Starlyth Blogs!

Be Not Afraid

Starlyth — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 19:19:57 +0000

¹ Six days later Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them to the top of a very high mountain. ² He was transformed in front of them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as light.

³ Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Jesus. ⁴ Peter reacted to all of this by saying to Jesus, “Lord, it’s good that we’re here. If you want, I’ll make three shrines: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

⁵ While he was still speaking, look, a bright cloud overshadowed them. A voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son whom I dearly love. I am very pleased with him. Listen to him!” ⁶ Hearing this, the disciples fell on their faces, filled with awe.

⁷ But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” ⁸ When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

⁹ As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Don’t tell anybody about the vision until the Human One is raised from the dead.”

Matthew 17:1-9 (CEB)

The above is the story of the Transfiguration, and it is often spoken of as an example of Jesus’ divinity. What struck me today was not the divinity of Jesus, but personableness of Jesus. The historic separation between God and Creation (even his treasured people, the Israelites) is pretty straightforward when on reads Exodus 19:18-25. The people (with exceptions) are to not even approach the metaphorical throne of God. We see God here as a distant God. When one comes face-to-face with God, as Moses did in Exodus 34:29-35, one is profoundly (and in Moses’ case, physically as well) changed, that separation is desired by those who have not been so touched, and graced, by God’s changing presence. In fact, in some ways, there seems to be a quiet desperation in the Israelites that says, Moses, you go take care of that God fellow. We’ll just stay here…away from Him…and you, by extension.

The three Apostles, Peter, James and John, immediately fall into the Israelite habit. The falling onto their faces, as much as it is a (deserved) act of homage, it is also an act of avoidance, similar to the game of peak-a-boo; I can’t see you, so you can’t see me. In the midst of all this, seeing Friends of God, hearing God’s voice, a blinding light, Jesus just says, “Get up.”

Hiding is no longer an option. On the other hand, there is no separation either.

Slandering & Evangelism

Starlyth — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:59:25 +0000

And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd, he said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky? Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess. If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another

Acts 19:35-18 (ESV)I find it very interesting that the city manager had heard of Paul–if not heard Paul speak–and thus had either an opinion or a lot of information. Yet despite Paul preaching and teaching about Jesus, the city manager did not believe the goddess had been slandered. Of course, it could be that the city manager was trying to keep the peace (or regain it), but from what we know of Paul, it would seem that he somehow managed to speak the truth about Jesus the Christ without slandering other religions. Can we say the same?

I ask this with nothing in particular in mind, nor anyone. Even Paul’s famous speech on Mars Hill was respectful towards those with whom Paul disagreed. What makes this respectful stance of Paul very interesting (to me at least), is that he was the central villainous character earlier in Acts. He persecuted (quite violently) followers of ”The Way” (the initial name for Christians). However, after his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, his entire methodology changed.

It would seem that there are some lessons there.

Is There a Future for the Church of the Nazarene?

Starlyth — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:57:58 +0000

Let’s get the easy/hard stuff out of the way. I LOVE my denomination. Okay, I love a lot of denominations, but I love mine. I do not love it over the Church, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Back on the 19th of September, I quoted Ed Stetzer (on Google+ & Facebook) regarding his views on the house church and mega-church models.

…I think that the megachurch is a growing trend and the house church is also a growing trend– at the same time. For what it is worth, I am excited about both. God has used the megachurch to reach Korea and the house church to reach China. Let’s hold our models loosely and our Jesus firmly.

Ed Stetzer

It was with great sadness that I read about Shaun King’s resignation from the Atlanta-based Courageous Church. It was an even heavier heart that I read his wife’s emotional response to the turmoil. I don’t know either Shaun or Rai King, but I can “hear” the breaking of their hearts. I also cannot help but feel that there was a tad bit of gloating over at Stories From the Revolutions: The Journal of the LK10 Community, but that really is an aside rather than the point. If Ed Stetzer is correct (and demographically, he probably is), what does that mean for a denomination like the Church of the Nazarene?

The Church of the Nazarene is a collection (in the United States, at least) of many churches, of many sizes. Most are not house churches (though, there are more every year, but still, not the fastest growing segment), nor are most mega-churches (though, we have a few of those, too). The Church of the Nazarene is primarily made up of churches with a population of 50 to 150. This range doesn’t fit into either “model”. As the demographics of the church head toward the “well-curve” of the house/mega-church extremes, where does a denomination that is more of a bell-curve fit?

It doesn’t. Ooops. I said it. We, the Church of the Nazarene, don’t fit.

I think I’m okay with that. No. I don’t think I’m okay with that, I am okay with that.

I don’t think the extreme of house/mega-church will last long, it really can’t. Neither one really fits American tendencies particularly well. They seem to, on the surface, but they have no particular balance. I could be wrong, but I do think the face of the American church will change…for the better. Mega-churches will have their mega-star pastors who hold their churches together by force of will or by almost in-human organizational skills (this, by the way, is a stereotype, and does not apply to all). House churches will rise and fall almost as much as breathing, especially as many (as shown far too often by history) will start to split/form based upon personalities and minor (and not-so minor) theological differences. Both seem (again, a stereotype) to be non-denominational either by intent or by nature, so there will often not be a larger body that can provide the balance that often seems to be needed to the local body.

For whatever reason, the Church of the Nazarene seems to live/survive/thrive between the extremes of house/mega-church. I strongly suspect that much of that is based upon our Holiness heritage. Much of what the mega-church seeks is a body driven to serve Christ in a huge way (at least in their words and mission statements). The Holy Spirit is the best driver of that, rather than human will and desire. The house church seeks/demands discipleship (rightfully so) of the body, but often seems to leave that to individual desire (not always bad), with little balance or boundaries (can lead to very bad things). The Holy Spirit brings those with open hearts to Christ to do His work in the world, shaping them more and more to be like Him. That is Holiness.

Once the dust settles, which it will, from the church-size wars, the Church of the Nazarene will still be here, preaching Holiness to His people who have been called and have answered, and preaching it to those called, but have yet to answer.

Loving Little

Starlyth — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 01:54:13 +0000

⁴¹“A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. ⁴²When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” ⁴³Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” ⁴⁴Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. ⁴⁵You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. ⁴⁶You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. ⁴⁷Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.“

Luke 7:41-47This was one of my passages this morning. I continually struggle—being a fairly stoic person—with my denomination’s (Church of the Nazarene) Pentecostal/Evangelical/Charismatic roots. In many ways the Lutheran tradition I left matched more of my personality. However, it isn’t supposed to be about my personality, but my faith.

What really struck me was that perhaps I don’t love God enough, because I haven’t been forgiven of enough. Sounds strange, doesn’t it? God’s son, Jesus Christ, lived a sinless life, willingly surrendered his life on the cross, rose to life after death, and I haven’t been forgiven enough? Everything that I did and will do has and will be forgiven as long as I put my faith in him. Yet, I haven’t been forgiven enough?

Perhaps I am not fully aware of everything that has been forgiven. Even worse, perhaps I am not aware of the depth of my depravity that God has forgiven. Now, here is the part that I struggle with, and many struggle with. I am intellectually aware of what Jesus Christ for me on the cross. However, emotionally I am often too distant from that intellectual assent.

The Pursuit of Happiness

Starlyth — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:43:48 +0000

I’ve been annoyed lately (not always a good thing before writing a post). Probably centered around the Fourth of July (the formal U.S.A. Independence Day), there is always a spate of articles about the U.S.A. being founded on Christian principles, which is somewhat true. Then there is the argument over whether Thomas Jefferson was a Christian or Deist, and the new one was John Adams. Since John Adams berated his son John Quincy Adams for being a devout Christian (perhaps it’s an Adams thing, especially when one reads the letters between John and Abigail Adams), one could question how much Christianity was in John Adams’ faith.

The issue that has brought this to the forefront for me is homosexual marriage. Nope this is not a post on homosexual marriage itself, but the conservative/traditional/orthodox (and add fanatical/hateful/hurtful to many of those who have responded) response. Oddly, for me, this is not a theological post. The question that is asked by many, what right of happiness is there? Now, this question can be applied to homosexual marriage, polygamy, marijuana, and so on equally. Including (drumroll, please) religion.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress, 4 July 1776

Note the “pursuit of happiness”. Wikipedia notes that some call this the best known English language sentence in the world. The school systems, secular institutions, and faith institutions have trumpeted this sentence for years. Thus we have declared that happiness is the most important thing/pursuit. Of course, Americans will pursue that which they think will make them happy. Currently, certain groups believe that having the right to “marriage” will make them happy. In truth, it might make certain things easier to obtain (like health care), but that won’t necessarily make any of them happier. Then there are those that believe that it is their obligation to support those who are pursuing happiness, which, in many ways, should be celebrated as concern for their fellow citizen.

Again, please don’t take any of this post as support for homosexual marriage, or even opposition to it. That is not the point of this post.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the fruit of the harvest. The seeds that have been sown for generations is the “right” to “the pursuit of happiness”. Why is everyone so surprised at the result?

Dangerous Questions

Ian — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:44:05 +0000

³And when David and his men came to the city, they found it burned with fire, and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive. ⁴Then David and the people who were with him raised their voices and wept until they had no more strength to weep. ⁵David’s two wives also had been taken captive, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail the widow of Nabal of Carmel. ⁶And David was greatly distressed, for the people spoke of stoning him, because all the people were bitter in soul, each for his sons and daughters. But David strengthened himself in the LORD his God.

⁷And David said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech, “Bring me the ephod.” So Abiathar brought the ephod to David. ⁸And David inquired of the LORD, “Shall I pursue after this band? Shall I overtake them?” He answered him, “Pursue, for you shall surely overtake and shall surely rescue.”

1 Samuel 30:3-8 (ESV)

I don’t know about you, but I have a gut reaction to David’s inquiry of God in regards making a rescue of the taken wives and children…Duh! Do you even have to ask? Why? Go for it! Go get them!. I’m sure someone would say, “of course I’d ask God first!” Hmm, somehow I doubt even the most devout would really do that when the rubber met the road.

Look at our reactions to tragedies (i.e., natural disasters, wars, crimes, etc.). We want to do something now. I suspect that this is a pretty universal reaction. Yet, David was willing to put his desires on hold to confirm that God’s will would be fulfilled by his rescue of those taken. God told him, go. Yet, David was taking the risk that God would say, “no”. That requires both commitment and a lot of faith. Granted, it is a mere philosophical question as to what David would have done had the answer been,”no”? However, it is worth pondering.

And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

Luke 9:23 (ESV)

The Key is the Response to Community, part 2

Ian — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:50:10 +0000

(Please read part 1 first)
So, what light can this shine on our lives? Many things bind us together, some are voluntary, some are not. In the case of religion (or faith if the word “religion” bothers you), we do things together to (re)affirm our community. Circumcision was the earliest (and physically experienced) Jewish rite that affirmed community. However, things that seem similar to a certain rite (female circumcision, in this case) can actually have detrimental effects upon the community.
As Christians, we affirm our community through common worship, communion, and baptism. Baptism and communion are the primary “physical” modes to experience our communion with each other, but worship is a vital component as well. By experiencing the same things together, we forge a common identity, a voluntary community. Just as they could not be neglected in Old Testament times (for by doing so, one’s place within the community was threatened), they should not be neglected today.
This is not an old style versus contemporary versus whatever worship war that we’re talking about, but a communal and meaningful call to understand why we are together. However, the signs of communal worship (as defined by Jesus and the Apostles) are communion (with or without a common meal), baptism, and God’s Word (not, by the way, necessarily in that order).
We cannot be the church without understanding why we are the church, and what acts define the church.

Did You Know (Version 4.0)

Ian — Wed, 05 May 2010 19:18:43 +0000

This was released in Fall 2009, and if feels out of date already! Since I posted Version 3.0 in December 2008, I figured that getting this out there wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Next Sermon: Save the Planet?

Ian — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:17:21 +0000

At Preaching.com, Jonathan Merritt wrote about the neglect of Creation Care in sermons. In his article, Preaching Gone Green: Why Pastors Should Address Creation Care, he makes some valid points about Creation Care. The biggest point is that right now there is a big disconnect between Christians and the environment.

One can (and I do) equally blame the blind stereotyping promulgated by the “Religious Right” and the “Environmentalist Left”. The sad part really is that the stereotyping is almost worst within the “sides.” In other words, if a person “within” the “Religious Right” starts to state their concern regarding the environment, they quickly become outsiders. The same occurs within the “Environmentalist Left”.

I suppose I should be prepared for when I do preach on it that I’ll be in trouble. Which is just sad.

In Defense of Deficits…Or Not

Ian — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:58:27 +0000

James K. Galbraith wrote, In Defense of Deficits, that there is too much overreaction to the deficit the U.S. Government is running up. To his defense, Galbraith makes some very good points, some I wonder if even foreigners have thought of (or maybe they have). In many regards, I agree with Galbraith that the hyper-concern regarding deficits might actually be harmful. The government certainly can’t eliminate all the deficit immediately (which some are crying out for), as that would truly be catastrophic economically.

However, what Galbraith didn’t address, nor was it part of his article is what got us into these huge deficits. His arguments are pragmatic to some degree, but his arguments really turn into what ever the government wants, it gets. I do have a problem with that.

h/t: Tim O’Reilly

The Key is the Response to Community

Starlyth — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:01:53 +0000

Leviticus 12 (ESV) seems to paint a pretty gender-biased view from our overly sensitive gender aware lives. In fact, it seems pretty anti-female. However, even the ESV Study Bible doesn’t say this, but actually aserts that since the text does not mention why, that it is too much inference. So, where does that leave us?

The mother is unclean (stated specifically) because of the blood that was a result of the birth. It is the sex of the baby that is crucial. Back a few generations, God commanded that a male baby be circumcised. That circumcision was to happen on the eighth day. For the sake of the continued adherence to the commandment of circumcision, the mother is not as unclean on the eighth day.

God did not command that girls be circumcised (a horrible and unjustifiable, in my Western opinion, mutilation of young girls that occurs today), but that boys must be. Therefore, it is my thought that the entire difference of the uncleanness of the mother due to gender is based not on gender per se, but on circumcision.

Circumcision was an outward sign of one’s membership in the nation set apart by God. Circumcision was a physical representation of one’s place in community. Circumcision was a testimony by the parents, family, and larger community, that the child was part of the family and their declaration that they were still followers of God.

It is the larger picture of community, and the vital role that circumcision played in it, that changes the unclean durations based upon the gender of the child. Community was survival, and still is today.

Breaching Faith With God, By Breaching Faith With Others

Starlyth — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:25:56 +0000

In Leviticus 5:17-19 (ESV) & Leviticus 6:2 (ESV), we see that God is ever present (i.e., omnipresent) in our lives. This includes, according to these two passages, when one fails to fulfill one’s obligations to others. This includes when one “finds” things that were “lost”.

When one’s obligations to others are not fulfilled, according to these two passages, one’s obligations (or relationship) to God is also unfulfilled. I’ve heard people say that as long as they keep their promises to God (really easy if none are made), everyone else does not matter. These two passages from Leviticus make the point that everyone else does matter. It is not just a one way relationship between the individual and God, but between the individual and other individuals. Deuteronomy 6:5, Mark 12:30 & Luke 10:27, emphasize this in another way.

Just as God is present when the obligations between individuals are broken, God is present when love is spread between individuals:

³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ ³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ³⁸And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ³⁹And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ⁴⁰And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Matthew 25:35-40 (ESV)

While love is displayed here in a certain way (and, I believe, taken out of the context of scripture by too many advocates of social justice), and doesn’t cover the entire scope of the “social contract” (including discipline), it shows that God is present between the interaction of all of His people. Thad does not mean that all are saved, or that all are doing the will of God, but that God is present no matter what.

What Do You See When You Look At…

Starlyth — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:52:45 +0000

With the celebration of the birthday of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, we see where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. is used to bolster movements and causes that he did not specifically speak on. For example, in Raleigh-Durham, NC, a gay rights activist is torqued that a pastor who preaches a historical understanding of the bible’s view on homosexuality will be speaking at a tribute to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (see the article in question here).

Regardless of what either person in question believes is right or wrong, both are imposing their beliefs onto Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for very different reasons. Honestly, with what we have been told (the King family is very careful with their messaging in this regards), both views could be considered as being compatible with what Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed (again, as far as we, or at least I, know).

I see this argument every year, and while I do suspect that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would not view gay rights as compatible with scripture, that really isn’t the issue at hand. Let’s go back in time to 2008.

Sen. Barack Obama was the Democrat Party’s nominee for President of the United States. While I freely admit that I was, and am still, not a fan of his, his passion and charisma were undeniable. His speeches were also quite good. However, what was amazing (in that he did it as well as he did, but not that he did it, as all politicians do) was how two different political views saw a completely different person. What was even more amazing, was how supporters viewed him differently. While he was pushing for health care reform of some sort, I heard different supporters come away with different meanings of his statements and words. In other words, they put on him what they wanted to see.

It is the same, but more so, with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Or, should I say Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Both Rev. and Dr. are correct, but for each person who reads this, Rev. and Dr. will probably provide different starting points, and it doesn’t matter that his doctorate was theological.

Famous people, especially dead ones, are easy to put one’s own beliefs onto. We will often look at them, and interpret everything they did or said through the lenses of our beliefs. Christians (not all, but far too many) have done the same thing. We take our beliefs (communism, capitalism, race, nationality, culture) and shape Jesus. However, if we read the scriptures and the views of other Christian people (especially from other cultures or theologies), it has a tendency to shake our lenses a bit. Sometimes more than we like.

We like our Jesus just like we like our politicians and celebrities: safe for us, but not for them. Sometimes I’ve been guilty of that, too. However, with Jesus, at least, if is safe for everyone, then we can be sure that that’s a false view of Him.

4 Feb 2010: This was cross-posted to Wrecked.org, a Christian blog. I am honored. I have been blessed and challenged by the posters and commenters that I have experienced there. You can see it here, and see the challenging posts that others have written.

Natural Disasters and Hell

Starlyth — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:54:08 +0000

No, I’m not talking about Pat Robertson’s latest “wisdom”.

What I am talking about is human nature. Specifically, I am talking about the all too human nature of Christians, especially “Western” “Civilization” Christians. I do not decry anyone that seeks to give to help that nation. We did. In fact, I believe it is part of the imago dei to want—and maybe even need—to help people. Often times, however, we are very selfish in that regard. We don’t want to help people if it is inconvenient, or if it might cost us something. That would be the Fall.

The Fall and imago dei are not really what I’m talking about. I’m talking about me, and maybe you. Do you have friends that don’t know Jesus Christ as their savior? Why are we tweeting and blogging and what have you about Haiti, but not about the peril of the souls of our friends and/or family?

It’s easy to say and perform acts of Christian love when helping others like those in Haiti, or those who suffer such natural disasters. It’s a lot harder to talk about our friends and family going to Hell. It’s a lot harder to live an everyday Christian life, and have it be a testimony to our faith in Him.

I know that I, at least, suffer with the fact that I am not a very good person. I am certainly not the kind of person that exemplifies the stereotyped “goody two-shoes” Christian. I’ve got issues. I get mad. I say stupid and hurtful things. I make mistakes.

Just like everyone else, I know I am not the best testimony for Jesus Christ, because I am a fallen person. Yet through the continuing and constant working of Jesus Christ (through the person of the Holy Spirit) in me, I am slowly being changed (sometimes the old and new self are in an all out war) to be more like Him.

Yet, the church has propagated the impossible view of the Christian, and even aided and abetted the media in that (in other words, it’s not just the media’s fault). Now before we can even talk about Heaven or Hell, we have to teach theology, because so few (including Christians) really understand. We are stumbling and falling, trying the bear the weight of “Cultural Christian” and “lazy” Christian baggage.

My own denomination (Church of the Nazarene) has contributed to the confusion with Entire Sanctification, which was partially built upon John Wesley’s Christian Perfection. We don’t even use words such as propitiation, expiation or justification any more, or at least we don’t use them in a way even “church” people understand. Thus these vital concepts are not part of their lives, and cannot be part of our testimonies.

The church itself has weakened the will of its people to share Jesus. It is not, and never will be, just about the crisis of the day. It is, and always will be, about the crisis of eternity.

Even Religious People Have Different Views?

Starlyth — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:32:04 +0000

Shocking! (sarcasm)

Surveys: U.S. Religious Activists Have ‘Widely Divergent’ Views

As much as I like some of the content on ChristianPost.com, today we have another article (see this post for another) which is too vague to be useful, other than to draw gross conclusions that can only be divisive, rather than edifying. I really hate it when news organizations (the mainstream/conservative/liberal/everyone press) don’t reference the actual questions. The phrasing of the questions is crucial!

For example, “Nearly half of conservatives (48 percent) believe scripture to be the literal word of God”. What was the question? Did they use “inerrant” or “literal” or some other word in the question? Did they ask the polled individual what they meant by that word?

In my denomination, The Church of the Nazarene, inerrancy is only applied to salvation¹. So, if I answered, “the bible is inerrant in regards to salvation alone,” would that be a yes or no? Then it would be up to the poller to decide.

In regards to abortion, what are “most cases”? What kind of cases are people thinking about when they hear the question? I almost wrote that I was one of the 54%, because I read “some”. Imagine if “some” had heard “some” rather than “most”.

I guess I’m not a “conservative”. I think there needs be a lot of separation between state and church. I do not believe that because my faith helps me make decisions, that I should be banned from stating such. Nor do I think most people, if they truly thought about it, would want to squelch such (yes, there are a bunch of loud, obnoxious ones who would disagree with me).

I will say that this article notes the imbalance within the Christian community. Yes, helping your fellow man is a vital part of the Christian ethos and scripture. However, coercion by one’s government is not part of the deal. The Roman Catholic tradition has a great balance between what has become two sides, but Roman Catholics as a practical matter are having just the same issues.

The tradition, even in the Protestant Church (such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and the “grandparent” of my denomination), is there. It is the rhetoric, and the American desire for a “simple”, “black-and-white” answer that is creating this insanity, along with the quick response medium of the internet (to which, of course, I’m contributing).

It is also the church, as a whole, that is at fault in the responses to this poll. What is the church teaching? Is it teaching? Is it helping its people wrestle with the faith? It IS okay to wrestle with the faith! That’s what the church fathers did!

This also does bring back to mind this article at the (evil) FoxNews: Has Christian America Come to an End?

¹We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments,given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith. (see Article IV in our Manual)

Do Christians Believe in Redemption (i.e., a new creation) or Not?

Starlyth — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:06:10 +0000

I saw this headline, Ky. Church Ordains Registered Sex Offender, a few days ago, and was finally able to read it. And, I finally decided to actually post something on my blog, rather than twitter.

I have to say this brief article causes me no small amount of anguish. I cannot imagine what both the man in question, the ordaining officiant, the congregation, the denomination (if any), and the surrounding community are feeling. Yes, the article provides some quips, but depth is required with such a report, not quips.

First and foremost, do all the “Christians” affiliated with the situation (including the surrounding community) truly believe:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NIV)

I am not saying this to be snarky. I have to admit, I say I believe it, and I experienced it. However, when it comes to my children, will I need something more? What would ever satisfy most parents that their child is safe? How does a church prevent a minister from being with children? It can’t, I think, and expect to be effective.

How does the church be redemptive in such a situation? Is it a no-win situation? Who will gamble their children?

I cannot question the guy and his faith. I can certainly question the wisdom of the elders of the church, the denomination, and the ordaining officiant. Were they oblivious?

Prosperity Gospel Hyperbole

Starlyth — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:14:29 +0000

I know Christianity today was just trying to get a rise with this, The Real Prosperity Gospel, but Christianity has enough problems with the prosperity gospel, that for them to do this strikes me as irresponsible. Just my $0.02 (worth even less now than is used to be)

Change Your Name…Because We Say So

Starlyth — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:09:17 +0000

In the article, Name Not on Our List? Change It, China Says, the New York Times doesn’t recognize (or know, probably) that most governments within the United States (including the federal government) may not try to force a person to change their name, but they won’t recognize your full name if the name is longer than a certain number of characters, or if you have more than three (first, 1 middle, last) names, your full name is not accepted.

A name change is not forced here, but your full name is not recognized, either.

A Manifesto for the Christian Life?

Starlyth — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:27:07 +0000

I was listening this morning to the latest Accidental Creative Podcast, AC #149: Manifesto, and I was struck by how much the manifesto strikes me as a healthy Christian way of life. Todd Henry (the owner/creator of Accidental Creative) created A Manifesto For Accidental Creative. This is my “Christian” take on it.

We witness and disciple everyday—no matter what we do, we are witnessing and discipling. It is just a matter of how well.
No matter how good we are at what we do, what we do does not define us.
Our vocation (messengers for Jesus)is bigger than what we do.
Our life in Christ must be one of grown—the dead branches of the vine are trimmed.
We must have a healthy life in Christ—it must be intentional, our choice, and it must be one of discipline.
We must make decisions that value our faith, not that value culture, pride, money, etc. over it.
We must always being looking at the evidence of the Lord’s hand, and taking joy in it.
We are responsible for our spiritual health—while we can be bolstered, supported, and loved by others, ultimately our spiritual health is our responsibility.
We are generous because we are free—we are to be generous in love, as Christ has set us free.
We are committed to relationships—relationships are the key to a healthy church, a healthy body, and a healthy heart.

What do you think? Listen to the podcast, too.

All Mixed: Culture and Religion

Starlyth — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:11:54 +0000

Critics have variously argued that Hebrew language charter schools impermissibly erode church-state boundaries, potentially balkanize Jews from the rest of society, and create a false dichotomy between Jewish religion and culture.

“The idea here is to strengthen Jewish identity, but you can’t do it in an open way because you run afoul of the law,” said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism and a critic of Hebrew charter schools. “So you end up having rabbis and Jewish educators involved, and in all probability promoting Jewish commitment is exactly what they are looking to do, but they can’t do it openly. It simply will not work.”

Yoffie said the idea would not even work on its own terms to promote Jewish identity. “There’s absolutely nothing in 4,000 years of experience to suggest you can separate out religion and culture and simply teach culture to the exclusion of religion,” he said. “Those two pillars are inextricably intertwined.”

via Forward.com: N.Y. Okays Public School With Hebrew Focus. (hattip: GetReligion.org)

In our current University Ministry study, Engaging the Culture, we are discussing the interaction of culture and faith. in lesson one, this study discusses the five models of church/culture interaction. None of models exclude one. Rabbi Yoffie obviously feels the same way, that one is not without the other.

The Shrinking Great Divide

Starlyth — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:58:44 +0000

I believe it is time to go beyond the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. What is at stake at the start of the third millennium is no longer the same as at the beginning of the second millennium, when at the heart of Western Christianity the separation took place between Catholics and Protestants.

To give but one example, the problem is no longer that of Luther and of how to liberate man from the sense of guilt that oppresses him, but how to give again to man the true meaning of sin which has been totally lost. What sense does it make to continue to discuss how “justification of the godless comes about,” when man is convinced of not having need of any justification and says with pride: “I accuse myself today and I alone can absolve myself, I the man”?

I believe that all the age-old discussions between Catholics and Protestants about faith and works have ended up by making us lose sight of the main point of the Pauline message, often shifting attention from Christ to doctrines on Christ, in practice, from Christ to men. That which the Apostle is anxious above all to affirm in Romans 3 is not that we are justified by faith, but that we are justified by faith in Christ; it is not so much that we are justified by grace, but that we are justified by the grace of Christ. The accent is on Christ, more than on faith and grace.

via ZENIT – Father Cantalamessa’s 2nd Advent Sermon.
hattip: iMonk

It is amazing how in the last few years, the Protestants and Roman Catholics have begun to recognize their similarities, including their shared failings. The Pope is now even quoting Martin Luther in his homilies.

Did You Know? (Version 3.0)

Starlyth — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:33:23 +0000

hattip: Douglas Karr

Captive to Government?

Starlyth — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:44:50 +0000

T.M. Moore of Crosfigell: The Fellowship of Ailbe wrote in his emailed devotional today, the following:

It is not permitted to the Church to accept alms from pagans.

Canons Attributed to St. Patrick, Irish, 6th century

But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!”

Acts 8.20

During the last presidential campaign, you will recall, a group of pastors decided to test the IRS’s resolve by preaching sermons in which they endorsed a particular candidate for the nation’s highest office. Such is not permitted to organizations who enjoy a tax-deductible status with the IRS, on pain of possibly having their tax-exempt status revoked. So far there have been no negative ramifications, but it may just be that the jury is still out. The situation serves to remind us how dependent churches are on government largesse. Wouldn’t it just be easier to renounce our tax-exempt status and then preach whatever we want? Well, no, pastors will tell you, because contributions will drop off significantly if people don’t get a tax deduction for their offering.

Does that mean that not only are our churches captive to government, but individual believers as well? Is it really true that church members would not give as much, or maybe not at all, if they weren’t going to get a tax deduction? This situation strikes me as a kind of receiving alms from pagans. We give so that we can save some of the money the IRS might otherwise require of us. We guard our tongues from the pulpit so that IRS won’t take away our tax-exempt status because our people will reduce their giving to us if they don’t get a deduction. Is it just me, or does this whole situation smell oddly of Peter’s rebuke of Simon Magus? It’s sad to think that Kingdom business is held captive to bottom lines held captive to government rules held captive to pagan legislators and policy-makers held captive to the father of lies. I wonder how many other ways we allow ourselves to remain captive to the world because of some perceived benefit?

Lord, set me free from everything that keeps me from seeking Your Kingdom and righteousness as my highest priority in life.

T. M. Moore

His thoughts in regards to churches and their taxation has come to mind for me previously. While the secularists say they want a separation of church and state, what would happen if the church were free to preach truly? Would they truly be more comfortable?

The Ten Commandments Re-Framed

Starlyth — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:10:24 +0000

In a discussion, I heard, “the Ten Commandments aren’t really commandments. They’re just suggestions.” That is probably not a direct quote, but the general message is right (as in it agrees with the intent of the speaker, I think). I do not agree with the speaker’s words, however. Despite that, it did cause me to think about the 10 Commandments, and how we view them, or, more particularly, how we don’t view them in their entirety.

I’ve been thinking about writing this for a while, but, frankly, it is a rather large undertaking for such a theologically-challenged person as myself, and I don’t want to speak out of turn. However, in the midst of my MIT studies, I read a paraphrase of John Wesley’s “Means of Grace”. As John Wesley is, in most regards, the theological father of the Church of the Nazarene, such statements by him must be taken seriously by Nazarenes. One of John Wesley’s “general” Means of Grace is: keeping the commandments.

I took it as a challenge to actually attempt this. This is no theological treatise, so don’t take it as such.

We Lost The Message Somewhere

Starlyth — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:55:12 +0000

A Brief Introduction to this Post:
As I begin to write this, citizens of the United States of America go to the voting booths for an election whose results will be historic regardless of which party wins. By the time this actually posts, we might have a new president-elect. I’ve been trying to avoid politics on my blog recently, mostly because I don’t feel politics, as they stand now, are actually helpful for the people, and honestly, my heart is warmed by the Gospel, not by the machinations of the political parties. So, while this post touches on politics, somewhat, that isn’t what it is about.

I was not going to write of politics in my blog, but after reading of Paul’s optimism in Philippians, I feel the need to.

Much of Obama’s appeal, besides the usual political can’t-nail-them-to-the-wall or hold-them-to-their-promises (regardless of political party), is that he has packaged the concept of hope well. Obama’s success should be a wake up to the church, not because of his politics, but because he’s repackage the quintessential Christian message―hope.

The church should not look at Obama’s campaign as a success of marketing (which it is), but the very reason why the church is not very healthy. We lost the message. Actually, that’s wrong. The message is still there in scripture. We just left it there.

As the church became party to the culture war (which it should have) and politics (which it should, in some regards, as its members are voters), it also became part of the negativity that go along with both, which it shouldn’t have. The church became obsessed with various pet agendas (pornography and so on on the right, justice issues and so on on the left) that they lost their focus―the hope that we have because of Jesus.

Forget church growth, forget being part of the culture, remember Jesus

A Quip On A Manufactured Collapse

Starlyth — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:21:16 +0000

Michael Novak’s theory regarding Western democratic capitalism can be summerized as a three-legged stool with the legs being, political freedom, economic freedom, and moral restraint.

We are witnessing the after effects of the complete removal of moral restraint. Political and economic freedoms have been curtailed for the last 20 years or so, but they are still, in basic form, there. The politicians (on both sides) are calling for new regulations, however, as crass as this sounds, there is a similarity between the current panic seeking to create new regulations…and abortion—morality cannot be legislated.

Here are a couple of good articles.

This Too Will Pass (i.e., DON’T PANIC)

AIG: A Study in the Difference Between Campaigning and Governing (i.e., ignore both political campaigns in regards to their rhetoric on the issue)

Camille Paglia and Sarah Palin: Need I Say More?

Starlyth — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:40:40 +0000

Camille Paglia, on Salon.com, wrote an interesting opinion column regarding Sarah Palin. I’ve been doing my best to avoid the silly season of an election year, but this column had too much good stuff to ignore just because it included Sarah Palin (which was actually a detraction, because I really don’t want to talk politics).

Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

This goes for environmentalism, “poverty”, and health care programs as well. There seems to be a significant agreement that there is something seriously wrong in this country in regards to these issues, just no agreement of methodology to fix them. In other words, just because I don’t agree with a person’s proposed solution to an issue, does not mean that I don’t think that there is one.

Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today’s pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else.

Yeah, well, a lot of men (including myself, probably) would fit into that description as well. Ouch.

Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones — nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days.

Ouch!

A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.

I give Ms. Paglia kudos. At least in regards to feminism, she is consistent.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

I’m torn by her reaction. Her opinion is, “it’s all about me,” whether it’s choosing not to be “inconvenienced” by a baby, or “inconvenienced” by a murderer. On the other hand, it has a form of consistency, forthrightness, and forethought, which makes it easier to discuss.

If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society’s acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life.

Here, of course, I do have a problem. At what point does it cross the line? especially when she says:

…Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion.

If that is the case (which I believe it is for many on the left, but also “Republican” ideology on the right), than they, according to her logic, should be stopped as well. Then, you are left with politicians sticking their wet fingers in the wind. Leadership of any sort cannot exist in such an environment.

Should The Focus Be Evangelism?

Starlyth — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:36:29 +0000

More to the point, theologically, the Christian assembly is a fellowship of the redeemed. It is a manifestation, as well as an anticipation or foretaste, of the great assembly that Christ is building—the assembly of the firstborn in heaven that will be revealed on the last Day (Heb 12:22-24). The purpose of our earthly assemblies, therefore, is to fellowship together in what we already share—our union with Christ—as we listen to and respond to him together, and build his assembly by the words we speak.

This runs counter to the common (although often unspoken) assumption that one of the main aims of a church gathering is to be attractive to non-Christians—to draw them in, to intrigue them, and to evangelize them.

The Sola Panel | Is church for evangelism?

This certainly flies in the face of much of the “church growth” movement that we’ve been seeing. It also, interestingly enough, flies in the face of much of the emerging church movement as well (but not nearly all of it, let’s be clear). So what is the church to do then?

That said, it is interesting to note that in 1 Corinthians 14 the presence of an unbeliever or untutored person is assumed, hence Paul’s concern that what is said in church be intelligible to such a person. Further, 1 Corinthians 14 expects the gospel will be preached, for how else will an unbeliever be convicted of his sin and exclaim that God is truly among those gathered? But to preach the gospel does not mean that, every week, the sermon is targetted specifically and primarily at unbelievers. Surely, whenever we preach faithfully we are preaching the gospel!

So what does all this mean in practice? I don’t think the answer is to ‘dumb down’ the teaching. It does mean explaining jargon words (apostle, grace, justification, faith etc) and seeking to be clear, but it does not mean we don’t preach on the more complex passages of the Bible.

Philip Griffin commenting on Is Church For Evangelism?

