RustyPang.com is now 2.0. I just got the Polaroid DVC-00725F for $99.99 from woot.com. I recommend that you check them out daily if your looking for cheap electronics and stuff. Yes, I said "stuff." It's technical.
Anyway, enjoy my first video in HD! And yes, I realize the thumbnail makes me look like an idiot. And since I am a video noob, you can benefit from lack of expertise. However, laugh it up now, because it won't last forever. Mwuahahahahahhaha...
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
From blessing to burdens...
I recently listened to a series by the Sun Valley Community Church in Gilbert, Arizona. The teaching series was on biblical financial money management. For those of you that know me, you understand this is a passion of mine and I feel that the church could not have batched this any more badly than we have today. This can be represented in the misquoting of 1 Timothy 6:10, "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." Most people, utter this phrase without "the love of" changing the meaning of the scripture.Although, it may on the surface seem subtle, but it changes everything. By making the money, and not the pursuit of it, the seed of all kinds of evil we have made money fundamentally evil. Furthermore, it is not even the pursuit of money that is evil, rather the fruits that came from the seeding. Daresay, not only do I think that it is possible to pursue money in a holy way, but I believe that it is scriptural to pursue money. And yes, God wants you to have plenty of it. So much that my hope is that all Christians possess the capacity of character to have millions touch their fingers.
I realize that this seems like I'm preaching a prosperity gospel, but if you reread my statements carefully and understand the scriptural principles it is founded in, you will see that I'm not telling you that God wants you to healthy, wealthy, and happy. Rather, I am making the statement, "How did we allow our pastors stop teaching us about money when 1/3 of the bible refers to material management?" This is the most written about bible topic, yet is the least spoken of in the church. If we are to be like God, and He is the ultimate example of a giver, why aren't we giving like He wants us to? I believe it is because church goers become so offended when they hear a preacher talk about money, that they have neglected to ever do so from a pulpit. In doing so, we have unwittingly tossed the most abundantly talked about subject in scripture creating a gap for all the unbiblical perspectives of money to creep into God's people. It's never about the amount of money, it's always the attitude towards money.
There was a phrase uttered in one of the sermons referring to money as God's blessings being turned to burdens. Food, money, relationships are some examples. These are all gifts from our creator and we turn them into burdens, or worse, idols. Why is this so?
I believe that we've walked away from the fundamental concept of personal restraint and wisdom. There are so many things in life that when overdone, or not at all, become a problem. We all need to eat but if you took your cues based upon what you see in the world you wind up with a eating disorder. Advertisements teach us to be anorexic or obese depending on whether you care more about what others think or what you desire and deserve.
Money is no different. The church generally preaches that we are supposed to have peace, freedom, and growth in our lives but how many in the church today would describe their finances like that? The more likely scenario is a description of turmoil, slavery, and stagnation. Most feel like they are spinning their wheels and no traction is being made.
Where does the path to this financial freedom lie? Well, any positive growth begins at a negative starting line. This is natural and should be expected. If you want something different, you need to act differently. Things need to change because as Dave Ramsey would say, "Broke is normal, so let's get weird."
Time to get weird people. If you want material that will change your life, you need to read and change it yourself. You dug yourself into the hole, time to do the work to climb out. Let me say though, it is absolutely possible. There is always hope, sometimes it's hard to see, but it is always there.
Some books to start strong:
The Total Money Makeover: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness
by Dave Ramsey
The Millionaire Next Door
by Thomas StanleyAt the end of the day, there is no get rich quick plan. Getting wealthy so that you can give it all away is a path of baby steps. There are no teleporters on God's path to financial money management.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Demon Puppies are REAL!
So, remember when I told you all that story where I kicked Janelle because of those demon puppies? Well, they are real. This cute little fella glows red in the dark. And you thought it was a cute and funny little story. I think I may want to go to my bed and suck my thumb. Check out the pics below.
If you place them under a fluorescent light, their demonic nature is revealed.
Source: Newscientist.com
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Why labels and radio companies have created iTunes and digital music distribution.
