I know...it's a cheap post...but it is WORTH it!
http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html
If the link does not work...copy it and paste it in your address box.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
I'll Clear It Up for You
I know you're just confused.
So...
I'll clear it up for you.
Whatever you've been told.
Whatever you may think.
This is the way it is:
History will tell whether or not he was right,
but right or wrong
GET THIS STRAIGHT
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH
is
NOT
the
E N E M Y!
The
TERRORISTS
are
the
E N E M Y!!
And if you think otherwise,
you are
(whether deliberately or not)
on their side!
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
On Being Christian
In the September 2006 issue of National Geographic magazine there is an interview of Alaa Al Aswany, author of The Yacoubian Building, the best selling novel in the Middle East.
According to National Geographic, Dr. Al Aswany is a dentist and a self-described expert on the American way of life.
The interviewer, Karen M. Kostyal, quotes Dr. Al Aswany as saying, "...I was born Muslim, so I am Muslim. If I had been born Christian, I would have been Christian.
There are hundreds of thousands of people who think this way. Their reasoning is: I am not Muslim, I am not Buddhist, I am not a follower of Confucius, nor am I Hare Krishna, and I am not an atheist, so I must be a Christian.
That demonstrates a total intellectual ignorance of what a Christian is.
I am surprised that a man so brilliant and revered as Dr. Al Aswany is so unaware.
One does not become a Christian either by being "born a Christian," or by proclamation. (If one proclaims oneself a space scientist, that does not make him a space scientist.)
A Christian is a follower of Christ.
But more than that.
A Christian is a person who has recognized the sovereign God as perfect and as one who cannot even look upon imperfection, let alone blatant sin.
A Christian is one who has then recognized that he/she is therefore a sinner, along with everyone ever born, and has no hope of being in God's presence, never mind living eternally in Heaven.
He/she further recognizes that that sinful state earns eternal death, separation from God for eternity in a place we call "Hell," from which there is no escape, and where there is eternal torment like a blazing furnace forever...a place where Heaven can be seen, but not reached, and where he/she is eternally alone (not partying with his/her friends, as some purport).
A Christian is a sinner who has confessed that Jesus is Lord (technically the second person of the Godhead, which we call the Trinity, hence: Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and who believes that God has raised Him from the dead.
A Christian has placed his/her trust in the fact that Jesus went to the cross of Calvary willingly, and there fulfilled all of the requirements of God's moral Law on his/her behalf, leaving no sin-debt to be paid.
One cannot assume the Christianity of his/her parents, but must enter into a relationship with God in a personal way.
All of this information is found in God's Word, both the Living Word (Christ) and the written Word, The Bible.
There is no further revelation either required or appropriate.
Christianity is very narrow.
Jesus, Himself, told us that the life-path that leads to eternal destruction is very wide and lots of people are on it.
He further said that the path to eternal life is very narrow and few people find it.
Christianity is not about behavior, it is about being given an eternal relationship with God through faith in Christ.
If one is focused on Jesus, behavior will take care of itself.
I am astonished that a person as brilliant as Mr. Al Aswany has never learned this about what a Christian is.
It is my prayer that he will read this post and come to accept the claims of Christ on his life and become a Christian, not based on where he was born, but when he was born again.
I will pray to this end.
But I will not hold my breath.
According to National Geographic, Dr. Al Aswany is a dentist and a self-described expert on the American way of life.
The interviewer, Karen M. Kostyal, quotes Dr. Al Aswany as saying, "...I was born Muslim, so I am Muslim. If I had been born Christian, I would have been Christian.
There are hundreds of thousands of people who think this way. Their reasoning is: I am not Muslim, I am not Buddhist, I am not a follower of Confucius, nor am I Hare Krishna, and I am not an atheist, so I must be a Christian.
That demonstrates a total intellectual ignorance of what a Christian is.
I am surprised that a man so brilliant and revered as Dr. Al Aswany is so unaware.
One does not become a Christian either by being "born a Christian," or by proclamation. (If one proclaims oneself a space scientist, that does not make him a space scientist.)
A Christian is a follower of Christ.
But more than that.
A Christian is a person who has recognized the sovereign God as perfect and as one who cannot even look upon imperfection, let alone blatant sin.
A Christian is one who has then recognized that he/she is therefore a sinner, along with everyone ever born, and has no hope of being in God's presence, never mind living eternally in Heaven.