I’m not sure what the entirety of my opinion is on this one. It just stuck me as an important thing to consider.

hat tip to:Between Two Worlds

Hope for Doubters

Starlyth — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:22:54 +0000

READ: Matthew 28:16-17

When they saw him, they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!
Matthew 28:17 (NLT)

When the eleven disciples of Jesus met Jesus in Galilee, “they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!” What a stunning statement! For one thing, given that these very disciples became the foundational leaders of the early church, you might expect Matthew to give us a whitewashed version of their interaction with Jesus. Yet Matthew tells us the whole truth: the disciples worshiped Jesus, yet some also doubted. Some weren’t sure what to think of the resurrected Jesus. Was he real? Whas he a ghost? Could he be trusted? The blunt honesty of Matthew demonstrates the reliability of his Gospel. He’ll tell it like it was, even when he and his colleagues don’t look so good.

This passage also gives hope to those of us who struggle with doubt. We know what it’s like to worship the Lord . . . and also to doubt. We sing hymns of praise, and we mean what we sing. But every now and then a little voice interrupts our worship: “Is this really true? Did Jesus really die for me? Are my sins really forgiven?” For those who doubt, the example of the disciples offers encouragement. God does not reject us when we doubt. Like the disciples, we can live in the tension of a living faith. We can ask hard questions. We can wonder. And we can still be disciples of Jesus, those he uses to further the work of his kingdom.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Do you know what it’s like to worship and to doubt, even in the same moment? What do you do with your doubts? How does the example of the disciples impact you?

PRAYER: Gracious Lord, I must admit that I hate being someone prone to doubt. I know people whose faith in you is rock solid. No matter what happens, no matter what ideas challenge them, they never waver in their trust in you. But I am not one of these. You know that. For some reason I’m wired to question, to wonder, and yes, to doubt.

So, first off, I thank you for accepting me as I am, for choosing me to be your disciple in spite of my penchant for uncertainty. How glad I am that you don’t require flawless faith!

Moreover, thank you for being patient with me, for making yourself known to me again and again so that I might trust in you. Yes, there have been desert times of plaguing doubt. But in those times you have reached out to me with your mercy, giving reassurance and comfort. Thank you, Lord!

My request today is simple: Help me to trust you more! Even though I’ll never be able to figure everything out, help me to have confidence in you. When doubts arise, may I lean upon you. Help me to trust you more and more each day. Amen.

Writting by: Mark D. Roberts distributed by the Daily Reflection at TheHighCalling.org

Mark D. Roberts, as Senior Director and Scholar-in-Residence for Laity Lodge, is an advisor and frequent contributor to TheHighCalling.org. A Presbyterian pastor, Mark earned his Ph.D. in New Testament from Harvard University. He has written six books, including No Holds Barred: Wrestling with God in Prayer (WaterBrook, 2005). He blogs daily at www.markdroberts.com.

Thinking/Posing/Contemplating, Not Just Reacting

Starlyth — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:02:35 +0000

In this election cycle, talk about an emerging evangelical political center abounds. Much of the discussion is about how conservative and liberal Christians can work together to realize Christ-commanded essentials and their corollaries: care for the poor, for example, and its extensions regarding access, justice, and health care.

THEOOZE – Articles: Viewing Article

The Just Plain Messiness of being a pastor–EXPOSED!

Starlyth — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:56:47 +0000

As a pastor I am blown away by Where’s Your Jesus Now? A lot of pastors are trained to do theology like scientists test theories…in a pristine, antiseptic, white lab-coat environment. We pastors want to be tidy, neat, clean and “biblically sound.” Don’t let messy people and chaotic life mess with our theology. Our theology must be unsullied by the vast unwashed (theologically-speaking) masses. Perhaps that is why the Church is hemmorhaging the younger generations by the thousands in USAmerica. They aren’t drinking the kool-aid of tidy, ivory-tower generated, pew-shaped, clean spirituality.

jesus the radical pastor | exploring the life and mission of the 1st century Jesus for our 21st century » Blog Archive » Where’s Your Jesus Now? What a book!

Ignoring or Avoiding The Discussion of Heresy, Doesn’t Make It Go Away.

Starlyth — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:43:11 +0000

I hadn’t meant to bring it up in a Facebook discussion, What is emerging?, but I did—heresy. I greatly fear for a people who won’t stand for what they say they believe (especially foundational things), as I equally fear for a people who automatically attack people with whom they disagree.

The funny thing is that the day after I wrote my latest response in that discussion (and hopefully my last post in that discussion), C. Michael Patton wrote a small post on his blog discussing that exact issue.

Suicidal Christian—An Oxymoron?

Starlyth — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:59:38 +0000

If you read In The Darkness, A Light Shines, you might guess that the topic of suicide is a serious concern of mine. C. Michael Patton, on his blog Parchment & Pen, provides a response to a letter that discusses Those who commit suicide cannot be Christian . . .

I think (but have no proof) that the whole person who commits suicide goes to Hell was started by the Roman Catholic Church. For personal reasons (other than about me), this has caused me a lot of concern. Does this ease my concern? Somewhat, along with a sermon I heard a few years back, but there is still that thought in the back of my mind…

Everyone Is Full Of Surprises

Starlyth — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:07:00 +0000

You’d think that all of us would by now have learned that we rarely know the depths of a person. Well, I have been confronted with that yet again, as I learned that Vin Diesel is making a movie about Hannibal, not the cannibal one.

Vin Diesal strikes one as just a nameless action hero typecasted actor, and I suppose he is in some ways. Yet here, he wants to bring to film one of the greatest military men that has been ignored (especially by Hollywood). I wish him a lot of success, and I can’t wait to see what he did.

My, How They Love One Another

Starlyth — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:30:41 +0000

Are we Kicking Grandma to the Curb?

For a number of reasons, I have a real problem with what this post (and the quoted article/news story) say. Not because it isn’t true, but because it is. I don’t think that nursing homes are an ideal situation, that’s for sure, but am I capable of taking care of my parents (all four of them) as they get older? I doubt it.

There is something to be said about the “good ol’ days,” where aged relatives would live in the same home as at least one of their children. I certainly think it would be healthier for society if we weren’t so segregated in our lives according to age bracket (one of the things many churches are also dealing with). However, in cases such as in my family, where one person has Alzheimer’s, it can be a full time job.

I also think that the changing perception of life changes in regards to age have a significant impact on the situation. Take, for example, the fact that 100 years ago, most education ended with the 8th grade, and, frankly, there are questions on those final exams that I couldn’t answer. That person was to become a productive member of society. Now, the expectation is that they will become productive 4 years later, assuming they don’t go to college.

Much of the same can be attached to “retirement”. In that same era, there was no retirement. The modern “golden age of retirement” really means, you’ve saved the money you wasted your life earning, now go spend it, or least that is what far too many retirement salespeople and financial “guides” are trying to sell. Well, if a person is burning their life away to go play at the end of the working era, why would they want to take care of ageing parents. In many ways, it sounds like some kids, “my parents just cramp my style.”

Back to the really hard part, the church not doing what it is called to do. The church has fallen prey to the same mentality as the populace, the government will take care of it! Then there is the whole lawyer thing, and the lawsuits that seem to come with them. What church is willing to take on that kind of litigative burden? What church can afford it? It reminds me of a post I read today, “A law degree only allows you to add friction to the economy…”

Litigation, cramping the style, whatever the reason…this is just not good.

By God’s Grace…I Will

Starlyth — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:02:44 +0000

Julian Freeman over at Christian Thought has a challenge for all Christians, take James 4:13-17 seriously. In 7 Reasons to Say ‘God Willing…’, Freeman speaks of how when we use this phrase, we should become more aware that it is by His grace and mercies that our plans succeed or fail.

I will say that as a “Reformed and Baptist”, Freeman’s take on how God’s graces and mercies fit into predestination, etcetera, are not my view of course, but God does change the course of history to fit into His plan, but without question, it is my hope and desire that my plans will fulfill His plan, and if they don’t, be open and honest with God, and accepting with a servant’s heart.

What Is Speaking The Truth In Love?

Starlyth — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:51:41 +0000

Keith Giles, over at subversive1, seems to have had an interesting experience regarding a person shutting down the conversation (or the comments) that challenged this individual’s theology/teaching. Keith states that he rarely, if ever, does this kind of public revealing (and I believe him. I just wanted to put that out there), however, he felt compelled to in his post Speaking The Truth In Love.

I can’t say as I disagree with either Keith’s motivation, his acted upon reticence (versus just saying it) to call people out, or his post. However, it brings out something that is an ongoing issue, not just in the church, but in general human discourse. It is no longer about disagreeing, but it is much more. It is more emotional.

For whatever reason, I just thought of the story in U.S. history, when some offended member of the U.S. Legislature decided to go beat some other legislator with a cane in the time leading up to the War Between The States (or the Civil War).

Frankly, a lot of discourse today isn’t discourse, but proverbial caning. The real issue is that there are a lot of people that, when challenged, say that the person challenging them is prejudiced in someway, and by calling them prejudiced, seek to (and, sadly, far too often succeed) shut the other person up by what is effectively name-calling.

I could say that Keith was lucky that the posts were only deleted, rather than an ensuing name-calling in an attempt to shut him up. However, it is way too easy (and I am prey to this as well) to succumb to the pressure to just “let it go,” and accept them, despite their teaching being contrary to yours.

The Reformed Church in the Reformed Tradition

Starlyth — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:58:30 +0000

Because we are in a world now that is not nearly so hierarchical as other generations were, it is possible for your congregation to network laterally with other congregations that are equally faithful. And that is exactly what’s happening in the New Wineskins network of churches, the Confessing Church Network, there are such networks available, and that are very active.

Rev. Parker T. Williamson

(Whitehorse Inn podcast entitled “Broken Covenant”. Originally aired on 30 Mar 08)

I guess we need to be careful to use stereotypes. I suspect (but readily acknowledge that I don’t know) Rev. Williamson is uncomfortable with (if not downright antagonistic towards) the MEECM. What struck me with his comments was that how much it sounded just like many in the MEECM.

This tells me that the “established” church isn’t as clueless as many in the MEECM seem to think.

What Happens When The Emerging Church Holds Up A Mirror To The Established Church

Starlyth — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:49:22 +0000

Brian Mclaren recently addressed the 2008 Lambeth Conference (see Wikipedia), and while he does not (despite media opinion to the contrary) represent the entirety (one could question even a significant minority) of the MEECM, it is often worthwhile to hear what he has to say.

In the article above, there are a couple of quotes attributed to him that I would like to address.

“You might say that evangelism is almost non-existent because the Christian faith is, to be very frank, almost non-existent.”

This quote is interesting as, from what I understand of him, he does not view the established church as a faithful community. There are many that are not, but most of them are, it is just that they are established so that many (if not most) of their people are not faithful, but cultural Christians. However, this is where I might at least annoy a few people, as anytime I hear “America is a Christian nation,” I squirm. Now, I squirm not because some of the founders were Deists (even that, especially in regards to Thomas Jefferson who later in life called himself a Christian, has recently come into question), but because most Americans were, at best, cultural Christians, “even” back then.

This constant delusion (harsh, I know) that the United States is a Christian nation is much of the problem in regards to many Christians asking, “how did our culture/country get to where it is today?” If you assume (an old politically-incorrect phrase comes to mind) that everyone is a Christian because they were born in a “Christian” nation, and thereby share your understanding of Scripture and relationship with God, you will be sorely disappointed. A Christian should look at the story of the Jewish people who were Jewish and therefore “God’s People.” Look where that mentality got them.

So Mclaren is correct, but this is not a new thing.

…they needed to ditch “internal institutional maintenance” and focus instead on the “outward mission” of making disciples among all people. That, he said, was “our only hope of saving the church from division, diversion, implosion, irrelevance and triviality”.

This argument against the “institution” of the church is a contact refrain in the MEECM. I can’t, and won’t, say that is does not have some validity, especially in regards to the historical fact that the institutional church has been used for power and control too many times, and also the fact that too often preserving the institution has come at the expense of the message (that will be the next and last section in this post).

There is NO question about the outward mission. In fact, the Church of the Nazarene stepped up to the plate, acknowledging its failures in that are, and changing its focus to the outward mission.

One of the other refrains in the MEECM is that there are too many denominations, while I will agree with that to some degree, how many people are there in the world. Also, much of that argument is based on IRS records. If I start my own church (like many of those in the MEECM), but do not declare that I am part of a larger organization (whether I am or not), I am another denomination according to the IRS. Makes for a lot of denominations of one church.

The real question is do we define ourselves by our denomination, or by our belief in the essentials of the Christian faith: Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, who came to atone for our sins (okay, that is a very short version).

There is also Mclaren’s inferred assumption that all these denominations are invalid, for the very reason that there are so many (the same view the Roman Catholic Church has of those not in communion with it). I have heard it expressed that we are finite, and each Christian tries to live a life imbued by an infinite God. As we cannot fully express the entirety of God, what makes anyone think that one church will do the same?

“Will it be the gospel of evacuation (to heaven after death) or will it be Jesus’ Gospel, the Gospel of the kingdom of God, the message that brings reconciliation, hope, transformation and engagement?”

This, in many ways, is one of Mclaren’s more dangerous—faithwise—statements (I’m going to leave the sexuality one alone, as I have discussed it enough…for now), as it creates a choice where there is none. Both are the message. However, I suspect that “reconciliation, hope, transformation and engagement” is being viewed from a humanist (that is human-to-human) perspective, rather than the biblical view (God-to-human, and then human-to-human by extension). I am not saying that these are not good objectives of the church, in fact, they are, in many ways, the fruit of the church. However, without the underlying faith in the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ, these become good works, and works without faith are dead.

In The Darkness, A Light Shines

Starlyth — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:46:53 +0000

This post has been a long time in coming, both writing, thinking, and living.

The darkness closes in. You can’t breathe. It is hard to fight for that breath. You can sense the deeper darkness of a chasm you cannot see, but know is there. You are coming close to the edge of the chasm.

Almost without thinking about it, or being conscious of it, or being in control of yourself, you approach the edge of the chasm. Even though the bottom cannot be seen, and even if it could, it is too dark to see, you still approach the edge.

The thought of falling in mesmerizes you. Maybe it would end the darkness. Maybe the pain, or the absence of all emotion, would then be over. You contemplate giving in to the pull to just fall in, to let yourself go, to let go of life completely.

You’ve become accustomed to the darkness. You are no longer aware of not being able to see. The darkness is almost your friend, despite its desire for your destruction. You have grown so accustomed to the darkness that you want to embrace the chasm as much as it wants to embrace you.

Yet, before that final step into the chasm, you see a soft, barely visible, red glow, as if from an ember. The glow is so faint that were you in the light of a candle, the glow could not be seen. The glow moves so that as you continue to watch it, your back is now to the chasm.

Once your back is to the chasm you sense a gentle blowing that begins to stir the ember. The ember changes from a barely visible red to orange. Most of you still struggles towards the chasm, but a very small, but very strong part of you keeps you rooted in place, watching the ember.

The ember, due to the consistent gentle blowing from the unknown source, goes from orange to white. The light it gives off is still feeble, but the slightest light shines brightly in such darkness.

The unknown source stops blowing, and the ember fades from white to orange, then from orange to red, as even the red seems to fade, you turn once again to the chasm.

While in such a place, time has no meaning, it seems forever until you seen the faint red glow again. Again, the faint red brightens to orange, then to white. Again, all your attention has been pulled from the chasm. The tiny yet strong part of you does not stop staring at the light.

Again, the light seems to fade from white to orange, orange to red, to all but gone. Once again you face the chasm and think to surrender to its pull.

Then the light…

After who knows how many times (for it all seems endless), finally instead of turning away from the light as it fades from white to orange, you step towards it. The light does not continue it fading to red. It stays orange. You take another step toward the light. You’re not quite sure, but it seemed that the light brightened a bit. You take another step, then another. You keep takings steps toward the light, and you realize that the light is indeed getting brighter.

As you continue walking toward the light, the last hint of orange has been replaced by white. Suddenly, you are struggling. It’s hard to take another step. Somehow you find the strength to take still another step, and then another. At last you feel the last of your strength give way. You could just give up. Just like falling into the chasm, you could fall down where you stand.

Before you decide, as if, it seems, there is much for you to decide, you feel a breeze—a slight one. In your feeble strength, it almost irritates you. Somehow you realize that the breeze you feel is the same breeze that is causing the light to brighten. Since the breeze is good enough for the light, you decide, it’s good enough for you.

Like a switch was flipped, the breeze is no longer irritating, it is invigorating. Your body seems to regain its strength, and you push on ahead toward the light. Despite your newfound strength, you still struggle towards the light. Your new strength seems to be fading quickly. Again, a time of decision, to continue or to quit. The gentle breeze gives you a little more strength, so you trudge on. The cycle of fading of strength, the point of decision, the gathering of new strength repeat for sometime. You get so accustomed to the pattern, that it takes you a great number of cycles to realize that you aren’t making progress like you were. You stop. You stop walking, listening to the breeze when it seems to speak, you stop letting your strength be restored.

It seems to you that you have come to a point of greater decision. You time at the chasm and your journey toward the light swirl inside. Something clicks, and you realize that you used the breeze to restore you strength, which is good, but you didn’t allow the breeze to do its work, which was to pull you toward the light.

With that insight, you take another step, and the light becomes a flame.

For those who know this "dark" part of me, the parallels are obvious. For those who have experienced similar feelings, welcome to the club. The open and honest truth is that for me the darkness is depression, and I have been dealing with it since childhood, and it came into full fruition during the teenage years (When else?).

Well, if the darkness is depression, what is the chasm, you might ask.

suicide

(Before you panic, or read too much into that single word, please read the rest of this.)

So I was at the edge of the chasm many times. Frankly, it scares me how close I was. By God’s grace, I never tried, but I also knew that trying was only a one time thing. I’ve struggled with and fought depression. My friends, who were aware, struggled with me. My parents struggled with me, too, but I don’t think they were fully aware of it all until much later. Of course, at least three out of four of my parents struggle(d) with depression as well. I’m not sure theirs was/is, on the most part, as moribund as mine, but, frankly, depression is a depressing thing to deal with, let alone talk about.

The light is the key. Before I knew God, as I know Him now through Christ, even in my darkest hours, I just couldn’t give up. Part of it, I know, was just plain stubbornness. The other part, though, was something else completely. It seemed, even then, that there was a kernel of hope and optimism that, frankly, wasn’t mine.

Regardless of one’s view of baptism and all that, my life (rather than my life as a child, and thereby an extension of my parents’ lives) was not Christian until well after my first true failure in life, in my mid-twenties. The Christianity of that time was also very immature (not that I’m saying I’m particularly mature now). All through that time, I’ve struggled with depression and thoughts of suicide.

I’ve railed (internally) at all those who say no real Christian could possibly be depressed. I knew that they didn’t have a clue (and I still believe that most of them don’t).

However, I heard sermon from Pastor Garcy (who was a temporary pastor at Moscow Church of the Nazarene when Joni and I first moved here to Moscow), who apologized to all of those who he mis-served (with a good heart and intentions) by not addressing their pain. I don’t think I ever cried during a sermon before, but I did then.

It was okay that I was in pain.

Not okay as in, continue to have it, but okay in that I was still a Christian. Just because I love Jesus, that doesn’t mean that all my pains are instantly cured (not that it doesn’t happen to some). Jesus warns us that we will still have pain and troubles in this world.

I think I can safely say, as I look back, that that sermon was a turning point. I still deal with depression, and it can still wallop me pretty hard, but it seems, from my limited perspective that the duration is shortening and, for sure, the depth is becoming shallower for my episodes.

On the 9th of this month (July 2008), I had an experience that I wish I could share fully with those who suffer with depression. I realized that not only had Jesus died for my sins, but to ease my burdens. I had understood that intellectually, but not to my core, especially the core that included the dark chasm of my soul.

In case you were wondering, the light in the story is the Spirit. While God puts the Holy Spirit in us, he grants us the freedom, in His love, to accept it. Jesus carried the light to the world, and into me. I am nowhere near done with the darkness, but now there is more light than dark, and each day a little more shadow fades away.

The other problem, which I think was also part of my struggle was that I wouldn’t change my view of myself. I was just going to have to deal with my depression; that I would always have it. I defined much of myself by my depression, and I suspect it was that change of heart that was key to this latest experience. We are called to surrendered our lives to Christ, that includes my depression.

The joy of the Lord is rising up in me,

like the light that casts the darkness away,

so the joy of the Lord refines the darkness,

the dross, the weight, the entanglements,

these things that infect the deepest parts of me.

While I cannot know the walk that you are on, I hope that you can open your heart and mind to my words.

The Boring Life-Saving Stuff

Starlyth — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:46:26 +0000

In Jesus and Context, John Frye uses the collective experience of pre-flight safety instruction, and applies it to the eternal saving instructions.

Have you ever been bored silly listening once again to the flight attendant rattling off the routine…

…should the cabin pressure actually drop at 30,000 feet and those little yellow masks make their real debut, they will instantly become objects of supreme interest…

John Frye argues that much of the Gospel is lost in our suburban lives (even here in Moscow, Idaho). I would actually argue that, as a general rule, the immediacy and context of the Gospel is lost in the United States, and even in all of “Western” “Civilization”.

I suspect that he has connected, perhaps not even realizing it (but, knowing what I know, I think he does know), with part of the reason why multimedia, the Internet, plays, and dramas, have become a source of dependency…it allows the Gospel (albeit, in my opinion, somewhat shallowly) to connect to a people who cannot understand the immediacy and urgency of Jesus’ ministry.

The True Christian Family?

Starlyth — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:22:15 +0000

In today’s Daily Reflection, Mark Roberts talks about Matthew 12:50 using some very strong language.

“Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!”
Matthew 12:50

He points out that this applies even to “Christian” families, or very specifically to Christians. Despite “Christian” “family values,” it is Jesus Christ’s value to us that is important. Mark Roberts makes the arguement, which is a good one, is that we must be very careful to not put our families above Christ.

Hard words to stomach, frankly, which doesn’t make them any less true. However, no matter how true they are, they are still very hard to live by.

Beware of Following the Trend

Starlyth — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:40:08 +0000

There are far too many churches that are trying to follow the trends in an attempt to “grow” their congregations. The first problem is that they are focusing on quantity not quality. The second problem is that the churches are always a few years behind. A huge number of churches are trying to be “relevant”, which really is (to me) being like everything else, thus the differentiation between the church and the culture is erased (salt with your light, anyone?).

The rage against the liturgy (okay, that is hyperbole) that seems to be much of this is dead, even in the “evangelical” church. Rick Phillips, in his blog post Random Thoughts on Gender, Based on a Small Sample Size, is only a small wave in a bigger change. The Roman Catholic church is growing, as is the Eastern Orthodox church, especially among the very section that being “relevant” is targeted at. Of course, too many churches have bought into this, so they feel that they cannot go back. Look, we don’t proclaim to have worship infallibility, so let’s act like we don’t.

My favorite line in Mr. Phillips post was, “This [classic, historically-rooted (i.e. traditional) worship], too, is now counter-culturally Christian.”

My Feet (Should) Hurt

Starlyth — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 03:44:39 +0000

This impulse appears in broader Christian culture. The title of a book by the bestselling author of Boundaries (Zondervan, 2002) says it all: Safe People: How to Find Relationships That Are Good for You and Avoid Those That Aren’t (Zondervan, 1996). We’ve learned to protect ourselves with spiritual gifts inventories: “I’m afraid I can’t help in the youth group; it’s not my gift.” We consider things edifying if they reinforce what we think, not if they unsettle us (I had this conversation with Christians concerning Pedro the Lion.)

Churches, too, can further insulate their members by catering to these tendencies. Instead of encouraging parishioners to submit to the congregation, an elder, or mentor, churches often teach them to self-diagnose and self-prescribe their spiritual formation regimen. Or they offer a variety of service times and styles to prevent congregants from making difficult (and formative) decisions about priorities.

When you walk without the insulation of shoes, you don’t have the privilege of deciding when to tread rocky ground or cool mud or warm sand. But that’s just what makes our feet resilient. We take the rough terrain when it comes and learn balance in the process. Similarly, if I lived without spiritual insulation, I would learn balance by adjusting my stride to account for difficulties when they arise, not by avoiding them until I’m ready to face them. My spiritual feet would toughen and I would be healthier for it.

What’s the solution? Spiritual disciplines are a great place to start. We can slip off our shoes and maneuver uncomfortable ground through fasting, silence, and giving. Over time—according to the saints who do this sort of thing—you find the periods of discipline more natural than indulgence, and your feet stay bare more often.
You Walk (with God) Wrong | Out of Ur

Church-Going Facades

Starlyth — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 03:42:04 +0000

It’s easy for Christians in our day to fall into the “showy religiosity” pit. We put on our happiest face at church, even though our hearts are far from the Lord. Or we look as if we’re worshipping with zeal when our minds are wandering.

Avoiding a Show of Religiosity
Daily Reflection and Prayer by Mark D. Roberts from The High Calling

Sometime back, I heard someone speak about a painful truth of church attendance, that is that people lie when responding to the question, “how are you?” Of course, I think some people lie (whether at church or elsewhere) when they even ask the question with its implication of actually caring. Part, and only part, of the issue is that we Christians have been told that we are to be always joyful, confusing joy with happiness. We have the deep-seated love and assurance in Jesus Christ, but sorry, we’re not going to be happy all the time.

Now, I am not talking about discussing all one’s woes, but one’s heart. If I am feeling depressed, not an uncommon occurrence, I shouldn’t be also concerned about others’ judgment of my Christian walk. We all have emotions of varying states and sorts.

What does this have to do with the quote above and the related scripture (Matthew 6:16-18)?

Is praying out load and publicly to be seen, or giving alms to the poor to be seen, or publicly fasting (and looking like it) any different than wearing the false Christian joy face?

What Does God Want From Me?! What Does He Want From You?!

Starlyth — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:46:01 +0000

My eldest son came to me after taking a shower. He walked up to me and put his arms around me, and said, “I love you, Daddy.” My heart is so warmed by those four words, especially from him, as he is the child with whom I struggle the most. What does that have to do with God?

God wants us to say to him, “I love you.”^†

Of course, the argument that comes up that if all God wants is our love, then why does it matter what we call him or how we relate to him? That is a valid, and good, question. Does it matter what I call you? Does matter how I relate to you? Much of the very problems in our world is how we relate to others. How could it not matter what we call God and how we relate to him?

^†To prevent a minor theological issue, God doesn’t need to hear it, or even need our love.↵

The Form of the Future

Starlyth — Sat, 24 May 2008 03:37:58 +0000

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?

Lean Solves Everything

Starlyth — Fri, 23 May 2008 04:29:05 +0000

Okay, not really, but it sure applies to things I haven’t thought of. The company I work for is an enthusiastic applier of lean thinking methodology, and so I’ve tried to keep an eye on the thought process, and the ideas of those who have implemented it, or help others implement it. Kevin Meyer at Evolving Excellence posted A Lean Approach to Poverty, which discusses more efficient (and seemingly efffective) ways to end poverty—other than a new government (or NGO) program.

I haven’t been sold on the emerging church movement, not that they don’t have a few things going for them, but that have forced the “established” church to reevaluate itself, which is a good thing. Another area where the church may reevaluate itself is its world poverty programs. While this may not be ideal, at the same time, in many ways it might be better than the short term mission trips.

Writing Love on Their Arms

Starlyth — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:51:31 +0000

Writing Love on Their Arms is a somewhat disturbing read. Yet, at the same, one of great hope and joy. We in the church are often, rightly (especially when history is taken into account, but a little less now), accused of staying away from sinners¹, instead of joining with them and loving them.

Here is a case of Christian teens loving the unloved, and while she may not yet be “saved” in the Christian sense, she has been saved from crashing and burning out.

¹This is a theological minefield. We are all sinners. The false separation that was especially prevalent in the 20^th century is wrong. The church is still recovering from it, and may never do so.«

Not Enough Foolishness

Starlyth — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 05:26:40 +0000

Sermon for 2 April 2008.

This is not the first “sermon” I have delivered, but it is the only one that I have video and audio of. If you wish to torture yourself, here are the links:

Not Enough Foolishness (Audio Only: MP3)

Video

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Why Fix It When You Can Get a New One?

Starlyth — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:47:28 +0000

New Churches Needed to Combat ‘Evangelistic Deficit’ in U.S. displays the epitome of the American consumer culture. Why fix, help, change, or repair something if it’s easier (and/or cheaper) to get a new one?

Dry Facts Do Not Explain Everything

Starlyth — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:43:51 +0000

In ‘Living Together’ Before Marriage a Statistical Risk, it is rightfully argued that doing so is significantly more likely to not lead to a strong and lasting marriage.

While that is statistically correct (and I am opening my heart and life to the web here, not the most comfortable thing), it isn’t 100% correct. My wife and I cohabited before marriage. While I would agree that part of it may have well been selfishness, I would also argue that we had a different view of what we were doing. In the article (and I suspect also in the book), it states:

Women see it as a step toward marriage. They think they can audition for this job. Men do it because they like to have the ready availability of sex and having someone share their living expenses. Women should heed their mother’s advice — if you give away the milk, he won’t buy the cow.

While there may be many women and men who be classified as those above, my wife and I weren’t it. I think, that if we had thought it through a little better, we would have just gotten married, but without the marriage ceremony (and the chaos that ended up around that almost happened is crazy enough). When my wife and I moved in together, there were no separate lives. We had a joint checking account the moment she moved in. Everything was joined…as if we were married. I don’t know if my wife and I are different (okay, yes, we are), but marriage conservative Christians need to understand that statistics don’t tell the whole tale.

My wife and I did get marriage counseling prior to marriage, and I still have to admit that it was very beneficial, even though we were already living together. I know that I will have to confront my decisions when my children grow older, and be honest about them. However, it is understanding what a true marriage is, its benefits, the consequences of not having it, and (most importantly) being able to explain it, not just as statistical facts, but as a heart issue with Jesus.

Sometime, I will have to explain why/when we got married, but suffice to say (for now) that God moves in mysterious ways.

Teaching the Faith

Starlyth — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:50:13 +0000

That led her to join a nine-month process known in the Catholic Church as RCIA, or Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults.

Churches open doors to more converts

In the Nazarene Church, we go through a membership class which lasts a few weeks. In the Lutheran Church, the same. However, these classes do not truly teach the faith. Of course, a nine month course like the Roman Catholic Church might scare more than a few people off, which might not be a bad thing. I once heard that the early Christian church, there was a three year “apprenticeship” for new converts before they became baptized. That’s a whole lot different than today, which may explain why so much of the populace call themselves Christian, but have no true understanding of the faith.

Oddly enough, it might also might explain why churches, as a whole, are losing members, not a conflict with the world (although, that doesn’t help), but if the church cares so little about teaching people deeply about the faith, encouraging them to invest in their faith (note: I am not talking about a church building or congregation), perhaps they might not be so quick to leave it.

In the Lutheran church, I heard nightmare stories about confirmation. While they sounded horrible, I suspect that they were inflicted upon the children not as punishment, but for the very reason I mentioned. They became invested in the faith.

Now, that does not mean that through trials, tribulations, doubts, depression, or questions, that a person will not leave the faith. There is nothing that can guarantee it. The end goal is to have a Christian who has more than a cursory understanding of their faith, so that they can truly live it.

“Missional” refers to purposeful

Starlyth — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:23:34 +0000

In a little ad for a conference of Lifeway Ministries, I pulled out a little tidbit that struck me, especially within the context of the Emerging/Emergent/Missional Church conversations that are being had within the Christian community.

“Missional” refers to purposeful.

I have thought that much of the “missional” discussion seemed off-kilter somehow, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. This almost tossed away phrase (but, really, in the ad and PR world there is, or should be, no such thing) I think puts the emphasis in the right place.

However, what it also does is put into question not a few assumptions about living the “Christian” life as a “reluctant” witness. The emphasis is to go out and make disciples of Christ purposefully.

This does not mean I’m going to blindside you, or harass you, until you convert or run away. Does this mean I won’t pray for you, or try to be an example of someone who is a disciple of Christ (no matter how poorly I do it)? Of course not!

Bearing the Silence of God

Starlyth — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:17:16 +0000

In Bearing the Silence of God, Ziya Meral talks about the spiritual state of believers in the midst of persecution. Specifically, he speaks in regards to persecution by Muslims, but this goes on around the world, even in “Christian” nations.

What amazes me is how similar his feelings seem to be to Mother Teresa’s.

Rediscovering Sabbath Rest

Starlyth — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:26:52 +0000

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.

…(drool)…

Starlyth — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:30:14 +0000

Yes, it is not very Christian to want something, but COME ON…5 horsepower to go 60mph!

hattip: Flixxy

Missional Church Analysis

Starlyth — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:46:47 +0000

In his article, What Makes a Church Missional?, J. Todd Billings does a decent (although, by necessity, not very in depth) analysis of the concept of the “Missional Church.”

It is fairly balanced, I think. The biggest thing is not that the concept of Missional Church (as currently described is a few decades old) is new, but that it is not.

Thus, we should not be surprised that God’s new work in mission is also an old work. For we are not shaped primarily by the spirit of the 1950s, the 1990s, or 2008, but by the eternal Spirit, who has been shaping and sending witnesses to the gospel for thousands of years.

Economist ≠ Socialogist

Starlyth — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:04:15 +0000

In his post, Why data matters, on the Official Google Blog, Hal Varian writes about the “wisdom of the crowds.”

Mr. Varian needs to check the Google Zeitgeist. The wisdom of the crowds? Sounds like the wisdom of the mob (not the Mob).

What? Me, Unplug?

Starlyth — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:11:51 +0000

A great blog post by brought these three articles to my attention:

Less Television and Computer Gaming May Keep Children Slimmer. Granted, this is kind of a “duh,” however, the reason may not be what you think.
An Email Free Day
I Need a Virtual Break, No, Really.

What I find interesting in the last article is the term “secular sabbath”. Despite being, from my point of view, a contradiction in terms, the concept is valid. In fact, I am pondering avoiding my computer all Sunday. I might even avoid television and gaming (okay, granted I don’t do much gaming).

This somewhat flies in the face of popular “wisdom” that the up-and-coming generation is “wired” for multi-tasking. Just something else to ponder.

hattip to:The Point

What About Pain?

Starlyth — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:22:29 +0000

In Calling on the Saints, Heather Gemmen Wilson talks about faith, family (both personal and church), love and forgiveness, and all in the context of the aftermath of being raped.

I hope every church, including my own (including me, for that matter), can respond in such love to another’s hurt. I would also hope that those that are hurting understanding something else she wrote:

Most people don’t blame the church directly for the trials in their lives, but many do accuse the church of not responding appropriately when calamity strikes. Church leaders and laypeople alike certainly make mistakes as they care for us in times of need. However, if we allow that their mistakes come from their own wounds and that their love is genuine, if imperfect, we nearly always find ourselves more healed than hurt.

Definitely an article worth reading.

ekklesiaproject.org – Telephones and What is Good for Us

Starlyth — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:30:05 +0000

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.

Selfishness and Going It Alone

Starlyth — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:22:57 +0000

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Mark 10:2-9

English Standard Version (ESV)

The Curt Jester wrote a great piece regarding the Roman Catholic Church and divorce (and remarriage). He notes that the RC church is accused of being hard of heart for keeping its “old-fashioned” stance on divorce and remarriage. As noted in the scripture above, Jesus addresses that. It is for our (Yes, Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, but He was also speaking to us all.) hardness of heart that divorce was allowed at all⁺.

When he wrote his piece, the Curt Jester was specifically address the selfish nature of people. However, this really isn’t just about selfishness.

⁺I would also point out that this passage by omission and implication removes the validity of polygamy.»

It’s Not Just The Americans, Then?

Starlyth — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:21:39 +0000

The Archbishop of Canterbury, as I’m sure many are aware, has declared that Sharia law should be officially endorsed in England. Unofficially it is endorsed, but by being officially endorsed there is a huge potential for disaster. However, regardless of the lawful/lawlessness that would result, the fact that the man who is, for all intensive purposes, the leader of the entire communion of Anglicans (Episcopals in the U.S.A.) advocating precepts of Islam strikes me as something far too similar to the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. with its various issues, and almost guaranteed schism. If he doesn’t believe that Bible of his any more then he no longer has the clear spiritual leadership of the Communion any longer.

A Take on Generosity

Starlyth — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:08:10 +0000

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.

Atheism and Violence

Starlyth — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:13:46 +0000

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

What DO We Believe?