I came across this video shedding a little insight into why the label companies are suffering so much. I am not into bashing big business like they do, but I once did a lot of research into signing with label companies and much of what they say is true. They front you money and if you don't sell enough albums to recoup that money, you have to record more music to pay it back. Unfortunately, this new record comes with another front of money which has to be paid back. This doesn't mean it's the only way to do it, but it is the most common. Also, I believe that this is why newspapers are going out of business. They aren't adapting to what consumers want and are paying the price.
Caution: The F-bomb is dropped once.
Caution: The F-bomb is dropped once.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
What is intellectual dishonesty?
I play an online game in which you can create your own cyber nation, in fact, the game is called cybernations. It's original, I know, but the link to check it out is below.
What does this have to do with intellectual dishonesty? I'm not going to bore you with all the details of the game and this blog is not about the entertainment factors in it, but I recently had an interesting exchange with a member on this site, we'll call him "eaglecat." Why, because that's what his name is. Anyway, in a nutshell he attacked me (a smaller and less defended nation) because I had attacked another guy (a smaller and less defended nation). Now, normally, I don't have a problem with someone attacking me unprovoked, except that this gentleman claimed that what I was doing was wrong, but he was in the right. This is the part that got interesting. In a nutshell, he stood above me on his moral soapbox shaking his cyber righteous finger telling me "NO! BAD BOY!" Except, he did it with F-bombs and *#&^@#*&%[insert expletives]. When I pointed his hypocrisy out, all of a sudden it became personal. I pointed out his intellectual dishonesty and without going into all the details, I began to reflect on the consistency of the encounters like this, and it spawned a blog. I haven't heard any public commentators use it, so I feel it necessary to define it before I proceed.
Intellectual Dishonesty: To choose, or hold firm to, an false idea or reality despite being presented with contradictory evidence pointing to a superior alternative. This is intentional logical fallacy. For example, if a person, who is holding a red triangle, still desires to call it a blue circle, despite any evidence presented to prove the geometric object is a red triangle.
My wish, when defining this phrase, is not to put others down who use them, although it will happen undoubtedly, but to make those who who are unaware, aware. I desire progress and all progress requires a measure of the uncomfortable before growth can occur. This is natural and to be expected for all change comes packaged with a need for an adjustment. What new adventure or experience comes without a measure of uncertainty?
The bizarre thing that I have discovered, is why have I not noticed the saturation in our society. Perhaps, I too was part of the problem, or more likely, I was simply ignorant of it's existence. Most, I believe, are unaware and therefore may benefit the most from reading this blog. Also, in the world of debate, discussion and communication the awareness of this tendency in our culture to accept intellectual dishonesty will help us to scrutinize it more. Subsequently, there should be less fights and arguments as long as the one who is committing the intellectual dishonesty is humble enough to accept constructive criticisms instead of responding like a child who snaps back after recoiling from the initial discomfort. You know the ways, "I'm rubber. You're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."
Humans do not like being wrong. It is embarrassing and hurts our pride like few other things may, but we must understand the difference between fact and opinion. We are perfectly right in our opinions, in fact, it is the only thing in which we can be perfectly right at all times. No one can argue with another about the rightness of their opinion, because it is yours to create, to have, and to espouse. However, the problem lies when an individual claims their opinion to be fact, or truth.
Claiming your neighbor is an adulterer can only be true if that neighbor truly has committed infidelity, but claiming such a thing is just an opinion unless you possess some proof. Is this not what gossip is? Like a man who adds coffee to his sugar, do we not add a little truth to our opinions? This is far reaching, and sometimes, I sadly admit rampant in the church.
I am learning, regrettably, to distinguish what is my opinion and what is truth. This has allowed me to identify those indispensable, timeless realities that I am willing to defend adamantly and has made me aware of much more that I should not care as much for. Religion, politics and economics are three fields of study that I am cementing my beliefs in because of the timeless truths contained there within.
I find that humans should approach their opinions like a scientist who studies the stuff in the box of the universe. Hypothesis, theory and law. Laws are the timeless truths but require intense testing, scrutiny and analysis. And through the scientific method we can arrive at an established and predictable timeless law from which our lives can function.