He/she further recognizes that that sinful state earns eternal death, separation from God for eternity in a place we call "Hell," from which there is no escape, and where there is eternal torment like a blazing furnace forever...a place where Heaven can be seen, but not reached, and where he/she is eternally alone (not partying with his/her friends, as some purport).
A Christian is a sinner who has confessed that Jesus is Lord (technically the second person of the Godhead, which we call the Trinity, hence: Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and who believes that God has raised Him from the dead.
A Christian has placed his/her trust in the fact that Jesus went to the cross of Calvary willingly, and there fulfilled all of the requirements of God's moral Law on his/her behalf, leaving no sin-debt to be paid.
One cannot assume the Christianity of his/her parents, but must enter into a relationship with God in a personal way.
All of this information is found in God's Word, both the Living Word (Christ) and the written Word, The Bible.
There is no further revelation either required or appropriate.
Christianity is very narrow.
Jesus, Himself, told us that the life-path that leads to eternal destruction is very wide and lots of people are on it.
He further said that the path to eternal life is very narrow and few people find it.
Christianity is not about behavior, it is about being given an eternal relationship with God through faith in Christ.
If one is focused on Jesus, behavior will take care of itself.
I am astonished that a person as brilliant as Mr. Al Aswany has never learned this about what a Christian is.
It is my prayer that he will read this post and come to accept the claims of Christ on his life and become a Christian, not based on where he was born, but when he was born again.
I will pray to this end.
But I will not hold my breath.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
E Pluribus Unum
The United States of America has had, and still has, several mottos.
How many of you knew that?
In 1782, Congress approved "E Pluribus Unum" as the motto to be engraved on the first Great Seal of America.
It was originally proposed by Pierre Eugene DuSimitiere, who was a "Swiss-American," even though there was no such thing as a hyphenated American in those days.
"E" is actually Latin for "out of," or "from."
"Pluribus" is Latin for "many."
"Unum" means "one."
So the motto means: "From among many, one."
How often have you heard the United States of America referred to as "a melting pot."
This is where the idea comes from.
Regrettably, we have spent the last twenty or so years turning this around.
A melting pot is a large metal container in which one places two or more elements which are heated until they melt together making one substance, no part of which bears any resemblance to the original elements placed in the pot.
For instance, if one puts candle wax in a pot with food coloring, the result is a candle, not two separate hunks of wax and color.
That is what we are supposed to be, as a nation.
We are not to be Mexicans, Italians, Frenchmen, Irishmen, Iranians, Latvians, Ugandans and others, all living in their diverse cultures in one country, rather we are supposed to be an amalgamation of different cultures into one great culture called "Americans."
When my ancestors migrated to this country, some from Russia, they did not form a Russian neighborhood, with Russian culture, Russian language, Russian schools, etc.
No, they learned the English language, moved south, set up shops and learned how to melt and meld into a unified society.
My Irish ancestors, likewise moved south, set up shops and learned how to melt and meld into a unified society.
One of the ways they melded was through inter-marriage...with each other!
Otherwise, I would not be here.
Some might have preferred this.
But I digress.
"E Pluribus Unum" has, by design, 13 letters in it, representing the original 13 colonies.
Did you know that congress also approved three other mottos, which remain to this day?
They are: "Annuit Coeptis," which means, "God Favors Our Beginning," "Novus Ordo Seclorum," which means, "A New Order of the Ages," and "In God We Trust," which means, "In God We Trust."
The latter was adopted by Congress in 1956 under Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 3, Section 302 of the Congressional Record.
It is the law of the land.
See, that we are to be a united nation, not a nation of diverse cultures, is the reason we call ourselves "The United States of America.
The first job of our government, including Senators like John McAinus and Lindsay Graham-Cracker, is to take steps to insure that we are UNITED.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect state of cultural diversity..." is NOT a part of our Constitution's preamble.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." IS.
How many of you knew that?
In 1782, Congress approved "E Pluribus Unum" as the motto to be engraved on the first Great Seal of America.
It was originally proposed by Pierre Eugene DuSimitiere, who was a "Swiss-American," even though there was no such thing as a hyphenated American in those days.
"E" is actually Latin for "out of," or "from."
"Pluribus" is Latin for "many."
"Unum" means "one."
So the motto means: "From among many, one."
How often have you heard the United States of America referred to as "a melting pot."
This is where the idea comes from.
Regrettably, we have spent the last twenty or so years turning this around.
A melting pot is a large metal container in which one places two or more elements which are heated until they melt together making one substance, no part of which bears any resemblance to the original elements placed in the pot.
For instance, if one puts candle wax in a pot with food coloring, the result is a candle, not two separate hunks of wax and color.