Starlyth — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:36:16 +0000

…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.

Log Into Another Session On Terminal Server

Starlyth — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:32:17 +0000

I log into my computer at work (I am blessed to be telecommuting 3+ days a week) using Remote Desktop Connection. During various internet burps, or other connection issues, I’ve ended up reconnecting to the server using another session, meaning all the stuff I was working on is inaccessible. I discovered this by accident. I’m sure it’s somewhere posted on the internet, but as I was unable to find it using a number of search engines, I thought I put it out there.

Situation: connection to Terminal Server was lost. When reconnecting to Terminal Server, user is unable to connect to session already active.

Work Around:

Within new session

Activate Task Manager

If button is available (left) click on it
Otherwise:

Press and hold Windows key, and press “R” key, or
(left) click “Start” button, (left) click “Run…”
Run Dialog will open. Type “taskmgr”, and press Return/Enter key, or (left) click on “OK”

Activate “User” tab in Task Manager
Determine desired session

Method 1: icon of person to the left of user name is black & white (current active session is color)
Method 2: sessions are numbered, session with lower number will be the lost session.

Right-click on user name/icon of desired session. A menu will pop-up, left-click on “connect”.
Old session should now be active.
Repeat steps 1-2, verify that newer session is not listed. If newer session is listed…

Right-click on user name/icon. A menu will pop-up, left-click on “logoff”. Undesired session will now be completely shut-down (this is a good thing)

Close Task Manager by left-clicking “X” button at the top-right of window, or select File»Exit.

Don’t Look at Me; Look At HIM

Starlyth — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:41:02 +0000

Lou Braun writes:

I have had some negative experiences with Christians as well, but what I have found liberating is not focusing on people who claim to follow Jesus, but rather look to follow Jesus myself. A lot of people hate religion, maybe even church, but I don’t know many who despise Jesus.

I don’t want to take away his thunder, so I recommend his note, especially in regards to “New Age” religions. He provides a perspective I hadn’t heard, at least in that way, before.

What caught my attention is something I have noted previously, people always look to people. Sadly, we Christians are not perfect. Some seem to imply that they are, but I think that is more a case of inference, rather than implication. All are sinners.

I am a poor reflection of God’s love and perfection. You want perfection? Look at Him.

You Go, Squirrel!

Starlyth — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:04:00 +0000

JFJ: Holding The Mirror For Christians

Starlyth — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:16:15 +0000

David Brickner’s latest article, Jesus and His People, is a good mirror, from a Messianic Jewish perspective, of evangelical Christians.

The Divide Between “Mainline” and “Evangelical” Needs to be Bridged

Starlyth — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:16:51 +0000

Rick Warren often strikes me as a tad shallow. However, I am beginning to understand his point of view, somewhat. In this interview in Christian Today, he speaks about how the split in perspective between the two churches has hurt both, and by default the mission of Christ.

This dovetails nicely into a little cartoon I saw in the Jews For Jesus newsletter that I received today. It’s too bad I couldn’t find it, but I assume it was just a cute cartoon with the words of Moishe Rosen (the founder of Jews For Jesus) put into. It said:

I’m always amazed when one believer sets out to “sink” another believer’s “ship.” How is it that they fail to notice we’re all in the same boat?”
…so we, being many, are one body in Christ and individually members of one another.

Romans 12:5

Joel Osteen And Politics

Starlyth — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:47:29 +0000

Okay, I have to admit that Joel Osteen kind of gives me the creeps. However, I also have to admit that his interview in Christian Today is worthy of kudos. I wish a lot of churches would have his same perspective. While he still rubs me the wrong way, I will no longer be so quick to dismiss him, as I have seen wisdom in him today.

The Return of the Monster Movie

Starlyth — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:53:13 +0000

Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online is not someone I would expect to be a monster movie fan, but I was wrong. His review of the new movie Cloverfield is very interesting. I wasn’t even slightly interested in seeing it, but his review has caused me to rethink that. I may not see it in the theater (I know, travesty), but I will probably NetFlix it.

The Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost

Starlyth — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:28:22 +0000

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?

The War On Scientology Has Begun (Humor, I think)

Starlyth — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:29:58 +0000

Government Says Chinese Need More “Spiritual” Content. Say What?

Starlyth — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:05:21 +0000

“This shows that the Hubei People’s Radio and Television Station’s propaganda and management abilities have serious flaws which are in urgent need of rectification,” it added.

But the station got away with merely a “criticism,” the statement said, without explaining why the punishment was so light.

“Provide more and better spiritual food for the masses,” it added in an admonition to other provincial broadcasters.

from: Reuters: Oddly Enough

Okay, maybe it’s just me but the Communist Chinese government saying that there should be more spiritual content strikes me as totally out of whack, as they do everything they can to repress all spirituality.

Thanks for Not Taking More of MY Money!

Starlyth — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:24:54 +0000

Some day, the lawmakers may figure out an efficient way to fix the A.M.T. permanently and make up for the billions in revenue it brings in. That will not happen this year, but Wednesday afternoon’s vote was still good news for millions.

The New York Times: House Votes to Spare Millions From Tax

How about the Flat Tax?

A quick aside: whether it’s “mine” or the “government’s”, it is still God’s.

Turn Off the Lights for Your Health

Starlyth — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:20:34 +0000

Back in August, I wrote about light pollution. I can even still remember the night sky that caused me to write it.

Yesterday, a blog post appeared on the Clampham Institute website discussing the detrimental links between artificial light and cancer (hattip to: The Point). Apparently, in the same article in the New Yorker that generated the Wired.com story (which is what caused me to post in August), David Owens (the author of the New Yorker article) references this potential link between artificial light and cancer.

If artificial light is adding to cancer, what else does it do?

Shame Should Have Been Outweighed By Love

Starlyth — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:10:04 +0000

I may be a right-wing fanatic Christian to some. I may be a clueless emotional liberal Christian to others. The truth is that Jesus Christ loves us, not because of who we are, or what we’ve done, but because of who He is (paraphrased, “I Surrender All”, Newsboys).

With the “traditional” family as the framework, I understand the situation of unwed mothers who made mistakes. While the error was significant, people’s obsession with it is damaging. I also completely understand to maintain the social norms and such. However, Jesus forgave those who came to Him and asked for forgiveness (out of honest repentance). Can we do any less?

People make mistakes. Christians make mistakes. Even Perfect Christians (see Wesley’s
A Plain Account of Christian Perfection) make mistakes (of course, within the context of this blog post we are talking about a sin, not a simple mistake).

A woman recently died in England. A few months before she did, the 50-year old body of a baby was found in a suitcase. She compounded one sin with a worse one. God will judge her, but my heart aches for her. To have carried that burden so long.

We in the Church must be concerned with sin, for that is why Christ came. However, we must not let that destroy compassion. I was in my Sunday School class this past Sunday, and we talked about how Mary was a failure to the society around her, and probably her family, too. Yet she truly did nothing wrong. From our perspective, Jesus was certainly conceived out of wedlock, but remember He was without sin, thus his conception was sinless as well.

While I know the woman in this case is not Mary, and I suspect by what is not said that was not only an act (or time period) of fornication, but also adultery, it does not change the fact that the pressures put upon this woman created a heart-wound that ended the life of the child.

Pro-lifers, and I am one, need to always keep our hearts open to people such as her.

May she rest in peace.

May her family and those affected by her death and the revealing of long kept secrets find peace as well

Calculate Your Fair Tax

Starlyth — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:07:06 +0000

Americans for Fair Taxation has released a calculator that will help you determine how much your purchasing power will change (usually improving) were the Fair Tax implemented.

Even Dumb (or Bad) Movies Can Make You Think

Starlyth — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:12:34 +0000

In his review of I Am Legend, Todd Hertz says:

It’s an interesting direction for a movie about the impact of scientific advancement. So what is it saying about science and God? That scientific advances foolishly allow man to play God? Or that science is comparable to that fast car capable of good or evil, depending on the driver?

I like movies that make me ask questions, but the true point of a good movie is to make you think (or at least a factor in what I call a good movie). I don’t like it when movies give you all the answers (except for the fact that if they leave something open, people believe that there should be a sequel). What I find odd is that Mr. Hertz seems to knock the movie for not answering the questions, but then he has questions of the reader at the end of his review, that are not “right or wrong” questions, but questions that encourage thought and discussion.

All Of The Holidays With None Of The Religious Stuff

Starlyth — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:18:26 +0000

I’m all for the freedom of religion (or free not to believe). In fact, I think the right thing to do would be for governments (you know, where it says in the U.S. Constitution freedom from religion) to provide a number of floating holidays, thus allowing Muslims or Jews, or whatever other religion to take time off for their religious days rather than the Christian ones.

The part that always throws me on that idea, is all those who aren’t Christian (not just atheists, but non-Christian believers in something other than Christianity) who celebrate Christian Holy days. A great example is Richard Dawkins, an atheist celebrity, who has declared himself a cultural Christian (archived copy).

Dawkins’ self-portrayal as a “Cultural Christian” should make all self-avowed Christians even more concerned about “Cultural Christianity.” Perhaps the Church in the Western world should return to its initial state of persecuted.

Men and Marriage

Starlyth — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:32:55 +0000

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.

They Just WISH The Church Was Dead

Starlyth — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:49:05 +0000

There is a lot of discussion floating around that the “traditional” church is dead, and that it will be replaced by the (not yet completely uniformly defined) “emerging” church. The New Attitude blog has something to say regarding that, and it is well worthwhile to read.

Pray, Tell! What Does The Future Hold?

Starlyth — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:35:22 +0000

There have been articles, commentaries, blogs (of which I’m adding to, of course), podcasts, and what have you, about the imminent demise of the church.

Sorry, but it has been all said before.

War is not pretty and neat, nor is life

Starlyth — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:12:58 +0000

Wired has an article that I hope a lot of people pay attention to for many reasons. As a telecommuter, I understand the disassociation that can occur between telecommuter and company, often mere in perception, not reality.

Back when the first Bush was president he started the “downsizing” of “soft”-intelligence work. In other words, removing agents from the field. President Bill Clinton continued the policy, even more aggressively. This is part of the reason for 9/11, but only a small part.

People need people. As much as Second Life replicates people, there is much to be said for being able to have camaraderie in a real physical sense. As virtual reality becomes more like reality (especially in regards to the senses), perhaps then one can know a person through a computer, but who knows, everyone seems to be getting better about their masks (and the seeming need for them), so maybe we don’t really know any one at all.

For this article held few surprises, too bad that it seems to for so many others.

Armed and Polite

Starlyth — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:31:52 +0000

The Munchkin Wrangler has posted Why the Gun is Civilization. I think I’m getting to the point (Thanks, Allen) to where politics, even the 2nd Amendment, aren’t nearly as important as they used to be.

That is not to say that they are unimportant to me, but the longer I walk along the Way, God’s ways become more important than my rights. Which is the way it should be. That being said, why write something about which someone has written more eloquently.

Choose: Red, White, and Blue OR Red Versus Blue

Starlyth — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:59:48 +0000

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.

The Whole Money Thing

Starlyth — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:13:06 +0000

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.

Thank You, God!

Starlyth — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:42:40 +0000

God has provided blessings innumerable. Sin has brought curses to counter the blessings. Being thankful is being humble, which is probably why so few are thankful (that includes me).

Thanksgiving Day in America – The Secret Riches of Thankfulness by Rev. Michael Bresciani ( archived copy )

The Dollar is Falling! The Dollar is Falling!

Starlyth — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:23:11 +0000

In Me and Ron Paul, I knocked some of the historical basis for the assault on the Federal Banking System. While I still believe that a central system does need to exist, Thomas Breton’s article, Chickens Are Returning to the Roost, may cause me to modify my perspective somewhat. While I still believe that basing one’s currency on gold (or silver, or something else “precious”, Golem not withstanding) is silly because gold is only as valuable as one perceives it, Mr. Breton brought to my attention that the benefit of a gold (or whatever) standard is that supply is limited (I guess we shouldn’t have a “hot air” standard, eh, D.C.?). Therefore limits (if rules of ratios are followed, but we know rules and politicians) on currency production and lending becomes naturally integrated into the system (hmm, banking and credit issues, anyone?).

Mr. Breton’s point that banks would have to have tangible (read gold or whatever standard) assets to exchange for paper currency, means that banks would be less likely to loan money to any one (including me). Of course, such a path, would send the tax and spend politicians (please note that this is regardless of party affiliation) into a tizzy. Also, companies such as MasterCard, Visa, Sears, BancAmerica, and so on would no longer be quite so willing to give credit cards to pets or dead people.

This is sounding better and better.

And I’m quite serious about it.

Will Racism Return?

Starlyth — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 03:35:27 +0000

An interesting article at the New York Times discusses the rising specter of racism and prejudice based on genetics. The writer points out some blog postings and comments that are disturbing. That being said, there is something to be said about self-imposed homogeneity, especially in business…failure. I don’t want to see organizations forced to accept those with whom they (with or without basis) do not wish to associate with, nor do I want to see a stratified society based on genetics.

Nevermind…everyone should just see Gattaca.

The Quiet (some say silenced) Side of Anthopogenic Climate Change

Starlyth — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:05:10 +0000

KLTV had an interesting segment on one of their news shows recently about anthropogenic global warming. I wish I could embed it in this post, but they make it rather difficult, so here is the link.

Hat Tip to: NewsBusters.org

The New City Transit System

Starlyth — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:32:17 +0000

A professor at MIT has come out with a design for a individual/public-transit concept, with cars for rent on every corner. Frankly, sounds like one of the many sci-fi books I’ve read over the years, but as a victim of mass transit, I can certainly understand this concept as a better than nothing situation.

The article: MIT reinvents the wheel with foldable, stackable car ( archived copy )

Hat Tip to: Slashdot

My Anger Problem

Starlyth — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:51:33 +0000

Do I get angry? Yes! Is that a good thing? In retrospect, probably not. Should we encourage people to be angry? NO! (that’s not anger, that’s emphasis)

Apparently, some well-meaning (hmm, something about a road…) Christian psychologists are saying it’s okay to be angry. Well, I suppose that in some situations it might be okay.

Dr. Archibald Hart writes a critique of a new book added to the “it’s okay to be angry” list. I suspect the author of the book, Andrew D. Lester, was referring more to anger in a counseling session, but the problem that attitudes carry through into life.

I think I’ll add Anger Management to my netflix queue.

Atlas Shrugged…Thanks to Hercules

Starlyth — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:21:05 +0000

I was just going to ignore the whole Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged anniversary thing, but this article, by Maggie Gallagher, finally caused me to mouth off.

The thing that has always bothered me about Ayn Rand’s stuff was that it was too individualistic. Even in the building of the dream house (I can’t remember the main character’s name, the architect, nor do I care, frankly), individualism was revered despite the fact that it took a team to build the monstrosity.

Maggie Gallagher finally gets to the real flaw in Ayn Rand’s thinking (or at least her writing), love exists. It isn’t always rational. Get over it! The real kicker for me is this:

“So you did it all yourself?”

“Yep.”

“No one helped you?”

“Nope.”

“Who changed your diapers?”

Art of the Outcast

Starlyth — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:02:27 +0000

All too often we look at those around us who are in different circles and unconsciously dismiss them as not adding to our live.

An art exhibit in London exemplifies this. (archived copy)

We all have our expectations of a “productive” member of society. The problem is that art like this is only displayed under unique circumstances. If this is any indication of the art that will be on display, there are more than a few artists that do not need to be in shelters anymore.

On the MSM

Starlyth — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:59:32 +0000

Despite what you might think from reading my blog, I don’t want the mainstream media to fade away. I think the MSM thinks of itself as the “fourth branch of government,” thus, like many bureaucracies, is unable to change quickly. That is a major problem in the internet age, where 1 year is a very long time. The mainstream media has a perception issue, well, actually two. Their first issue it their perception of themselves as the bulwark of freedom and information. Sorry, folks, not any more, I would question if ever. Their second issue is their audience, who view them as biased (and this refers to them all, including FoxNews), and rightly so.

The first time I heard this was in 2004. In fact, I emailed this article to myself, and have kept in my email since then (packrat that I am). Al Neuharth, founder of USAToday wrote back on 11 Nov 2004 (archived copy) that the MSM bias is its trouble, along with its intent to bury us in ads.

Ron Rosenbaum just wrote an article, Shocking Inside DC Scandal Rumor: A Media Ethics, that isn’t nearly as surprising as he thinks. This happens all the time.

However, where the real damage occurs is locally. The Spokesman-Review is “downsizing” (archived copy). Their ad revenues have fallen. Go back to the man who had the foresight to add color to the newspaper (Al Neuharth).

The recent debacle at the New Republic regarding their less than stellar vetting of an “on the ground” soldier in Iraq, doesn’t help the situation. The MSM’s only hope is quicker and thorough vetting (Yes, that seems to be an oxymoron, but a way must be found.). Also, content that is more neutral and fact-based. This cannot be done be cutting back staff. This cannot be done by more ad revenue (Ads turn people away, remember?).

Do I have an answer? I wish. I just know that, “that’s the way we’ve always done it,” will kill off the MSM.

It’s for the children

Starlyth — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:57:32 +0000

This could be funny…well, it is…sort of…in a very sick and twisted sort of way—in a big government, nanny-state sort of way.

Rightly Green

Starlyth — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:40:38 +0000

The left would have us believe that to be an environmentalist you have to believe in catastrophic threats, dramatic increases in government power and economically draconian solutions. Such a big-government bureaucracy, trial-lawyer-litigation and excessive-regulation “environmentalism” does a poor job of protecting the environment while it erodes individual freedom, destroys jobs and weakens our country.

The time has come for the development of a mainstream environmentalism as an alternative to big bureaucracy and big litigation environmentalism. You could call it “green conservatism,” but it’s really the mainstream environmental approach that has worked so well in the United States. President Theodore Roosevelt epitomized this approach when he said, “The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose and method.

Newt Gingrich

One of the things that truly bothers me about “the right” is that they have allowed the environmentalist-left to define the situation. This seems to be a regular behavior of the Republican Party as a whole. Of course, “the right” has ignored the environmentalist-left for so long that even those of us supposedly on “the right” don’t want to be painted with the environmentalist tag, as it invariably comes with a “left-leaning” connotation.

“Right-wing Christian” people are starting to attempt to redefine the framework and are being vilified by both “the right” and “the left.” I’ve been recycling since I was a kid. There are stories about my avidness that cause many to just shake their heads. I understand what happens when things are no longer repaired, but just thrown out.

What has happened in regards to environmentalism is what is happening to the entire democratic (yes, officially republic) system and the society of the Unites States as a whole—over politization.

I’m all for a candidate who will “heal” the nation, but that won’t happen. I wish I could figure out how to get people that are so busy vilifying the other guy to talk. Maybe, for once, something good might actually get done, rather than political payoff and pork.

Movies as Peeping Toms (or Janes) ?

Starlyth — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:13:28 +0000

If you peek through someone’s window at a couple that are making love, it’s against the law — you’d be thrown in jail as a pervert. And yet we peep through a screen of window called a movie screen, and then it becomes alright. It’s not alright!

Ray Comfort, Living Waters Ministries

I have to admit that I had never thought of it quite that way. Of course, where does one draw the line. Certain “classic” books have such “scenes” in them. The Bible is one, of course.

Not that I completely disagree with him, actually. He does cause me to think about what I put into my life. It really is too bad that far too much sex and violence is put into movies that actually doesn’t add to the plot. Hollywood, slowly, is starting to listen. Hollywood still doesn’t understand it. Hollywood does understand money, though.

Oh, but for conventional wisdom

Starlyth — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:48:23 +0000

We have all heard how horribly our students are doing in comparison to the rest of the world. According to a new study, that’s old news—and wrong news.

According to this article (archived copy) in Business Week, our public schools are now near the top in the world. That is certainly not how it’s being sold to us. Is it?

It can’t be the behavior!

Starlyth — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:19:16 +0000

An article floating around the web misses the true fact of the story (Hey, the AP and the UN have to keep their record consistent.) The United Nations in its anti-Christian tirade attacks the Roman Catholic church blaming them for opposing condoms. The problem is that the United Nations forgot to attack the REAL reason for the increasing number of A.I.D.S.—sex.

There are actually a couple of problems. The first is the prevalent view is that sex is always good between consenting individuals, regardless of age. The second is that we “can’t” say that it is bad, or at least the UN can’t. So, they attack the easy target that hasn’t fallen into their line. The Roman Catholic Church believes that (1) sex should not occur outside of marriage, (2) life begins at conception, (3) that a condom is mankind’s attempt to prevent God’s will, (4) the admonition to be fruitful and multiply, and I’m sure others. Since the Roman Catholic Church has some values that predate the UN, they must be too old-fashioned and must be destroyed.

It’s the behavior that is increasing the quantity of A.I.D.S., it’s not whether or not the Roman Catholic Church’s directive on condoms. By the way, the people who are using condoms (violating the directive under attack) are violating another directive against pre- and extra-marital sex. Hmm, I don’t think they care about the Roman Catholic Church’s feelings about condoms.

Oh, wait, that was logical thinking. Something that doesn’t prevail at the UN. So, I guess that’s a bid ol’ nevermind.

Who are you, really?

Starlyth — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:45:43 +0000

This is not a rhetorical or philosophical question, but an internet question. One of the greatest things about the internet is its basic anonymity. The greatest weakness of the internet is its basic anonymity. Don’t misunderstand me, the internet is not even closely anonymous as many perceive it to be.

I recently received an email from Naymz, a place to “claim” your names on the internet, regarding the services of Trufina. Trufina is a website/service that seeks to be your identity clearinghouse. They seek to gather all your personae and provide 3^RD party “authentication” so people are assured that it is you. You can even have them run a criminal background check on you so that you can present a clean record to an employer.

Immediately, some people are going to scream, “invasion of privacy!” Since you are the one giving up the information, it isn’t an invasion. “Don’t trust the man!” Frankly, since I would be the one providing the information, I trust them slightly more than the government (granted, that isn’t saying much). The government gathers a lot of information about me I wish they wouldn’t, and I don’t even know what information they actually have about me. I don’t know what is false, what is true, or what isn’t their business to know about me.

The advantage that a private corporate clearinghouse has is that as I would be the one providing the information, is that I know what they have. I, according to their website and privacy policy, can choose with whom to share based upon preset profiles. Companies that partner with Trufina would tell Trufina exactly what information they require for a transaction.

Trufina is not the only clearinghouse. There is OpenID. There is one being pushed by Sun. There was the (failed) Microsoft Passport, which is now primarily a Microsoft identity clearinghouse. For once, in Microsoft‘s case, they were actually thinking ahead, but too far ahead.

This will be needed in the future. For the internet to sooner become what it will become eventually, some sort of identity system (or multiple systems) will need to be in play. As larger and larger transactions are processed over the internet, identity verification will become crucial. The only way we will determine what form that takes is by participating in it, rather than moaning about it.

As to Trufina, I like what they offer. Their pricing is decent, but never provides a time line what your money buys for how long. Their About Us page leaves a lot to be desired. As you go digging you find more, but the key is to not make people dig to find basic information, like why I should trust them.

I’m going to wait a bit, yet. I know this is coming, hence my Naymz profile. There are a number of networking/social sites that verify based on connections, which in many ways is better. For one-time transactions or employment applications, I think Trufina and those that follow and preceded it will be the wave of the future.

The Information Superhighway? Bah, Humbug!

Starlyth — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:48:13 +0000

It is SO much MORE! Michael Wesch of Kansas State University created a little video, Information R/evolution, that is spreading through out the web. The phrase “information superhighway” should be tossed out, for as Mr. Wesch points out, the information is not, and must not be, so constrained.

hattip to: Duncan Riley @ TechCrunch/span>

Plus, there is an article at The Times (UK) that talks about Google

Freedom to Choose…Your Clothes

Starlyth — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:23:40 +0000

While I have issues with people’s decisions on what clothes they wear, I have no intention of beating them or killing them. In Iraq, currently, there people being beaten and killed because of the clothes they wear (or don’t wear), and even hairstyles. Now I believe that a community should decide what “decency” is (yes, that is a discussions in and of itself), but I don’t believe physical harm should occur. Yet, this is exactly what is happening in Iraq. Again, I am no longer as interested in what got us there (bad military intelligence, lies, what have you…), but I do care about leaving Iraq a better place than when we got there. I want our soldiers home. They and their families have sacrificed much (and for even Cindy Sheehan I have thanks, for the wonderful son that she raised, and the sacrifice he made). However, the scars of Vietnam still linger. I believe we need success in Iraq, not only for the Iraqi people (a laudable goal in and of itself), but for ourselves. What is going on in Basra with the fashion-intolerista is insane. That is not a better place. Now, I want to make clear that I suspect that this is not something new, it is just that we are hearing about it.

The original article is at The Kansas City Star website ( archived copy ).
hattip to: The Becket Fund

Who Grew My Food?

Starlyth — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:47:20 +0000

Okay, I have to admit succumbing to the marketing part of this, but it is pretty cool. Using a code on the label of a banana, you can see where that banana was grown, and who grew it. That is pretty slick. I understand the mantra of buy local, and living in a strongly agricultural community I know some of the people who grow the food I eat (which is pretty cool in and of itself). Regardless of how you feel about buying from someplace outside of your local area (Hey, it’s a banana. It’ll be outside of my local area.), seeing the source of food removes a few more layers of distance between the tables of far too many (sub)urbanites and the soil.

Full Reprint Below

DOLEORGANIC.COM
Banana Code Connects Consumers & Farm

“In a world where the concept of ethics seems to have gone bananas, it turns out that bananas can teach a lesson or two about ethics,” observes Andrew Wooldridge, of Inside Work. With the launch of doleorganic.com, consumers can use the three-digit code on labels for Dole organic bananas to virtually visit the farm where the fruit was grown: view the fields via Google Earth; read e-mails from farm workers; learn about the growing regions and their local communities.

“Customers can personally monitor the production and treatment of their fruit from the tree to the grocer,” says Wooldridge. “The process assures the customer that their bananas have been raised to the proper organic standards on an environmentally friendly, holistically minded plantation.”

The site reflects Dole’s dedication to transparency, sustainability and corporate responsibility. It’s these kinds of practices, together with the company’s commitment to nutrition education, which won Dole recognition in Ethisphere Magazine‘s 2007 World’s Most Ethical Companies Ranking, as the most ethical company in the “Agricultural & Food Processing” category.

Doleorganic.com includes a blog, which features correspondence between an American consumer and workers at the Don Pedro Farm in La Guajira, Columbia. One letter is from a harvester, Hicho Arpushana, of the Wayuu Indian Tribe, who says, “Because people like you choose our product, I have a good job in this farm and my wife and seven children have a better life…I will keep harvesting the best bananas for you.” Likewise, the consumer says she will now be thinking “of the people and the beautiful landscape at Don Pedro Farm every time I eat a Dole organic banana.” She’ll also be enjoying a bevy of nutrition benefits, including:

Heart health: Bananas’ fiber, potassium, vitamin C and B6 content make them a Superfood for the Heart.
Early banana consumption is associated with lower risk of childhood leukemia.
Bananas’ prebiotic fiber feeds your “good” gut bugs so they can fight the bad gut bugs and protect you from foodborne viruses.
Children who eat just one banana a day have a 34% less chance of developing asthmatic symptoms.

See Full Issue

That Was Totally Wicked!

Starlyth — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:31:32 +0000

An unabashed stealing of a line from my eldest son’s favorite movie (The Incredibles) is the only thing I can say to describe the fastest production model car in the world.

Me and Ron Paul

Starlyth — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:41:36 +0000

This Ron Paul closing speech was recently posted at Right Mind (Religious Right Boos Ron Paul). I tried to post my entire response to Ron Paul’s speech there, but I guess I wrote too much. Anyways, here is my opinion on the matter.

While I agree with Ron Paul’s sentiments regarding limited government, I would strongly urge anyone to think very carefully about not legislating morality. That’s what legislation is: enforced (or coerced) morality. Who pays what taxes, for example, is morality, hence so many arguments about estate taxes and marriage penalties. I am not saying the government has not overstepped its intended boundaries, but such hyperbole without thought has consequences. Questions such as income redistribution are a morality issue, as is marriage.

When he first gets booed in his speech is when he talks about how gold and silver should be the currency of the land, and I’ve had this discussion before. Here is what I came up with then:

U.S. paper currency, along with the Federal Reserve Bank was created during the Civil War (or The War Between the States) to allow for a better interaction between locals on a financial level. Paper currency existed before that, too (including Colonial times). Each bank (which could the one down the block, a different one at the edge of town, or the State (not Federal Bank) issued it’s OWN money, which was actually a certificate for gold or silver stored at the bank. However, one bank would often (especially if across governmental lines, whether city, county, and definitely state) not recognize the legitimacy of the certificate from the other bank.

This created roadblocks to prosperity, especially if one had to buy stuff from a non-local source. The Federal Reserve system created a consistent methodology to allow currency to change hands with greater ease. The Central Bank only printed and issued money to a bank for a maximum of 60% of its gold, establishing a baseline of both gold value, and paper currency value. This system of reserves (gold, but later, silver) was in place until the 1960′s.

The founder’s did have concerns, very great concerns, that multiple currencies would inhibit commerce (and it did), but were unable to convince the states to go along with a common system.

Now as to the value of gold versus paper, it’s a straw man to me. I don’t value gold as a currency. I see its value, these days, as being a great electrical conductor. What has made it valuable in the human psyche is that we can decorate ourselves with it. And that is what made it valuable in the past, and still. It is what you can do with it. ALL currency is a simplified barter system. If I think that my product is worth 1oz of gold, but you think its worth .5oz, that is no different than my thinking that its worth $500, and you thinking it’s worth $250.

It is all based upon perceived value.

Many that believe themselves in the same camp as Ron Paul state that the federal government has no say right to make money, while Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, in part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Now all that being said, perhaps he meant returning to a gold/silver based backed system of paper and coins. Honestly, no matter what the currency is, no matter by what it is backed, it is all a matter of perceived value. The value of our currency is perception as well, hence his annoyance at the falling dollar. However, depending on the industry, that can be a good thing, except when you’ve outsourced everything, which is a another result of freedom.

Continuing past this, he makes valid (an in my opinion correct) point that there is a habit of looking to Washington,D.C. to fix the problem, and that habit has to be broken. However, the current batch of Republicans will not support that. How does he think they get elected?

He then attacks, rightly, the U.N., and for liberals (whether R’s or D’s) who look to the U.N. to justify (the U.S. gives too much money to actually look for real help from the U.N.) their more “progressive” desires. I also believe that there is validity to his implied point that we obey laws (or someone tries) that the U.N. has passed, without having any granted (by its members nations) power to it to do so.

However, we agreed to the WTO independently of the U.N., as a treaty I believe, obligating ourselves to it as a matter of trade. Now, Ron Paul could say let’s withdrawal from it, but the President (other than signing the bill) has no authority to do so. I am also not sure that the WTO has been effective, whether against or for the U.S., so this could just be another windmill to tilt at (please correct me if I’m wrong). I could probably be persuaded to get out of it purely on reducing government bureaucracy.

If he would stick to freedom (yes, I understand that he views the U.N. and the WTO as anathemas to freedom), where he shines, he would do much better. He is absolutely correct that far too many people rely more on the government than themselves. It will take at least 3 faithful and stalwart generations to break one generation’s failure (see Amit Shlaes abridged speech at Hillsdale)

He then goes on to the “Just War” theory, about which no one should speak, unless they speak of which “Just War” theory. The “Just War” theory has evolved from righteous war to no war at all. Depending on which version of the “Just War” theory you are using, and what you use as a rationale, any war could be just. It always boils down to which is a worse evil, the status quo, or a war (and its aftermath, which is the trust test anyways, not the war itself). As to WMDs (which he referred to as nonexistent), I believe we have a long way to go before we realize the (in)validity of multiple “intelligence” agencies (UK, French, German, Russian, and US all thought Iraq had them). However, I do think we rushed into that one. Maybe. Saddam was a very smart nut case (bad combo), and thus very unpredictable. Kim Il Sung, on the other hand, just throws a temper tantrum, gets his quiet money (or whatever vice he wants to fulfill), and goes and hides for a while, although perhaps the same “intelligence” that guided the Israeli Air Force to attack a site in Syria, and which guided the thoughts of WMDs in Iraq, made the same mistake again (although bureaucrats rarely take risks of repeating the same mistake, they prefer doing nothing) in regards to North Korean nuclear material in Syria.

Now his “declaring war” is kind of weird. Congress declared war by passing the resolution authorizing it. So his reasoning that we either wouldn’t be at war (so no troops lost), or we wouldn’t be arguing about it is off. Regardless of what our history books now say, we have declared war many times, and have still had plenty of protest anyways, especially in regards to continuing it. That is part of the process.

The last booing was at this point, and booing does not add to the discussion, nor do Ron Paul’s comments, frankly. The question before us is which is more evil, abandoning those in Iraq (the justification, or lack thereof, of the war is no longer relevant), or finishing the job (which, granted, still needs to be completely defined, which is part of the problem as well).

Now all THAT being said, I hope he stays in the race, in hopes that the Republican party will repent of their Democrat tendencies.

Sorry about going on so long. I think I’m done now.

Endarkened By God To Be The Light

Starlyth — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:35:26 +0000

If at a certain point she almost does not speak of this night anymore, it is not because it was over, but because she had learned to live within it. Not only had she accepted it, but she recognized the extraordinary grace that it held for her. “I have begun to love my darkness, because I now believe that it is a part, a tiny little part, of the darkness and suffering in which Jesus lived on earth.”

Revisiting the Mystery: The Sanctity of Mother Teresa

The continuing dialog regarding Mother Theresa’s “Dark Night of The Soul” brought out this gem. I think a lot of the mainstream press’ issue is that they do not have the framework to understand. For once, I cannot, and do not, blame them. I am beginning to suspect that much of this has to do with Americanism and Protestantism. A lot of modern, and not so modern, Protestants do not understand mysticism, and promptly put it in the “things we don’t like about Catholicism, Orthodox, and anybody else like that.” There is a seeming lack of understanding just how important mysticism can be to faith.

That being said, mysticism without Biblical guidance can send a person off the path, so this is a worthy concern. Anyways, I don’t really have anything useful to add to the conversation, yet, and I may never have. I do want to bring attention to yet another article that attempts to explain what can be unexplainable.

Today is Constitution Day (220th anniversary of the completion and signing of the Constitution)

Starlyth — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:13:41 +0000

Only at the Feet of Jesus Do We Learn

Starlyth — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:08:42 +0000

There is currently an emphasis in the Church of the Nazarene (CotN) to make disciples of Christ. The CotN’s new mission statement is, “To make Christlike disciples in the nations.” Bishop Nkulu Ntanda Ntambo of the Methodist Church recently delivered a sermon to the Methodist Assembly, and he speaks to the same truth:

Money is not so important. It’s more important to bring Jesus to someone. If the fundraising’s not coming from the bottom of your heart, if Jesus is not there, it’s empty. It’s just vanity.

You Americans enjoy life… All this wealth. This is not going to change the world. Jesus will change the world.

Today, the world is so divided. Many families are broken…There is poor and rich…We can’t bring them together as far as Christians, unless we’re willing to bring Jesus to them.

You can read the IRD article here. (archive copy )

Are You Powerless?

Starlyth — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:39:39 +0000

When people are powerless, they are easily manipulated.
-Rashid Rehman, human rights lawyer
from the article “Pakistan”, National Geographic, September 2007

I hear about the powerlessness of certain people, and every time, it irritates me. I know that sounds strange, but the truth is, we are only as powerless as we allow ourselves to be. This too may sound strange from someone, like myself, who believes in an omnipotent God (a true discussion of that should occur, but it’s close enough to say, for the moment, that I am of the Arminian mindset).

If you perceive yourself as powerless, then you are. There has been a lot of outcry from the G.W. Bush hating segment of society (I am hesitant to call them “the left” as that, frankly, tars the left with a brush most don’t deserve) about how powerless they are to change things. However, if they would embrace the 2^nd amendment, and the freedom (and responsibility) it represents, then they might begin to understand that they are not powerless.