This has led me to discover certain things as being the only reasonable solution. What I mean by this, is that in the past it was the most reasonable of other reasonable solutions. However, as I move down the process of scientific method, I have come to believe in certain laws. Christianity is no longer the most reasonable solution to the problem of salvation, but it is the only reasonable solution. It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does in a creator.
If you wish me to explain this in more depth, just comment and I will be happy to elaborate, but it really does take a blind faith to believe in evolution. It takes more blind faith to believe in global warming. It takes more blind faith to believe that socialism is an effective way to run a society.
It is not these ideas in themselves that are wrong. These are natural conclusions to draw from a worldview that believes man is inherently good. Unfortunately, when you begin with a broken foundation, you get a broken house. To begin in the negative will only lead to negative results. To a scientist that starts with a belief that gravity is not real will stand amazed when he sees a plane fly and perhaps may draw the conclusion that the plane, like a fish in the sea, is less buoyant than the air in which it swims. He may never get to understand that gravity is overcome by a law in physics called lift.
What does this mean ultimately? We must always question what we believe. Not like a cynic, but as a scientist. If we do not do this on a regular basis we become subject to most well argued and propagated argument, not the most reasonable one. And this, I believe, is what ails the world the most, of which Christians are no exception. This can be fixed, and must be fixed in our churches so that we can be the city on a hill of a dark and blind world.
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11
What does this have to do with intellectual dishonesty? I'm not going to bore you with all the details of the game and this blog is not about the entertainment factors in it, but I recently had an interesting exchange with a member on this site, we'll call him "eaglecat." Why, because that's what his name is. Anyway, in a nutshell he attacked me (a smaller and less defended nation) because I had attacked another guy (a smaller and less defended nation). Now, normally, I don't have a problem with someone attacking me unprovoked, except that this gentleman claimed that what I was doing was wrong, but he was in the right. This is the part that got interesting. In a nutshell, he stood above me on his moral soapbox shaking his cyber righteous finger telling me "NO! BAD BOY!" Except, he did it with F-bombs and *#&^@#*&%[insert expletives]. When I pointed his hypocrisy out, all of a sudden it became personal. I pointed out his intellectual dishonesty and without going into all the details, I began to reflect on the consistency of the encounters like this, and it spawned a blog. I haven't heard any public commentators use it, so I feel it necessary to define it before I proceed.
Intellectual Dishonesty: To choose, or hold firm to, an false idea or reality despite being presented with contradictory evidence pointing to a superior alternative. This is intentional logical fallacy. For example, if a person, who is holding a red triangle, still desires to call it a blue circle, despite any evidence presented to prove the geometric object is a red triangle.
My wish, when defining this phrase, is not to put others down who use them, although it will happen undoubtedly, but to make those who who are unaware, aware. I desire progress and all progress requires a measure of the uncomfortable before growth can occur. This is natural and to be expected for all change comes packaged with a need for an adjustment. What new adventure or experience comes without a measure of uncertainty?
The bizarre thing that I have discovered, is why have I not noticed the saturation in our society. Perhaps, I too was part of the problem, or more likely, I was simply ignorant of it's existence. Most, I believe, are unaware and therefore may benefit the most from reading this blog. Also, in the world of debate, discussion and communication the awareness of this tendency in our culture to accept intellectual dishonesty will help us to scrutinize it more. Subsequently, there should be less fights and arguments as long as the one who is committing the intellectual dishonesty is humble enough to accept constructive criticisms instead of responding like a child who snaps back after recoiling from the initial discomfort. You know the ways, "I'm rubber. You're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."
Humans do not like being wrong. It is embarrassing and hurts our pride like few other things may, but we must understand the difference between fact and opinion. We are perfectly right in our opinions, in fact, it is the only thing in which we can be perfectly right at all times. No one can argue with another about the rightness of their opinion, because it is yours to create, to have, and to espouse. However, the problem lies when an individual claims their opinion to be fact, or truth.
Claiming your neighbor is an adulterer can only be true if that neighbor truly has committed infidelity, but claiming such a thing is just an opinion unless you possess some proof. Is this not what gossip is? Like a man who adds coffee to his sugar, do we not add a little truth to our opinions? This is far reaching, and sometimes, I sadly admit rampant in the church.