That is what we are supposed to be, as a nation.
We are not to be Mexicans, Italians, Frenchmen, Irishmen, Iranians, Latvians, Ugandans and others, all living in their diverse cultures in one country, rather we are supposed to be an amalgamation of different cultures into one great culture called "Americans."
When my ancestors migrated to this country, some from Russia, they did not form a Russian neighborhood, with Russian culture, Russian language, Russian schools, etc.
No, they learned the English language, moved south, set up shops and learned how to melt and meld into a unified society.
My Irish ancestors, likewise moved south, set up shops and learned how to melt and meld into a unified society.
One of the ways they melded was through inter-marriage...with each other!
Otherwise, I would not be here.
Some might have preferred this.
But I digress.
"E Pluribus Unum" has, by design, 13 letters in it, representing the original 13 colonies.
Did you know that congress also approved three other mottos, which remain to this day?
They are: "Annuit Coeptis," which means, "God Favors Our Beginning," "Novus Ordo Seclorum," which means, "A New Order of the Ages," and "In God We Trust," which means, "In God We Trust."
The latter was adopted by Congress in 1956 under Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 3, Section 302 of the Congressional Record.
It is the law of the land.
See, that we are to be a united nation, not a nation of diverse cultures, is the reason we call ourselves "The United States of America.
The first job of our government, including Senators like John McAinus and Lindsay Graham-Cracker, is to take steps to insure that we are UNITED.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect state of cultural diversity..." is NOT a part of our Constitution's preamble.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." IS.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Peaceful Islam and the Pope
The Pope made a speech.
According to Reuters:
"In that speech, the Pope appeared to endorse a Christian view, contested by most Muslims, that the early Muslims spread their religion by violence. Islamic fury erupted on Thursday and has cast doubt on a visit the Pope plans to Turkey in November."
I actually read the entire text of the speech, which was pretty boring.
He quoted erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus in 1391.
Here is the part of the quote that has caused so much trouble: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
Islam was offended.
To prove how wrong the Pope was, they staged violent protests, bombed three churches, demanded an apology and threatened to get even.
Now I know, in my own mind, absolutely, positively, without any doubt, by Islam's own behavior, with 100% certainty that Manuel II Paleologus, quoted by the Pope, was right.
According to Reuters:
"In that speech, the Pope appeared to endorse a Christian view, contested by most Muslims, that the early Muslims spread their religion by violence. Islamic fury erupted on Thursday and has cast doubt on a visit the Pope plans to Turkey in November."
I actually read the entire text of the speech, which was pretty boring.
He quoted erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus in 1391.
Here is the part of the quote that has caused so much trouble: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
Islam was offended.
To prove how wrong the Pope was, they staged violent protests, bombed three churches, demanded an apology and threatened to get even.
Now I know, in my own mind, absolutely, positively, without any doubt, by Islam's own behavior, with 100% certainty that Manuel II Paleologus, quoted by the Pope, was right.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Grrrrreat!
Subject: Mother of the Year
In a zoo in California, a mother tiger gave birth to a rare set of triplet tiger cubs.
Unfortunately, due to complications in the pregnancy, the cubs were born prematurely and due to their tiny size, they died shortly after birth.
The mother tiger after recovering from the delivery, suddenly started to decline in health, although physically she was fine.
The veterinarians felt that the loss of her litter had caused the tigress to fall into a depression.
The doctors decided that if the tigress could surrogate another mother's cubs, perhaps she would improve.
After checking with many other zoos across the country, the depressing news was that there were no tiger cubs of the right age to introduce to the mourning mother.
The veterinarians decided to try something that had never been tried in a zoo environment.
Sometimes a mother of one species will take on the care of adifferent species.
The only orphans that could be found quickly, were a litter of weaner pigs.
The zoo keepers and vets wrapped the piglets in tiger skin and placed the babies around the mother tiger.
Would they become cubs or porkchops??
Take a look!!
In a zoo in California, a mother tiger gave birth to a rare set of triplet tiger cubs.
Unfortunately, due to complications in the pregnancy, the cubs were born prematurely and due to their tiny size, they died shortly after birth.
The mother tiger after recovering from the delivery, suddenly started to decline in health, although physically she was fine.
The veterinarians felt that the loss of her litter had caused the tigress to fall into a depression.
The doctors decided that if the tigress could surrogate another mother's cubs, perhaps she would improve.
After checking with many other zoos across the country, the depressing news was that there were no tiger cubs of the right age to introduce to the mourning mother.