The strong majority of 2^nd amendment supporters (as in 99.99%), have no desire to overthrow the government. Frankly, they just want to be left alone. The people who say they want government out of people’s lives, do nothing to keep the government out, but increasingly pass and support laws that increase governmental intrusion (and, these people are on both sides of the political isle).

The whole 2^nd amendment thing is really a side issue, but a symbol of the situation. People feel powerless, and thus act like it. Wilberforce (as was Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others), was a great example of showing the power of a single voice. What was seemed useless against entrenched power and influence of slavers, eventually won. Wilberforce refused to see himself as powerless. There is so much more to this, but my major thought in regards to this is:

Powerlessness is perception.

How Not to Make a Cleaner Environment

Starlyth — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:38:04 +0000

This was slashdotted today, and I can see why: Dirty Secret—Green Cars Automakers Won’t Sell You (Archived Copy)

Not only can’t you buy one, but the government says it’s currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act—in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off…

Someone is bound to say that it is the Bush Administration’s fault, and it is, only because they didn’t cut red tape that other already put up. Still this is just wacked, but as it says above, “only our government can pull [it] off…”

A Moment of Silence for A Moment of Silence

Starlyth — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:13:00 +0000

Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois vetoed a ‘moment of silence’ bill for students (Archived Copy). Now, oddly enough, I find that it doesn’t bother me that much. Why? It is not the “separation of church and state” that has been misinterpreted for so long. Partly, it is the coercive nature of it. While I believe (as do many who actually study such things) that the “separation of church and state” has been overdone, at the same time it is forcing people to observe time that while not specifically or legally defined as religious, it is in intent.

There is also my belief that one minute of silence is ineffective for prayer or reflection. It takes me a least a minute, often longer, to settle myself to a “place” of silence, where I can even begin to prepare myself for prayer. Does a rational adult (“rational” somewhat tongue-in-cheek for all human beings) think that any child can calm and center themselves then pray effectively in a minute?

The organizations that are pushing these “moments of silence” are unanimously “Christian”, which clouds the “separation” issue further. I wish that they would focus on the students ability to form religious clubs and gather together for religion meetings on school grounds separate from school functions. That would be much more effective and useful. Also, the constitutional gray area disappears as it outside of school functions.

hattip to: OneNewsNow.com

A Good Reason for a Priest/Pastor Not to Marry

Starlyth — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:12:00 +0000

From an AP Article (archived copy):

Clergymen struggling to comfort the afflicted in New Orleans are finding they, too, need someone to listen to their troubles.

Almost every local Episcopal minister is in counseling, including Bishop Charles Jenkins himself, who has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

…Roman Catholic priests have not reported any unusual counseling needs, said the Rev. William Maestri, spokesman for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. He said one possible reason is that priests do not have wives or children to support and protect.

Rev. Maestri has a strong argument. However, one of the needs of humans is intimate relationships (not speaking physically, here) with other humans, and marriage is as intimate as it gets. The Roman Catholic Church cannot understand that completely, as its leaders aren’t married! I understand that many priests feel that they have similar intimacy with fellow workers in Christ, and maybe they do.

I still have to agree that priest that has no family concerns will be much better able to deal with the stresses of others, especially in such a trying situation. However, Bishop Jerkins also states later in the article that this may be the most authentic he feels his ministry has been in years. That is telling in two ways, one, obviously he has been struggling with that, but, two, it is by trial that we are tested and all our masks and societal training is stripped away.

Also, there is an comment by a psychologist noting that a major portion of the clergy are bottling up their feelings, not really dealing with them. I suspect that the Roman Catholic priests are doing such. This is just my feeling (and it could be wrong) that the Roman Catholic Church imposed upon its priests a false (as in it is imposed, not coming from within) detachment, and thus the priests have internalized that they cannot reveal the turmoil within. That being said, it is also my understanding that the Roman Catholic church (again, I could be wrong) all but requires retreats for its priests, which allows for a release of all that is pent up.

hat tip to: The Curt Jester

Bye-Bye, Bell? Hello, Well?

Starlyth — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 02:29:12 +0000

I’ve been reading recently about the apparent nature of society changing from a bell-curve model (that the majority are in the center) to a well-curve model (where the minority is the middle). I’ve come to the conclusion that whomever is making this determination is off their rocker.

What we have is a whole lot of voices on the extremes screaming their lungs out (or typing/writing their fingers out), and the more extreme, the more they’re heard. If you were at a farm, and heard (but couldn’t see) one cow lowing, what would be your assumption? That there is only one cow on the farm? That that one cow speaks for all the other cows? Or would you assume that all the other cows are busy chewing their cud, or whatever else cows do, without making a fuss?

Whomever is making this well-curve pronouncement is making the second assumption, that one cow is speaking for the others.

How do I know this? I don’t. However, when I, whom many would (wrongly) consider a right-wing extremist, start shoving against the right about which cubbyhole I belong in, and feel like they are trying to pull me to their extremes, I suspect that this whole becoming a well-curve society is overblown.

That being said, what is happening is that the screaming extremees are determining the starting point of dialog. If you start out screaming, nobody is going to have any interest in having a dialog with you. I also believe that a lot of people are going along with the screaming extremees just so that they will be quiet. Of course, they don’t start being quiet, they start to scream louder. Then those that are quiet just go along with it again, just so they’ll be quiet. Eventually the quiet ones end up beyond where they wanted or expected to be.

I would like to have a good dialog without all the emotional turmoil and screaming (my own included), but I’m not sure that is possible. And that is just sad. I found myself reacting to this screaming with less and less thought, getting pulled along. Reacting. I am not generally an impulsive person (why be impulsive when you can analyze something do death), but I find myself much more likely to impulsively react than I used to, and frankly, I don’t like it. Now, how I react is my problem, but if everyone is becoming (to some degree, more or less) the same, how can that be good for dialog, or for solving problems?

When Extreme Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Does

Starlyth — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:38:49 +0000

I’ve started paying attention to the “Emerging Church” movement, which is an attempt to redefine the Christian community of faith. There are a lot of issues within that particular movement, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are groups within groups within groups (and then some) within the Emerging Church movement. Some (like me, I’m tempted to say) are no doubt within the “orthodox” (I don’t mean Eastern Orthodox) tent, but are frustrated by the human church that is so hierarchical and stuck in a morass, that it is beginning to fail. There are a lot that are so theologically out there, that even the Episcopal Church (USA) can’t open their arms to accept them.

This is my long introduction to one thing that many in the Emerging Church movement are accused of (and rightfully so in many cases). A particular segment of the Emerging Church movement (I’ll call them the “No Boundaries” segment) is definitely theologically in trouble. In an attempt to reach the unsaved (don’t get me wrong, Jesus tells us to), they water down the Word to such a point that it becomes a feel good show, and not a life of faith. Now, there are people who attend church for the feel good show, but that is not the way it is supposed to be. It certainly shouldn’t be “institutionalized” that way.

The No Boundaries Emerging Church movement segment (NBEMCS) believes that we should put no limits on people as part of their being in the church. While that is good on one hand, because we should not be working to the law, but through faith, it is also bad, because how are we to measure a life of faith and grace? The NBEMCS tries its best to be everything to everyone, which is a problem in and of itself, since that is impossible.

I read an article on The Ooze, Out on the Wings with JesusArchived Copy, Alan Ward states his belief that we have tried to “tame” Jesus, trying to make him more in the middle (as in the middle of the bell-curve, see Bye-Bye, Bell? Hello, Well?). I would say that there has definitely been an effort to tame Jesus, and many Christian authors have commented on that already. Mr. Ward says that Jesus was on the extreme, and He was in many ways. However, and I have to admit I don’t know Mr. Ward’s intent, but it appears as if his article was meant to justify the NBECMS. If that is the case, I think his article failed. It’s a great article, but the Emerging Church movement, if it becomes like the NBECMS, will fail, for with no boundaries it will more fully embody the fallen world, than current society does.

That being said, however, Mr. Ward does say:

“Average Jesus” comes to us where we are and doesn’t require us to change or grow much. “Average Jesus” doesn’t cost us anything but still gives us the “benefits” of being Christian. We can have Jesus and still remain comfortable in the middle with everyone else.

Here, if you take out the “Average” part, and perhaps replace it with “Self-Portrait”, you have a, in my opinion, portrayal of what Mr. Ward means, I hope. If everyone were like Jesus, “Average Jesus” would be just fine, but averages change. I believe what he intends is that in trying to emulate Jesus (i.e., allowing ourselves to be discipled with Jesus), if it costs us nothing, and/or its easy, it’s pointless, and not a true emulation of Him.

My biggest fear is that the Emerging Church movement, especially the NBECMS, is trying to create a pain-free Jesus, an skewed version which is just a revered version of ourselves. In their attack against the middle, the NBECMS, and even the majority of the Emerging Church movement, I think are trying to slay straw men. By this I mean that their attack on the middle will have no effect on actually producing a Christ-centered church, because the focus isn’t on Jesus, but on trying to be “tolerant” and “accepting” group with Jesus vaguely thrown into the mix.

The great advantage that the Emerging Church movement has is perspective. I will agree that much of the “mainstream” church is no longer effective, and is, frankly, lost. However, their (both mainstream and emerging church) focus is supposed to be on Christ, and I think too many churches (whole denominations) have moved their church from the solid rock of Christ to the dangerous and treacherous shores of the water that is the world. However, I can’t help but feel that many in the Emerging Church movement are trying to build a pontoon float for the church to float on the waters of the world, rather than returning to the rock that is Christ.

The point of this rambling is that for much of the Emerging Church the perspective seems to be, “since we are extreme, we are more Christ-like.” However, creating your own image of Christ and worshiping it, is not Christ-like, but idol worship, the idol of self. This is the same idol that much of society already worships, so that doesn’t make the Emerging Church extreme, just extraordinarily average.

Oil going bye-bye?

Starlyth — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:38:12 +0000

Once thing that I didn’t mention in my post, Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory Versus Logic, is the over-the-top screaming that is going on in regards to climate change and alternative energy sources. This makes reasonable discussion almost impossible. In the attempt to (too) quickly get off of petroleum based fuels, ethanol has been getting a lot of attention. Too much attention, frankly, and the politicians are making out like bandits politically, because they can pander to the environmental and agricultural lobbies at the same time. This probably explains a lot of the energy (Pun unintended, but I’ll keep it anyways.) going into this, because rarely do politicians get to pander to two lobbies that are often at each others throats.

Palousitics, named Washington State’s Most Influential Political Blog for the week of Aug 26, did a post on what may be the best alternative fuel source so far, pond scum (no, I am not referring to politicians, but if we could harness their hot air…).

Apparently, some scientists at Utah State plan to create algae biodiesel factories. The post that seems to have started this is here: Algae Biodiesel May Soon Be Reality « Green Options.

However, the Palousitics post also contains some good information, too. I strongly recommend reading both.

Now, much of the emphasis on petroleum has been as gasoline and diesel. However, there is another use for petroleum that hasn’t been discussed much, and merits just as much attention…plastic. Look around your person, your home, your office. Look at the things you use everyday. Imagine your life without plastic: cell phones, computers, cars, toys, pens, aircraft…

There is also the lubricant class of petroleum products such as the always needed WD-40, the oil for your car, grease for most mechanical components. There is also the personal products used such as Vaseline®, Chapstick®, lotions, soaps, and some medications used petroleum products such as petroleum jelly (i.e., Vaseline®) as a carrier for the actual medicine.

While making cars, trucks, trains, and planes go is important, we must not forget the other products we use, for they too must be part of the equation.

Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory Versus Logic

Starlyth — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:35:50 +0000

Dr. S. Fred Singer (Professor Emeritus, Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia) recently outlined the logical flaws being espoused by those who speak of global warming (which is in error, as the recent snowfall in South Africa shows, and thus should be called, “global climate change”) as being caused by man (i.e., anthropogenic).

Part of the problem that these espousers have is the term “global warming”. By insisting on using that term they partially invalidate that which they espouse, because not all places are experiencing warming, but cooling (South Africa Dusted by Rare Snowstorm). If they stuck to “climate change”, they would put themselves on much sounder footing.

However, that being said, I did a report in high school (I wonder if I’ve mentioned this before. If I have, I’m sorry.) on the “Greenhouse Effect”. It was while preparing my report that I learned about the cycle that the earth regularly experiences regarding climate change. In fact, the primary book I used for my report (Let’s see, I believe that I did that report in 1987, so the book I used was older, therefore this has been known for awhile.) stated that we should soon be experiencing warming, as we were on the colder end of the cycle.

Have you ever seen stories on Greenland? Much of their energy is provided geothermally, and the majority of land is covered by snow and ice. Recently, there has been a decrease in the mass of ice on Greenland. However, have you ever wondered why it was called Greenland? Well, it seems as if some Viking warrior decided to cross the North Atlantic, and found a green land perfect for colonizing as it was green, and was the perfect place to grow crops. That means it was warmer 900+ years ago then it is now (or even projected to be based upon some current forecasts of climate change).

I freely admit that I am no climate changed expert, but Dr. S. Fred Singer is. I would also like to point out that neither he nor I are stating that climate change is not occurring. What he and I, and so many others, are saying is that there is no proof of climate change being anthropogenic, but a lot of evidence that this is a natural process.

Invading Corporate America

Starlyth — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:07:32 +0000

Brian E. Volck, in his post ~~Are You Being Served?~~ (no longer available), states:

As John Sayles’ role in the movie Matewan suggests, big businesses have used clergy as cheerleaders before, but this news item from The Economist hints at something worse.

The article: Praying for Gain: A fad for piety infiltrates the realm of Mammon

I am completely at a loss for what this, “something worse”, that Mr. Volck refers to is. Is he worried that there are two companies that provide chaplain services? Is that his issue? If it is, then perhaps he is unaware of the restrictions that these to companies put upon those whose services they tender. These chaplains are to stay away from denominational arguments (whether for or against), and to provide purely for the spiritual needs of the employees. Is he worried that a company dares to make a profit on provide such services? Where is that particular line drawn?

Is he worried about the reason companies are doing this? Such as, increased worker productivity? Does that mean my company can no longer provide donuts every other Friday? Or company parties? There is nothing wrong with that.

The one thing that may concern him is the equating of the corporate chaplain to the village priest, which, frankly, was probably an ignorant and definitely stupid thing for the writer at the Economist to write. I would hazard a guess that the writer was trying to relate it to earlier times in history, but who has no real experience with a village priest.

The author does state (although I’m not sure the statement is an accurate reflection of reality) that these chaplains are providing spiritual support for people who are feeling cut off from their roots (if they had any). However, the “boom” according to the article has been since 9/11. That should give all people pause. 9/11 caused a lot of people to reflect on their lives. Most denominations saw a huge influx of attenders immediately after 9/11, but those numbers quickly fell. However, even in those churches who are otherwise experiencing negative growth, the post-9/11 increase in attendees has been noticeable.

Another thing that Mr. Volck could be concerned with is the possibility that people will equate their faith with the company, therefore become religiously zealous about their company. While, I suppose, that could be an issue, I suspect that it is not, especially when the chaplain is not a true employee of the company.

Perhaps the scary part for Mr. Volck is that is is corporations that recognize the value of religion and supporting it, while society and government as a whole (think the bureaucrats, not the politicians) has become somewhat hostile to religion.

I don’t know Mr. Volck, and I’m throwing all this out there because he didn’t make his concerns known. I hope that he will note his concerns at some point, but I can’t help but feel that his concern is the seeming melding of faith with “evil” corporations. However, if the chaplain is a true Christian, and serves the employees in true Christian love, I suspect that the Enrons and other horrible shenanigans will be greatly reduced, and the companies will cease being emotionless, profit-only, organizations, as a whole.

Perhaps I’m being optimistic, but I’m allowed to be every once in a while, just to get out of the rut.

Come to the Lord empty.

Starlyth — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:04:15 +0000

There is a great piece written by John Koesler, Eat, Drink, and Be Hungryarchived copy, on ChristianityToday.com. Sometimes I wonder if the Beatitudes really say what we think they mean, regardless of that underlying current of though in my own mind, I think this is a wonderful way of looking at the Beatitudes, life in general, and, to me, at the Eucharist.

One thing that did strike me, is this is going back to the holes we try to fill in our lives with things other than God. This of course brings me to my pet topic (“meme”) of Technological Enervation. Perhaps Technological Enervation is just another way of pointing to the same issue.

Turn off the lights!

Starlyth — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:43:36 +0000

The last few nights, while waiting for the dog to finish his last bit of business before going to bed, I’ve been looking up into the sky, staring at the starts. They’re beautiful. I grew up in the SF Bay Area, and the only time I saw a true plethora of stars, I was camping.

Now that I live in Moscow, ID, I can see so much more, but still, when camping I can see even more.

Today on Wired, with the requisite Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy reference, this exact issue was discussed. There is even an organization (of probably 5 people), who seek to reduce light pollution. A laudable goal, I think. It would be pretty cool if a city kid (like I once was, and probably still am to some degree) could look at the stars like I can now.

This makes me sick

Starlyth — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:33:14 +0000

I wish that I couldn’t believe that someone wouldn’t stoop to this level.
Fight Over Wrestler Chris Benoit’s Estate Hinges on Order of Deaths

Mothering from the middle

Starlyth — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:21:03 +0000

…this is not about politics, although I suppose it is. Betsy Hart has a reasonable view of being a mom, and her column today is well worth the read.archived copy

Wherefore art thou male?

Starlyth — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:39:42 +0000

In The Mistakes We Make with Priestly Vocations, Fr. Philip N. Powell discusses something new in the Roman Catholic church, women serving in the place of pastors, not as pastors, but “Parish Life Coordinators.” Fr. Powell makes some wonderful points that are well worth considering.

The primary scripture used to bar women from leadership positions in the church is in 1 Tim 2:11-15. When one looks through the scriptures, one does find women in leadership. I will say, however, as did some women on the ordination trail in the Church of the Nazarene (whom I had the pleasure to converse and learn with recently), that is NOT ideal (yes, even these women said, actually more forcefully than the men). The ideal is Godly men should be the leaders of the church, as they are supposed to be in families.

However, the issue is that men are drawn to other things, and increasingly so. Fr. Powell is most likely correct that the PLC system will exacerbate the issue. He is also correct that it is only by prayer will all the empty roles be filled.

Tell me, Neuromancer, what does the future hold?

Starlyth — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 05:06:37 +0000

William Gibson, if you are not aware, invented the term cyberspace, and frankly, much of the perceived culture that accompanies it. He foresaw much of what we have today, but he now feels that the future is in such flux that it cannot be predicted. He recently did an interview with silicon.com that is, to me, a must read.

What I find interesting in this is an underlying feeling of Technological Enervation. I know I’m not the only one that feels this, but I thought it would be those of a more spiritual nature. However, here is someone who is more of the technological bent (although, could be reasonably argued, philosophical as well) feeling the same way.

Reaping What Was Sown

Starlyth — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 04:11:32 +0000

A few decades back, it was decided that public mental institutions needed to be phased out. Not to save taxpayer money, not to have the private sector do it, but to be compassionate to those with mental health issues. As Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley noted in his Breakpoint Commentary today, Bedlam: Prisons and the Mentally Ill, they still are mentally ill, they just end up behind bars. In many ways I am a law & order kind of person, plus, I prefer to minimize government involvement in most things. That being said, however, this is one area, while not ideal, where the government would may be the appropriate party.

The Porn Myth (on Challies Dot Com)

Starlyth — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:42:48 +0000

as posted (authored by) Challies Dot Com. I could add more, but why, when someone has said it so well. Despite the imagery of Naomi Wolf’s article, and despite Challies’ well-founded attack on porn in relation to sin, I realized, while reading her article, that I have been blessed by not growing like this generation.

New York Magazine recently featured an interesting article called “The Porn Myth.” Written by feminist Naomi Wolf, it was first printed in a 2003 edition of the magazine but is as timely today as ever. I’ll say from the outset that her article is just a little bit graphic at times, but only because Wolf deals with the pervasiveness and power of pornography. I’ll attempt to be as tasteful as I can in writing about this article.

Wolf was one of the leaders of feminism’s third wave. It was this generation of feminists that are largely responsible for breaking down many traditional gender roles in regards to sexuality. When we see young girls wearing shirts that say “Hot Babe” across the chest, or when we see thongs sticking out the back of the shorts of pre-pubescent girls, we are seeing the fallout of this wave of feminism. Feminists taught that women needed to go from being the hunted to being the hunters, to transition to the role of the aggressor in relationships. They were to throw off inhibition and try to beat men at their own game.

But Wolf, and many other feminists, have had to rethink their position a little bit. Once advocates of pornography, they have had to take an honest look at how pornography has affected our culture. “The Porn Myth” does just this. If you read this site often you know how much I delight in finding articles in secular publications that just say what the Bible has been saying all along. In many ways, this is just such an article.

Wolf begins by saying that some feminists used to be concerned that the widespread acceptance of pornography would turn men into beasts, causing them to rape and pillage women. Years later she says, “the effect is not making men into raving beasts. On the contrary: The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.” So porn is not causing men to see women as objects of unbridled lust (though in some cases I know this has happened). Rather, porn is causing men to become bored with sex and bored with real women. “For most of human history, erotic images have been reflections of, or celebrations of, or substitutes for, real naked women. For the first time in human history, the images’ power and allure have supplanted that of real naked women. Today, real naked women are just bad porn.” That last sentence is shocking for its forthrightness and for its implications. Men who immerse themselves in pornography know that real women compare unfavorably with the stars of their pornographic movies. Those women have perfect bodies, no inhibitions and are willing to express pleasure in any act, no matter how vulgar or demeaning. They exist only to please their men.

Wolf admits two things that very few are willing to openly state: “Pornography is addictive; the baseline gets ratcheted up.” And that is exactly the case. Pornography is addictive and, like most addictions, requires more and more in order to provide the same amount of pleasure or the same depth of experience. With every passing pornographic experience the baseline for stimulation gets ever higher. What was once erotic is soon boring; what was once fascinating is soon tiresome. Wolf draws a helpful analogy with food. “If your appetite is stimulated and fed by poor-quality material, it takes more junk to fill you up. People are not closer because of porn but further apart; people are not more turned on in their daily lives but less so.” Pornography makes other relationships boring in comparison. Even sex can be boring and men can easily turn to pornography as a substitute. “A whole generation of men are less able to connect erotically to women–and ultimately less libidinous.”

Wolf now proposes why we need to turn off the porn. “The reason to turn off the porn might become, to thoughtful people, not a moral one but, in a way, a physical- and emotional-health one; you might want to rethink your constant access to porn in the same way that, if you want to be an athlete, you rethink your smoking. The evidence is in: Greater supply of the stimulant equals diminished capacity.” Isn’t it amazing how God has wired us? He has made us such a way that there are reasons even beyond the moral to abstain from sin. Sin does not just further the rift between man and God, but also severs other relationships. Our lustful appetites can destroy our healthy appetites. Our desire for sin can easily overwhelm our desire for what is good and pleasing and lovely.

Wolf soon has to make the shocking suggestion that women revert from their “give it all away” mentality and learn the value in holding themselves back. Women need to see sexuality as something sacred, something that is worth waiting for. Amazingly enough, she even turns to the Bible and writes about distinctly male sexuality.

I am not advocating a return to the days of hiding female sexuality, but I am noting that the power and charge of sex are maintained when there is some sacredness to it, when it is not on tap all the time. In many more traditional cultures, it is not prudery that leads them to discourage men from looking at pornography. It is, rather, because these cultures understand male sexuality and what it takes to keep men and women turned on to one another over time–to help men, in particular, to, as the Old Testament puts it, “rejoice with the wife of thy youth; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times.” These cultures urge men not to look at porn because they know that a powerful erotic bond between parents is a key element of a strong family.And feminists have misunderstood many of these prohibitions.

Just recently I was reading through Hebrews 3 where the author of the letter draws a comparison to the Israelites in the desert and, as with any time I read that story, I thought of Keith Green’s song “So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt?” Green pokes fun at the Israelites who wanted to trade freedom for captivity, heavenly manna versus leeks and onions eaten as slaves. And this is what sin does to us. It makes us long for Egypt. It makes us long for captivity rather than freedom. Pornography offers nothing but captivity and even people who once advocated it as harmless fun are coming to realize this. Sin is so subtle, so captivating. Yet it affects us in so many ways and in such deep ways.

When I speak with young men these days I find that, almost invariably, they are recovering porn addicts. Since I wasn’t born yesterday I take this to mean “I’m addicted to pornography but can’t quite admit it.” I try to warn them that there are consequences to this sin. Of course I tell them that God is dishonored by this sin, but they are Christian guys and they already know this. So I tell them also that this sin is going to have consequences in their lives that go far beyond what they do when nobody else is looking. For example, addiction to pornography will not disappear when they fall in love and commit to marriage. Rather, pornography will be a destructive force they bring into that marriage. They may find that they are enraptured with a wife for a few months, but the addiction, if not conquered, will come back. It will haunt the marriage until it is properly dealt with. And when pornography returns, that wife suddenly won’t look so wonderful. She will have spots and blemishes and stretch marks. There will be things she will not want to do in bed. She will have nights when she does not want to have sex. Suddenly the women in pornography will look pretty good in comparison as they are always eager, always beautiful, always available.

But these women are but a sinful fantasy. They beckon like the captivity in Egypt. Pornography looks at the heavenly manna God has provided and looks instead to the slavery of sin. And the sin somehow compares favorably. Real naked women become just bad porn.

Sin is subtle; it is powerful; it is captivating. Even people who care little for the Bible are having to admit that it was right all along. And we know from the Bible that only God offers true freedom.

Here is the link to Wolf’s original article. As I said earlier, it is a tad graphic in a few points so keep that in mind before you click.

Raid on Jefferson’s Office CONSTITUTIONAL

Starlyth — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:35:54 +0000

I’m trying to avoid blogging as it’s a great procrastination tool. However, the latest news on the District Courts ruling (here is the decision) is the raid on Rep. Jefferson’s office was unconstitutional. READ THE DECISION FIRST, before writing STUPID, MISLEADING, and flat out WRONG headlines!

Even the dissenting judge ruled that the raid was constitutional (even Jefferson’s attorney didn’t argue that point). The ruling was strictly on what content was taken. In fact, when reading the decision (Yes, I actually read it.), the FBI brought in agents that had had nothing previous to do with the case to “filter” through the stuff, and then pass it to the investigators. Instead of taking (which they could have done) computers, they imaged them (i.e., made digital copies). They seemed to try their best (as the dissenting judge noted) to NOT interfere with Jefferson’s congressional “duties.”

I don’t question the judicial review of the evidence gathered (it is supposed to be a checks and balances system). I might question whether they see things the same way as a law enforcement officer might. On the other hand, with a judge having already gone through the evidence, the FBI may end up with all the chaff stripped away, resulting in a stronger or weaker case.

Oh, well, who said the Associated Press knew what they were doing?

A Return to “Containment”

Starlyth — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:45:21 +0000

The recent agreement by the Bush Administration to supply updated military (even if outdated by our standards) to “our” “moderate” Arab “allies” really bothers me. Jim Lobe’s article at Asia Times Online, US arms for Arab authoritarians – again, touches on many of my concerns. My greatest concern that in an attempt to contain one of the current enemies, we will arm the future ones (such as another Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega). While I still believe the the U.S. is one of the greatest countries in history, I certainly don’t wish to return to a Cold War, where the U.S. and its immediate opponent fight through proxies, which is something I addressed in Another March Towards Independence.

However, one thing isn’t addressed in Jim Lobe’s article is that there are two countries currently that are trying to fill the vacuum left by the deconstruction of the U.S.S.R., the Russian Federation, and the P.R.C. (China). If the U.S. doesn’t arm the “allied” “moderate” Arab states, the Russians or Chinese will, and much of the leverage of the U.S. disappears (argue whether that’s good or bad at Another March Towards Independence).

I believe that there is probably some hope in the Administration (especially with articles such as, A War We Just Might Win – New York Times) that by bolstering the Arab states militarily, they may be able and willing (if just to get weapons) to aid in the stabilization of Iraq. I hope they are looking at this with their eyes open (no, I don’t have much hope of that), not with the thought that it will be different this time (such as the Israeli/Palestinian “peace” “agreements”).

Starlyth — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:33:24 +0000

In A Reporter’s Loss of Faith, I linked to an article by William Lobdell, who had experienced a loss of faith based on his reporting of the failures of the church (as a whole). In Sorrow But No Regrets, Christine Scheller writes of her bad (foul is more like it) experiences with the church. There are three major differences between these two (hurting) people: (1) one reported on incidents, one lived them, (2) one stopped looking at Jesus, one didn’t, (3) one lost faith, one not only didn’t, but still seeks to serve.

Difference #2 is the reason for the difference. Who was looking at Jesus Christ, the crucified one, and who was looking at fallen people?

The U.S.: The SOFT Target

Starlyth — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:11:13 +0000

Before the Dems and far too many Republicans, decided that the war they supported is now unsupportable, I would not have considered the U.S. a “soft” target, even during the Clinton years. However, in comparing the U.S. to other potential targets, perhaps we are soft after all.

The Belmont Club: Another Satan Emerges

There’s No Such Thing As a Free Lunch…

Starlyth — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:04:49 +0000

…as Wisconsin citizens may soon learn.

Escape Wisconsin: Fraters Libertas

How TO: Make Minnesota Grow Faster « SCSUScholars

Cheese Headcases « OpinionJournal

Harry Potter and the Christian Muggles

Starlyth — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:17:39 +0000

Honestly, I’m kind of sick of people yammering about how awful Harry Potter is and how good The Lord of the Rings, and the Narnia series are. Tolkien (Lord of the Rings) had to be told (by C.S. Lewis, the author of the Narnia series, I believe) that the Lord of the Rings was a Christian allegory. Tolkien didn’t see it himself. I like Lord of the Rings, and I like Narnia, but they both use magic and magic creatures to tell a story, just like Rowling. Just because Tolkien and C.S. Lewis are celebrated Christians, I’m not sure it gives them a bye to use magic, any more than Rowling. While I understand that one can read into Lord of the Rings and the Narnia series (although C.S. Lewis did set out to put it there) a Christian allegory, I have a hard time seeing it, especially with Lord of the Rings. I have to be honest, though, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote lot of symbolism into The Great Gatsby, but even with his notes, they still made me shake my head. So perhaps I have a problem with too much literary symbolism, anyways.

Just to flesh out a few views, here are some links to various stories and articles:

BreakPoint: Potter Mania, 07/20/07
BreakPoint: Myths Matter, 07/23/07
What Would Jonathan Edwards Say About Harry Potter? | Christianity Today
The Point: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Now this next one is exactly my point. Tim Todd calls the world of Harry Potter “Godless” (Would he call the book of Esther Godless? How about Lord of the Rings?). I’m guessing from the quotes written in this article,that Tim Todd didn’t read the same books I did (Yes, I’ve read HP 1-5.). My favorite part is where he speaks about the blood sacrifice. Hmm, I think he needs to revisit the whole crucification thing. That was pretty bloody, I recall, and it was a sacrifice. Oh, what about Levitical law?

Evangelist says Bible speaks to Potter series ‘white magic’ (OneNewsNow.com)

The other part that seems to be an issue here is how magic is treated in the Bible. Practitioners are pretty much condemned to hell. I have a hypothesis as to why. We are to be dependent upon God, not our actions. The true temptation of “magic” is that we can do it ourselves. I am not saying that I’m all for magic, but there is a level of thought that needs to be put into play here. Reading a story where magic is one of, or the, vehicle of conflict, does NOT condemn one to Hell (A whole lot of Christians are so condemned if they read Narnia or Lord of the Rings). It is the PRACTICE of magic that is the issue in the Bible, not reading a story.

I think Tim Todd is anticipating trouble where parents don’t pay attention to their children. If my child shows any inclination to the occult, all such books (HP, LofR, Narnia, etc.) go away. However, if my child shows the maturity and discernment to recognize a good story, while knowing that Jesus Christ is the true path, I’m okay with it.

Why do I need to know who my mom is, anyways?

Starlyth — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:11:32 +0000

In Motherless in Maryland, James M. Thunder writes about a disturbing story where a child’s mother (plus, there are two potential mothers) will not be listed on her birth certificate, in fact, there will be no mother listed at all.

A Reporter’s Loss of Faith

Starlyth — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:47:32 +0000

William Lobdell has written an article, Religion beat became a test of faith, and it boils down to him seeing the worst of those who claim the faith, thereby destroying his. Sadly, I understand his perspective and the journey that he has taken. He has seen some of the worst of the Roman Catholic church and the Evangelicals (through TBN). I can’t help him, or anyone with that. As I read his article, it emphasized how much of his faith journey was on the outside, not on the inside. With that being the case, and the years of covering the seemingly never ending sins of abuse, that it is no wonder that his faith has suffered.

I don’t, nor should you, condemn him. He deserves love and prayer, not condemnation. I didn’t read any of the comments that other readers wrote, but I would guess that if falls into two camps, (1) You (faithless), jerk, how dare you attack (which I don’t find that it is) our faith (or our church), or (2) religion is evil (yada, yada, yada). Basically, scorn towards a person who is hurting, or scorn from people who scorn those with faith. Probably little love.

He latched onto the wrong thing, he should have latched onto what the nameless Roman Catholic friend said, “Keep your eyes on the person nailed to the cross, not the priests behind the altar,” but that’s hard to do. This physical, fallen, world is easier to get attached to, and be betrayed by.

Let’s Hear the Other Side

Starlyth — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:03:37 +0000

Health Care Lie: ’47 Million Uninsured Americans’

The Computing Cocoon

Starlyth — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:50:19 +0000

In Are Computers Causing us to “Cocoon” Ourselves?, WXPNews editor Deb Shinder questions as to whether we are really cocooning ourselves, and whether its really bad. I think she makes, not intentionally, another point in my Technological Enervation zeitgeist, our rationalization and justification

Hit me.

Starlyth — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:29:30 +0000

You may or may not be a fan of Chuck Colson, but in his 18 July 2007 Breakpoint Commentary, Gorging On Politics, he makes a number of points regarding the flaw of the Information Age, the need to CREATE information to maintain flow and interest. He mentions Jacques Ellul’s book, The Political Illusion, which predicted this very thing. Colson’s Point?

But the real evil of the illusion is that it distracts us from other aspects of life.

Nicholas Carr is quoted saying that people are changing the way, and need, to remember things, because the majority of it is available on the internet. He also mentions that this means that “cultural baggage” (whether for good or bad), is being left behind as well. Of course, that also means long views and perspectives, something the Western World is already trying to leave behind at light speed.

Where ARE we going? Perhaps we ought to think about that. And that leads me to what I am finding out about myself. I love technology, but I’m really becoming confronted with what it is doing to me, my children, my country, everyone. At one point, Technological Enervation was going to be just a phrase, but now I’m changing it to a zeitgeist. This is the spirit of the age. Yay.

^footnoteIn case you’re wondering the reason for the title name, it is from Johnny Mnemonic (an okay Keanu Reeves movie), where a guy has rewired part of his brain to allow him to carry data. He says, “Hit me,” right before more information is uploaded into his brain than it is wired to tolerate (thus we get the whole, “I’m gonna die,” suspense for the movie). And I’m sure at least one other person out there saw this movie, it’s not just me (I hope). The really funny part, is that the plot of the movie is about information overload.

Nope, he doesn’t quite get it

Starlyth — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:17:36 +0000

Each person who can make something with his hands prefers to make something small and concrete rather than uniting with others to change lives.

Vladmir Arkhipov
from:MAKE: Blog: Contemporary Russian folk artifacts

Now, if Mr. Arkhipov were correct, the Christian community in China wouldn’t be expanding at the rate it is. Perhaps those under the U.S.S.R. rule were different, I don’t know. I do know that in a true community of faith, that such a situation would not happen. Such a community would come together stronger, seeking to build each other up. To me, this throw away comment, says more about our materialism than anything else.

It takes a village to build a nation.

Starlyth — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 03:06:15 +0000

There are a number of good story items out there today regarding the situation in Iraq. Ambassador Ryan Cocker (see FOXNews for complete article) was grilled by a Senate committee today, and here are some quotes:

If there is one word, I would use to sum up the atmosphere in Iraq — on the streets, in the countryside, in the neighborhoods and at the national level — that word would be fear.

The longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discreet, precisely defined benchmarks because, in many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important — Iraqi attitudes toward each other and their willingness to work toward political reconciliation.

The media and the politicians are always quick to discuss the failures of the military, but as former President Bill Clinton said (quoted, derogatorily, by NewsMax), there is no military victory possible here. He’s right (sorry, NewsMax). Both the Ambassador and former President Clinton (not the president-elect one) have it right. This must be “won” by the Iraqi people.

However, what the Ambassador has right, and future-first-something Clinton has WAY wrong, is that, currently, the only possibility (other than letting Al-Quaida or Iran run things) for that to occur is with Coalition troops doing what they can to provide it. However, at some point the Iraqi people will have to take it upon themselves to do so. Although, I have to say, every time some politician calls for withdrawal (which I’m sure Al-Jazeera trumpets quite loudly), the Iraqi people have an incentive NOT to step up, because if we leave, THEY’RE DEAD!

Then there’s Senator Kerry stepping into it, trying to build a case that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will happen to all those people who stood up for freedom, if we should abandon them.

Look, I want my friends to come home, and my family not be redeployed. However, do people like Kerry and Clinton remember (or even care) what was said of Vietnam Vets when they came back? I, and others, have noticed an increased number of vehicles sporting the Vietnam Service Ribbon. I don’t think that’s coincidence. These vets who served (and 99.99+% served well) are supporting those troops that are serving now, by displaying a ribbon that used to engender scorn (still does, but those same people scorn anything military). They see, probably unconsciously, history repeating itself. Let’s finish our task in Iraq, and bring them home in victory.

(*whine*) But it’s taking too long!

Brief history lesson. Hitler took power in 1933. The Marshall Plan was over in 1951 (I think). That puts an entire World War (from build-up to somewhat recovered) in a span under 20 years. The Germans populace had had democracy before Hitler, and thus a history of it. The people of Iraq had Saddam from 1979 to 2003, and military government before (and during) him, and a monarchy before that. Add to that the lunatics (mostly from outside of Iraq) that keep destroying that which is built back up (like power plant, oil production, factories, etcetera). What do you expect? People that do not have a history of Western thought aren’t going to start thinking like us! They have to find their own way.

They have to stop fearing. They have to find their own way, as did the U.S.. Quick question, was the first union of the states a success or a failure? A failure! That’s why the Constitution was written, because the Articles of Confederation didn’t work! I am so confused about politicians. I don’t know if they say the things they do because they don’t grasp history or societal inertia, or because they believe they can say it and it will be true. Of course, much of the body politic works the same way.

Which brings me, in a very round about way, my homage to Senator Clinton’s (crowned-president-elect) book, when she was still First Lady, It Takes A Village To Raise A Child. It will take the Western world, working together, to build a new jewel of hope in the Middle East, because there are too many who feel threatened by the freedom it represents.

Technological Enervation defined, I think

Starlyth — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:10:46 +0000

I’ve almost gotten the definition I’ve been looking for. Tell me what you think.

tech·no·log·i·cal en·er·va·tion [tek-nuh-loj-i-kuhl i-nur-vi-shuhn]

The process whereby human interaction is negatively affected by technology, creating disconnection, alienation, malaise, and depression, and attempts to create relationships damaged or non-existent due to technology using technology (vicious cycle)

Discernment Needed. Desparately. NOW!

Starlyth — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:29:24 +0000

I have no problem believing that there are artificial and manipulated “miracles,” any more than I have believing in genuine miracles and other supernatural phenomena. In the same way, I believe in the existence of fallen angels, demonization, and exorcism as much as I believe that there are some mental and psychological disorders that should be treated with medication and therapy. In other words, I believe in discernment. The mere existence of cubic zirconium in a jewelry store does not mean that genuine diamonds do not exist.

In his column, Hearing the ‘Music of the Spheres’, Steve Beard makes an eloquent point about discernment.

That is the word I was looking for in regards to politics (funny, I’ve been using the word a lot, reading it a lot, but it takes someone else putting it in writing for me to make a connection). That’s what we need. Not just from our politicians (oh, and honesty, straight-forwardness, and a lack of dissembling would also help), but from the media, and we the consumers of politics and media circuses.

If we could not rant and rave, not patronize the Micheal Moore’s and Ann Coulter’s of the world, and just think, we would be better off.

Take health-care for instance. Somebody has to pay for it. Remember, the government doesn’t, you do. You pay taxes, therefore you pay for it. The hated insurance companies? If we weren’t so risk averse, no insurance company would exist. The Democrats are correct, insurance companies and health care companies successfully lobby Republicans. The Republicans are correct that Government (“single payer”) health care is a monster in the wings. Think back to the media induced “scandal” of government procurement during the Reagan years. The infamous $10,000 hammer, for example. Or the bomber (i.e., a big huge flying thing that carries lots of other big things long distances) that did not have the payload capacity to carry the paperwork required to make it (and that is the paperwork for EACH plane built).

Have you ever looked at a hospital bill, only to find that you were charged $5 for two acetaminophen, when you could buy a bottle of 150 capsules at the corner drugstore? Imagine how much those will cost when the government issues them.

A few questions to think about. If single-payer health care is so great, why do Canadians (who can afford it) go the States to get surgery? If Cuba is such a great country, with great health care, and the state owns the media, why do people keep fleeing? Mr. Moore’s failure to think critically regarding the “quickness” of Cuban health care, to me, proved that he can create conflict, but doesn’t see how he is used. Of course, the Cuban health care system worked quickly, are you kidding? Psychological victory. Michael Moore was USED!

The reason why other countries have “cheap” pharmaceuticals? Because WE subsidize them. Since the pharmaceutical companies can’t recover their costs elsewhere, and because we in the States love lawsuits, our pharmaceuticals are obscenely priced. It is not price controls that are needed, it is everyone else’s price controls that need to be removed!

Speaking of lawsuits, imagine trying to sue the government for shoddy health care. Veterans have been having, to our shame, poor success in that area. Also, imagine trying to get unorthodox treatments approved through the government system. I’ve experienced the private system, and it is bad enough.

Privacy. All those privacy advocacy groups would be run out of business. Now the government will know everything. Yep, that’s good. Right? Forget those stupid cameras watching everything, forget the warrantless searches, the government WILL know your very DNA.

The short answer? There isn’t one. The easy answer? There isn’t one. If a politician, media hack (and they’re almost all hacks, at least the national ones), or political hack says there is one? Run away with your hand on your wallet.

And the Atheists Don’t have it

Starlyth — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:41:53 +0000

In his column, Why Are Atheist Books Best Sellers?, Dennis Prager gets a lot of it right, but I think there is something else going on.

In our Technological Enervation and secular arrogance, I believe people without faith are jealous of ones who do have it. We with faith have an anchor in life outside of ourselves. I believe that the reason that atheist books (including, “The Secret”) are successful is that they provide (dead) comfort to people who feel the emptiness in their souls for which they have no answer, and are afraid (or angry) that those with faith have an answer.

I am not saying that Muslim extremists (or Islamacists) necessarily have a deep faith either. I would almost suspect that it is an attempt to quell that very emptiness that the atheists have. I don’t know, and I won’t know until I can talk to God in Heaven. I know that my human conditioning often puts too many barriers to my understanding of God’s creation. Mercifully, He gave us his Word. Read it daily in love.

Yes! Wait a minute, NO!

Starlyth — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:25:02 +0000

It’s a good way to have a timeout and provide an opportunity for Ann to continue to teach …

Redding said she didn’t feel a need to reconcile all the differences between the two faiths but felt that at the most basic level, they are compatible.

She believes she has not violated any of her baptismal or ordination vows. And “since entering Islam,” she said, “I have been, by my own estimation, a better teacher, a better preacher and a better Christian.”

Hat Tip: RightMind.us: Episcopal priest or Muslim?
original article:Episcopal priest or Muslim? Redding will have a year to think about it

Ann Redding still doesn’t get it, and apparently neither does her bishop (not the RI one), Vincent Warner.

Quote 1: Teach? Teach where? Teach what? She had better not be teaching any seminarians or anyone else in a Christian church (for the sake of argument, I maintain that the Episcopal Church is Christian, although there is far too much room for doubt)!

Quote 2: No need to reconcile? Jesus says: “I am the way , the truth, and the life. No one gets to the Father but through me.” John 14:6 The Koran (The Holy Qur’an) states that Jesus was only a prophet, but that Muhammad was the greatest and last prophet (please correct me if I’m wrong). Seems irreconcilable to me.

Quote 3: Better Christian? Hmmm, let’s see, the Apostle’s Creed, The Nicene Creed, um, oh, yeah, THE BIBLE.

I am amazed that someone in the Episcopal Church put a stop to this, for the moment. But I hold no hope that it will last.

Drivers of the Episcopal Church, start your engines! Go, straight down the apostate freeway!

God’s Love In Human Arms

Starlyth — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:51:53 +0000

Daily Meditation (Henri Nouwen): A Father’s As Well As a Mother’s Love
The father in the story of the prodigal son is mother as well. His running out to welcome his son, his embrace and kisses; his offering of the best robe, the ring, and the sandals; and his throwing a party are not the typical behavior of a distant patriarch. They express so much tenderness, nurturing care, and self-effacing forgiveness that in them we see both motherly and fatherly love fully present.

The perfect love of our heavenly Father includes as well as transcends all the love that a father and mother can have for their children. We may think about the two hands of God embracing us as a mother’s hand and a father’s hand: one caressing, consoling, and comforting, the other supporting, encouraging, and empowering. We too are called to be father and mother to those who want to come home.

from Bread for the Journey, 5 July 2007

One of the problems with the Christian faith is the language of God the Father. Now, don’t misunderstand, the Bible says that, and so do I. However, the cultural baggage that goes with that can often provide an unconscious expectation of relationship with God. Henri Nouwen’s calling God’s arms separately in terms of human parental relations (still doesn’t cover God’s feelings for us adequately) helps balance that out somewhat.

I will not acquiesce to the current tendency in some circles to call God a her, or some other gender-neutral term, but I will acknowledge that failing to adequately address the (again, from a human perspective) “motherly” love of God for us, can turn many away.

Come see my website…wait…I mean my video…

Starlyth — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:45:03 +0000

In her article,
Hey There, Lonelygirl15 – Prison Fellowship, Dr. Stephanie Bennett has an interesting view of the vlog phenomenon, and what it means about our needs for relationships.

Methinks he Protestants too much

Starlyth — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:44:03 +0000

My other concern is Mautin’s notion of Christian leadership. If the priest faces the altar as a sign of leadership it means his back is to the people. For a Brit this is culturally rude -perhaps it isn’t in other places. But it codifies a sense of ‘Catch up with me.’ The leader on this model is Moses coming down from Sinai with the tablets, where no-one else has the same level of access to God. It stands for a deeply unreformed Catholicism.

Pastor Dave Faulkner, in his blog post entitled, The Pope, The Latin Mass and Judaism, made a very Protestant (hence, the torturing of Shakespeare’s prose in the title) error with the little tidbit about how a Roman Catholic priest stands.

It is a matter of perspective. If the priest stepped all the way back to the first pew, or even the last pew, or stayed where he was, he and the congregation are looking toward the same thing, God. Part of the Roman Catholic liturgy is that the priest, with his back to the congregation, is putting himself in the same place, subservient to God, as the congregation. God is on one side of the alter, and the priest and congregation are on the other.

Now, from that perspective, who is more arrogant (or rude), the Roman Catholic priest on the “fallen” side of the alter, or the Protestant pastor (or priest if Anglican/Episcopal) who is on God’s side of the alter?

I usually like Dave Faulkner’s stuff as it makes me think. I have a slight (okay, major) issue with many of the Protestant denominations decrying of Roman Catholic practices without (1) understanding or seeking to understand it from a Roman Catholic position, and (2) not have the historical context of knowing that a lot of Protestant practices (how small is this?) were put into place because they were the opposite (or just not like them) of the Roman Catholic practice.

I hope Dave can forgive me for picking on him.

An Old Soldier’s Advice

Starlyth — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:50:48 +0000

It is distressing for me to realize that Christ died for the terrorists, too. As violent and anti-Christian as they are, Jesus died for even them. So how do we balance that awareness with the job of killing them? I don’t have a well-developed answer for that one. I never got to the point that I’d aim at a German and hope to hit him while praying for his soul at the same time. But I was able to avoid hating the Nazis while I fought, and I thought that this was important for me as I tried to balance my faith with my combat duties.

See the rest of the article here: An Old Soldier’s Advice

Why I am not a good ethicist

Starlyth — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:29:52 +0000

Author: Fr. Jonathan Tobias

It would say, too, that the Islamization of Europe calls not for a Crusade, but for repentance … and this for the simple reason that any prophet, like Amos, would have no trouble recognizing the new Islamic Jihad for what it really is: another incarnation of the Assyrians, a harbinger and agent of Dies Irae.

This is what prophecy would probably say. And it goes without saying that this is not what Raboteau and all the respective denominational social and moral issues committees would ever say.

They wouldn’t say it because they are ethicists.

And that is the problem of the age, my friends: ethics and prophecy do not mix. And I’m afraid they can’t.

See the whole commentary here: Why I am not a good ethicist.

American Salvation: The place of Christianity in public life

Starlyth — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:20:45 +0000

Author: Albert J. Raboteau
Source: Boston Review

Who are you? What do you want?

Starlyth — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:02:44 +0000

These two very basic questions are the pivot points around which the first 4 seasons of Babylon 5 (Wikipedia entry) revolve. As we learn in Season 4, it is the fact that these questions are not asked together is what is causing the war that is going on at that point in the series.

Mark Galli, the managing editor of ChristianityToday.com, had an interesting commentary the other day,
I Love, Therefore You Are. He actually tackles those two questions, and I found his answers helpful.

Talking to Jesus

Starlyth — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:01:16 +0000

We had some friends over for the 4th of July, and let me tell you, it’s great having friends. Right? Well one of the hard parts for me, is that I need personal interaction with a person to have them be a friend. It can’t be email. It can’t be a blog. It can’t be phone call. It can’t be a letter. We humans are built for relationships. We try to create comfortable ones on the web. We try to join special interest organizations. However, I think those are too shallow to be effective.

I wonder if we truly understand what we don’t have.

This leads me to where the real issue lies. How do you talk to Jesus? I trust God. I pray to God. I read God’s word. I know I have a personal relationship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. However, and I’ve thought about this every once in a while, how does one have a friendship with God like one has with our earthly friends. Is it possible?

I can already hear some howling, that Jesus is the friend of the saved. There are those who have been blessed with a vision (for lack of a better word) of God, which provides them that link that resembles an earthly friendship. There are those who have had God call their name (I am one); I haven’t had that vision. I know God has called me. I’ve also let God know that I believe that I am neither worthy, ready, or even desirous of His call. I’ve gotten past the fear of His call, and I’m beginning to look forward to its fulfillment, but I know that am not worthy or ready for it, yet.

I know that Jesus loves me. I know that God loves me. I know that Jesus is my friend, yet at the same time it is so very different from an earthly friendship, that I almost hesitate to call it one. How can we lowly humans ever truly understand what a friend we have in Jesus.

Silence Versus Distraction

Starlyth — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 04:07:49 +0000

In here, Mr. Garibaldi, you cannot hide from yourself. Everything out there has only one purpose, to distract us from ourselves, from what is truly important. There are no distractions in here. You can learn much from silence.

Citizen G’kar
“Messages From Earth”
Babylon 5, Season 3

Have you ever heard, “We’re too busy”? Have you said it yourself? Through God’s creation, we have been blessed with many things. Satan (yes, I believe he exists) takes those wonderful things, and corrupts them, and that’s what this post is about.

The one thing I like about Science Fiction is the way questions can be asked without being threatening, but still be thought provoking. The quote above from Babylon 5 (Wikipedia entry), is one of those. Cellphones, wireless networks, Blackberrys, and now iPhones surround us. Constant noise. Think about casinos. They are engineered to be the noisy places they are: to distract.

As life has caught up with me, I no longer have the time I probably need for solitude. I might very well be less for it. With 3 kids, a cat, a dog, and way too much technology to play with, I’m at that point where I am afraid of solitude.

About the only time I get it is very early in the morning a couple of times a week. I can focus on silence and God. That time of solitude, though little, and relatively rare, I think keep me from completely snapping at times. As we become more distracted, we reach out in less tangible ways. I look at MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other such sites (I’m guilty of this too, as you can see to the left) and see people aching to connect.

People say they are more connected now, but are they really? Kids are text messaging their parents into the poorhouse. They are text about inane things. Are they really connected to each other? Really?

My wife and I had one of those really deep discussions the other night, discussing friendship. We talked about people we know who have lots of friends. Neither of us do, but then, we need our friendships to be deep ones. Really deep.

Adults who aren’t living children’s lives say that kids these days have just as meaningful relationships as people did a generation or two ago. Hmmm, so if my “friends” keep updating me via Twitter on what they’re doing, that’s connected. I think that says more about the adults making the statement than the kids.

So what’s this about Satan, again? While the first liar has been perfecting his art for a long time. A very long time. We need these things, this (albeit very cool) electronic stuff, to keep in contact with each other. No, what we need is to take a deep breath and connect.

I’ve heard many folks saying that the “Old World” has it right. People spend hours in the café talking with each other. There is a lot of truth in that, however, there is a lot of sloth in the rest as well. There has to be a balance between the hyperactive (and thus shallow) interactions, and the long (slothful) interactions. Both have their place, but like all things, they can go too far.

Do you understand yet?

Starlyth — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:15:43 +0000

Muslim speaks at my church

THIS is what the 1st Amendment is about

Starlyth — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:12:59 +0000

As much as many of us of the so-called “religious right”, decry the attack on our faith in the public square, at least we here in the United States aren’t experiencing what our faithful brethren in Europe are experiencing.

Culture. What purpose have you?

Starlyth — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:36:48 +0000

I believe Thomas Sowell is one of those people that brings great insight in regards to the human condition. In his commentary, Cultural Heritages, he talks about what is a fundamental flaw of certain people’s perception of culture. His particular example, the Navajo, is only one of may that can used, if one looks around. The part that he doesn’t mention is that culture is fragmenting and changing to such a degree, a lot of that based on technology (both computers and transportation, which I have mentioned previously), that trying to create an “ideal” culture (such as “Navajo Culture” in this example) is, I think, a coping mechanism. We need connections, and with a significant portion of the population commuting and separated from family, by hundreds and thousands of miles, I think his example is only the tip of the iceberg.

So you want to fly?

Starlyth — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:54:25 +0000

My wife sent me this article which discusses eagles in the Bible, and in life. It also alludes to how the eagle represents the ideal of our life in Christ.

Eagles

hat tip to:My Wife, of course!

Light as a metaphor for God.

Starlyth — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:52:06 +0000

Here’s a link to an interesting commentary by Regis Nicoll, comparing the nature of light to the nature of God, or at least, an aspect of God.

Light and the Nature of God

The Fruits As Witness

Starlyth — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:37:31 +0000

The Church Everlasting

Starlyth — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:54:31 +0000

[Pope Benedict XIV believes] the church is not a product of human creativity. She does not become whatever the leaders and members wish to make of her. The church is prior to all human initiative. Ours is not to innovate, but to preserve and apply the church teachings.
-Avery Cardinal Dulles

I’m glad that Pope Benedict, at least according to Cardinal Dulles, and I agree on something. However, Pope Benedict has also made it quite clear that he believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true reflection of the Christian faith. Obviously, I don’t believe that.

That being said, however, the advantage of the older traditions, is an ability to look further back in time, and with a longer perspective (although the Episcopal and Lutheran [ELCA] have firmly decided it appears to move forward irrespective of the past). While there can be some arrogance in the older traditions, there is also much humility, and this is where Cardinal Dulles’ commenting on Pope Benedict’s views comes in.

For we Christians, the entire Bible is about God the Father, God the Son (in the person of Jesus Christ), and God the Spirit (called the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost). The Bible is God’s story. It is not just the story of the 12 Tribes of Israel, nor is it just the story of Jesus, nor is it just the story of the Church that followed Christ’s crucification. It is all the same story.

The Church, the bride of God in the imperfect form of humanity, existed before man was aware of it. Regardless of what believing denomination, in the end, I doubt it will matter all that much (though who can tell). For any denomination is merely an imperfect reflection (one can never mirror perfection, for a reflection, by not being the original, is already imperfect) of the Church Universal. No matter what humans do to the human institution of the church, the Universal Church is unchanging, and incorruptible by human failings, mercifully, by the grace of God.

There is a wonderful symmetry in all of this. The Church Universal existed before mankind corrupted it, and the Church Universal will reign in perfection as Christ’s bride after the end times. The Church Earthly must always reaching into the past, while simultaneously reaching into the future to imitate our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who is the Alpha and the Omega.

The Church Earthly needs to maintain a balance between past and future, while bridging them in the present.

He Bids Ye Come…

Starlyth — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:24:33 +0000

Come Ye, Sinners

Absurdium Ad Naseaum

Starlyth — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:18:52 +0000

Episcopal priest says she’s also a Muslim

SEATTLE (AP) – The Reverend Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal priest for 20 year, says she became a Muslim last year, but still considers herself a Christian as well. Redding, who says she accepted Islam after being profoundly moved by Muslim prayers, is to begin teaching the New Testament at Seattle University this fall.

Until recently, she was director of faith formation at St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral. Western Washington Bishop Vincent Warner says he accepts Redding as both an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.

The 55-year-old Redding says she doesn’t feel that she has to resolve the differences between her two faiths — especially over whether Jesus was God or just a prophet — and hopes sharing her story can help ease religious tensions.

read the article in its entirety

Delusions of grandeur not withstanding, how about opening your eyes! Those who attack all of us
out of hate, using Islam as their justification (rightly or wrongly) are going to look at this woman as if she where slandering Islam, which is a death sentence (literally) in many Islamic nations.

As the full article states, you cannot be truly Christian, and truly Muslim, they have conflicting basis for their respective faiths. The fact that her bishop is supporting her tells me that the Episcopal Church is trying to be, from their perspective, societally relative, however, more and more, that is coming at the expense of their Christian faith.

You cannot share the Gospel if you no longer understand, or believe, your faith.

Here I Stand, Hat In Hand…Convicted

Starlyth — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:50:02 +0000

I have written a lot about the Episcopal Church of the USA and, by proxy, other denominations that have lost their way, from my perspective. I have written about the various issues that have caused (again, from my perspective) their demise as a power of faith in the world and the United States. I realize, and always knew, that there would be, and are, many people that view my words as hateful and unloving. While I somewhat addressed that in A Commentary On My Own Blog, I’m still not sure I’ve elucidated myself correctly or completely.

I, as a Christian, believe I stand as a voice that tries to get this lost world to hear God, and to follow God’s ways. The question really is, how to get people to listen when they don’t want to. How do you get people to listen when what is said is the opposite of their desired behavior?

I don’t have an answer. Watching the news, political hacks, various “cause” websites, and everything that is spewed forth, I’m not sure that love can be heard, except in private personal conversation, and depending on the individuals involved, maybe not then either. We have a situation in this country with anger. I’m not talking about gangs, gun violence, moronic parents who take their children’s sports too seriously. Politics, and much that is important involves politics, is anger. If one person is more angry, than they get more coverage. In response, even people who would otherwise not be angry, have an automatic escalation in tension. Sadly, that tension gets connected to the issue, and then discussion of the issue no longer becomes a way to discuss (and hopefully solve) an issue, but a rant.

Some of the best discussions about certain issues are happening out of the limelight. Some serious solutions are coming out of those discussions, but they do not see the light of day because those who are truly trying to solve the issues aren’t angry about them.

How did I get here from the beginning of this post? Simple, the way things are going currently, I cannot discuss where I see something being wrong, without someone reacting as if attacked. The sad part is, I feel a need to help them. I am moved by love to help them. I certainly don’t hate those I seek to help, what would be the point. Are they my enemies? Not from my point of view, however, from their point of view, I am their enemy, as is my faith.

How do you share in love, when the only currency that is understood is anger?

The true goal is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If a person has a living vital relationship with Jesus Christ, it is that relationship that will change them. It won’t be fancy arguments. It won’t be facts. It won’t be tirades. It won’t be the shallow love of a human being. It will be the gracious, faithful, living, and deep love of God, lived through Jesus Christ, felt and experienced through the Holy Spirit.

New Worship Styles Un-Becomining?

Starlyth — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:55:25 +0000

Mark Galli, in his article Seeker Unfriendly on Christianity Today, writes on the accessibility of worship to the seeker or newcomer. Part of what I like about this article is that it is referring more to modern or contemporary worship styles as being inaccessible, which is exactly the issue the modern/contemporary style was to address, to the newcomer.

The traditional liturgies of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, and other churches are often criticized, with some justification, as being stilted and too formal. That the traditional liturgies prevent worship of and communion with God. I have never found that to be the case for myself, but know others who have. The church we attend now, The Moscow Church of the Nazarene, put me off initially with its contemporary worship, as that style, for me, is not as comfortable as the traditional liturgies.

That being said, I am not a seeker of liturgies or worship styles (though they can color my initial impression), but a seeker of the Word of God being preached, and that is what I found at The Moscow Church of the Nazarene. However, I would like to say that “worship” is another word that has been redefined to mean something different that what did mean. What people really mean when they say, “contemporary worship,” is really, “contemporary liturgy.” The word liturgy has been maligned in the, for lack of a better word to used, Evangelical community, because they believe it means only the traditional liturgies.

For example, The Moscow Church of the Nazarene has an order of worship:

intro music
announcements
three (sometimes four) songs
reading from the Bible
more singing
prayer
singing
prayer for the offering
offering, with an individual or small group singing during the offering
sermon
post-sermon prayer
dismissal

I wouldn’t be surprised if I made an error in the order, but that’s okay, because the purpose wasn’t to put the worship into a time line, but to point out that this is consistent, week-to-week (with a few special event changes, of course). This is a liturgy, folks. Now, if I don’t like singing (by either myself or by others), I’m going to be in big trouble here, but that isn’t the point.

Any liturgy (or worship style, if you prefer), is going to turn some people off. There is no pleasing everyone all of the time. There must be a balance, but it must be a flexible balance, with plenty of give and take, and room to expand, and permission to contract.

Happy International Weblogger’s Day

Starlyth — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:00:17 +0000

Today is set aside to recognize those who blog (such as yours truly, of course)

Widipedia Entry
The “Official” Website, though rather nauseatingly PC, at least for this year’s theme.

hat tip to:The Geekend@TechRepublic.com

Confusing Sex with Love

Starlyth — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:40:54 +0000

Either the ever-hated Fox News staff has joined the benighted world, or someone was speaking tongue-in-cheek. I suspect, however, the former.

At the end of his online article regarding Iran’s proposed fixed-length marital contracts, John Moody writes:

…love will be served, even if only temporarily.

There is no doubt that this refers to sex, not love, although, it is through this contract that young people may actually have children (please read the article). Here, Mr. Moody falls into the trap that so many people are falling into, and thus confuse hormonally confused teenagers even further. Sex is not love, and that should be the end of it, but in this day and age, it isn’t, and more’s the pity.

I wish there was a phrase other than “making love”, that could really help. However, the English language is rather limited when it comes to the word love; we have to add adjectives to define what kind of love. Of course, the language of love (French) is even more limited, oddly enough (maybe someone will correct my French). “I like you,” and “I love you” are both Je t’aime, which is literally defined as, “I like you.” You can have love for someone, J’ai amour pour tu, but it doesn’t have the action like, “I love you.”

Anyways, here the “mainstream” culture as badly affected someone’s writing, because to confuse sex and love means that you don’t understand either.

What About The Star-Bangled Banner?

Starlyth — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 05:01:35 +0000

Our National Anthem

Further Down The Slippery Slope Of Assisted Suicide

Starlyth — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 04:56:51 +0000

I understand the rationale of Assisted Suicide, but I believe it violates what I believe the purpose of doctors to be…saving lives. As someone who has a very personal relationship with depression, I find this article in the Telegraph from March 2007 (yes, I know, rather old to be writing of it) to be of great concern.

Yet another reason to end this insanity.

Moving Forward In Context

Starlyth — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 05:26:12 +0000

There has been a buzz lately (maybe only from my limited perspective), about how many people are going to the older Christian traditions, leaving the “in style”, “contemporary”, worship modes. I’ve gotten to the point that the “modern” forms of worship no longer bother me as they used, at least in the same way. On the other hand, there is something to be said about tradition.

Americans have a “melting-pot” mentality, which works in many ways towards the success of the country, but can often fail the individual. We are made for connections. I believe much of the popularity of facebook and myspace, and all the others, is a need for connection. Much of what used to bring us this connection is families (usually in rural or agricultural settings) were not separated by many physical miles. As transportation methods changed, families began to spread out. I think my generation is the last one that, on the whole, will not be too negatively affected by this spreading out.

The current generation, the “myspace/facebook” generation is another story, however. My family, despite the separation, at least had the emotional connection that provided a basic connection. However, as my generation has children, I’m not convinced that the connections strained during our parents generation, will survive my generation, and it is my belief that is why these websites are so popular, they are an attempt to create connections that they cannot build at home (and this has nothing to do with the parent-child relationship).

I believe that the ramification in regards to the traditional liturgical churched, is that people are flocking (bad pun, sorry) to these churches is that they provide a different needed connection, a link to the past. However, as far as the Christian church is concerned, I believe there is something else here.

Looking around (hey, even on my blog), the divisions that are blossoming among the denominations are based on basic beliefs that haven’t been in question until the 20th and 21st centuries. I wouldn’t be surprised, in fact I believe, that this is because the basics are no longer taught.

Also, as I experienced during my time in the ELCA (a Lutheran denomination), I experienced the mentality of “they do it, so we won’t”, not for any theological reason, but because the did it. Sadly, because many of the denominations don’t do something because the Roman Catholics do it, like one that I’ve been thinking about recently, kneeling while praying during communal prayer.

As disjointed as this whole post is, it all revolves around connections, connections with each other, and connections with our past. We need them, we need to deliberately plan them.

List of Relevant Articles (The list of articles will be added to as I find more, or find the original ones that brought it to my attention)

Rod Dreher: Modernism In Religion posted at sacbee.com
hat tip to:OrthodoxToday.org
This one address perceptions and actions, and often why tradition is disposed of. Fr. Aris Metrakos: Fun is not a Four Letter Word, posted at OrthodoxyToday.org
The Mission of the Trinity, posted on Christianity Today.

The Aid That Kills

Starlyth — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:31:26 +0000

There are a couple of interesting pieces on Der Spiegle’s website about aid to Africa, and how it is not helping at all. In fact, the two pieces discuss how blind compassion is actually hurting, not helping, Africa. Even I, who some would (wrongly) call a right-wing wacko, took pause at what these articles suggest. How can we not help? However, if you take a step back, it truly brings this Chinese proverb to mind:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

The first piece is an interview with James Shikwati, a Kenyan economics expert.

The second piece is a more in depth review, which is, frankly, quite depressing.

So where does this leave us? As much as we want to, and we should want to, help others, this should give us pause in how we help others. I am not advocating abolishing compassionate assistance, but this is no different than welfare here in the States. I will have to say that much of the same criticism that has been leveled at welfare, should also be leveled here.

It is not whether we should help them, because that is not in question at all, but how they who are being helped may be best enabled to no longer need assistance. For by freeing them from that need, the chains will fall from their feet and arms, and they will be able to go forth with heads held high with hope

A Memorial Day Note

Starlyth — Tue, 29 May 2007 05:28:03 +0000

My wife and I took our kids to one of the local Memorial Day services. Granted, I don’t know who all the people attend were, or how many of their loved ones had died, but it was nice to see others from all walks and places in life there.

One of the things that has bugged me in recent years is how few people seem to recognize the holiday as what it was originally intended to be, a day of recognition for those who have served their country, especially those who died doing so. While I believe it will still bug me to some degree, the main speaker, provided his perspective. He was one of those officers I who I wish I had met in my short stint in the Army R.O.T.C., Lt. Col. Kenneth Hunt.

He spoke of being happy to see people hauling their ATV’s, their campers, their whatever, off to enjoy the three day weekend. Why would a person who has risked his life to allow me the freedom to write this and worship Jesus Christ, be happy at those off to enjoy their three day weekend? Because they are free. That is what all those people traipsing off means to him.

Honestly, and sadly, it says better of him than me. If all of us were as unselfish as that, I’d say we’d all be much better off.

To all those who have served, a kinder, gentler, and hopefully less selfish thank you to all that have served. To those who have lost a loved one, or a part of their soul to the darkness that is war, thank you as well. For all, our Lord said:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 15:13

21st Century King James Version

Education Privitization, Whether You Like It Or Not

Starlyth — Thu, 24 May 2007 02:24:02 +0000

The U.K. Telegraph has an interesting article about Indian Companies (as in India) teaching students in the U.K. and U.S.A. via the internet.

hat tip to: RightMind.us

Basically, private tutoring at low cost. Before someone throws a fit about taking advantage of the “poor” ignorant Indians, the story states that most of these poor, ignorant Indians are college graduates. They are “poor”, perhaps, in comparison to us, however, they certainly aren’t ignorant, and as India is still part of the British Commonwealth, I bet a lot of these teachers graduated from colleges in the U.K., and even the U.S.A..

I find this interesting in a number of ways. There is an increasing acceptance of the use of the internet as an educational tool. This is another way to reduce infrastructure costs for school buildings. I believe that it will, eventually, put downward pressure on the (far too) high priced internet education programs out there. I believe that it will also increase the pressure on schools to perform. I also hope that this will free up funds and resources for secondary education (high schools) to teach something other than a straight college-prep curriculum, which is, in many ways, useless to non-college bound students.

Coming Out Christian

Starlyth — Wed, 23 May 2007 05:22:45 +0000

I just couldn’t pass up that title. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, delivered an address to the Path to Peace Foundation seminar “Catholic Students and the Common Good: Building a Better World” in New York today. It has to be read in its entirety, but here are some highlights:

…much of American culture right now is built on an adolescent fiction. The fiction is that life is all about you as an individual—your ideas, your appetites, and your needs. Believe me: It isn’t.
Religious faith is always personal, but it’s never private. It always has social consequences, or it isn’t real.
…if we remove God from public discourse, we also remove the only authority higher than political authority, and the only authority that guarantees the sanctity of the individual.
think the word tolerance itself is a kind of problem. Tolerance comes from the Latin words tolerare, which means to bear or sustain, and tollere, which means to lift up. It implies bearing other people and their beliefs the way we bear a burden or a really nasty migraine headache. It’s a negative. And it’s not a Christian virtue.
…tolerating lies about the nature of the human person is a sin.
…using “tolerance” as an excuse for not living and witnessing Jesus Christ in our private lives and in our public actions is not an act of civility. It’s a form of cowardice.
If you want to serve the common good and build a better future, you’ll never do it by hiding your faith in the closet.

Now, I would argue, as would many, about his view of the Roman Catholic Church in the Church Universal, but his conviction of most (including myself) is truly universal.

Episcopals Should Relearn Excommunication

Starlyth — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 03:20:50 +0000

Bishop (ret.) Spong has written a book, Jesus for the Non-Religious. Spong has disturbed me greatly for many years, although I do have to thank him (and the Episcopal Church), because he opened my eyes to failures of the Episcopal Church, long before all the hubbub surrounding homosexuality.

Jason Lee Steorts has written a piece, not so much discussing Spong’s book itself, but about Spong’s own failures of faith (although neither Steorts nor Spong name it such). Spong’s words outside of his book, should have caused the Episcopal Church long ago to excommunicate him. Although it is probably too late, they should do it now. The Episcopal Church is in the midst of a crisis, and people so far outside of even today’s Episcopal liberal theology, should not be granted the stature that Spong has, and the Episcopal Church can remove much of that stature by excommunicating a man who is a heretic.

There, I said it. Spong is a heretic. One is supposed to excommunicate the heretics. I could hope that the Episcopal would have some strength remaining, but I don’t. The true bedrock of its strength, faith, is leaving by way of parishes severing their ties to the Episcopal Church, and true to its current path, the Episcopal Church it is doing its best to step on them, and proving that it is now of the world, not of the Word, by legally stealing the property of the parish (who, according to Episcopal rules, HAVE to have the Diocese on the property deed) who have, in good faithful conscience, decided that they can no longer be a part of an organization that insists traveling down the Apostate Freeway.