I am learning, regrettably, to distinguish what is my opinion and what is truth. This has allowed me to identify those indispensable, timeless realities that I am willing to defend adamantly and has made me aware of much more that I should not care as much for. Religion, politics and economics are three fields of study that I am cementing my beliefs in because of the timeless truths contained there within.
I find that humans should approach their opinions like a scientist who studies the stuff in the box of the universe. Hypothesis, theory and law. Laws are the timeless truths but require intense testing, scrutiny and analysis. And through the scientific method we can arrive at an established and predictable timeless law from which our lives can function.
This has led me to discover certain things as being the only reasonable solution. What I mean by this, is that in the past it was the most reasonable of other reasonable solutions. However, as I move down the process of scientific method, I have come to believe in certain laws. Christianity is no longer the most reasonable solution to the problem of salvation, but it is the only reasonable solution. It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does in a creator.
If you wish me to explain this in more depth, just comment and I will be happy to elaborate, but it really does take a blind faith to believe in evolution. It takes more blind faith to believe in global warming. It takes more blind faith to believe that socialism is an effective way to run a society.
It is not these ideas in themselves that are wrong. These are natural conclusions to draw from a worldview that believes man is inherently good. Unfortunately, when you begin with a broken foundation, you get a broken house. To begin in the negative will only lead to negative results. To a scientist that starts with a belief that gravity is not real will stand amazed when he sees a plane fly and perhaps may draw the conclusion that the plane, like a fish in the sea, is less buoyant than the air in which it swims. He may never get to understand that gravity is overcome by a law in physics called lift.
What does this mean ultimately? We must always question what we believe. Not like a cynic, but as a scientist. If we do not do this on a regular basis we become subject to most well argued and propagated argument, not the most reasonable one. And this, I believe, is what ails the world the most, of which Christians are no exception. This can be fixed, and must be fixed in our churches so that we can be the city on a hill of a dark and blind world.
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
A valiant effort by Obama to save America 100 Million
The latest news to roll out of Washington is Obama's plan to require his cabinet to come up with 100 million dollars in savings in the next 90 days. This is of course out of a 4 trillion dollar budget. **cough cough choke cough, clears throat**100 million out of 4 TRILLION. That is the same as asking a family to increase their taxes by $4,000 to save them 10 cents. I love socialist math. It's so dreamy. So childlike that I just want to squeeze his pudgey little cheeks. Barry want a lollipop? A sucker? We've got lots of those in America.
Here's the story at MSNBC.com
Oh, before I sign off, one of the highest savings they came up with is Homeland Security should start buying office supplies in bulk. WHAT?! Have they heard of Dunder & Mifflin? I mean, cmon Obama, I don't even watch The Office and I know they sell paper in bulk.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Fat people are a force to reckon with
I have just discovered the real source of global warming and revelation weighs heavily on my soul.
According to a study done by the School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in the International Journal of Epidemiology, fat people consume more food than skinny people. Don't laugh, more obviousness is coming. Therefore, since fat people eat more, it requires more food to feed them causing the food industry to burn more energy and create more greenhouse gases. The study goes further to point out that when they travel, they consume more fuel. Captain Obvious strikes again!
According to reporter Ben Hirschler at reuters.com, scientists "[estimate] that each fat person is responsible for about one tonne of carbon dioxide emissions a year more on average than each thin person, adding up to an extra one billion tonnes of CO2 a year in a population of one billion overweight people." That is a a ton of fat CO2. Did you know that a ton of fat CO2 weighs nearly the same as a metric ton of pure revenge? Could it be that fat people are getting back at the world for all the cottage cheese thigh jokes? If that's true, I am willing to do my part. Someone send me a Big Mac, extra mayo. GO FAT WORLD DOMINATION!
But I wanted to know more so I dug more into this nefarious plot of supersized proportions. Last year, GreenDaily.com published an article highlighting bovine flatulence as Greenhouses' unappreciated red-headed step child. No one cares that although it's only 3rd on the list of offenders it "is 23 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide; even though methane emissions are far below those of carbon dioxide."
Wow, this means that if I go get a Double-Double at In-N-Out, I'm sticking it to the skinny man with a double wammy. Yeah! Give me a four-by-four with animal style fries sir. I need to destroy all humans through my belly! Suffer the wrath of overeating you healthy dieters!