The veterinarians decided to try something that had never been tried in a zoo environment.
Sometimes a mother of one species will take on the care of adifferent species.
The only orphans that could be found quickly, were a litter of weaner pigs.
The zoo keepers and vets wrapped the piglets in tiger skin and placed the babies around the mother tiger.
Would they become cubs or porkchops??
Take a look!!
Monday, September 11, 2006
REMEMBER
When you say 9/11, everybody knows that you are referencing a day in history.
We all know that two airplanes flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center.
We all know that one airplane flew into the Pentagon.
And we all know that one plane crashed trying to hit another target, but we're not certain what that target was.
What was 9/11, really?
Today, the major media treat 9/11 as though it was some kind of natural disaster, like hurricane Katrina.
Let me point out that, despite early estimates that thousands of people had died in Katrina, the actual numbers were very, very low.
One word you almost NEVER hear on ABC,CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and the others is the word, "terrorists."
But 9/11 was a vicious, unprovoked act of agression against The United States of America, not by another sovereign nation (that would have made things easy), but by a diverse group of men who aligned themselves with a world-wide ring of self-proclaimed followers of "Allah," whose avowed goal in life is to distroy our nation.
It was an act of war.
By terrorists.
If we are not diligent, it will happen again, because these people have not changed their goal.
Thankfully, so far, we have been diligent.
I have heard Democratractors proclaim that we are not safer today than we were before 9/11.
That must be because of all of the subsequent attacts we have suffered since then.
Or maybe it is because we have caught so many terrorists BEFORE they could perpitrate their dastardly deeds.
They conclude that the fact that they were caught makes us less safe.
Wierd thinking. Very wierd.
How much better it would be if we would unite against these radical Islamofacists.
United we can accomplish much.
Divided we will be overcome.
Unity requires a concious effort to put aside self-agrandisement, self-centeredness, self-ambition and selfishness, and to work together to accomplish a mutually beneficial task, in this case, the defeat of these terrorists.
We could sit down with them, find out what they want, give it to them and hope they will go away.
But what we will find out is that what they want is for anyone who subscribes to the American way of life to be dead.
Are we willing to give them that?
I'm not.
And now I would like to remember on of our citizens, who did nothing to the terrorists, but who died in the attack on America at the World Trade Center.
I know nothing about him, but I don't need to.
He was an American, and he did not deserve to die that day.
We all know that two airplanes flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center.
We all know that one airplane flew into the Pentagon.
And we all know that one plane crashed trying to hit another target, but we're not certain what that target was.
What was 9/11, really?
Today, the major media treat 9/11 as though it was some kind of natural disaster, like hurricane Katrina.
Let me point out that, despite early estimates that thousands of people had died in Katrina, the actual numbers were very, very low.
One word you almost NEVER hear on ABC,CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and the others is the word, "terrorists."
But 9/11 was a vicious, unprovoked act of agression against The United States of America, not by another sovereign nation (that would have made things easy), but by a diverse group of men who aligned themselves with a world-wide ring of self-proclaimed followers of "Allah," whose avowed goal in life is to distroy our nation.
It was an act of war.
By terrorists.
If we are not diligent, it will happen again, because these people have not changed their goal.
Thankfully, so far, we have been diligent.
I have heard Democratractors proclaim that we are not safer today than we were before 9/11.
That must be because of all of the subsequent attacts we have suffered since then.
Or maybe it is because we have caught so many terrorists BEFORE they could perpitrate their dastardly deeds.
They conclude that the fact that they were caught makes us less safe.
Wierd thinking. Very wierd.
How much better it would be if we would unite against these radical Islamofacists.
United we can accomplish much.
Divided we will be overcome.
Unity requires a concious effort to put aside self-agrandisement, self-centeredness, self-ambition and selfishness, and to work together to accomplish a mutually beneficial task, in this case, the defeat of these terrorists.
We could sit down with them, find out what they want, give it to them and hope they will go away.
But what we will find out is that what they want is for anyone who subscribes to the American way of life to be dead.
Are we willing to give them that?
I'm not.
And now I would like to remember on of our citizens, who did nothing to the terrorists, but who died in the attack on America at the World Trade Center.
I know nothing about him, but I don't need to.
He was an American, and he did not deserve to die that day.
Ernest James, age 40.
Place killed: World Trade Center.
Place killed: World Trade Center.
Resident of New York, N.Y. (USA).
May God grant that we never allow such a thing to happen again.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Who IS This Guy?
