When I’m operating under restrictions, I definitely feel constrained by them, but without those restraints, it doesn’t seem as if I my actions are actually accomplishing anything.

…the Net truly is vast and infinite. Who knows, maybe a new society we’ve never even dreamed of is already being born

I greatly enjoy Japanese anime. There is a lot about it, like many of their movies, that shows that the Japanese culture is trying to work through the entirety of its history through art (which kind of reminds me of Timothy Zahn’s Grand Admiral Thrawn). I just watched Ghost in the Shell: Solid State Society on NetFlix.

In this movie, a group of solitary elderly people are recruited to run a network to save this future world of Japan. The funny thing is that I watched it as an idea had been coalescing in my head about the future of Earth governments and societies and cultures, and the elderly were the key. I’m thinking about writing a few short stories about it, but who knows if they will ever see paper or web.

The first quote brought a question to mind: if we break down all the barriers (whether they be social, political, religious, scientific, genetic, etc.), what will we (the human race) do? What will be our purpose?

The second quote is something that people try to define as Web 2.0 or Web 3.0 (or whatever name you want to give it. I could care less what its name is.)―the future. I think the church―humanity as a whole―is still trying to absorb what has been wrought in the realm of mass communication (even communications as unimportant and ineffectual as my blog).

Just like everyone else, I have a fear of the unknown. What will the future hold?

In Rediscovering Sabbath Rest, Mark Early brings further attention to the “Secular Sabbath” that seems to be gaining steam in the secular world.

As I mentioned in What? Me, Unplug?, I know I should try this myself. I’m always plugged in, even on Sunday.

I remember years ago hearing about how even non-devout Christian families would do all their chores on Saturday, even food preparation, so that Sunday would be wholly devoted to God. I freely acknowledge that I discredited their ideals at the time. I am not so quick to do so now.

February 9, 2008 · Technological Enervation, faith, history, love, society, technology · Comments Off

In Telephones and What is Good for Us, Randy Cooper writes about the Amish. My big takeaway was this:

It took all summer for them to decide whether they would have phones. They finally decided against it. And they had two reasons. First, they knew that if they began to use telephones, they would carry out conversations less and less in a face to face manner. Second, if they had telephones, they feared that their children would begin talking more and more exclusively to one another. The decision about telephones was made in light of what was good for the community and for the human word.

As much as I love computers, the Internet, and technology as a whole (although, I’m still not all that fond of phones), I strongly empathize with the Amish here. We strive to create social connections on the Internet, because we seem to have forgotten the ones in our immediate vicinity.

February 9, 2008 · economics, ethics and morals, faith, history, politics, society · Comments Off

A politician, like you and me, can be generous only with his own money. A politician spending other people’s money is, at best, implementing sound policies – and, more realistically, much closer to a burglar who “generously” uses part of his booty to buy rounds of drinks for his buddies.

Cafe Hayek: Who’s Generous?

Don Boudreaux wrote the above on the Cafe Hayek blog on the 7th of February. Obviously, there was some sort of back-and-forth at the Baltimore-Sun, especially with all the posts that follow that, frankly, seem to have nothing to do with the letter itself.

I’ve pretty much decided that while I care about politics, I don’t care enough to blog about it. However, while this is somewhat political (especially with all the comments), in truth, this really should be a pretty good observation.

Whether the public trough or the church’s through, one cannot be generous with what isn’t one’s own. In the church, this causes a lot of tension. We in the church say that all Creation is God’s. That being the case, can we truly generous if it is God’s? Or is this saying that something is God’s is someone’s idea of getting people to tithe?

Just something to ponder.

Father Edward T. Oakes has written an awesome piece on the First Things blog, Atheism and Violence. It is a long hard read, but very worthwhile.

This addresses a number of posts I’ve made, most recently in The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost, and should, I think address Allen’s point in his comment on that post.

It boils down to this, when one removes the pillars or the glue that hold a particular society together, make sure that you replace it with something specific, otherwise a mess will ensue.

hat tip to: Roberto Rivera @ The Point

February 5, 2008 · faith, history · Comments Off

…most Christians do not understand what they believe, why they believe it, and why it matters. How can a Christianity that is not understood be practiced?