And as I see it, fat people are winning this war. 66% of adults are obese or overweight meaning we have a large advantage over our smaller opponents. Since, there are twice as many fat people as skinny people and 1 fat person can sit on two skin people at a time, we would only have to use 25% of our fat forces. If any escape into their hideouts we can flush them out with our farts. Who's gonna crack fat jokes then when fat folk are farting all around the world? Who's laughing now!
FAT FARTERS OF AMERICA UNITE!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Why a classic liberal wants to help gays remove the state from marriage, BTW I am one.
Dear reader,
To those of you who have taken the time to visit my blog and read regularly the words that I type, I would like to extend my deepest appreciations. It is with this sentiment that I wish to articulate my opinions on how followers of Christ should approach this opportunistic time to cooperate with the gay marriage movement, at a time when they and the religious right are so irreconcilably opposed. If you are not a christian, you are welcome to engage on this debate and I appreciate your input, but expect this is written by a christian to christians. By the end of this discussion we all may find ourselves in a place of congeniality, as long we think critically with gentleness and respect.
Let us begin…
I am a Classical Liberal. I am not a Conservative, nor a Republican. This is a term I now use to define my political positions on social laws, economics, and roles of government. I cannot be a conservative, because I am not conservative in nature. I am progressive, one who likes to move forward and challenge the current modus operandi of our culture. I am not willing to be satisfied with the status quo. A classical liberal is capable of this without abandoning his biblical world view. Therefore, convinced of these fundamental truths, I am now principled and unwilling to capitulate to the lesser ideas formed out of hollow philosophies founded, not on the indispensable, immutable God, but on an imperfect and deeply flawed humanity. It is this belief that allows me to hope that you can walk with me as I discuss the need to support LGBTs (Lesbian Gays Bisexual Transgenders), as we work to remove the state from sanctioned marriage.
I’m sure your first response to my suggestion to cooperate with gays was one of shock and appall. I ask you to bear with me a little longer and ponder this question: Do you realize that the concept of licensing also carries with it the right to prohibit? In other words, when the state deems it appropriate, they can prohibit your God-instituted, covenantal relationship. By filing a marriage license, California courts are now allowed to meddle in your marriage bed. This is a very uncomfortable risk to Christians when we allow the long arm of government to decide what is right in our families. It may become expedient one day for the state to decide that your marriage is now obsolete, or the religious beliefs which define it to be intolerant, and therefore, illegal.
If I didn’t care about people, I would have been libertarian, for my views about government are not very hopeful. It is an untrustworthy monster and operates far too many times contrary to my biblical convictions. I would gladly take any opportunity to increase personal freedoms and liberties. Marriage, of course, is no exception.
This brings me to the opportunity the “religious right” have before them. We are labeled as the intolerant, mean spirited, homophobic, gay haters of America. I think it is time to communicate a message to those unbelievers that we do not hate them. We do not fear them, although we may forget sometimes that they are made in God’s image (imago deo). We would be a better people if we remember that our God loves them more than we ever could. So, I ask why not work in concert, not against, the LGBTs and kick the state out of our marriages? And in the process, reach out to a people group who misunderstand the message of the gospel.
My fear is that the religious leaders of our day will not recognize the greater threat and continue the passionate battle of world views. They may print informative pamphlets, effective email campaigns, well produced commercials and stop the gay agenda. And although successful, in pursuing this path we reinforce the gay hater, intolerant, uncaring Christian stereotype. There is a better way in which the Christian may stand for righteous living, but still love the unrighteous. Here is how we should do it.
There should be a practical course of communication to the leaders of the LGBT movement. First, a white flag should be raised by prominent Christian leaders to open the doors of communication. Second, we must state that we still believe marriage is not a right but a gift granted by God alone. We are not willing to compromise on this. However, since they wish to remain secular, we also recognize their right to call the commitment to their relationship whatever they wish, including a marriage. We can both retain our beliefs and accomplish what we want. Third, peace between activists on both sides needs to be agreed upon and that the new enemy is the state. Fourth, there must not be any expectation, once it is complete, that Christians must conform to the belief that marriage can be anything other than between one man and one woman. Just as they have the freedom to define it in their social circles, we are free to define it in ours. We must maintain the strictest of difference when contrasting Christian marriage and all other secular relationships. Fifth, we get the law added to the next election through petitions from both sides.