Who is William Jefferson Clinton?
ABC has been promoting a mini-series set to run Sunday and Monday night of this week.
It is about the things that led up to 9/11.
It is not complementary of either the Clinton or the Bush administration.
Because there were more Clinton years leading up to 9/11 than Bush years, naturally there is (purportedly - I have not seen the film...few have, not even Clinton) more about Clinton's failure to "connect the dots" than Bush's.
Seemingly intent on preserving his legacy (whatever that is), William Jefferson Clinton assembled a group of Democrat congresspersons to write ABC insinuating that if they don't edit the program in accordance with their perspective, the broadcast licenses of ABC's chain of stations might be in jeapordy.
HOW DARE HE?
What on earth makes him think he has ANY, I mean ANY right to tell ABC or any other media group to edit, change or pull "The Pathway to Nine Eleven," the ABC mini-series?
I mean even if every word of it was false, he still has no right to demand such a thing.
Yet, he threatens ABC with the withholding of their broadcast license, and by implication, threatened the license of every other broadcaster with respect to their licenses.
Who is he, anyway?
I'll tell you who he is. He is a citizen. Just like me.
He used to be President, but he is not President any more.
As much as I deplore the way ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and even FOX news handle stories with unabashed bias, it is absolutely despicable that he would dare even THINK that it is alright for him to do such a thing.
If he wants to write a letter to them expressing his disapproval of this or that, as I do from time to time, that's A-OK.
But to threaten them?
Beyond the pale!
Way beyond.
It makes me think those accusations against WJ when he was governor of Arkansas and while he was preparing his run for the presidency were true after all.
I saw him on one of the morning talk shows today.
When asked why he pressured ABC to make the changes, his answer was "I don't want there to be any lies in that film."
Newsflash!
Films lie all the time...even so-called "docu-dramas."
The Michael Moore film, "Fahrenheit 911," lied about George Bush.
Nobody tried to have it quashed.
Lot's of talk shows commented negatively about it. But nobody called Michael Moore and threatened him with anything if he did not edit it or pull it.
NOBODY!
I will tell you this: This is the most egregious afront to the First Amendment in over 100 years.
If you can't understand that, you have NO idea what America is about. NONE.
If you are benefiting from the rights of citizenship in this country, with First Amendment rights given to the likes of the ACLU, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and other anti-Americans, and you cannot see how evil and dangerous this action is, you just don't understand American citizenship.
But then, William Jefferson Clinton is an evil man.
So are those who sided with him to try to interrupt the artistic license of ABC with regard to making "The Pathway to Nine Eleven."
The following is my opinion.
It is right, but it is my opinion.
I will now exercise my First Amendment right to freedom of expression by stating my opinion.
William Jefferson Clinton is worse than the most aggressive Mafia boss.
He is a low-down, stinking, anti-American skunk.
He is actually MUCH lower than that, but I can't use such vulgar words on this blog.
Mr. Clinton, I challenge you to get together with some of your Congressional cronies and threaten me with something for having stated my opinion about you in a public forum, the blogosphere.
Maybe you could threaten to have my driver's license confiscated.
Well, why not just repeat some of your Arkansas tricks and hire someone to hire someone who can find somebody to have me snuffed.
After all, who would that surprise?
Not only would it not surprise anybody, your supporters would actually agree that it should be done.
So, goodbye cruel world!
I won't be around to bug you much longer!
William Jefferson Clinton will see to that.
Who IS this guy, anyway?
ABC has been promoting a mini-series set to run Sunday and Monday night of this week.
It is about the things that led up to 9/11.
It is not complementary of either the Clinton or the Bush administration.
Because there were more Clinton years leading up to 9/11 than Bush years, naturally there is (purportedly - I have not seen the film...few have, not even Clinton) more about Clinton's failure to "connect the dots" than Bush's.
Seemingly intent on preserving his legacy (whatever that is), William Jefferson Clinton assembled a group of Democrat congresspersons to write ABC insinuating that if they don't edit the program in accordance with their perspective, the broadcast licenses of ABC's chain of stations might be in jeapordy.
HOW DARE HE?
What on earth makes him think he has ANY, I mean ANY right to tell ABC or any other media group to edit, change or pull "The Pathway to Nine Eleven," the ABC mini-series?
I mean even if every word of it was false, he still has no right to demand such a thing.
Yet, he threatens ABC with the withholding of their broadcast license, and by implication, threatened the license of every other broadcaster with respect to their licenses.
Who is he, anyway?
I'll tell you who he is. He is a citizen. Just like me.