The Gulf Narrows A Bit

Starlyth — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:19:27 +0000

When Pope Benedict was still Cardinal Ratzinger, he was call “God’s Rottweiler” (and also, The Enforcer, Panzerkardinal , Cardinal No, and others). He has been tenacious in guarding the Roman Catholic Church, and trying to balance modern and traditional thought of theology. However, in this news story, and based on his words, those, such as myself, that term themselves “born again” need to keep an open mind about him. Why?

He believes that we need to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He also believes that if we have a true relationship with Jesus, we cannot but help to seek a holy life. I am not saying that I am going to become a Roman Catholic, but one of my biggest beefs with many of the denominations (not, noticeably, an issue with the Church of the Nazarene), is that they are so pig-headed (mea culpa: I used to be one of those pig-headed ones) that they cannot see the wisdom that is coming forth from other denominations.

And The Answer Gets An Exclamation Point

Starlyth — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:16:25 +0000

When I wrote “An Answer, Somewhat…“, I was just reading the Bible, and it popped out at me. Now comes news that the Roman Catholic Church will likely be putting Limbo out of business. I guess that ends that.

What Is Forgiveness?

Starlyth — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:18:49 +0000

Brian Hollar asks this question, and he provides some very profound, yet simple answers. He has some especially deep words regarding blame and forgiveness. I wish I had the wisdom to add to this, but I don’t.

An Answer, Somewhat…

Starlyth — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 05:29:56 +0000

In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one’s account when there is no law.

So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone. For just as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. The law came along to multiply the trespass. But where sin multiplied, grace multiplied even more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness, resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

…if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous One. He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.

Romans 5:13, 18-21; 1 John 2:1b-2

Holman Christian Standard Bible

The Roman Catholic Church has a belief of a place called ~~purgatory~~ Limbo (apparently, Limbo is kind of the purgatory for unbaptized infants. ). Now I cannot comment about all those who in the Roman Catholic Church believe are in purgatory. However, what struck me about this is infants and young children. Neither an infant nor a child (a probably a few “adults” as well), according to these scriptural references, seems to be relegated to purgatory, nor condemned to Hell.

I find this reassuring. One of strongest arguments about the apparent capriciousness of God is the passed-on rumor (as belief) that God sends non-baptized infants to Hell, or Purgatory. As an infant (and as a child up to a certain age) doesn’t know the law. They are incapable of knowing the law, so they are not guilty of personal sin. Now, of course, there is still Original sin (thanks, Adam, oh, and Eve, too). As my faith is based on a loving Abba, I cannot help but conclude that God would not condemn them to an eternity away from them.

While Impactful, Still Missing The Mark

Starlyth — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:31:57 +0000

Cleaning Up La Oroya, an article online at Christianity Today, reports on the team activities of a La Oroya, Peru, based ministry, and an Ohio based ministry, and their pursuit of cleaning up the contamination originating from a local smelter. Members of the ministries mention how they put pressure on the government of Peru, which granted seems to have worked, somewhat. However, the article, and those that they linked to, did not mention any pressure other than on the government, and the local administration of the smelter.

That’s too bad. The smelter is owned by the Don Roe Company, which proudly states on their main web page:

Our commitment to producing these materials in a safe and environmentally responsible manner is demonstrated through pioneering techniques that make our international operations more innovative, efficient and environmentally sound.

The Don Roe Company purchased the smelter, thereby inheriting a pre-existing mess, from the Peru government run company. The Don Roe Company is based in the United States. The United States based ministry should have started locally. It is much easier to get leverage against a public traded company, as bad news (especially bad PR, such as this) lowers stock prices, but one can still put pressure on privately owned companies, such as the Don Roe Company, as well.

A public relations campaign pointing out the contradiction between their “commitment” and the reality in Peru could work wonders. As the press loves printing bad news, it wouldn’t take much to get a few flames started. Also, as La Oroya produces copper and zinc (which is, honestly, one of the nastiest things to produce. It always comes with lead), one can talk to their customers, whom I am sure all have “environmentally-friendly” statements, and point out that their supplier(s) are operating in a method contrary to their statements. By including their customers in a public relations campaign, one can create even further pressure.

I am an amateur in all of this. My primary purpose in writing this, granted no one will probably ever read it, is to show that being blinded by local versus global is a bad thing, as it can limit your impact.

I would also like to point out that the article only seems to hint at the improvements that the Don Roe company is making. The focus of the article was the impact the ministries can have (even crossing continental and national boundaries) when they work together. And while I will not spend the time check the veracity of this, please read the Don Roe Company’s statement about what they are doing to improve both the La Oroya operation, and the surrounding community.

All Hail the Ostriches in Washington, D.C.!

Starlyth — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:04:07 +0000

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

On (what-are-no-longer) Iraq’s WMDs

A Familial Truth About Government

Starlyth — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:59:15 +0000

I am a professor of human biology at Baruch College, City University of New York. I sometimes get involved in discussions with ‘gay’ students on issues of biology and homosexuality, but such discussions have always been respectful and educational. For example, a young ‘gay’ man told me he was opposed to all the hatred directed against ‘gay marriage’; why couldn’t the government recognize the equality of ‘gay’ unions? I asked him about the lifespan of nations, compared to the lifespan of individuals. He acknowledged that nations span many generations. I added that, in fact, one of the few real responsibilities of the national government is to ensure that there will be future generations of citizens. Therefore, I said, is it not really the responsibility of the federal government to provide special protection to the very institution that guarantees future generations of citizens, i.e., marriage between a man and a woman? His reply: ‘That sounds fair.’ And he walked out of class satisfied. We all know that youth tend to be possessed of idealism, which is these days so often confused with, and perverted into utopianism. But youthful idealism is really the love of truth, and nothing makes it shine like truth!

A letter to the editor of the Patriot Post (The Brief, Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 16 | 16 April 2007)

Ignore, him, and he will fade away. Maybe not.

Starlyth — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:16:54 +0000

Imus has always been a jerk. The last few days haven’t changed my opinion. However, heaping all the publicity on him is doing him GOOD!

Father Jonathan, who blogs at FoxNews.com, has an excellent post discussing the darkest lining (I am talking neither race nor Imus) of this debacle. This whole situation just goes to bolster my post discussing Pope Benedict’s admonition of the media.

Granted, despite, my post’s title, I know that Imus will not go away, but as Father Jonathan pointed out the worst that will happen is that Imus will get a vacation, and everything will be as it was prior to this.

To the Rutgers team, Ladies, congrats on your title. You earned it. Imus cannot take away the success, the trophy, or anything else, unless you let him.

Out of Balance

Starlyth — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:45:59 +0000

Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Syria is not a serious blow to the president. Well, perhaps it is. He has taken “turn the other cheek” to its suicidal oversimplified interpretation logical conclusion. However, that aspect of it is not the purpose of this post.

When a land is in rebellion, it has many rulers, but with a discerning and knowledgeable person, it endures.

Proverbs 28:2 (HCSB)

There are a lot of people trying to be “leaders” right now. I fervently hope that most of them have the needs of those whom they purport to represent in mind, rather than their own power. The weakness of a true democracy (which the United States is NOT) is that with so many voices, the loudest and/or shrillest ones are heard over others. In this day and age, it is those that have their representation in the media. Sadly, with the current state of the media, loudness and shrillness are what seize the day.

Newt Gingrich (not the most shrill, but certainly not the least) recently had a “gentlemanly” debate with Mario Cuomo. The reason it was gentlemanly was they were discussing issues, perspectives, and solutions. A reasoned debate. Something lost on most these days. But that is yet another aside.

The 20th century saw a lot of rebellion for many good reasons: women’s suffrage, integration, racial and gender equality. However, there were bad rebellions as well: feminism (what is now feminism, not equality), the 60′s drug and sex era, the anti-Vietnam war. However, it seems to have become a state of mind for far too many. Rebelling for rebelling’s sake. That’s what this passage of Proverbs brings to mind.

Granted, this has been repeated time and again, but I believe that this upcoming presidential race will be key. Is the United States headed for oblivion, or for greater things? To be honest, the instability in both major political parties could have a significant effect upon a “third” party candidate, making it possible for one to be successful. Also, with the instability of both parties, the candidates selected could be anyone. In addition, with all the states moving their primaries to be close together, we won’t have the test of stamina (and I am not talking about money) of the candidates, which could truly be a catastrophe in the making.

I must admit that I don’t know if a republic or democracy can be without many leaders (it is the nature of the beast, after all), but there is no true leader. Pres. G.W. Bush seems to have burned out his leadership resources, so now everyone, including him, seem to be fighting over the scraps. The mainstream media certainly isn’t helping by their amplification of the lonely, strident voices.

In the past few months, though I still consider my self an American (and still proud of it), I’m beginning to view my nation in its proper perspective, as a nation (kingdom) that is certainly not the kingdom of God, therefore not nearly worth as much of my concern.

Oops! I think they missed that part

Starlyth — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:39:16 +0000

“[T]here is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.”

– Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 81, 1788)

Who is the Fourth Beast?

Starlyth — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:29:57 +0000

As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth that shall be different from all the other kingdoms; it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it into pieces.

Daniel 7:23

I was reading Daniel 7:19-27, and it struck me that the United States of America may very well be the fourth beast. The first response of some will be that the USA is not a beast, of course their opposites on the political spectrum will say that it is. The Book of Daniel is very much a prophetical and vision based. It is not literal.

“…shall be different from all the other kingdoms…”. The United States of America is different from any other country.

“It will devour the whole earth…” From a political standpoint, and sadly much in a cultural viewpoint, this is reality as well.

As much as I love my country, the current divide between the lovers and loathers (American Citizens all), tells me that the USA is on its way out. It won’t go down easily, or soon. What ten kingdoms, then will it devolve to?

We call the USA a “Christian” nation. It was. It is no longer, and hasn’t been for a great many decades (which decade in the 20^th century is up for debate). As sad as this makes me feel, the kingdom to which is owed my greatest loyalty is not of this earth, and that kingdom shall not pass away.

Raising Awareness, One Million People At A Time

Starlyth — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:24:23 +0000

MillionSoulsAware.org is a project that seeks to raise awareness one global issue at a time. Their mission statement says:

millionsoulsaware.org is a not for profit project started in march 2007 that has the mission to raise awareness by featuring an article on an important topic that needs attention. Millionsoulsaware.org doesn’t ask for donations, but asks you to spread the word. The millionsoulsaware.org goal is to get one million souls aware on the current subject. This goal is measured by the project counter on the mainpage. Our goal will be reached by asking people on the internet to spread the awareness by promoting millionsoulsaware.org. We believe the internet is the perfect way to reach a wide audience worldwide. Awareness is the starting point for a better world!

The current issue is refugee camps, and while there will probably be some disagreements on the cause, effect, and resolution of the issue that MillionSoulsAware.org will bring up. At this point, I’m not going to argue that at least their first issue is definitely worth learning about.

Also, please note that I have added a text box at the top of the left-most column, as I want more people to learn about these issues.

Thanks, But We Already Knew That…

Starlyth — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:22:47 +0000

Stephan Hawking spoke at Zellerbach Hall yesterday (original link from Slashdot), and announced his new theory: the universe came from nothing (there is a video—RealPlayer or equivalent needed).

Dr. Hawking, with all due respect, that theory has been around for quite some time now. My biblical calendar is pretty useless, but I think its about 6000 years old.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:1-5

Pete Stark – Atheist

Starlyth — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:35:34 +0000

I’m sorry, but Pete Stark’s (D-CA) admission that he is an atheist doesn’t concern me as much as it seems to concern others. However, other bits in this announcement I find much more interesting.

The SCA said in a press release that Americans without a “God-belief” are more distrusted than any other minority group in the nation. The organization said that surveys suggest the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist president even if he were the most qualified candidate.

Hmmm, now why would that be? Perhaps, those that have a “God-belief” have a basic structure of morality, outside of themselves, upon which their thoughts and actions can be judged upon, and hopefully their thoughts and actions will be in concert with¹.

Lori Brown of the SCA says:

It starts breaking down people’s misunderstandings of who we are when they start seeing that this person, who has served in Congress for over 30 years of exemplary service, may have a different belief system … but is a perfectly patriotic member of our society.

I remember Pete Stark from my life in California, not positively either. Just because a person has been in Congress for any length of time, does not make them patriotic, nor does it mean they served “exemplary”, it means that they have successfully negotiated the morass called elections. That’s it.

Now for a tad bit of intellectual honesty. According to the Unitarian Universalist Association, I can believe in God and still be a member. In fact, the Unitarian trumpet themselves as supporting religious (their words, not mine) self-expression, including believing in god (I won’t capitalize it, as their definition does not seem to meet either the Jewish non-Jesus or the Christian view of God). Pete Stark, in an email to the New York Sun, did say he was an atheist Unitarian. This boggles the mind. Pete Stark, in his pew at his “religious” service at Unitarian, could very well sit next to some sort of theist. A comment comes to mind from a non-practicing Jew who said, “Unitarians are those who want to be part of a church, but don’t want God to interfere.”

¹This goes back to the whole sin thing. We all have ideals, which we fall short of.»

The Risks of Being A Pastor

Starlyth — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:03:26 +0000

I’m not sure how I feel about this article. A lot of the issue brought up, don’t seem particularly surprising. The biggest issue is burnout, I think. What pastors need to know, and learn if they don’t, there must be boundaries between their ministry, and their life.

What was old, is new, or at least possibly okay…now

Starlyth — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:58:19 +0000

I was a member of a Lutheran church for a time, and learned a lot about schismatic views. Lutherans didn’t do a lot of things, not because they were unscriptural, but because the Roman Catholics did it.

A lot of the “non-liturgical” churches seem to have much of the same perspective as they do not do things that older churches have done for centuries, because the older churches do them.

As one of those people who still crosses himself, but restrains himself because of a lack of understanding by others, it was refreshing to see this commentary in Christianity Today.

Who is Jesus? All hail, Zeus!

Starlyth — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:47:00 +0000

I wish this was a joke, but apparently some folks are off to revive the Pantheon of Gods of Rome and Greece. Lucky us. Of course, just like the “witchcraft” and “druid” pagans, they are inventing their faith. Funny, they criticize we Christians for our faith, but here they are.

The rental cello… an Israeli story

Starlyth — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:42:31 +0000

As Treppenwitz says, this is a story to be shared.

The Dark Side of Capitalism

Starlyth — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:30:28 +0000

Yesterday, Pope Benedict convicted those in charge of the media, saying:

I appeal again to the leaders of the media industry to advise producers to safeguard the common good, to uphold the truth, to protect individual human dignity and promote respect for the needs of the family.

What I find interesting is to whom he is speaking. The leaders of the Mainstream Media go after Halliburton, Enron, Exxon, etcetera, however, they are just as guilty (perhaps more so as they are so quick to, and viciously, attack others) of pure corporate greed, as they don’t care what is sent out, by whom it is consumed, and the effect upon society.

Almost, that makes me think that we need the government and the FCC. Almost.

Bipartisan Hypocrisy

Starlyth — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:05:22 +0000

Libertines on all sides.
By Victor Davis

Yep, sadly, that pretty much sums it up.

Don’t Let Your Ingnorance Lose Your Battle

Starlyth — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 02:56:05 +0000

The ignorance of those who oppose the freedom of the 2^nd amendment amazes me, along with their seeming determination to learn nothing. Maybe some will read this, and learn a little bit of something.

Court Acknowledges What Some Of Us New All Along

Starlyth — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 02:40:46 +0000

Court strikes down D.C. ban on guns

Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment

The first interesting part of the decision:

We are told by the District that the Second Amendment was written in response to fears that the new federal government would disarm the state militias by preventing men from bearing arms while in actual militia service, or by preventing them from keeping arms at home in preparation for such service. Thus the Amendment should be understood to check federal power to regulate firearms only when federal legislation was directed at the abolition of state militias, because the Amendment’s exclusive concern was the preservation of those entities. At first blush, it seems passing strange that the able lawyers and statesmen in the First Congress (including James Madison) would have expressed a sole concern for state militias with the language of the Second Amendment. Surely there was a more direct locution, such as “Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias” or “States have a right to a well-regulated militia.”

The District’s argument—as strained as it seems to us[emphasis mine]—is hardly an isolated view.

The next part of interest is:

In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”—indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

Here, however, is the key:

The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.”

However, the New York Times feels free to reinterpret the decision:

The court relied on a constitutional interpretation that has been rejected by nine federal appeals courts around the nation. The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun-control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to a collective right of state militias.

Obviously the report didn’t read the decision, either relying on the District of Columbia team, or their own interpretation of things. The Times implies that this court is the exception, however, the District Appeals Court is quite specific that less than a majority of the other courts have upheld D.C.’s (and the anti-gun fanatics), and the Court also specifically references the decision of at least one other court that supports the District Court’s opinion. Either the reporter didn’t read the decision, or he hopes that his readers won’t bother to read the opinion.
The opinion is very long (from my legal-layman point of view), but the Court is setting out that the Courts as a whole have been very inconsistent in their decision making process (not a news flash).
Here is my favorite part from the Washington Times article:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the decision “judicial activism at its worst.”

“By disregarding nearly 70 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two federal judges have negated the democratically expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted 30 years ago and still strongly supports,” he said.

My response, “Yeah, and what about the framers intentions and the previous 148 (approximately) years of precedence?”

Spiritual Needs Unfulfilled

Starlyth — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:24:54 +0000

A sad report regarding the U.S. Army (and presumably the other services as well) having issues fulfilling the Clerical needs of those who serve. However, a lot of the denominations, both traditional and liberal, are having issue filling their needs. Part of it is money, as being a pastor (or equivalent) is not as well paid as many private sector jobs that require the same amount of education, but because there is such an increasing anti-religious, especially anti-Chrisitian, bias in society, I suspect that the perceived respect of pastors (or lack thereof) is a real turnoff.

Misunderstanding Capitalism and Business

Starlyth — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:51:10 +0000

I read this this morning (read the entire article):

There’s a stereotypical assumption among Christians in the nonprofit world that capitalism means greed or selfishness, and “therefore has got to be bad,” says Nash, founder and managing partner of Piper Cove Asset Management LLC. Using goals to measure progress—standard practice in the business world—is seen as “cold-blooded and materialistic.”

I can’t say I’m particularly shocked. It does seem to many people outside of business that this is the case. Especially with high profile failures in morals, ethics, and leadership, of a number of “leaders” (leaders used generously) in the business community. The sensationalist treatment by the media certainly doesn’t help.

It’s too bad, really. Business, in the form of truly free capitalism, provides a good grounding for a successful and free society. The company I work for is a great example. They care for their employees, understanding that they are the reason the company is successful, and even in business. Of course we have metrics, and honestly, it is a good thing. As long as the leadership of an organization isn’t the browbeating time, learning where one falls short and where one excels helps the employee and the company.

The funny part is that Christians are lumped together with “evil” capitalistic Republicans, and yet, if this description of Christians in non-profits is true, many Christians actually belong in the “left” because of their view of business.

Without a doubt, a business exists to make money. That is its purpose. The purpose of a Christian non-profit is to fulfill its mission. By swapping money for mission, a business becomes a non-profit. And yes, it is as simple as that.

A Perfect Railroad Job

Starlyth — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:02:49 +0000

Thomas Sowell summarizes the political hijinx of the Scooter Libby affair.

Gotta Love the VA

Starlyth — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:42:44 +0000

Mary Katharine Ham’s column today, Veterans on VA: ‘Get the politics outta the system’
Vets vent at national VFW convention, speaks of veterans’ views of the VA, and by proxy, the situation at Walter Reed. The veterans’ views are very similar to those I posited in my post, Welcome to Nationalized Health Care. Sadly, I got it right. While I agree with one veteran quoted, that the VA should be fully funded per their request (not per the president’s budget), I also agree with other veterans quoted, that it won’t do any good.

While, ultimately, I agree with another veteran that it should be a privatized system, which I’m sure it would be better than the VA, however, we are all complaining about the private system. The veteran who said Adam Smith (the gentleman who wrote the Wealth of Nations) should rule is 100% correct, however, as I said in my aforementioned post, and as veterans alluded to, we would need the cooperation of the bureaucrats (and the politicians), and that just isn’t going to happen.

Yet.

…Love Your Neighbor as Yourself…

Starlyth — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:23:35 +0000

Catherine Claire, in her blog post “Short on Time–Short on Compassion“, talks about a convicting sociological experiment involving seminarians (this is self-convicting as well, I freely, but sadly, admit).

She says in the concluding paragraph of her post:

…there are other factors in play in altruism, but I thought this one was particularly relevant in the busy world in which all of us live, even Christians.

It is the “even” that caught my attention. Granted, I am unable to read minds, but I wonder if “even” is what she really meant. I believe the word should be “especially” Christians. We are charged to love our neighbors as ourselves, which is what the parable of the Samaritan represents. The experiments shows it in spades.

Theoretically, Jews are supposed to as well. However, as they (those that are not Messianic Jews) do not view Jesus even as a valid prophet, his admonishments fall on deaf ears. Those that view themselves as Christians, however, have no such excuse.

Welcome to Nationalized Health Care

Starlyth — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:50:10 +0000

Familiar with the horrible failures at Walter Reed? Before jumping on the bandwagon of the “Destroy Bush” crowd, understand the failures at Walter Reed are a systemic failure of the military hospital and VA system, and the VA system has been under attack for decades for its failures, so, sorry, this can’t be pinned on Bush OR Cheney (and sorry, right-wingers, this can’t be pinned on either of the Clintons, or Carter).

First, people have to understand something. The primary issue here, at this point, is the mounds of bureaucratic red tape the people must navigate to get the proper care for themselves, and/or their loved ones. The military is being accused of putting all this red tape in place. The military has a chain-of-command, granted, but cannot thrive on bureaucracy. The military succeeds when it is efficient. Most bureaucratic red tape is put there, not by the military, but by the very people who are holding proverbial firing squad hearings.

If you believe “single-payer” health care system (SPHCS) is the answer, read the horrors of the Walter Reed debacle, because that is a SMALL taste of the SPHCS. Remember, there is a reason why the wealthy citizens of SPHCS countries come to the U.S. for treatment, because, here, they don’t have to wait, which often is the difference between life and death.

I readily acknowledge that our current system has issues, SERIOUS issues, as I have experienced and witnessed them. While I am completely for tort reform, I know that that is a small drop in the bucket. The first thing would be to attempt to reduce the red tape, but as that would require the cooperation of the very people whose jobs it is to administer the red tape, that’s not likely.

The first solution would be computerization of the whole system. Require patient data to be transmittable via a open (as is non-proprietary) format (such as XML), encrypted of course, so that patient data can be shared AS NEEDED between DOCTORS (NOT insurance companies OR the government). Require patient data to be stored encrypted, and with multiple redundancies. That’s it. Let the doctor’s and hospitals figure out the best way for each of them. The entire health care system still relies far too much on paper (as does the government).

There are a lot of good ideas out there that don’t require a SPHCS (the Center For Health Transformation has a lot, it also has a few I don’t like). The way forward is not a SPHCS or the status quo, but those are the only two agendas being put forth by people on both sides of the political spectrum. What I find frustrating is that there are VERY few people who think the status quo is working, so why aren’t we talking?

Are You Saved, or Not?

Starlyth — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:23:13 +0000

I had an interesting conversation with someone this weekend. The first thing asked, as noting differences between traditional Baptist and Nazarene teachings, was the view of salvation.

Serendipitously, David Gushee, a Baptist minister, wrote in Christianity Today (see the article Jesus and the Sinner’s Prayer) about revisting the view of salvation.

While I find his questioning of whether or not we are saved once we accept Jesus interesting, it is his further musings about why we may not be that I find more interesting. He points to the possibility that these may be the requirement for being, and continuing to be, saved:

Believe in Jesus
Love God with all one’s heart
Love one’s neighbor as oneself
GIVE UP YOUR LIFE TO PICK UP THE CROSS THAT IS YOURS, BY GOD, TO CARRY.

Most of have heard of (1) and understand the need of fulfilling that requirement first. Loving God (2) at first seems easy, but continuing on through to items (3) and (4), it’s not so easy anymore. (3) in many ways seems difficult, but if we examine the parable of the Samaritan, perhaps it is not so intimidating. For the basic truth of that parable is to recognize that we are all travelers on the same road of life, recognizing the brotherhood that that is. The next part of it is compassion; help one another (which, in the Nazarene tradition, can be not doing something so that person does not sin, although there has to be some limit). Of course, there is a differing perspective on what is “helping”. I do not wish my fellow man to sin, so if I try to explain how their sin separates them from God, in truth, I am trying to help them, for I have no desire to see my fellow man in Hell. Should I get to Heaven, which I believe I will (but perhaps God will decide that I was a branch that needed pruning), I have no intention or desire to gloat over my fallen fellow man.

The last part of it is (4). For me this has been a struggle, as the cross that I believe God wants me to bear is to be a pastor. I have finally surrendered to this call, and feel some peace, but there is a lot of apprehension as this will eventually require a major life change for me and my family. I have said “no” for more than 8 years, but my pastor delivered a sermon that convicted me. He said, when we say “no” to God, we are more than just sinning, we are turning our back to God.

God wins, and eventually, I will, tool

That’s What I Was Thinking!

Starlyth — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:46:32 +0000

Babu Ranganathan ~~has~~ had a wonderful commentary at Conservative Voice (but the article is no longer live, and I have no idea which one of his it is now.) regarding evolution. He brings up a number of serious flaws in the theory. He also ~~has~~ had a further commentary (which also now seems to be lost), which adds more.

The biggest issue to me is intellectual honesty. If evolutionists were honest, they would acknowledge that evolution is a theory. Both creationism and evolution are theories according to the scientific method, as neither is reproducible, as humans do not live such extended lifespans as would be required to observe the evolution of species, especially man. However, as we are not God, we cannot reproduce creationism either.

The end result both are equally based upon FAITH.

The Democrat Party. Home of the Patriotic Terrorist.

Starlyth — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 18:10:39 +0000

Greg Gutfeld has coined a new term, “Patriotic Terrorist”. I’m not sure why he would post it on such a site as the Huffington Post, especially with the hate-filled comments that follow it.

Another Alternative To Abortion

Starlyth — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:08:37 +0000

The pro-abortion crowd often brings up abortion as the only alternative to unplanned pregnancies. Not to be too blunt, but as my grandma once said, “that is no accident.”

Chuck Colson, in one of his daily Breakpoint Commentaries, talked about a woman who decided against aborting the child of an unplanned pregnancy.

Through sharing her own story of coming to terms with unexpected pregnancy, Fields gives hope to women who often feel their only choice is abortion. She shows how God can redeem even the most difficult of circumstances and give a mother love for the surprise child who seems, at first, more like a curse than a blessing.

Please read the transcript of this commentary, for I believe that women such Leslie Fields need the support of family, friends, and churches to make the choice of loving God’s greatest surprises, children.

National Security Court a middle-road solution

Starlyth — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:58:38 +0000

~~The United States should establish a National Security Court designed to handle terrorism cases fairly but also in a way that does not jeopardize public safety…~~ (article no longer available)

I have never felt that those who are believed to be terrorists, should have the luxury of the U.S. Court system, for they are an enemy combatant. The problem is that our entire system, and the global court system, is geared towards nation upon nation conflict, not terrorism.

However, I’m not sure a military tribunal is acceptable either. I think this is a reasonable middle-of-the-road solution that should be looked by both sides.

Jesus was [insert skin color, race, ethnicity…here]

Starlyth — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:53:06 +0000

I was reading an article entitled Exit Interviews at Christianity Today’s website, and I have to admit I was depressed. I know we all behave in an unchristian due to often unknown or unrecognized attitudes.

I don’t feel that it is fair that so much pressure is put onto the “first” person of a particular gender, skin color, or ethnicity. Oddly enough, I believe more pressure is put upon such people with our “multicultural” empasized society, than would have been a generation ago. Maybe I’m wrong. I’ll be honest, it wasn’t until college that I truly became aware of the whole situation. This is where I met truly angry people, who were angry at the opposite gender (usually female angry at male), or at another race (usually black angry at white). They, who did not know me, took out their anger and frustration upon me.

I experienced institutionalized attitudes. “Institutionalized attitudes”, you ask. “It is the inherent white male good ol’ boys club that is institutions we fight,” they say. Except the only problem is, especially in the world of educatioin, that is a burned-to-ash straw man. The educational establishment has bent over backwards, sideways, anyways, to not be that white man’s world. It’s done a pretty good job. Too good, in fact. It is in the process of alienating and destroying the very educational environment it was seeking to create.

I wish that people would get over the race issue, myself included, but we now expend more effort upon it, therefore emphasizing it more. The only way to get over it is through the power of Jesus Christ:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:28

What is Lent?

Starlyth — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:31:01 +0000

Lentan Fare

Cars improved the air … that’s no bull

Starlyth — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:27:33 +0000

The motto of all environmentalists should be “Thank goodness for the internal combustion engine.”

Almost Agreeing with Gaddafi

Starlyth — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:18:46 +0000

“Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi criticized the world financial system as a dictatorship based on fear…”

Disconcerting as it is, I am almost in agreement with Gaddafi. The stock and futures markets are based on rumors and fear.

As much as everyone wanted to blame the oil companies for the high price of gas, it was the fears of the futures traders that was truly, and remains, the real reason behind the oil prices remaining at their high level. Oil production remains at high levels, but oil prices continue to rise (and fall).

I’m not sure that I agree with him in the entirety that the entire global financial “market” is based on fear. However, the World Bank and the IMF certainly have plenty of critics on their basis for loaning money.

While Gaddafi is correct that fear in many ways rules finances, it also rules most other things in life. Most people operate on some basis of fear.

The Language of Nature, by Steve Talbott

Starlyth — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:10:35 +0000

o judge from some of the ancient creation narratives, the world arose as a visible manifestation of speech. “In the beginning was the Word,” as it says in John 1:1. First there was formlessness and chaos, and then the divine voice flashed forth like lightning in the darkness. “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” The world began to assume visible, comprehensible form.

Whatever we may now think of the old visions of creation, we can remain sure of one thing: without the speaking of the Word—without language—we would have no science today with its striking power to illuminate the world.

Read the orginal commentary in its entirety at The New Atlantis website.

Drop the Rock

Starlyth — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:04:55 +0000

And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said unto Him, “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned but what sayest thou?” This they said testing Him, that they might have cause to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not.So when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.And they who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the eldest even unto the last, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing in the midst.When Jesus had lifted Himself up and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?”She said, “No man, Lord.” And Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.”

John 8:2-11

I’m sure most people have at least a passing familiarity with this story, or at least the quote, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” This phrase oten is used as a default attack, or at least deflection, when someone brings up another’s sinful behavior (along with the splinter/plank quote, which I will discuss another time).

However, the user of the phrase, and usually the person at whom the phrase is thrown, accept the phrase as meaning something it doesn’t.

Jesus tells us that the second GREAT commandment is, “love your neighbor as yourself”. What does that have to do with this? Well, the Scribes and Pharisees didn’t come in love, they came to test. Granted, they found an adultress, of course, they seem to have, shall we say, disregarded the adulterer, which is a contradiction. The Scribes and Pharisees didn’t bring her to Jesus out of love of God, God’s love, or love in anyway shape and form.

As for the stone (or rock), Jesus was telling them that they should indeed mete out punishment for her sin, but only if they were sinless. At least, to give the Scribes and Pharisees credit, they acknowleged they weren’t without sin. However, I would like to point out that had they just finished the scapegoat aspect of sin forgiveness, they would have been sinless according to the law, so perhaps the “without sin” part is not quite what it seems.

Now onto Jesus’ last statement, “neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.” Again, when taken into context, this statement is not what it seems at first blush. The comdemn in this statement refers to condemning the adultress to death. In other words, tossing the rocks at her until she dies.

However, Jesus doesn’t forgive her, which I find quite interesting. Elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus seems to just toss forgiveness around, but not here. I wonder if that tells us something about God’s view of adultery, perhaps it won’t be forgiven by God unless the agreived parties (those whose trust the adulteress and adulterer betrayed) forgive them first. I digress.

Jesus tells her to “sin no more”. This implies the fact of her sin. Jesus convicts her of her sin. He tell her not to do it again.

Where does that leave us? I believe that if a person is guilty of sin, they should be reprimanded. “Go and sin no more.” In fact, Paul actually provides a methodology to confront a person with their sin, but it is specifically aimed at members of the Christian church. Another aside is the Ted Haggard fall. As is beginning to come out, many people within his church knew there were issues (no one has admitted, as far as I know, that they knew of Haggert’s homosexual proclivities). They should have dealt with this. Back to the blog entry at hand.

So what are we, as Christians, to do with people outside the church? First, we must love them. How can we show that Jesus Christ is worthy of their love, if they do not experience the love of Christ? There, of course, is the issue of people feeling unloved because a person says their behavior is bad, and, frankly, there little one can do with how they feel about what is said. One can be gentle about it, but not too gentle. If one is too gentle, they will be ignored. I am also flatly against people hating. Of course, there is not an insiginificant portion of the population that says I/we hate them because I/we believe that what they do is wrong. I do not hate them. I’m not sure that I hate anyone.

If we truly believe what we say we believe, then we must say something.

A Commentary On My Own Blog

Starlyth — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:35:56 +0000

Granted, there hasn’t been much traffic to my blog, but in case there ever is, I figure I ought to put this out there, not so much as a disclaimer (although I supposed it is, is some way), but an explanation of perspective.

A number of my posts in the past, and I’m sure many more in the future, will revolve around the church and homosexuality. I’m not deliberately picking on homosexuality, or homosexuals, but on the current political, social, and religious focus of the time, which just so happens to be homosexuality. Homosexuality, for better, or worse, has become a major issue. For better, because I don’t want people to live in fear, for worse, because I still don’t agree with the behavior, and I have grave concerns regarding a greater acceptance, and even encouragement of the behavior.

The last two significant issues that were prominent in all three spheres (politics, society, religion) were divorce and gender equality, which are both topics I will leave for other times. If I were living in those times, and the internet were in existence then, I would be blogging about that.

I know people, whom I do call friends, that are homosexual. Do I love them as I love my fellow man? Of course. Do I agree with that love-challenged church in wherever that “God Hates F***”? Absolutely NOT!

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16

What part of “loved the world” do folks like those not understand? Does that mean I seek to give homosexuality a pass? I would much rather just love and accept homosexuals as they are. It certainly would be easier. However, I don’t have that luxury. For, you see, a behavior that is unacceptable does not suddenly become okay if you love and “accept” a person. I love my children very much, but throwing things in the house is not a positive behavior, and as much as I love and accept my children, I will not accept their behavior. I will forgive, however.

That is how I see God looking at us. We are his creation, his children. That is not to say we are perfect. By giving us free will, God freed us to make mistakes. REALLY BIG ONES. I could start with Original Sin, but that is for others to speak more intelligently on. What I can speak on, only somewhat intelligently, is everyday sin–the things we’ve done and left undone (as the Lutheran confession states).

In an article publish in Christian Week (26 August 1997), John H. Redekop (in a piece titled “Revisitng Homosexuality”) states:

…when Christians respond to homosexuals that Jesus modeled such responses for us, we must be extremely careful not to compromise the clear biblical condemnation of such behavior. … The real point is that all of us are born into sin with strong proclivities to sin. Some, it seems, have a strong and innate desire to steal, some to lie, some to cheat, some to indulge in adultery, some to overeat, some to intoxicate themselves, perhaps some to practice homosexuality, and some to practice pedophilia. The fact that these tendencies may appear to be innate does not make them acceptable.

Redekop discusses two other salient points. The first is that Christians, if anyone, should understand people surrendering to innate desires. We ALL sin. The second is that Christians should respond to everyone with love.

What’s funny, or actually not so funny, is that an easy Commandment to understand (“Love your neighbor as yourself”) is very hard for a fallen, sinful humanity, to implement, even for we Christians, who truly understand just how fallen and sinful we are.