If we do this successfully, a new law must be drafted in which the state only recognizes civil contracts between two consenting adults, much like a business. The words marriage will no longer be defined by the state and doing this will limit state involvement in these contracts to medical and financial powers of attorney and probate. This will be regulated on the state level just as they are today. This new law, however, should be created before the civil activist machine is in full force because it will provide a purpose for Christians and LGBTs to remain unified until the task is complete.
What do we do then? Well, we go back into our churches and focus on our marriages. Take the institution back and redefine it in our culture. We become different again and show it. The society will shift back again to Godly principles once we love our spouses unconditionally and teach our children to do the same, just as God intended. In doing so we will have not only transformed our current generation, but benefited future generations through fundamentally Godly foundations.
Let us be proactive in our political pursuits. Let us spur one another to walk in faith and not fear of those who do not profess Christ. It is for the Lord to judge the outsider, not for us. It is only when they wish to join our churches or become Christians that the Bible teaches us that we can hold them to our standards. But ultimately, all of this needs to be done without attacking their humanity. Remember the heights from which you fell before you met Christ so that you reaffirm your humility. And with this renewed attitude, we may win more to the Lord than we have ever done before with our Christian tracks and our angry fists.
So, when you see the Christians circle their wagons against the LGBTs, it will do you good to remember your own depravity and these words by C.S. Lewis:
“The dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. There are no ordinary people. You have never met a mere mortal. It is with immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.”
To those of you who have taken the time to visit my blog and read regularly the words that I type, I would like to extend my deepest appreciations. It is with this sentiment that I wish to articulate my opinions on how followers of Christ should approach this opportunistic time to cooperate with the gay marriage movement, at a time when they and the religious right are so irreconcilably opposed. If you are not a christian, you are welcome to engage on this debate and I appreciate your input, but expect this is written by a christian to christians. By the end of this discussion we all may find ourselves in a place of congeniality, as long we think critically with gentleness and respect.
Let us begin…
I am a Classical Liberal. I am not a Conservative, nor a Republican. This is a term I now use to define my political positions on social laws, economics, and roles of government. I cannot be a conservative, because I am not conservative in nature. I am progressive, one who likes to move forward and challenge the current modus operandi of our culture. I am not willing to be satisfied with the status quo. A classical liberal is capable of this without abandoning his biblical world view. Therefore, convinced of these fundamental truths, I am now principled and unwilling to capitulate to the lesser ideas formed out of hollow philosophies founded, not on the indispensable, immutable God, but on an imperfect and deeply flawed humanity. It is this belief that allows me to hope that you can walk with me as I discuss the need to support LGBTs (Lesbian Gays Bisexual Transgenders), as we work to remove the state from sanctioned marriage.
I’m sure your first response to my suggestion to cooperate with gays was one of shock and appall. I ask you to bear with me a little longer and ponder this question: Do you realize that the concept of licensing also carries with it the right to prohibit? In other words, when the state deems it appropriate, they can prohibit your God-instituted, covenantal relationship. By filing a marriage license, California courts are now allowed to meddle in your marriage bed. This is a very uncomfortable risk to Christians when we allow the long arm of government to decide what is right in our families. It may become expedient one day for the state to decide that your marriage is now obsolete, or the religious beliefs which define it to be intolerant, and therefore, illegal.
If I didn’t care about people, I would have been libertarian, for my views about government are not very hopeful. It is an untrustworthy monster and operates far too many times contrary to my biblical convictions. I would gladly take any opportunity to increase personal freedoms and liberties. Marriage, of course, is no exception.
This brings me to the opportunity the “religious right” have before them. We are labeled as the intolerant, mean spirited, homophobic, gay haters of America. I think it is time to communicate a message to those unbelievers that we do not hate them. We do not fear them, although we may forget sometimes that they are made in God’s image (imago deo). We would be a better people if we remember that our God loves them more than we ever could. So, I ask why not work in concert, not against, the LGBTs and kick the state out of our marriages? And in the process, reach out to a people group who misunderstand the message of the gospel.