He used to be President, but he is not President any more.
As much as I deplore the way ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and even FOX news handle stories with unabashed bias, it is absolutely despicable that he would dare even THINK that it is alright for him to do such a thing.
If he wants to write a letter to them expressing his disapproval of this or that, as I do from time to time, that's A-OK.
But to threaten them?
Beyond the pale!
Way beyond.
It makes me think those accusations against WJ when he was governor of Arkansas and while he was preparing his run for the presidency were true after all.
I saw him on one of the morning talk shows today.
When asked why he pressured ABC to make the changes, his answer was "I don't want there to be any lies in that film."
Newsflash!
Films lie all the time...even so-called "docu-dramas."
The Michael Moore film, "Fahrenheit 911," lied about George Bush.
Nobody tried to have it quashed.
Lot's of talk shows commented negatively about it. But nobody called Michael Moore and threatened him with anything if he did not edit it or pull it.
NOBODY!
I will tell you this: This is the most egregious afront to the First Amendment in over 100 years.
If you can't understand that, you have NO idea what America is about. NONE.
If you are benefiting from the rights of citizenship in this country, with First Amendment rights given to the likes of the ACLU, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and other anti-Americans, and you cannot see how evil and dangerous this action is, you just don't understand American citizenship.
But then, William Jefferson Clinton is an evil man.
So are those who sided with him to try to interrupt the artistic license of ABC with regard to making "The Pathway to Nine Eleven."
The following is my opinion.
It is right, but it is my opinion.
I will now exercise my First Amendment right to freedom of expression by stating my opinion.
William Jefferson Clinton is worse than the most aggressive Mafia boss.
He is a low-down, stinking, anti-American skunk.
He is actually MUCH lower than that, but I can't use such vulgar words on this blog.
Mr. Clinton, I challenge you to get together with some of your Congressional cronies and threaten me with something for having stated my opinion about you in a public forum, the blogosphere.
Maybe you could threaten to have my driver's license confiscated.
Well, why not just repeat some of your Arkansas tricks and hire someone to hire someone who can find somebody to have me snuffed.
After all, who would that surprise?
Not only would it not surprise anybody, your supporters would actually agree that it should be done.
So, goodbye cruel world!
I won't be around to bug you much longer!
William Jefferson Clinton will see to that.
Who IS this guy, anyway?
Thursday, September 07, 2006
About Aboutness
I've noticed that much of the time people read a story and think it is about the characters and events in the story.
Most often, though, the story is OF the characters and events, but it is ABOUT something altogether different.
For example, there is the story OF the Fox and the Grapes. It's one of Aesop's Fables. (How do you do that AE thing in Blogger?)
Here it is.
"One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: 'I am sure they are sour.'"
How many of you think this is a story ABOUT a fox trying to get some grapes?
You are wrong.
It is a story OF a fox trying to get some grapes, but is is a story ABOUT covetousness...wanting something you cannot have, and since you cannot have it, thinking of it as something awful.
How do I know that?
Well, in addition to being able to draw the correct conclusion from given information, I also have Aesop's rendering of its meaning:
"It is easy to despise what you cannot get."
Many readers thought my last post was about church members being dense, or evolution or science.
It used those examples, but it was ABOUT getting the right answers to our questions from the right source.
Take the Biblical story of Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego.
How many of you think this is about three guys who disobey a king, get thrown in a furnace and survive because of their great faithfulness to God.
WRONG!
It is a story OF three guys who disobey a king, get thrown in a furnace and survive, but it is ABOUT God's faithfulness and His great mercy and grace to be with us and to save us in the midsts of our circumstances.
How about David and Goliath?
Is it about a shepherd boy who was brave and faithful to God? Is the part about him using Goliaths sword to decapitate him there to show us that David knew how to get ahead?
No.
It is a story that teaches us that when we are on God's side, He will be faithful to carry us through.
It is so very important to be able to figure out what a story or parable is really about, rather than just its characters and what happened to them.
We have, for the most part, forgotten about what we used to call the "moral" of a story...the lesson it is really designed to teach. We tend take to the story our own biases and philosophies.
Every story in God's Word is designed to teach us something about His character, His love for His creation and His plan for its redemption.
If you miss that, you may get the Biblical story right, but you will miss what it is about.
Most often, though, the story is OF the characters and events, but it is ABOUT something altogether different.
For example, there is the story OF the Fox and the Grapes. It's one of Aesop's Fables. (How do you do that AE thing in Blogger?)
Here it is.