Unity in Diversity

Chuck Colson, no matter how you may feel about him and his past, has made an excellent point here. This goes directly toward the heart of much of my concern regarding the “emerging church” movement, and, frankly, the recognizable decline of the “mainstream” denominations. If you do not understand the basics of the faith, how can you discern the lies and the misdirection that can lead you away from God?

Of course, being obsessed with theology can also lead one astray.

A bunch of drunk teenagers vandalized a site once inhabited by the American poet Robert Frost. In A Violation of Both Law and the Spirit, Dan Barry seems offended that these, for lack of a better word, punks didn’t show respect to history or elders.

These punks are a direct result of a bunch of people who didn’t respect history or authority teaching them. Why are they surprised? The generation that is entering and leaving colleges now is filled with higher percentage of “entitlement” mentality people than probably has ever existed before at one time. They have the mentality of the old aristocracy, and all too often lack of responsibility.

I wish I could say that I’m surprised that those like Dan Barry are surprised, but I’m not. Nor am I, obviously, surprised at the behavior of these punks. People such as myself, Bible-believing Christians, are often ridiculed, even by our friends, for our concerns about trying (although we often—even usually—fail) to align with a Biblically based life. If people were honest, how could a Biblically (read: New Testament, and not forced conversion) be worse than this?

December 5, 2007 · economics, environment, ethics and morals, faith, history, love, politics, society · Comments Off

Insurance companies are pushing hard for for peopl to take care of themselves with various wellness initiatives. For men, on of the biggest is marriage:

Marriage Could Save Your Life
hattip to:The Point

Marriage is also good for the environment

However, there are a few downsides.

Mercifully, God has granted me a wonderful marriage to a wonderful wife, so I’m not concerned about the downsides personally. With all the upheaval and lances aimed at (traditional) marriage, society had better start paying attention.

I freely acknowledge that for a certain branch of the family, I am the red sheep (not the black sheep) of the family. I also suspect that my faith in Jesus Christ plays a greater roll in my life than the lives of others in my family (this is neither red nor blue). That being said, I don’t try to proselytize my family, either in politics or religion.

Politics have taken a very destructive turn in the United States. I was wondering if that means we are going to make a breakthrough of some sort towards some gilded age, or if everything is going to come crashing down around our ears (Oddly enough, there are probably even numbers on the blue and red sides saying the crash is coming. Oh, dear, they agree on something.)

It has gotten to a point that constructive dialog is almost impossible. We are no longer red, white, and blue, but red or blue, or at least people keep trying to shove everyone into the little cubbyholes. It is truly something to think that someone as polarizing as Newt Gingrich was as Speaker, can be the voice of moderation now. I just shake my head in disbelief.

This all brings me to a commentary by Nancy Morgan, My Mother is a Feminist ( archived copy ). This commentary is a snapshot of the discord and disconnect going on right now. While I can offer no advice to Nancy or her mother, I can ask of everyone, is this really what we want to be? Because this is where we are headed.

November 14, 2007 · business, economics, education, history, politics · Comments Off

In Me and Ron Paul and The Dollar is Falling! The Dollar is Falling!, I discussed central banking and the currency base.

However, in 800 Dollar Gold in Plain English ( archived copy ), Jerry Bowyer adds a little more to the discussion. His primary point is that the theories being pushed in support of returning to a gold (or silver or whatever) are not nearly as robust as they seem, especially in light of recent history. Some of his comments echo mine in Me and Ron Paul, but mine were more gut feel than anything else.

Of course, the problem with Jerry Bowyer’s commentary is that begs the question, what to do? Who knows? However, I think the major point is that we cannot blindly assume that what seems to have worked in the past actually did, and that it will work for the future.

That all being said, the U.S. trade deficit is definitely an issue. We can’t keep sending money out (whether to China for our manufactured goods, or Mexico, Venezuela, or the Middle East for our oil). A lot of countries have been putting money back into the U.S., because we have historically had a stable currency. That is not the case now.

On the other hand, maybe this is a good thing for domestic manufacturing, especially with all the toy recalls recently. Perhaps companies will finally look at the U.S. as a valid source. The U.S. must continue to excel in changing things for the better. As long as we do, it will all work out in the end.