I had a habit of bashing people’s heads in with baseball bats. I don’t, but let’s suppose. Now if I invited you in for a friendly chat over a cup of coffee and didn’t have a baseball bat in hand, does that change how much you would trust me? Of course not. The bat might be just around the corner waiting for me to grab it.
Does your life back up what you say? Webster’s 1913 Dictionary (what I have handy) defines “idle” this way:
1. Of no account; useless; vain; trifling; unprofitable; thoughtless; silly; barren.
If this is a good definition of the word (and I believe it is), then the words we say can be negated or made “idle” by our life. How do your words measure up against your life? Better yet, how does your prayer measure up against your life?
Guns and the 9th Circuit
A friend sent over some news about a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals preliminary ruling (Nordyke vs. King [Alameda County]) that is positive on the possession of firearms:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95767
WND quoted:
This necessary 'right of the people' existed before the Second Amendment as 'one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,'" the ruling said. "Heller identified several reasons why the militia was considered 'necessary to the security of a free state.' First, 'it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary . . . . Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
Not to be harsh on WorldNetDaily, but they do read too much into things at times. In light of this I went looking and found a C-SPAN recording of the proceedings:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8503876057040470652 (~50 min, unofficial transcript)
The case is over whether it was possible to have a gun show at the county fairgrounds in Alameda County, California. The county wanted to ensure that only previously authorized individuals could have firearms. They maintained that it did not prohibit gun sales on its property but only prevented unauthorized possession on the property. At this, Justice Alarcó commented:
It seems strange to me to say that you can have a gun show without showing your guns.
This is such a backwards argument that even the lawyer for the county was forced to concede that he didn’t know how sales would actually take place. He thought perhaps the sale could be made and then they could move off of county property to look at the firearm. Even if they allowed the gun and sale to be on the property, by their own rules, when the firearm changed hands due to the sale the customer would be in unauthorized possession. My legal background is almost non-existent but I think the point made was a good one, that the sale of firearms is necessary to have them in the home. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Leviticus 19:18: ... but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.
The government is on everybody’s mind right right now, or so it seems. Obama became the president of the United States only three months ago. His election was seemingly followed by much of the world and he impressed many.
Yet now we have senators who are trying to figure out how much they should distance themselves from him so that they can get reelected. There has already been a demonstration called a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party that conservative estimates place at 3/4 of a million people. This is only half of one percent of the number of voters in 2008, but there are many people who will not yet attend a protest or who were unable to get off of work. Then again, it turns out that the Department of Homeland Security considers attendants to be terrorists.
Anyway, my main point for this post is not to go after Obama. After all, Bush signed the first bailout bill with support from both Obama and McCain. If you are looking for a scapegoat, look at yourself.
Government serves a purpose. You find the basic supporting ideas for it immediately after the flood. Take a look at Genesis 9:6:
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
In order for this to work, people have to be together in groups of some sort or another. There is some debate over whether families should be the avenger of blood and over other logistics, but there is a rudimentary idea that some collective governing is required because of our fallen state.
I, personally, think that the higher a government gets the less power it should wield. The people at the local level have a much better idea of how they want their community run than someone a couple thousand miles away. The reasoning for that will wait for another post. Basically what I am saying is that anarchism is out. Why? People have a hard time getting along sometimes. The problem with this is that we ought to do our best to get along as well as we can with others. If everyone did that, there would be no need for government at all. Unfortunately there is always someone who refuses to do this. So we run into another problem: How much should the government do? This is the million dollar question that people everywhere have always argued. Let’s assume, for the purpose of this post, that people have fallen into the trap of expecting the government to protect them from their own failures. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is it written that they should be, but let’s say they have gotten this into their heads anyway. What would be the outcome? That protection would have to come from the resources of others, which makes sense because it is where the protection from others comes from. It is the only source that government has. As people come to expect that safety net to be there, they begin to rely on it more. See my last post about how the soles of your shoes cause you to walk differently than if you were barefoot. We instinctively modify our plans based on the cushion or padding available. With more time we become more reliant on that backup plan until we are wholly reliant on it. Surprise, surprise. The biggest government spending right now is to protect us from ourselves. The bailouts are the obvious one that everyone is decrying right now. The argument is that the people can’t run a business and are being bailed out with taxpayer money in an attempt to protect the employees. That isn’t quite true. If you look around for a few minutes, you will find that the government required many of the loans that gave way in the first wave of these recent problems. If you get a chance, read up on Affirmative Action. I know people that have had to fill out a lot more documentation because they passed over a black person than a white person for a promotion. Affirmative Action sounds good (and I am far from being a racist!) but it encourages discrimination in the opposite direction. Many of the people who could not repay their loans were approved anyway. Once this ruse began to fall, so did house prices. Nobody wants to lose their home, but what do you do if you owe more on a house than it is worth? While your food and gas prices are going up? For most people their actions were driven by necessity. But I digress. Our reliance on government has become a self-fueling problem. While everyone else is complaining about the bailouts, why don’t we take a look at the other major expenditures of the government. Our military, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid… and the expenses are expected to keep going up. Military? Isn’t that a good thing? That I will leave for another post. We definitely need a military but what their duties really are might surprise you if you read through the Constitution. We’ve created a lot of threats and then stepped up to meet them. There isn’t an easy answer or solution to this one. Come to think of it, there isn’t an easy answer to any of these. This brings me back to the initial point. How can we say that we love everyone when we vote the money of other men into our own pockets with social security and these other programs? Has the government replaced God and common sense for us? If things are to turn around, you and I have to resolve to do our part rather than expect our share.
Do running shoes hurt your feet?
This morning in the news there was an interesting article on running and how shoes affect it:
Runners wearing top-of-the-line trainers are 123 per cent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap ones. This was discovered as far back as 1989, according to a study led by Dr Bernard Marti, the leading preventative-medicine specialist at Switzerland’s University of Bern.
But surely we’ve improved in the last twenty years, right? Not really. Here’s why:
For decades, Dr. Hartma has been watching the explosion of ever more structured running shoes with dismay. ‘Pronation has become this very bad word, but it’s just the natural movement of the foot,’ he says. ‘The foot is supposed to pronate.’
To see pronation in action, kick off your shoes and run down the driveway. On a hard surface, your feet will automatically shift to self defence mode: you’ll find yourself landing on the outside edge of your foot, then gently rolling from little toe over to big until your foot is flat. That’s pronation - a mild, shock absorbing twist that allows your arch to compress.
Now this is truly amusing. This explains the way that I walk as well as run when barefoot and I’ve had friends complain about it. Now I feel vindicated.
Read the rest of the article! It is well worth the time. The author explains some of the history behind the jogging craze and how one of the Nike founders created it. Our nation probably needed the reminder to get out and exercise more but there is a conflict of interest.