"One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: 'I am sure they are sour.'"
How many of you think this is a story ABOUT a fox trying to get some grapes?
You are wrong.
It is a story OF a fox trying to get some grapes, but is is a story ABOUT covetousness...wanting something you cannot have, and since you cannot have it, thinking of it as something awful.
How do I know that?
Well, in addition to being able to draw the correct conclusion from given information, I also have Aesop's rendering of its meaning:
"It is easy to despise what you cannot get."
Many readers thought my last post was about church members being dense, or evolution or science.
It used those examples, but it was ABOUT getting the right answers to our questions from the right source.
Take the Biblical story of Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego.
How many of you think this is about three guys who disobey a king, get thrown in a furnace and survive because of their great faithfulness to God.
WRONG!
It is a story OF three guys who disobey a king, get thrown in a furnace and survive, but it is ABOUT God's faithfulness and His great mercy and grace to be with us and to save us in the midsts of our circumstances.
How about David and Goliath?
Is it about a shepherd boy who was brave and faithful to God? Is the part about him using Goliaths sword to decapitate him there to show us that David knew how to get ahead?
No.
It is a story that teaches us that when we are on God's side, He will be faithful to carry us through.
It is so very important to be able to figure out what a story or parable is really about, rather than just its characters and what happened to them.
We have, for the most part, forgotten about what we used to call the "moral" of a story...the lesson it is really designed to teach. We tend take to the story our own biases and philosophies.
Every story in God's Word is designed to teach us something about His character, His love for His creation and His plan for its redemption.
If you miss that, you may get the Biblical story right, but you will miss what it is about.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Whence That Idea?
It's one of my favorite questions.
"Where did you get that idea?"
The other day a church member came to me and said, "I believe God has told Hortie and me that it is OK that we are living together outside of marraige."
"Where did you get that idea?" I asked.
"It just seems to me that a forgiving God, who wants us to live in love, would not be upset by it. After all, marriage is just a formality."
"Well guess what?" I answered, "It doesn't matter what it seems to you. What matters is what it seems to God. And He has already told us what it seems to Him."
His response, "You are so legalistic!"
Many of the things we believe, we just sort of determine by the "It seems to me" method.
Other ideas we get from those who taught us.
Evolution is one of those ideas.
We are taught that, since two things look alike, or have certain characteristics, they must therefore have the same biological "ancestors."
Since we were taught that, we believe it.
Since we believe it, because we were taught it, it must be true.
But just because we were taught it, doesn't mean it's right.
Science taught me that atoms were made of a neutron, a proton and an electron.
They were wrong!
Atoms are made of much more than that.
Science taught me that they knew the mass of the universe and therefore its size its content.
Then they sent up the Hubble Space Telescope and, surprise, it is more massive than we thought and had things in it we never dreamed of.
Now Isaiah has always taught that God's right hand spans the universe.
Since the universe is bigger than we thought, God's right hand must be bigger than we thought. Therefore God, himself, is bigger than we ever imagined!
What a mighty God we serve!
Something I have noticed about "scientific" writing these days. It is full of words like "could," "might," "may," "should," "may have," and the like.
Personally, I don't think those are very scientific terms
They represent a change in the very meaning of science.
Science has always required such things as observability and repeatability.
That is no longer the case.
So, we must now ask scientists, "Where did you get that idea?"
Many of them got their ideas from other scientists and pseudo-scientists, many of whom had or have a particular agenda.
For instance, the concept of evolution, as espoused by Charles Darwin in his book, "The Origin of the Species," is based on conclusions he drew after visiting the Galapagos islands. In other words, he thought them up.
He was considered very controversial at first. But as he continued to teach his theory, a few scientists believed it, taught it to their students, some of whom then taught it to theirs and slowly the theory of natural selection and evolution became "mainstream" science.
Whether it was observable or repeatable became irrelevant. What became important was unity of scientific theory, right or wrong.
The same thing happens in theology.
One person espouses a particular theology, teaches it to his followers, who teach it to theirs and before long a "new" sect, cult or even "mainstream" denomination or faith is established.
Some even "discover" new "scriptures" or have new revelations about God.
"After all," they ask, "Can't God continue to give revelation to stuff?"
Well, God is sovereign, and can do whatever He wants.
Thing is, we don't need any new scriptures.
He has already given us all we need to know.
See, everything we need to know about God is found in the Word of God; nothing we need to know about God is not found in the Word of God; and everything we think we know about God that is not in the Word of God, we just made up.