My fear is that the religious leaders of our day will not recognize the greater threat and continue the passionate battle of world views. They may print informative pamphlets, effective email campaigns, well produced commercials and stop the gay agenda. And although successful, in pursuing this path we reinforce the gay hater, intolerant, uncaring Christian stereotype. There is a better way in which the Christian may stand for righteous living, but still love the unrighteous. Here is how we should do it.
There should be a practical course of communication to the leaders of the LGBT movement. First, a white flag should be raised by prominent Christian leaders to open the doors of communication. Second, we must state that we still believe marriage is not a right but a gift granted by God alone. We are not willing to compromise on this. However, since they wish to remain secular, we also recognize their right to call the commitment to their relationship whatever they wish, including a marriage. We can both retain our beliefs and accomplish what we want. Third, peace between activists on both sides needs to be agreed upon and that the new enemy is the state. Fourth, there must not be any expectation, once it is complete, that Christians must conform to the belief that marriage can be anything other than between one man and one woman. Just as they have the freedom to define it in their social circles, we are free to define it in ours. We must maintain the strictest of difference when contrasting Christian marriage and all other secular relationships. Fifth, we get the law added to the next election through petitions from both sides.
If we do this successfully, a new law must be drafted in which the state only recognizes civil contracts between two consenting adults, much like a business. The words marriage will no longer be defined by the state and doing this will limit state involvement in these contracts to medical and financial powers of attorney and probate. This will be regulated on the state level just as they are today. This new law, however, should be created before the civil activist machine is in full force because it will provide a purpose for Christians and LGBTs to remain unified until the task is complete.
What do we do then? Well, we go back into our churches and focus on our marriages. Take the institution back and redefine it in our culture. We become different again and show it. The society will shift back again to Godly principles once we love our spouses unconditionally and teach our children to do the same, just as God intended. In doing so we will have not only transformed our current generation, but benefited future generations through fundamentally Godly foundations.
Let us be proactive in our political pursuits. Let us spur one another to walk in faith and not fear of those who do not profess Christ. It is for the Lord to judge the outsider, not for us. It is only when they wish to join our churches or become Christians that the Bible teaches us that we can hold them to our standards. But ultimately, all of this needs to be done without attacking their humanity. Remember the heights from which you fell before you met Christ so that you reaffirm your humility. And with this renewed attitude, we may win more to the Lord than we have ever done before with our Christian tracks and our angry fists.
So, when you see the Christians circle their wagons against the LGBTs, it will do you good to remember your own depravity and these words by C.S. Lewis:
“The dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. There are no ordinary people. You have never met a mere mortal. It is with immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.”
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Epiphany's effect is especially expedient
Easter is over. Man, it feels a little sacrilegious to say that, so I suppose a little qualification is in order. Easter, the fluffy bunnified, pastel saturated, commercial candimnation...is over. We may now continue to live in the grace and freedom that is Christ. That is, of course, what we should have been doing everyday and need not a holiday to celebrate. This is my opinion, as Paul says, "every man should be convinced fully."
With all that justification and Christianese speak, the point of this blog is that I've had many epiphanies over the past few weeks that I would like to share. I will not share all of them for some are still mysterious to me, but others have helped me a great deal. I hope that I can be of the same assistance and pass down this wisdom to you.
Philosophy, when you follow it's epistemology is a joining of phileos and sophia. Phileos is greek for to love and sophia means wisdom. Hence, we understand philosophy as the love of wisdom, to which I call myself a philosopher. I am one who loves wisdom. Please ponder for a moment what it means to be a lover of wisdom. What does that person look like? If you are like me, when you first came across this concept, the question seemed on the surface very simple, yet when you processed this in your mind it seemed to elude you like a butterfly on a breezy afternoon.
In order to understand what a philosopher (lover of wisdom) is, one must first consider what is wisdom? It is true that wisdom relates to knowledge, as does intelligence, but one generally assumes that to be intelligent is to also be wise. This small misunderstanding, although innocent at first, must be made plain so that we may understand why it to be superior to become a philosopher rather than an intelligent person.