The most frustrating part of the whole shoutfest (why bother calling it a dialogue) is the redefining of the vocabulary. In the english language, tolerance is not a synonym for acceptance. For example, when one of my children throws a temper tantrum before bed, the major contributing factor is exhaustian. I will tolerate the tantrum (not letting it get out of hand, but not trying to stop it quickly either). However, if we are at the store, and one of them throws a tantrum, I will not accept that behavior, and put a stop to it quickly.

The truth is “hate the sin, love the sinner” has to be the modus operandi. If I truly love someone, and I believe that their behavior will cause them to be literally hellbound, why would I not try to help them sin no more. What is love? Is it allowing someone to self-destruct (yes, I understand that sometimes that is the only human course), or should I do what I can to guide them (not force them) onto the path where I can spend eternity with them in the loving grace and presence of God?

Are you a Republican or a Democrat? Are you a Liberal or a Conservative?

Starlyth — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 03:22:26 +0000

I used to pop off an answer just like that, but I’ve realized that not everyone agrees upon the definition of any of those terms. The best way to describe my views quotes God, “I AM.” People will pigeonhole me enough as it is. I don’t want to confuse generalizations and stereotypes with facts.

Look At All the Depressed People

Starlyth — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:25:33 +0000

If you look around at the stories that are there, you will see an increase in depression, an increase in suicide. As technology integrates further into our lives, I wonder how much more will happen.

As much as the mainstream media and those of the ideoloigical left and extreme right like to malign religion, I truly believe that faith, especially faith in Jesus Christ, will continue to be the ballwark defending the human psyche from the madness of its own creations.

The Catholic Church of Scotland has begun stating its concerns, and I hope churches around the world start paying attention to something I feel will be a major concern very soon.

The Lincoln Legacy — Revisited

Starlyth — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:40:51 +0000

…the Lincoln most Americans know is the one who preserved the Union, freed the slaves and founded the Republican Party. A more thorough and dispassionate reading of history, however, reveals that these were silver linings within a dark cloud of constitutional abuse.

New Terminology: Technological Enervation

Starlyth — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:53:39 +0000

I’ve decided that I needed to come up with a new phrase to describe the issues I see with technology and its effect upon people, and by default, society. I’m not sure how to even define it, yet.

I’ve gone back and tagged/categorized older articles, in addition to newer articles as they come up.

In a way, this is a zeitgeist, that seeks to gather together the peculiar afflictions of technology, from my point of view.

An end to the stem cell debate?

Starlyth — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:42:09 +0000

This caught my eye. People such as myself have been framed as opponents of stem cell research, which is false. My opposition has been to embryonic stem cell research that KILLS (i.e., destroys embryos). However, with some recent clarification, it apparently is possible to do embryonic stem cell research without killing the embryo. I would not oppose embryonic stem cell research, if the process developed by Dr. Robert Lanza and his colleagues is viable, AND is used in ALL embryonic stem cell research.

I do have to point out that this article in the New York Times continues to reinforce the false view that those of us who oppose embryonic stem cell research oppose all stem cell research. That is shoddy journalism.

Please note that after extracting the single cell, a lot of the embryos were still killed. NOT acceptable. This report also brought up another train of thought, is in vitro fertilization (IVF) a good thing? I could never minimize the pain and anguish of not being able to have children. Knowing how much joy and love (and frustration, but we’ll skip that for now) my children bring into my life, I could not imagine what it would be like without them, nor what it would be like to not be able to have them. Embryonic stem cell research would not be possible without IVF. An excellent argument by proponents of embryonic stem cell research, is that there are millions of embryos from IVF that are in freezers just “sitting” there. Most of them will never be implanted. To me that is almost as bad as killing them to extract stem cells, but at least there is still a chance of them becoming the people they are already are.

Post-Christ Church, Part II

Starlyth — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:40:52 +0000

I think that the post entitled “Post-Christ Church” should have been more correctly “The Post-Savior Church”. However, the Church of England may soon earn the title of the Post-Christ Church, due to their Hindu priest. The part that should, but doesn’t, utterly astound me is that Mr. Hart believes that he is still entitled to his position as an Anglican priest. Why doesn’t this astound me? Because of the raising of people such as Katharine Jefferts Schori, who believe that other paths are equally valid methods of reaching god, which defeats the whole “Good News” thing.

The Church of England now finds itself in, what one would think, need of making a pretty simple decision. Give Mr. Hart (I refuse to call him “Father”, “Reverend”, or “Pastor”, since he has, in my opinion, deserted the faith that imbues those titles) a chance to recant, if he doesn’t, the New Testament, and church law, makes it pretty clear. Kick him out.

The truly sad part is that this was foreseeable. If people such as Katharine Jefferts Schori can lead a “christian” church, why not a Hindu priest.

The Post-Christ Church

Starlyth — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 04:35:59 +0000

The installation of Katharine Jefferts Schori indicates that the Episcopal Church, as a physical and organizational representation of Jesus Christ, is dead. Her installation as presiding bishop shows the continual decline of the mainstream churches.

In one of her post-installation interviews (2 Nov 2006 Miami Herald) she says, ”It feels a bit un-Anglican to insist that we can’t talk to each other.” However, it is her very beliefs that are “un-Anglican”, and un-Christian.

In an interview with the Associated Press (reprinted here in the Washington Post), she is described as “Jefferts Schori personally believes in a relationship with God through Jesus but does not see it as the only true path.” I’m confused. What Bible is she reading? I know it’s no politically correct. It hurts my heart to say and believe it, but Jesus says that the only way to the Father is through him. As a member of a purportedly Christian church (let’s not even touch the priest, bishop, and now presiding bishop), she is supposed to believe in Jesus. The Episcopal church regularly recites the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds, but this proves the very danger of the creeds and the liturgical tradition as a whole.

Here we have a person who speaks the creeds, has even taught theology, and yet while she swears that she believes these creeds, she theologically opposes them.

The Nicene Creed states:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

The Apostle’s Creed begins:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord…

Yet she argues that Jesus is not the only way. Yet she swears that he is her Lord. It is this confusion that is part and parcel of all the mainstream Protestant and Lutheran denominations.

Her original occupation as a oceanographer, her seeming desire to challenge the seeming “men-only” clubs, also seems to be a driving factor. Are the churches so desperate for clergy, that they cannot, or choose not to, see what they are committing themselves to?

As I have focused so long on the fall of the Episcopal Church, it must be obvious that that particular church is important to me. I was baptized when I was three months old. It was the church of my childhood, not necessarily my faith (another area where the Protestant and Lutheran churches are failing, the bringing up in faith of their youth). I will still watch and pray, but the Episcopal Church can no longer be looked upon as a torch bearer of faith in Jesus Christ.

The Episcopal Church is often referred to as the “Catholic-Lite” church, but now, however, it is the “Christ-Lite” church.

Technology, Humanity, Control (Maybe the Luddites are right)

Starlyth — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 05:47:33 +0000

A survey sponsored by MTV provides some very interesting tidbits regarding the endangered psyche of a technology-savy generation. Even though I found the comment on religion interesting, it just seemed to be tossed in there, and didn’t add to the main thrust of the story.

On top of that, an article in Christianity Today discusses a survey, “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades”, from the American Sociological Review which describes the increasing loneliness of Americans.

Today, a friend sent a link to an article from Psychology Today which discusses depression, anxiety, self-esteem, and parenting.

Last of all, a link to Der Spiegel (in English), reporting on European towns removing traffic signs, and its effects on people’s behavior.

What on earth do these all have to do with each other? It’s very simple, yet not. All of the articles revolve around balance. At an increasing pace, we are removing ourselves from the very interactions that make us human.

An Old Voice for a New Generation

Starlyth — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:20:39 +0000

An article in Christianity Today discusses Wendell Berry’s view of Christianity and the environment.

Congress ‘07-’08

Starlyth — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:23:12 +0000

Well, I’ve sat on my keyboard (not literally) long enough since my previous post on the Election. As some may infer from my collection of posts, I’m not all that thrilled with the election results. However, I won’t say that I’m surprised. Nor, frankly, am I surprised that the “Old Guard Media” and the lefties are saying that this was a referendum on Iraq. If Iraq was the only issue, the Republicans would still hold both houses.

“If we can’t communicate, we can’t govern”

-Rep. Mike Pense (as guest on Laura Ingraham‘s show 14 Nov 06)

As much a Karl Rove is viewed as some great political (not conservative, mind you) mind, Rep. Pense’s comment sums up the entire Bush administration, and the Republicans in the House and Senate. If it weren’t for the non-OGM folks, I don’t think the Bush administration would have gotten anything out. I can, by their own admission (I forgot where I read it, but an editor, in his own words, admitted that far too many “journalists” are liberal), put not a small amount of blame on the OGM. However, Republicans (Bush and too many members of the House and Senate) spent so much time fighting the bias (*whine* “why don’t they like us”), that they never came out with a clean, consistent, concise view or recommendation on anything. The Democrats, the OGM, and leftie bloggers, turned up the heat, and they melted.

Do I think that the media was why the Republicans lost? Nope. Do I thing true conservative (not Republican) ideals lost? Not a chance. (Proven by the people who won. “Blue Dog” “conservative” Democrats won against incumbent Republicans). The lack of true leadership caused the Republicans to lose. Also, a failure to believe in the conservative view.

The Democrats are already saying they’ll be the most ethical Congress ever. Their major leader? Nancy Pelosi, a KEY figure in the House Banking Scandal. Henry Reid? Under investigation for “favoritism” that he profited from in land deals. Murtha? Questionably (even by Democrats) close ties to defense contractors. This bodes well for the ethical rudder of this congressional session. Am I saying that all Republicans are clean, and Democrats dirty? Oh, no. However, the new leaders of congress are not the cleanest of the bunch, not by a long shot.

Nancy Pelosi says that she will be bipartisan, unless you’re a Democrat. The most informed Democrat (as acknowledged on both sides of the isle) on the House Intelligence committee will not be given leadership of the committee, because she had the audacity to work WITH (that would be b-i-p-a-r-t-i-s-a-n, Nancy) the Bush administration.

Republicans have to be bipartisan, Democrats don’t. Well, that honeymoon lasted all of five seconds.

The other part of this is that Pelosi and other promised that we would get our troops out of Iraq, NOW! The Friday after the election, Democrats where already dancing another tune. Some were saying we can’t unilaterally pull out of Iraq. Then, probably behind closed doors, the Democratic leadership stared cracking whips, and the original message returned. There is a slight CONSTITUTIONAL (that would be that document that these politicians swear to uphold) issue with that. The President of the United States (after Congress already said “Go!”) commands the military. Not Congress. Of course, they could “stop funding” the war, but I believe that they are already trying to proverbially hang some people for not adequately equipping our service people. Um. Hello? Not funding them IS WORSE than inadequate equipment, because people were too arrogant to FUND THE EQUIPMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

I understand opposing the war. I disagree with you, but that’s okay. However, they are there now. You think the loss of life there is bad now, wait until the Democrats prevent them from buying bullets, bullet-proof vests, vehicular armor, food, bandages, or anything else. So, now that they’ve finished using those lives lost to further their political power, what’s a few more. Before you get all bothered at me, this is what the Democrats PROMISED!

2006 Election “Fallout”

Starlyth — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:25:20 +0000

I’m not sure how I feel about this, in truth. First and foremost, the Republican party lost power in Washington, D.C.. I’m not sure that is a bad thing. I still strongly support the war in Iraq, so on that front, I’m am very worried and disappointed. However, those that think that things will change during the next two years in Iraq underestimate (I hope) President Bush’s determination to see it through.

There will be a call that Bush is a “lame duck”, but he now will not be vetoing bills from his political party. If President Bush vetoes a bill, there will be almost no chance that it will be overturned. However, President Bush may define himself as a lame duck with the resignation of Rumsfeld today (see “The real Rumsfeld I knew“). I’ve never understood the whole “lame duck” thing. I think it has a lot to do with this idiotic perception that vetoes are necessarily bad. I hope Bush wakes up. I was just going to talk about the election, but the Rumsfeld thing is BAD! I guess Bush is more like his father than we thought: caring more about being liked, than being effective, and actually finishing what was started. Gates’ nomination, especially with his part of the Baker-Hamilton Committee speaks volumes, and this is what separates most politicians from the people (regardless of party affiliation). This seems to a Karl Rove move; in other words, pure politics.

Regardless of what you think of President Bush, he has done his best, and has tried to be a leader. However, his habits betrayed him, and us. Back in the days of his governorship, he worked hand in hand with those that opposed him. I agree that working together is good, but only when working toward a common agreed goal. Bush is back to working together, purely for working together. He’s earned it. While certain aspects of his presidency will be viewed, later, as successful, his failures as a leader, at least for the short term, will outweigh the good he has done. Since he is now convinced that the Democrats should call the shots, I guess he will be a rubber stamp president (even more than he is now).

Iraq is a mess. It is winnable in that it can be a democracy, but Bush’s failure to separate himself from the Republican defeat and to view himself not as a Republican but as the leader of the greatest country on Earth, causes me to say…

Bush is a loser, and so now we, the citizens of the United States of America, are too.

Word Eternal

Starlyth — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:59:48 +0000

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:13

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.
Mark 13:31

What do these passages in the bible have to do with each other? The Word of God is eternal. It predates history. Before Creation, there was the Word. After the end of Creation, there will be the Word.

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9

Nothing is new, including redefining God’s Word. What made Christianity so different from the culture it started in was that it DIDN’T involve homosexual behavior, multiple sexual partners, sex out of wedlock, gluttony, drunkenness, sacrifices at the local god’s temple. In fact, Paul preached against it. However, here we are now, in this “modern” age, and we are being told that the bible should be recognized as applying to the culture in which it was written. As Solomon wrote, there is nothing new here. Instead of these mores coming after the behaviors, now the behaviors are coming after the mores.

We are told that the bible wasn’t speaking against homosexuals in a loving monogamous relationship. No one in New Testament times had a monogamous homosexual relationship? How do we know this? We do know that rampant homosexuality was present in the Roman Empire during Paul’s preaching career. In fact, we know that homosexuality was ACCEPTED (more so than it is now, by far), yet Paul still preached against it.

Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Mark 5:17

One of the scribes approached. When he heard them debating and saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked Him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”
“This is the most important,” Jesus answered: “Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. “The second is: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Mark 12:28-32

Another argument is that Jesus tells us to love God and each other. I can’t, and won’t, disagree with that. However, loving God means doing your best to follow His commandments, not pick and choose. And that’s hard. REALLY, VERY, hard! Everyone falls down into sin, even Paul did, so I do not anticipate sinless humanity (on their own part, merit, or works). Yet a man sleeping with another man as if with a woman, is one of a very few acts that earns the term blasphemous.

This wasn’t going to be a harp session regarding homosexuality, and in truth homosexuality is a mere (yes, mere) surface issue. However, it is a sign of a rot pervading the Christian community, that the Word of God is not what it is.

It is timeless. It is universal. It is Eternal.

Oil and Water Mix Better Than Politics and Science

Starlyth — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:47:59 +0000

When I first heard of the Michael J. Fox political commercial, I immediately wrote an entry about it, however, I then learned about all the controversy about Rush Limbaugh et al (amazingly I hadn’t heard about that), and decided to mark my post “private” so that I would not add flames to a horribly partisan flame war.

However, I will add my $.02 to the stem cell debate itself.

First and foremost, the troubling part about many of those that are using stem cell research as a political flaming arrow (whether for political office, or for some proposition), is that they always say that so-and-so opposes stem cell research, but the truth is that so-and-so (usually) opposes the “destruction” (euphemism for KILLING) of embryos for the harvesting of embryonic stem cells. The person (or people in the case of propositions) don’t oppose stem cell research per se, but the source of the stem cells.

What is particularly appalling, is the “pie-in-the-sky” cures that are being placed at the alter of stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research. John Edwards during his and John Kerry’s presidential campaign, fell deeply into that trap, saying that Christopher Reeve would walk again, and other, well frankly, absurd claims. I am not saying that stem cell research will not allow paralyzed people to walk, or cure Alzheimer’s, or cure Parkinson’s, but in certainly won’t happen soon, REGARDLESS of the source of stem cells.

Also, those that are using stem cell research as part of their political arsenal, either refuse to acknowledge or are deliberately not speaking of (because it interferes with their TRUE political aims, whatever they might be) adult stem cell research. There have been a number of publicized stem cell treatment studies, which only when read in their entirety, mention that ADULT stem cells are what are being used.

From what I understand, at this point, embryonic stem cells are only producing tumors. If that is the case, why is it being pushed? Because of its “potential”? If that is the reason, then these same folk should be trumpeting adult stem cell research (especially in light of its currently greater successes), pushing for the same federal and state funding they are trying to direct towards embryonic stem cell research.

They say pharmaceutical and bio-engineering companies don’t have the money to fund embryonic stem cell research. Yet these same companies have the money to fund adult stem cell research, and are close, supposedly, to a couple of successful treatments. It is disingenuous to say that companies are afraid of the political backlash on supposedly moral and ethical grounds, while, on the other hand, accusing the SAME companies of gouging the American public for medicinal treatments (i.e., unethical and immoral behavior).

The other part of this that I have an issue with is, is the hypocrisy. People who are out agitating for the killing of embryos (or destruction of same, if you wish), and genetic therapies on humans, oppose animal research, including genetic research, and also oppose genetically engineered tomatoes (for longer staying power in the stores) or fish (can’t remember the rationale for this one) or grain (to increase yield, especially for countries with FAMINE and STARVING children). Why is it okay to mess with the incredibly complex and still quite unknown (we’ve mapped the human genome, but do we REALLY know what it means) of human beings, but we can’t mess with fish, tomatoes, or grain?

Just so it is understood, I am against artificial genetic engineering (farmers have been naturally genetic engineering since the beginning of agriculture), whether it be fish, tomato (granted, tomatoes are yucky anyways), or human. Part of lure of genetic engineering is the thought that, for example, my child will be “perfect”, which completely fails to take into account the entirety of the human condition, of which genetics is only a part. The world in the movie Gattaca is a world where genetic perfection is normal (this was also touched upon in the book Red Genesis by S.C. Sykes), but Gattaca also demonstrates the true power of the human spirit, and how it, if the individual is willing, is the true individual, not their genetics.

Back to the topic at hand. What is the motivator for all the emphasis on embryonic stem cell research? I read a report (Stem Cell Research and Applications) sponsored by the AAAS (despite their attempt to appear unbiased, their sponsored papers and seminars show otherwise), and it is quite clear that there is NO evidence that embryonic stem cell research will produce good “fruit”, and they say as such. Yet the paper says that we must continue it. Why? Especially, as it appears, that there are successful treatments using another stem cell source. What is going on?

I have heard is postulated that those that are advocating embryonic stem cell research are advocating that particular branch of research, because abortion can be “dovetailed” into it as a source of such stem cells. I hope that that postulate is wrong. VERY wrong. However, I fear it is true. As far as I can tell, those who advocate embryonic stem cell research (and also disregarding adult stem cell research), and are agitating for it politically, are also pro-”choice”, thus seeming to bolster the “need” to continue to have “choice”. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE could be so detached from their own humanity to think that way. So again, I hope that that postulate is wrong.

The true conflict is between worldviews, and not incomprehension of science as many claim. The questions that seem to apply purely to this topic, and have differing worldviews, are as follows:

Where does life begin?
When is it okay to alter genetics?
What is the value of a human life?

The first question is the hardest, mostly, and is the source of the conflict. For me, it is at conception, which of course causes a conflict with hormonal birth control, and I recognize the inconsistency, and struggle to conform them. Before I go further, I heard someone say yesterday that no one has funerals for miscarriages, while that is not universally true, on the other hand, when my wife miscarried we both mourned. That lost life was valued by us. Those that support embryonic stem cell research usually seem to be pro-choice, which seems to have the view that life begins whenever the pregnant woman says it does. If she calls it a fetus, it is abortable. If she calls is a baby, everything must be done to preserve the child. This is regardless of the child’s (which is what I call it) gestational age. THAT is inconsistent.

The genetics question was discussed above, but the abbreviated answers are: for me, never artificially; for supporters of embryonic stem cell research, the answer seems to be, on humans, when ever we want to, for animals or plants, never. Which segues into the next question.

This, now that I think about it, might actually be harder than I thought. For people such as Peter Singer (a professor of “ethics” at Princeton), the value of human life is whenever that life is valuable to him, or of value to whomever the question is asked. For him, by way of clarification, those that are a burden (such those with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Autism, you name it) should be “removed” so that they do not use up valuable resources. For me, human life is always valuable, however, sometimes (not for convenience’s sake) human life must be taken, but I believe that an unborn child deserves a whole lot more protection than they are getting now.

Those that support or oppose embryonic stem cell research both deserve to be listened to, but by painting embryonic stem cell research as all but the entirety of stem cell research, cannot even lead to possible discussion, but its premise is based on falsehood.

Left/Right Fertility Gap

Starlyth — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:15:40 +0000

There has been mention of a study that found that those that identify themselves politically to the left are not having children at the replacement rate, versus those that identify themselves politically to the right are exceeding the replacement rate. Here is a woman’s observations of Harvard, which helps to further illustrate this.

Feeling Sexy At Harvard

What do I see? A company leaving dirt cheap labor country…to build here?

Starlyth — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 02:06:13 +0000

Careful! Don’t Eat That Contract!

Starlyth — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 02:05:49 +0000

Ed Foster of InfoWorld’s GripeLine column has one that truly takes the cake (so to speak). You may just click “OK” when installing software, but coming soon to a restaurant near you, you’ll be saying “OK” when you eat the food. Food Critics Beware!

The original article: New Era of The Recipe Burgler at Food & Win

And venom spews forth…

Starlyth — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 02:03:03 +0000

Mission Congregation Dissolves Without Notice

Christ Our Lord Anglican Church (currently the front page is the rebuttal to the above)

Washington Post article (sorry, registration required)

There was a time I would have identified myself as an Episcopal. To be honest, the Episcopal Church (of the USA) has been in trouble for years. My wife, coming from a different Christian background, and I settled on a local Lutheran church (ELCA), but that is another story. She became one of the youth leaders, and we went to a retreat at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. They had the youth play out various animals (why I’m not sure), but they started imitating snakes, and although before then I was still reconciling faith with the world, I had no problem seeing evil there. And it got worse through the night. I was glad and relieved that I was no longer a part of the Episcopal Church.

The part about this conflict that is regularly ignored, is that this go-it-alone spirit is quite typical of the ECUSA. Here come the tension, however, as an American, I, too, have some of that same spirit. Americans, on the whole, seem to have more of that than others, though we all have that issue because of our sins. That’s great to a point, but when you are part of a Communion (as the ECUSA says it is) you don’t go off on your own. Unless you are willing to really mess things up.

On of the current trial balloons being floated is to have two separate U.S. “Parental” organizations, the ECUSA, and some “orthodox” one. Bad idea! The Anglican Communion needs to simultaneously formally sever ties with the ECUSA, and create a union that adheres to the acknowledged doctrines of the universal church, and the doctrines of the Anglican church, setting forth the requirement that admission into it means adherence and acceptance of them.

The Just War Theory

Starlyth — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:07:05 +0000

A more historical view of the Just War Theory, which leads me to ask, “unjust (or just) war according to whom?”

“Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense

Starlyth — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:45:24 +0000

An interesting take on Just War, while I generally think the ARI is pigheaded and wrong, and when I do agree with them, it is because the ARI and I got to the same point going different directions.
Read the article by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein in full at The Ayn Rand Institute:

Observe the inversion of justice here. Benevolent, individualistic, life-loving Americans, and death-worshipping, collectivist, nihilistic Arabs—such as the dancing Arabs who celebrated 9/11—are regarded as equally worthy of protection by the American military. The exception is if the American is a soldier and the Arab is a civilian, in which case the Arab’s life is of greater value.

To the extent that Just War Theory is practiced, it leads to unnecessary fear, suffering, and death visited on innocent nations—and to the rise of evil movements and regimes—all while it claims to be virtuous and practical.

2nd Amendment in Iraq

Starlyth — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:42:55 +0000

It seems, when reading between the lines, that majority of the Iraqi people are being bullied by the various militias that are running around there. Well, let’s fix that. Not with another assault on some training camp, or stronghold, but with the Iraqi people. I think another error of the Bush Administration is looking at the situation in Iraq the same way as the gun control crowd does: the government is the only way to impose peace. However, a peace imposed is no peace at all, and a government that, in most cases, has no recollection of anything other than imposed peace. Sadam was good at that. Mass graves quiet a lot of people.

(What I say below is my opinion, and based upon what I read and hear, and therefore may be a wildly inaccurate understanding of the Iraqi people.)

The people of Iraq have been cowed for so long (habits learned well under Sadam have not yet been unlearned, it seems), that they find it hard within themselves to fight back. Instead of focusing all our efforts on the Iraqi government’s security forces (which some are rumored to be acting as death squads), we should spend our efforts on the Iraqi people. I believe we can trust the Iraqi people to govern themselves, except the problem is that all these blood-thirsty “militias” keep trying to kill them.

Let’s arm them. If we want to arm them under the auspices of gender equality, anyone over the age of 12 (male or female) is given (not issued) a Winchester .22 (hey, at least I didn’t say M-16 or AK-47) repeating rifle, and a semi-automatic pistol. The only law is that, of course, only shoot in self defense (not in celebration), and that the pistol is to be worn visibly at all times outside of the home (and due to doors being broken down in the night, I would strongly suggest keeping the pistol at hand at home). There would be the option of carrying the Winchester, but it would not be required.

Here’s the refrain “but they’ll kill everyone. It will be a blood bath!” Yada, yada, yada.

Even die-hard Republicans (supposedly in the pocket of the NRA), have heard that so many times, that many are beginning to believe it: despite evidence to the contrary. Granted, this is not being reported on (why am I not surprised) in this fashion, but as a general rule, the stricter the gun control laws (here in the states), the higher the crime rate. Hmmm, oh, yes, the typical refrain, “when owing a gun is a crime, only criminals have guns.” Put another way, if someone is going to rob (an illegal act) you, do you really think that they’ll say to themselves, “I’m not going to use a gun, since it is illegal to have one.” Instead their thoughts are probably along this line, “hmmm, it’s illegal to own a gun, so my victim, who is a law abiding citizen won’t have one, therefore I win when I use my gun.”

Now, before someone says, “this guy’s blood-thirsty,” I’m not. I pretty much avoid violence. I even do my best to avoid it on TV and with movies (and that’s a chore). Being a (not very good) Christian, it is even more important to avoid unnecessary violence. However, in no way shape or form, is defending one’s family unnecessary!

A sad part of the cold war, was how very human is was, and there is a very important lesson in it. Most people have heard of “Mutually Assured Destruction”. This is where both the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. had enough nuclear armaments to irradiate the world, depending on which report was read, 17 to 30-something times. Once was enough! However, that led to a forced diplomacy, the actual cold war itself. Neither side was willing to take on the other, because it wasn’t worth it, which was (and is) the point.

Most of these ~~obnoxious~~ evil people running around killing everyone, are trying to impose their version of an Islamic state, or getting revenge that was put on hold by Sadam. However, if they knew that everyone was armed, honestly, how likely do you think this will continue.

I would guess that the suicide bombings and car bombings and IED killings would increase, for a short while. Since the media and convienient anti-war mouths keep saying how bad it is over in Iraq, a slight uptick wouldn’t even be noticeable (that is sarcasm. Any uptick is BAD). However, once the people realize and fully comprehend that they have the power to steer their course (and, frankly, the responsibility), I would guess that things would quiet down quickly.

Now, the one thing I don’t know, is whether the majority of the Iraqi people have arms. I remember the pictures of people shooting guns into the air to celebrate the fall of Sadam, but how many of those who were shooting into the air, are now shooting people.

I believe that the biggest danger is that the Bush Administration, the Iraqi government, or other world governments, believe that the government must grant peace and freedom, while in truth the people must recognize that is THEIR peace and THEIR freedom, of which they GIVE a PORTION to the government.

How we have misunderstood the REAL war…

Starlyth — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:06:02 +0000

This is in regards to this article:

Op Eds Now More Central in War than Bullets
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun [NY Sun title: The West Must Learn The Public Relations of War]
October 17, 2006

Regardless of what you think of Mr. Pipes otherwise, his analysis regarding this aspect is correct. I believe it is what Republicans, and President Bush’s administration in particular (are you listening Karl Rove?), don’t get. I think those who oppose the war get it somewhat, but haven’t learned the self-restraint required.

However, I think Mr. Pipes also has it somewhat wrong as well. Regardless of what those in their towers (whether it be the ivory tower of academia, the gray tower of politics, or the black tower of the press) think of the rest of us, we are quite capable of reading between the lines. Granted, however, that also requires ALL the facts, which politicians and mainstream media (including FoxNews) try spoonfeed us only a few of, be available.

Regarding the facts in question, you can provide factual information, but still lie. A lie by omission is still a lie.

between old and new

Starlyth — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 04:31:37 +0000

This is the first blog of my new WordPress installation. I am in the process of converting and transferring all my other blog stuff (granted, that isn’t much). I haven’t done much blogging. I tried Blogger.com, but wasn’t fond of it. I decided to try my own server, and installed b2evolution, but it didn’t do want I wanted, and was a bit complicated. I then tried Nucleus, but that lasted about 10 minutes.

The older posts have the approximate dates I posted them on my other blogs. The times are definitely off, but I care more about the date, than the time.

Ignoring Sin Won’t Lessen the Pain

Starlyth — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:27:23 +0000

What needing to feel physical pain, teaches us about the dangers of ignoring sin.
[24 Oct 2006: Originally, this was a post (in truth, a redirect) that was going to stand on its own. However, with the continuing fallout from the Gene Robinson issue, I have decided to make a "series" of it, linking it with other relevant posts.]

Pre-Delete Cruft

Starlyth — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:00:00 +0000

Cruft is clutter that bogs things down and gets in the way of getting things done. Idea clutter is mostly stuff that we could have gotten rid of to begin with. When you initiate an activity, determine a kill date for it at the same time.

Ford Launches Production of Hydrogen Engines

Starlyth — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 04:57:31 +0000

Ford is claiming to be the first manufacturer of a hydrogen-fueled auto engine – a V10.

This is awesome! Plus, with the recent advance in battery cell technology, move over internal combustion engine. Competition in the vehicle power plant market. I love it!

Wiring VoIP to your phone jacks

Starlyth — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:10:23 +0000

Original Link at LifeHack.org

Engadget’s Original Linked To content

Additional Information (posted into responses at the above link)

Voxilla – A VoIP Information Gateway

Humans Can’t Multitask?

Starlyth — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 04:48:57 +0000

I was just reading a blog at InfoWorld discussing multitasking versus an uncluttered desktop, and Jon Udell makes a statement that I believe most of us take as truth, “computers multitask way better than people can”. As I was reading words that I had believed moments before, I realized that that is completely false.

Really.

Think about it. Your brain is constantly processing information. Just because it is not the task you are focused on, doesn”t mean it isn”t a task that you aren”t working on. You are more that the task that is currently on your conscious mind. Where is your hand? Is it too warm, too cold, or just right? What does the shirt you”re wearing feel like? What do your pants (or shorts, or dress, or kilt, etc.) feel like? Your body and brain are constantly processing that information, and so much else. The perception of computer”s apparent ability to process information on the web, calculate a spreadsheet, and respond to our keystrokes so efficiently, and thus make it seem so much more capable of multitasking is based upon a failure to recognize the information that we are processing in the background. It”s time to delete the idiocy of a computer being to multitask better than we can, and time to recognize that we multitask just fine.

Another March Towards Independence

Starlyth — Tue, 30 May 2006 04:37:11 +0000

As there always is, there have been a lot of Chicken Little”s running around, on both the right and the left, hollering and moaning about how bad things are. Some things could be better, but so much could be worse. Despite some people”s attempt to portray the world, with the U.S.A. leading the way, as increasing in conflict, the opposite is true. A sign of that is the recent referendum on independence in Montenegro (an article in the Scotsman). A little country like that will usually look to security before prosperity, especially when the history of Montenegro in the 20th century is taken into account. However, it looks as if a majority of citizens feel secure enough, that economic growth can be first on the agenda of the future, rather than a distant second.

I keep reading reports on how bad it is that the United States of America has no counterbalance militarily in the world. I may not be that old, but my memory isn”t that short. See if these ring a bell: Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Somalia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Columbia, Cuba, Etriea, Grenada, and so many others. What do these places have in common? They were the political war zones between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). Both sides gave monetary and military aide to those that were most aligned with their basic political ideologies, or just opposed to the other country”s allies. The conflicts were bloody and horrible, and far too many people are still reaping the benefits of two world powers. Except for a few die hards (who were given more economic and social benefits than they would have been had they already been there), people didn”t try to escape to the Soviet Bloc. First, they didn”t have to escape. In places like Berlin, it wasn”t the U.S.A., or its allies, who build walls to keep people in. However, innumerable people tried to escape TO the West, and even today, people are still trying to escape from the last Soviet Bloc country, Cuba. The West must be soooooo bad. The number of democracies in the world is increasing. The dictators are getting more heavy-handed, precisely because democracy is growing beyond the boundaries of the West. Democracy is flourishing because there is only one superpower. How does this relate to Montenegro?

Montenegro was one of those Soviet Bloc states that was crushed under a Soviet ally”s heel. Now after a horrible, awful, war, they have taken a step towards a future that will break that last of those ties to the old Soviet Bloc. For those of you who don”t understand, or should I say those who understand less than I, this region has had centuries of conflict. Tiny kingdom fought tiny kingdom, throw in religion for way too much spice, add a dash of totalitarianism, and you have the potential for a large mess. With democracy as the base, rather than aristocracy or shared animosities, this region may be stepping forward into its next great age.

*I had to add this note about China, who may be the single military counterbalance to the United State of America. I am very concerned about their military build-up, yet I believe their build-up is based more on, for the United States of America at least, discouraging the flexing of opposition military muscle, especially in their perceived sphere of influence. Countries in their sphere of influence, however, have a legitimate concern. Taiwan would be target one, then, either Korea or Japan, more based on history than tactical importance. However, in the cases of Korea and Japan, I have a feeling that China would be dealing with a long-lasting guerrilla war. Any conflict between the United State of America and China would be bad, regardless of whether they are like the conflicts between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., or a full conflict. One country is the single largest economy in the world, the other is a huge trading country on its own, and one of the largest trading partners of the U.S.A.. At this point, in the very long term, I would expect there to be a SinoAmerican joining, similar to the pre-history of Josten A. Wheelen”s “Serenity”. However, who truly knows.

Hope for Haiti?

Starlyth — Mon, 15 May 2006 04:54:32 +0000

I am very happy that Haiti seems, for the moment, to be back on the road to democracy. My only concern is that the seemingly typical reaction of very poor countries to nationalize everything to “care for the poor”. It always works in the short term, but rarely (if ever) works in the long time. It”s always easy, however.

I can”t say why this strikes me as so important, at least to me. For whatever reason, I”ve paid some attention to Haiti, and have been concerned many times. As much as it pains me, the USA government”s meddling probably contributed to making the situation worse. The problem is patience.

Whether in Haiti, Iraq, or even here in the States, patience seems to be in very short supply. Everyone want everything fixed now. Forming a consensus is a good thing. Granted, however, there is not always the time for it. I hope the new president of Haiti has a consensus to work with.

Faith and Depression

Starlyth — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:05:57 +0000

The first thing that needs to be covered, even before covering depression, is faith. One of the first misteps is confusing happiness with Christian Joy.

Happines is, as a great many people throughout history have observed, short-lived. As defined in this series of posts, happiness must be short-lived. It is a human pursuit (the United States’ Declaration of Independence discusses this briefly). It is a human pursuit precisely because it is short-lived.

An example would be stories told at a wake. The (living) participants would be in the midst of grieving, but a funny or happy story is told. Everyone smiles and is happy either listening to the tale, or recalling it from their own memories. However, the grieving hasn”t stopped, but a brief, superficial, surge of happiness is experienced.

Another example would be a devoted loving married couple, who have just had a fight. The love and devotion of the marriage hasn”t changed, but is overlain with anger. Once the anger disapates, the underlying love and devotion has not changed.