There is nothing that needs to be added to our understanding of God's character, His nature, His love of His creation or His plan for its redemption.
The very reason that what we have as The Bible was canonized was that it was complete and its various books, as inspired to various authors, agreed with each other and needed no further revelation.
When people come up with outlandish or non-scriptural theologies, we must ask the question, "Where did you get that idea?"
The answer is always the same: they got those ideas from someone was taught that idea by someone who was taught that idea by someone who imagined that the idea was "revealed" to them.
Additionally, any, and I mean any, theological bent that does not recognize Jesus as God, Himself (not just "a god," or "a prophet of God"), manifested as The Son, and The Holy Spirit as God, the revealer and magnifier of Jesus, is a bent that has failed to learn what Scripture has to teach.
We would be better served by getting our ideas from the source, God, Himself, as revealed in His Word, not in part, but in whole.
"Where did you get that idea?"
The other day a church member came to me and said, "I believe God has told Hortie and me that it is OK that we are living together outside of marraige."
"Where did you get that idea?" I asked.
"It just seems to me that a forgiving God, who wants us to live in love, would not be upset by it. After all, marriage is just a formality."
"Well guess what?" I answered, "It doesn't matter what it seems to you. What matters is what it seems to God. And He has already told us what it seems to Him."
His response, "You are so legalistic!"
Many of the things we believe, we just sort of determine by the "It seems to me" method.
Other ideas we get from those who taught us.
Evolution is one of those ideas.
We are taught that, since two things look alike, or have certain characteristics, they must therefore have the same biological "ancestors."
Since we were taught that, we believe it.
Since we believe it, because we were taught it, it must be true.
But just because we were taught it, doesn't mean it's right.
Science taught me that atoms were made of a neutron, a proton and an electron.
They were wrong!
Atoms are made of much more than that.
Science taught me that they knew the mass of the universe and therefore its size its content.
Then they sent up the Hubble Space Telescope and, surprise, it is more massive than we thought and had things in it we never dreamed of.
Now Isaiah has always taught that God's right hand spans the universe.
Since the universe is bigger than we thought, God's right hand must be bigger than we thought. Therefore God, himself, is bigger than we ever imagined!
What a mighty God we serve!
Something I have noticed about "scientific" writing these days. It is full of words like "could," "might," "may," "should," "may have," and the like.
Personally, I don't think those are very scientific terms
They represent a change in the very meaning of science.
Science has always required such things as observability and repeatability.
That is no longer the case.
So, we must now ask scientists, "Where did you get that idea?"
Many of them got their ideas from other scientists and pseudo-scientists, many of whom had or have a particular agenda.
For instance, the concept of evolution, as espoused by Charles Darwin in his book, "The Origin of the Species," is based on conclusions he drew after visiting the Galapagos islands. In other words, he thought them up.
He was considered very controversial at first. But as he continued to teach his theory, a few scientists believed it, taught it to their students, some of whom then taught it to theirs and slowly the theory of natural selection and evolution became "mainstream" science.
Whether it was observable or repeatable became irrelevant. What became important was unity of scientific theory, right or wrong.
The same thing happens in theology.
One person espouses a particular theology, teaches it to his followers, who teach it to theirs and before long a "new" sect, cult or even "mainstream" denomination or faith is established.
Some even "discover" new "scriptures" or have new revelations about God.
"After all," they ask, "Can't God continue to give revelation to stuff?"
Well, God is sovereign, and can do whatever He wants.
Thing is, we don't need any new scriptures.
He has already given us all we need to know.
See, everything we need to know about God is found in the Word of God; nothing we need to know about God is not found in the Word of God; and everything we think we know about God that is not in the Word of God, we just made up.
There is nothing that needs to be added to our understanding of God's character, His nature, His love of His creation or His plan for its redemption.
The very reason that what we have as The Bible was canonized was that it was complete and its various books, as inspired to various authors, agreed with each other and needed no further revelation.
When people come up with outlandish or non-scriptural theologies, we must ask the question, "Where did you get that idea?"
The answer is always the same: they got those ideas from someone was taught that idea by someone who was taught that idea by someone who imagined that the idea was "revealed" to them.
Additionally, any, and I mean any, theological bent that does not recognize Jesus as God, Himself (not just "a god," or "a prophet of God"), manifested as The Son, and The Holy Spirit as God, the revealer and magnifier of Jesus, is a bent that has failed to learn what Scripture has to teach.
We would be better served by getting our ideas from the source, God, Himself, as revealed in His Word, not in part, but in whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