The lesson here is not to apply a single emotion across multiple emotional or relational levels. Or put another way, don”t simplify the complex, and don’t define human emotions as simple.

What and Wherefore

Starlyth — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 05:04:10 +0000

How can someone who has the knowledge that they have been saved in Christ be depressed? Faith is the key. Having faith that Jesus Christ died for your sins is easy, in comparison to living the life that displays that faith.

Someone who hasn”t survived depression cannot fathom it. Too many people confuse this with the “blues”, or with those times when a person is grieving or feeling some type of emotional pain.

Just as life cannot be explained without living it, neither can depression. Analyzing depression from a purely clinical perspective actually limits the true ramifications of it.\

The most dangerous perspective to both the individual and the Body of Christ is that , if you are depressed, your faith and your walk with Christ are either a sham, or so shallow that they might as well be a sham.

It is difficult for someone who has not experienced depression to discuss it without appearing condescending.

Why is this important? For many reasons, occurances of depression are increasing. As people become separated physically by technology, true physical community becomes limited. In fact, civic and religious communities are what remain of many communities, and both of these are experiencing decline. That is why, in churches especially, it is critical to reexamine perspectives of depression.

ECUSA Disfunction

Starlyth — Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:30:10 +0000

I’m sure you’re familiar with the current hullabaloo surrounding the nomination and subsequent installation of Gene Robinson as a “Bishop” in the Episcopal Church, USA. This is my perspective on the matter.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

As a supposedly “confessing” church, the ECUSA (and the EC-Canada) is supposed to confess that the Bible is the Word of God. A lot of the “redefining” of the bible that has been going around has been arguing that it is all about cultural and historical context. John 1:1 disagrees. Before cultural and historical context, before humanity, before the animals, before the earth, before the sun or the moon, before anything was the Word. That is pretty profound when you really sit down and think about it. In fact, a lot of arguments surround the bible and it not fitting into the modern world don’t matter when you look at them through the lense of John 1:1.

Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of those people in the clerical world have a very similar problem to the secular academic world. A kind of Ivory Tower Syndrom, if you will. There are a few, and sadly I believe that Gene Robinson is one of them, that will redefine anything so that they don’t have to confront the real issue. The real issue was first shown in Genesis. Sin. Thinking through the harshness of Levitical law (which the Gentiles are, mercifully, free of), I wonder if its harshness was because, we, fallen humanity, fail to recognize (through conscious or unconscious avoidance) just how truly sinful we are.

There are a lot of people who are stuck on Gene Robinson’s sexual orientation. There are those that are stuck on the fact that he abandoned his marriage vows (and thus his wife and children). To me it’s bigger than that. Gene Robinson and his election to the bishopry are a natural step for the ECUSA (and soon, I’m sure, EC-Canada). It is a failure by the leadership, those that are to watch and care for Jesus’s sheep, to confront sin, and ALL of the discomfort that that confrontation would cause.

A lot of this is about choosing to no longer believe that the bible is the Word of God. However, it is also, frankly, the malaise of a modern society that wants to so desperatly avoid confrontation, that the action of not confronting evolves into an act of tolerating, then acception, then celebrating, then encouraging behavior that is condemned by the bible.

[24 October 2006: This was, originally, going to be a single post, but with the fallout continuing, it will be connected to at least one other entry, but probably more. See also: Ignoring the Sin Won't Lessen the Pain]

Why America Outpaces Europe (Clue: The God Factor)

Starlyth — Mon, 09 Jun 2003 05:51:53 +0000

June 8, 2003

Why America Outpaces Europe (Clue: The God Factor)

By NIALL FERGUSON

XFORD, England — It was almost a century ago that the German sociologist Max Weber published his influential essay “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.” In it, Weber argued that modern capitalism was “born from the spirit of Christian asceticism” in its specifically Protestant form — in other words, there was a link between the self-denying ethos of the Protestant sects and the behavior patterns associated with capitalism, above all hard work.

Many scholars have built careers out of criticizing Weber’s thesis. Yet the experience of Western Europe in the past quarter-century offers an unexpected confirmation of it. To put it bluntly, we are witnessing the decline and fall of the Protestant work ethic in Europe. This represents the stunning triumph of secularization in Western Europe — the simultaneous decline of both Protestantism and its unique work ethic.

Just as Weber’s 1904 visit to the United States convinced him that his thesis was right, anyone visiting New York today would have a similar experience. For in the pious, industrious United States, the Protestant work ethic is alive and well. Its death is a peculiarly European phenomenon — and has grim implications for the future of the European Union on the eve of its eastward expansion, perhaps most economically disastrous for the “new” Europe.

Many economists have missed this vindication of Weber because they are focused on measures of productivity, like output per hour worked. On that basis, the Western European economies have spent most of the past half-century spectacularly catching up with the United States.

But what the productivity numbers don’t reveal is the dramatic divergence over two decades between the amount of time Americans work and the amount of time Western Europeans work. By American standards, Western Europeans are astonishingly idle.

According to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the average working American spends 1,976 hours a year on the job. The average German works just 1,535 — 22 percent less. The Dutch and Norwegians put in even fewer hours. Even the British do 10 percent less work than their trans-Atlantic cousins. Between 1979 and 1999, the average American working year lengthened by 50 hours, or nearly 3 percent. But the average German working year shrank by 12 percent.

Yet even these figures understate the extent of European idleness, because a larger proportion of Americans work. Between 1973 and 1998 the percentage of the American population in employment rose from 41 percent to 49 percent. But in Germany and France the percentage fell, ending up at 44 and 39 percent. Unemployment rates in most Northern European countries are also markedly higher than in the United States.

Then there are the strikes. Between 1992 and 2001, the Spanish economy lost, on average, 271 days per 1,000 employees as a result of strikes. For Denmark, Italy, Finland, Ireland and France, the figures range between 80 and 120 days, compared with fewer than 50 for the United States.

All this is the real reason that the American economy has surged ahead of its European competitors in the past two decades. It is not about efficiency. It is simply that Americans work more. Europeans take longer holidays and retire earlier; and many more European workers are either unemployed or on strike.

How to explain this sharp divergence? Why have West Europeans opted for shorter working days, weeks, months, years and lives? This is where Weber’s thesis comes up trumps: the countries where the least work is done in Europe turn out to be those that were once predominantly Protestant. While the overwhelmingly Catholic French and Italians work about 15 to 20 percent fewer hours a year than Americans, the more Protestant Germans and Dutch and the wholly Protestant Norwegians work 25 to 30 percent less.

What clinches the Weber thesis is that Northern Europe’s declines in working hours coincide almost exactly with steep declines in religious observance. In the Netherlands, Britain, Germany, Sweden and Denmark, less than 10 percent of the population now attend church at least once a month, a dramatic decline since the 1960′s. (Only in Catholic Italy and Ireland do more than a third of the population go to church on a monthly basis.) In the recent Gallup Millennium Survey of religious attitudes, 49 percent of Danes, 52 percent of Norwegians and 55 percent of Swedes said God did not matter to them. In North America, by comparison, 82 percent of respondents said God was “very important.”

So the decline of work in Northern Europe has occurred more or less simultaneously with the decline of Protestantism. Quod erat demonstrandum indeed!

Weber’s vindication has profound implications for the next year’s enlargement of the European Union, when the Baltic States, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and the Czech and Slovak Republics will become full European Union members.

A crucial feature of this enlargement, compared with those of the 1970′s and 1980′s, is that the material gap between old and new members is far wider this time. In 1974, the richest old member (Luxembourg) was twice as rich as the poorest new member (Ireland) in terms of per capita gross domestic product. Today, the average Luxembourgeois is more than five times richer than the poorest new member (Lithuania).

The impact of adopting the European Union’s economic and social rules is bound to be far greater for this generation of new Europeans. They should remember what happened in the 1990′s to the East Germans, who initially celebrated their accession to the vastly richer West German Federal Republic, only to discover it meant unemployment for roughly a third of the work force.

This is where productivity statistics matter. Even after more than a decade of free-market reforms, productivity levels in the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary are as low as one third of the French level. What this means is that unless wages in those countries are set at around a third of French levels, their workers will not be able to compete.

East Europeans are currently able to compensate for their low productivity by working longer hours. The average Czech worker does more than 2,000 hours of work a year — a figure steadily rising since the collapse of Communism, even as working hours in Western Europe were declining. Unfortunately, European Union labor legislation will reverse this, to prevent what the West Europeans disingenuously call “social dumping” — the competition from low-wage economies. Czechs will be obliged to work less by a combination of legal entitlements to a shorter working week, longer holidays, higher minimum wages and generous unemployment benefits when their employers go bust because of all this.

The question is how much the Czechs will care about the ensuing enforced leisure. Like nearly all the 10 new members of the European Union, the Czech Republic is a predominantly Catholic country. (The exceptions are Protestant Estonia and Latvia.) But one striking consequence of 40-plus years of socialist rule in Eastern Europe has been a decline of religious belief almost as marked as that in Northern Europe.

According to Gallup, 48 percent of Western Europeans almost never go to church, but the figure for Eastern Europe is just a bit less, at 44 percent. Meanwhile, 64 percent of Czechs regard God as not mattering at all — a higher rate than even in Sweden. In this respect the difference between “old” and “new” Europe may turn out to be less than many Americans now believe. Enlargement of the European Union may simply confirm the eastward spread of the leisure preference in an increasingly work-shy and Godless European continent.

The loser will be the European economy, which will continue to fall behind the United States in terms of its absolute annual output. The winner will be the spirit of secularized sloth, which has finally slain the Protestant work ethic in Europe — and Max Weber, whose famous thesis celebrates its centenary by attaining the status of verity.

Niall Ferguson is a professor of financial history at the Stern School of Business, New York University, and a senior research fellow of Jesus College, Oxford. He is the author of “Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power.”

|
| | | | |

A Penny for Your Thoughts?

Starlyth — Thu, 05 Jun 2003 05:45:16 +0000

Another one of those forwarded emails that always ends up clogging my inbox. However, obviously, it made me think, so I have added to my website so that others might be similarly affected.

You always hear the usual stories of pennies on the sidewalk being good luck, gifts from angels, etc. This is the first time I’ve ever heard this twist on the story. Gives you something to think about.

Several years ago, a friend of mine and her husband were invited to spend the weekend at the husband’s employer’s home.

My friend, Arlene, was nervous about the weekend. The boss was very wealthy, with a fine home on the waterway, and cars costing more than her house.

The first day and evening went well, and Arlene was delighted to have this rare glimpse into how the very wealthy live. The husband’s employer was quite generous as a host, and took them to the finest restaurants. Arlene knew she would never have the opportunity to indulge in this kind of extravagance again, so was enjoying herself immensely.

As the three of them were about to enter an exclusive restaurant that evening, the boss was walking slightly ahead of Arlene and her husband. He stopped suddenly, looking down on the pavement for a long, silent moment.

Arlene wondered if she was supposed to pass him. There was nothing on the ground except a single darkened penny that someone had dropped, and a few cigarette butts. Still silent, the man reached down and picked up the penny.

He held it up and smiled, then put it in his pocket as if he had found a great treasure. How absurd! What need did this man have for a single penny? Why would he even take the time to stop and pick it up?

Throughout dinner, the entire scene nagged at her. Finally, she could stand it no longer. She causally mentioned that her daughter once had a coin collection, and asked if the penny he had found had been of some value.

A smile crept across the man’s face as he reached into his pocket for the penny and held it out for her to see. She had seen many pennies before! What was the point of this?

“Look at it.” He said. “Read what it says.”

She read the words, “United States of America.”

“No, not that; read further.”

“One cent?”

“No, keep reading.”

“In God we Trust?”

“Yes!”

“And?”

“And if I trust in God, the name of God is holy, even on a coin. Whenever I find a coin I see that inscription. It is written on every single United States coin, but we never seem to notice it! God drops a message right in front of me telling me to trust Him? Who am I to pass it by? When I see a coin, I pray, I stop to see if my trust IS in God at that moment. I pick the coin up as a response to God; that I do trust in Him. For a short time, at least, I cherish it as if it were gold. I think it is God’s way of starting a conversation with me. Lucky for me, God is patient and pennies are plentiful!”

When I was out shopping today, I found a penny on the sidewalk. I stopped and picked it up, and realized that I had been worrying and fretting in my mind about things I can not change. I read the words, “In God We Trust,” and had to laugh. Yes, God, I get the message.

It seems that I have been finding an inordinate number of pennies in the last few months, but then, pennies are plentiful…

… And, God is patient…

Guess What Osama?

Starlyth — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 05:59:10 +0000

This is one of those many emails I have received regarding 9/11. I don’t know who put this together, but they deserve a lot of credit

Osama Bin Laden, your time is short;
We’d rather you die, than come to court.
Why are you hiding if it was in God’s name?
You’re just a punk with a turban; a pathetic shame.

I have a question, about your theory and laws;
“How come you never die for the cause?”

Is it because you’re a coward who counts on others?
Well here in America, we stand by our brothers.

As is usual, you failed in your mission;
you expected pure chaos, you can keep on wishing
Americans are now focused and stronger than ever;

Your death has become our next endeavor.

What you tried to kill, doesn’t live in our walls;
It’s not in buildings or shopping malls.

If all of our structures came crashing down;
It would still be there, safe and sound.

Because pride and courage can’t be destroyed;
if the towers leave a deep void.

We’ll band together and fill the holes
We’ll bury our dead and bless their souls.

But then our energy will focus on you;
And you’ll feel the wrath of the Red, White and Blue.

So slither and hide like a snake in the grass;
Because America’s coming to kick your ass!!!

Keep this going. PASS IT ON

Jesus Really Does Love You

Starlyth — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 05:36:45 +0000

Every Sunday afternoon, after the morning service at their church, the Pastor and his 11-year-old son would go out into their town and hand out Gospel tracts.

This particular Sunday afternoon, as it came time for the Pastor and his son to go to the streets with their tracts, it was very cold outside as well as pouring down rain. The boy bundled up in his warmest and driest clothes and said “Okay, Dad, I’m ready.”

His Pastor Dad asked, “Ready for what?”

“Dad, it’s time we gather our tracts together and go out.”

Dad responds, “Son, it’s very cold outside and it’s pouring down rain.”
The boy gives his Dad a surprised look, asking, “But Dad, aren’t people still going to Hell even though it’s raining?”

Dad answers, “Son, I am not going out in this weather.” Despondently the boy asks, “Dad, can I go– Please?”

His father hesitated for a moment then said, “Son, you can go. Here are the tracts and be careful.” “Thanks, Dad!” And with that he was off and out into the rain.

This 11-year-old boy walked the streets of the town going door-to-door and handing everybody he met in the street a Gospel tract.

After two hours of walking in the rain, he was soaking bone-chilled wet and down to his very last tract. He stopped on a corner and looked for someone to hand a tract to but the streets were totally deserted.

Then he turned toward the first home he saw and started up the sidewalk to the front door and rang the doorbell.

He rang the bell — but nobody answered. He rang it again and again, but still no one answered. He waited but still no answer. Finally, this 11-year-old trooper turned to leave but something stopped him.

Again, he turned to the door and rang the bell and knocked loudly on the door with his fist. He waited; something held him there on the front porch. He rang again, and this time the door slowly opened.

Standing in the doorway was a very sad looking elderly lady. She softly asked, “What can I do for you, son?”

With radiant eyes and a smile that lit up her world, this little boy said, “Ma’am, I’m sorry if I disturbed you, but I just want to tell you that JESUS REALLY DOES LOVE YOU! I came to give you my very last Gospel tract which will tell you all about Jesus and His great love.”

With that he handed her his last tract and turned to leave. She called to him as he departed, “Thank you, son! And God bless you!”

Well, the following Sunday morning in church, Pastor Dad was in the pulpit and as the service began he asked, “Does anybody have a testimony or want to say anything?”

Slowly, in the back row of the church, an elderly lady stood to her feet.

As she began to speak, a look of glorious radiance came from her face. “None of you in this church know me. I’ve never been here before. You see, before last Sunday I was not a Christian.”

“My husband has passed on, some time ago, leaving me totally alone in this world. Last Sunday, being a particularly cold and rainy day, it was even more so in my heart . . . as I came to the end of the line where I no longer had any hope or will to live.”

“So I took a rope and a chair and ascended the stairway into the attic of my home. I fastened the rope securely to a rafter in the roof then stood on the chair and fastened the other end of the rope around my neck.”

“Standing on that chair, so lonely and brokenhearted, I was about to leap off when suddenly the loud ringing of my doorbell downstairs startled me.”

“I thought, ‘I’ll wait a minute, and whoever it is will go away.’”

“I waited and waited – but the ringing doorbell seemed to get louder and more insistent and then the person ringing also started knocking loudly.”

“I thought to myself again, ‘Who on earth could this be? Nobody ever rings my bell or comes to see me!’ I loosened the rope from my neck and started for the front door, all the while the bell rang louder and louder.”

“When I opened the door and looked, I could hardly believe my eyes! There on my front porch was the most radiant and angelic little boy I had ever seen in my life!”

“His smile! Oh, I could never describe it to you! And the words that came from his mouth caused my heart, that had long been dead, to leap to life as he exclaimed with cherub-like voice,”

“‘Ma’am, I just came to tell you that JESUS REALLY DOES LOVE YOU.’”

“Then he gave me this Gospel tract that I now hold in my hand.”

“As the little angel disappeared back out, into the cold and rain, I closed my door and read slowly every word of this Gospel tract. Then I went up to my attic to get my rope and chair.”

“I wouldn’t be needing them any more.”

“You see, I am now a happy child of the KING, and since the address of your church was on the back of this Gospel tract I have come here to personally say, Thank you to God’s little angel who came just in the nick of time, and by so doing, spared my soul from an eternity in Hell.”

There were now no dry eyes in the church. As shouts of praise and honor to the KING resounded off the very rafters of the building, Pastor Dad descended from the pulpit to the front pew where the little angel was seated.

He took him in his arms and sobbed uncontrollably. Probably no church has had a more glorious moment and probably this Universe has never seen a Papa that was more filled with love and honor for his son, except for one:

This Father, God, also allowed His Son, Jesus, to go out into a cold and dark world. He received His Son back with joy unspeakable, and as all of Heaven shouted praises and honor to the King, the Father sat His beloved Son on a throne far above all principality and power and every name that is named.

There may be someone, reading this, who is also going through a dark, cold, and lonely time in your soul.

You may be a Christian, for we are not without problems, or you may not yet know the King. Whatever the case and whatever the problem or situation you find yourself in, and no matter how dark it may seem, I want you to know that I just came to tell you, “JESUS REALLY DOES LOVE YOU!”

Friend or Angel?

Starlyth — Sat, 31 May 2003 05:43:55 +0000

One day, when I was a freshman in high school, I saw a kid from my class was walking home from school. His name was Kyle. It looked like he was carrying all of his books. I thought to myself, “Why would anyone bring home all his books on a Friday? He must really be a nerd.”

I had quite a weekend planned (parties and a football game with my friends tomorrow afternoon), so I shrugged my shoulders and went on.

As I was walking, I saw a bunch of kids running toward him. They ran at him, knocking all his books out of his arms and tripping him so he landed in the dirt. His glasses went flying, and I saw them land in the grass about ten feet from him. He looked up and I saw this terrible sadness in his eyes.

My heart went out to him. So, I jogged over to him and as he crawled around looking for his glasses, and I saw a tear in his eye. As I handed him his glasses, I said, “Those guys are jerks. They really should get lives.” He looked at me and said, “Hey thanks!” There was a big smile on his face.

It was one of those smiles that showed real gratitude.

I helped him pick up his books, and asked him where he lived. As it turned out, he lived near me, so I asked him why I had never seen him before. He said he had gone to private school before now.

I would have never hung out with a private school kid before. We talked all the way home, and I carried some of his books. He turned out to be a pretty cool kid. I asked him if he wanted to play a little football with my friends. He said yes. We hung out all weekend and the more I got to know Kyle, the more I liked him, and my friends thought the same of him.

Monday morning came, and there was Kyle with the huge stack of books again. I stopped him and said, “Boy, you are gonna really build some serious muscles with this pile of books everyday!” He just laughed and handed me half the books.

Over the next four years, Kyle and I became best friends. When we were seniors, we began to think about college. Kyle decided on Georgetown, and I was going to Duke. I knew that we would always be friends, that the miles would never be a problem. He was going to be a doctor, and I was going for business on a football scholarship.

Kyle was valedictorian of our class. I teased him all the time about being a nerd. He had to prepare a speech for graduation.

I was so glad it wasn’t me having to get up there and speak. Graduation day, I saw Kyle. He looked great. He was one of those guys that really found himself during high school. He filled out and actually looked good in glasses. He had more dates than I had and all the girls loved him. Boy, sometimes I was jealous.

Today was one of those days. I could see that he was nervous about his speech. So, I smacked him on the back and said, “Hey, big guy, you’ll be great!” He looked at me with one of those looks (the really grateful one) and smiled. “Thanks,” he said.

As he started his speech, he cleared his throat, and began. “Graduation is a time to thank those who helped you make it through those tough years. Your parents, your teachers, your siblings, maybe a coach…but mostly your friends. I am here to tell all of you that being a friend to someone is the best gift you can give them. I am going to tell you a story.”

I just looked at my friend with disbelief as he told the story of the first day we met. He had planned to kill himself over the weekend. He talked of how he had cleaned out his locker so his Mom wouldn’t have to do it later and was carrying his stuff home.

He looked hard at me and gave me a little smile.

“Thankfully, I was saved. My friend saved me from doing the unspeakable.”

I heard the gasp go through the crowd as this handsome, popular boy told us all about his weakest moment.

I saw his Mom and dad looking at me and smiling that same grateful smile. Not until that moment did I realize it’s depth.

Never underestimate the power of your actions. With one small gesture you can change a person’s life. For better or for worse.

God puts us all in each other’s lives to impact one another in some way. Look for God in others.

You now have two choices, you can:

1. Pass this on to your friends, or
2. Delete it and act like it didn’t touch your heart.

As you can see, I took choice number 1. “Friends are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.”

The Orthodox View of the Eucharist

Starlyth — Sat, 31 May 2003 04:26:53 +0000

The Holy Eucharist is called the “sacrament of sacraments” in the Orthodox tradition. It is also called the “sacrament of the Church.” The eucharist is the center of the Church’s life. Everything in the Church leads to the eucharist, and all things flow from it. It is the completion of all of the Church’s sacraments — the source and the goal of all of the Church’s doctrines and institutions.

As with baptism, it must be noted that the eucharistic meal was not invented by Christ. Such holy ritual meals existed in the Old Testament and in pagan religions. Generally speaking the “dinner” remains even today as one of the main ritual and symbolic events in the life of man. The Christian eucharist is a meal specifically connected with the Passover meal of the Old Testament. At the end of his life Christ, the Jewish Messiah, ate the Passover meal with his disciples. Originally a ritual supper in commemoration of the liberation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, the Passover meal was transformed by Christ into an act done in remembrance of him: of his life, death and resurrection as the new and eternal Passover Lamb who frees men from the slavery of evil, ignorance and death and transfers them into the everlasting life of the Kingdom of God.

At the supper Christ took the bread and the wine and ordered his disciples to eat and drink it as his own Body and Blood. This action thus became the center of the Christian life, the experience of the presence of the Risen Christ in the midst of his People (see Mt 26; Mk 14; Lk 22; Jn 6 and 13; Acts 2:41-47; 1 Cor 10-11).

As a word, the term eucharist means thanksgiving. This name is given to the sacred meal-not only to the elements of bread and wine, but to the whole act of gathering, praying, reading the Holy Scriptures and proclaiming God’s Word, remembering Christ and eating and drinking his Body and Blood in communion with him and with God the Father, by the Holy Spirit. The word eucharist is used because the all-embracing meaning of the Lord’s Banquet is that of thanksgiving to God in Christ and the Holy Spirit for all that he has done in making, saving and glorifying the world.

The sacrament of the eucharist is also called holy communion since it is the mystical communion of men with God, with each other, and with all men and all things in him through Christ and the Spirit. The eucharistic liturgy is celebrated in the Church every Sunday, the Day of the Lord, as well as on feast days. Except in monasteries, it is rarely celebrated daily. Holy Communion is forbidden to all Orthodox Christians on the week days of Great Lent except in the special communion of the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified Gifts (see below) because of its joyful and resurrectional character. The eucharist is always given to all members of the Church, including infants who are baptized and confirmed. It is always given in both forms — bread and wine. It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, his true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.

In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.

One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality — the world and man himself — is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life” (Jn 6:34, 41).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. (Jn 6:51)

Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”

Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Cor 11:23-26)

The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist — and Christ himself — is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The eucharist — because it belongs to God’s Kingdom — is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.

[15 Nov 2006: This is the version I found some years ago on the Orthodox Church of America website. Here is the link to their current version.]

Whose Freedom Is It?

Starlyth — Sat, 31 May 2003 04:26:42 +0000

The United States of America though young by historical standards, is still one of the oldest democracies (an aside: in truth, we are actually a representative democracy. Read that “Republic”) in the world. I won’t say absolutely the oldest, but it’s close. As a country with such a standing in the annals of history, it is my belief that it is the duty of every citizen of the United States of America to participate in this great republic.

However, participation only goes so far. This country was founded on freedom. This freedom was based upon the fact that freedom is a gift of GOD, not the government. Sadly, in the years since the founding, the citizens’ view of freedom has changed. Once the view was that the government existed to preserve the “unalienable” rights of man (the general term applies here), and the citizens granted certain powers to the government to protect those freedoms. No longer. Now the predominant view seems to be that it is the governement’s perogative to grants freedom to the people. The emphasis has dangerously changed.

The Eucharist As An Offering and Submittal

Starlyth — Sat, 31 May 2003 04:26:04 +0000

He will speak peace to his people, to his saints, to those who turn to him in their hearts. Psalm 85:8

The life of prayer and worship does not aim first of all at comforting or the perfecting of the individual soul–as we often think it does and should. The aim of all worship, and of the Eucharist in particular, is the transformation of the whole of life: bringing everything under the rule of God; offering all we have and are to the purpose of God. This is the end for which we have been made. Thus our worship at the Eucharist is both an offering to God, and a token of the offering of our life to the doing of His Will.

-author unknown (might be me, but probably not)

Moral Relevency of Mainstream Christianity

Starlyth — Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:48:16 +0000

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Is ‘Mainstream Christianity’ Morally Relevant Right Now?

Tom Marsland
Thursday, March 20, 2003

Pope John Paul II recently condemned America and Great Britain’s “alliance of the willing” for wanting to liberate the Iraqi people and stop Hussein’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Clearly, Pope John Paul II is a decent man by almost any standard, but he’s somehow sadly devolved the notion of peace to a level not consistent with the intent of his (and my) faith’s fundamental beliefs.

This moral confusion is not just a ‘Catholic leadership thing.’ Guilt abounds everywhere, as the blood of Saddam’s victims lies at the feet of virtually all of mainstream Protestantism as well!

In condemning free nations for desiring to liberate oppressed peoples from despotic regimes, virtually all World Council of Churches member congregations have sided against war … therefore against freedom for the Iraqi people, and thereby with Saddam, and with the U.N. too.

One would expect the U.N. to be corrupted by this world’s ill values, but would not expect the same corruption of values from the mainstream Christian Church. The ‘liberal church’ has said, “Wars are moral only when approved by the U.N.”

This turns the traditional moral authority given the church over to the U.N., a worldly organization with despotic regimes such as Libya at the head of its Human Rights Commission. Even Iraq is in key leadership positions at present.

From abortion to homosexuality, there is wholesale flight from godly virtue in many, if not most, denominations. Forgotten are the faith’s once noble stands for the oppressed, for the innocent of this world, for those without a voice (perhaps abortion has promulgated this?).

Statements such as “Jesus would never endorse warfare” sound good, but are totally false.

Jesus’ teaching offered the church’s founding fathers perfect moral clarity. Through inspired writing, the Christian Bible set in stone immutable principles for the governance of His Church in this world.

From Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus said: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

In Luke’s Gospel, He said: “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” and “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

From John’s Gospel: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives.”

In essence, he is self-defining his ‘peace’ as being different from that of the world’s peace, which usually looks at peace as ‘absence of present hostilities.’

Peace is NOT the eternal absence of warfare amongst nations, which would only ensure ‘victory by default’ for every evil regime! Righteous undertaking of warfare by nations is commanded by God in Christianity’s book! Such a nation ought therefore to believe its own inspired writings or bail on the faith, as commandments are not a voluntary matter.

I am not saying right-thinking Christians ought to look at Iraq as a Holy War. Let’s leave that sort of talk to Islam. I am simply stating that there are religious principles that direct nations to justly quench the flames of evil, not fan them with appeasement and rhetoric.

The Prophet Jeremiah warned us (nation states) that turning one’s back on the suffering of others made one guilty too, and subject to God’s punishment as well: “Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done – burn with no one to quench it.”

Now, you may or may not share any of these beliefs, but it’s not your beliefs I’ve been writing about. I am referring to inconsistency of belief and actions in the mainstream church. Why does modern Christianity ‘walk’ on these elements of God’s nature? It does disservice to all, as it provides an incomplete picture of His nature and our responsibilities.

If honest, there is at least one thing that all may agree upon: It is hypocritical to say you are a Christian and then live by a code entirely outside the principles of Jesus, a believer in just war and the author of a terrific book about it.

* * * * * * Hear Tom Marsland’s talk show daily on the nationwide Salem Radio Network’s AM 980 KKMS in Minneapolis, Minn., & weekly as U.S. correspondent on New Zealand’s Radio Rhema. A former heavyweight wrestler & corporate CEO, Tom writes cultural, political & religious commentary for the Assist News Service, NewsMax.com, Minnesota Christian Chronicle and others.E-mail Tom at tom@kkms.com.

Editor’s note:
Become a member of NewsMax’s “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave” Club – get the T-shirt – Click Here Now

A Few Steps Along a Journey of Faith

Starlyth — Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:55:00 +0000

My journey to/of faith, like all such journeys, has lasted my whole life. My story (the greatly abbreviated version) starts, of course, before my birth, but as we humans look at it, it started upon my baptism a few months after my birth. I was baptised on 6 May, 1973, at St. Clement’s Episcopal Church, in Berkeley, California. As is normal in the Anglican tradition, this was shortly after my birth. I only sporadically attended church for many years. To be honest, although I’m not sure, if someone had asked me during those years if I were a Christian, I would have said (I hope), “No.”

The Ultimate Story of Love (One of those oh so many forwarded emails. For those of you who are parents, you will truly understand this…)

Starlyth — Wed, 27 Jun 2001 22:31:53 +0000

After a few of the usual Sunday evening hymns, the church’s pastor slowly stood up, walked over to the pulpit and, before he gave his sermon for the evening, briefly introduced a guest minister who was in the service that evening. In the introduction, the pastor told the congregation that the guest minister was one of his dearest childhood friends and that he wanted him to have a few moments to greet the church and share whatever he felt would be appropriate for the service. With that, an elderly man stepped up to the pulpit and began to speak.

“A father, his son, and a friend of his son were sailing off the Pacific Coast,” he began, “when a fast approaching storm blocked any attempt to get back to the shore. The waves were so high, that even though the father was an experienced sailor, he could not keep the boat upright and the three were swept into the ocean as the boat capsized.”

The old man hesitated for a moment, making eye contact with two teenagers who were, for the first time since the service began, looking somewhat interested in his story.

The aged minister continued with his story, “grabbing a rescue line, the father had to make the most excruciating decision of his life: to which he would throw the other end of the life line. He only had seconds to make the decision. The father knew that his son was a Christian and he also knew that his son’s friend was not. The agony of his decision could not be matched by the torrent of waves.

“As the father yelled out, ‘I love you, son!’ he threw out the life line to his son’s friend. By the time the father had pulled the friend back to the capsized boat, his son had disappeared beneath the raging swells into the black of night. His body was never recovered.”

By this time, the two teenagers were sitting up straight in the pew, anxiously waiting for the next words to come out of the old minister’s mouth. “The father,” he continued, “knew his son would step into eternity with Jesus and he could not bear the thought of his son’s friend stepping into an eternity without Jesus. Therefore, he sacrificed his son to save the son’s friend. How great is the love of God that He should do the same for us. Our heavenly Father sacrificed his only begotten son that we could be saved. I urge you to accept his offer to rescue you and take a hold of the life line He is throwing out to you in this service.” With that, the old man turned and sat back down in his chair as silence filled the room.

The pastor again walked slowly to the pulpit and delivered a brief sermon with an invitation at the end. However, no one responded to the appeal. Within minutes after the service ended, the two teenagers were at the old man’s side.

“That was a nice story, politely stated one of the boys, “but I don’t think it was very realistic for a father to give up his only son’s life in hopes that the other boy would become a Christian.”

“Well, you’ve got a point there,” the old man replied, glancing down at his worn bible. A big smile broadened his narrow face. He once again looked up at the boys and said, “it sure isn’t very realistic, is it? But I’m standing here today to tell you that story gives me a glimpse of what it must have been like for God to give up His son for me. You see, I was that father and your pastor is my son’s friend.”

Target Practice (one of those oh so many forwarded emails…)

Starlyth — Wed, 27 Jun 2001 22:28:55 +0000

A young lady named Sally, relates an experience she had in a seminary class, given by her teacher, who we’ll call Brother Smith. She says Brother Smith was known for his elaborate object lessons.

One particular day, Sally walked into the seminary and knew they were in for another fun day. On the wall was a big target and on a nearby table were many darts. Brother Smith told the students to draw a picture of someone that they disliked or someone who had made them angry, and he would allow them to throw darts at the person’s picture.

Sally’s girlfriend (on her right), drew a picture of a girl who had stolen her boyfriend. Another friend (on her left), drew a picture of his little brother. Sally drew a picture of
a former friend, putting a great deal of detail into her drawing, even drawing pimples on the face. Sally was pleased at the overall effect she had achieved.

The class lined up and began throwing darts, with much laughter and hilarity. Some of the students threw their darts with such force that their targets were ripping apart. Sally looked forward to her turn, and was filled with disappointment when Brother Smith, because of time limits, asked the students to return to their seats.

As Sally sat thinking about how angry she was because she didn’t have a chance to throw any darts at her target, Brother Smith began removing the target from the wall.

Underneath the target was a picture of Jesus . . .

A complete hush fell over the room as each student viewed the mangled picture of Jesus; holes and jagged marks covered His face and His eyes were pierced out.

Brother Smith said only these words, “In as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me.”

No other words were necessary; the tear-filled eyes of each student focused only on the picture of Christ.

“And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.”
Matthew 25:40

Choose Your Evil

Starlyth — Wed, 27 Jun 2001 21:59:36 +0000

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

–Abraham Lincoln in 1862 on his justification for the Northern War of Aggression against the constitutional secession of the South.

For a different perspective on Abraham Lincoln and the cause of the Civil War, take a minute and read this commentary by economist Walter Williams.

The “Dumb and Dumber” Department…

Starlyth — Sat, 03 Feb 2001 22:16:07 +0000

From the “Not Quite Ready for Prime Time” files, here is this week’s “Pierre Salinger Non Compos Mentis” Award for stupid media questions: “Are police worried about vigilantism?” –CBS reporter, Randy Golson, questioning Chattanooga, Tennessee’s police spokesman after a victim of that city’s 45th recent home invasion robbery shot and killed one of the two perpetrators. The police spokesman replied, appropriately, “Protecting your home is not vigilantism. Check the definition.” (And we couldn’t leave this out…. When asked how he felt about shooting the perpetrator, the homeowner responded, “I feel bad. I should have gotten the other one too!”)

Editor’s Note: For some reason, the home invasions in that city came to an abrupt halt….

In other home invasion news, South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon released the following statement last week: “As Chief Prosecutor of South Carolina, I am today declaring open season on home invaders. That season is year-round,” Condon said. “Citizens protecting their homes who use force, even deadly force, will be fully safeguarded under the law of this State and subject to no arrest, charge or prosecution. In South Carolina, would-be intruders should now hear this: invade a home and invite a bullet.”

from The Federalist Dated: 02 Feb 2001

The Amen Corner

Starlyth — Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:01:25 +0000

The Amen Corner: Secular fundamentalists howl about Bush’s faith-based initiative.