I like to use Noah Webster's 1828 Edition because it lacks a lot of the politically correct phrases and the definitions are not relative to the current public's sentiments. He defines wisdom as "The right use or exercise of knowledge...Wisdom in the first sense, or practical wisdom, is nearly synonymous with discretion. It differs somewhat from prudence, in this respect; prudence is the exercise of sound judgment in avoiding evils; wisdom is the exercise of sound judgment either in avoiding evils or attempting good."
Intelligence is defined in that same edition as synonymous with understanding. Intelligence is simply, the ability to comprehend knowledge or information. It is a passive skill, at least when compared to wisdom which goes further to the "right use of knowledge." One is passive, the other is active. One receives, the other gives. One is amoral, the other is moral. The first is good, the second is better.
What does all this talk of intelligence and wisdom have to do with me? How do I relate to philosophy when I do not possess the skills necessary for such an intellectual discussion. Ah, see this is where the deception of our society has crept in. One need not be intelligent to be a philosopher. In fact, philosophers are not so concerned with what you know, but how or why you know it. Intelligence is measured by the accumulation of knowledge but the philosopher is concerned with how you apply it to life. You can be tremendously wise, far above your peers, but never comprehend molecular physics, nor be able to explain Einstein's theory of relativity.
The hallmarks of a wise philosopher is his ability to turn what little information he may posses into life changing ways of living for tremendous personal or societal changes. Simply put, he takes the little and impacts much with it.
I describe wisdom's superiority not so as to devalue the importance of intelligence, but to introduce priority. Unfortunately, we have praised far too long the intelligent over the wise and are paying the price for it. For intelligence is like the weapon of war and the wisdom the proper training. What good is a gun without knowing how or when to use it? The prudent exercise of power can only be expected of the wise, not the intelligent.
I have written this blog today because I want to establish a foundation for my faithful readers for the next few weeks. Since, I plan to introduce many of these ideas, which, I admit, are new to me but maybe not to you, keep in mind I am a layman. I am not the professional theologian, or physicist. I am not a politician, though on all these subjects I profess my opinions the same as any other human. I am, however, convinced more so than ever before on my positions that I may come across too strongly. Forgive me of this, because it is not my intent to "bible-thump" or strong arm anyone to my side. All I ask is to keep an open mind as we walk together and explore what we believe about this world. And if you do manage to maintain your openness, you have already made your first steps down the path of a philosopher and I am happy to play a small part in your growth.
With all that justification and Christianese speak, the point of this blog is that I've had many epiphanies over the past few weeks that I would like to share. I will not share all of them for some are still mysterious to me, but others have helped me a great deal. I hope that I can be of the same assistance and pass down this wisdom to you.
Philosophy, when you follow it's epistemology is a joining of phileos and sophia. Phileos is greek for to love and sophia means wisdom. Hence, we understand philosophy as the love of wisdom, to which I call myself a philosopher. I am one who loves wisdom. Please ponder for a moment what it means to be a lover of wisdom. What does that person look like? If you are like me, when you first came across this concept, the question seemed on the surface very simple, yet when you processed this in your mind it seemed to elude you like a butterfly on a breezy afternoon.
In order to understand what a philosopher (lover of wisdom) is, one must first consider what is wisdom? It is true that wisdom relates to knowledge, as does intelligence, but one generally assumes that to be intelligent is to also be wise. This small misunderstanding, although innocent at first, must be made plain so that we may understand why it to be superior to become a philosopher rather than an intelligent person.
I like to use Noah Webster's 1828 Edition because it lacks a lot of the politically correct phrases and the definitions are not relative to the current public's sentiments. He defines wisdom as "The right use or exercise of knowledge...Wisdom in the first sense, or practical wisdom, is nearly synonymous with discretion. It differs somewhat from prudence, in this respect; prudence is the exercise of sound judgment in avoiding evils; wisdom is the exercise of sound judgment either in avoiding evils or attempting good."
Intelligence is defined in that same edition as synonymous with understanding. Intelligence is simply, the ability to comprehend knowledge or information. It is a passive skill, at least when compared to wisdom which goes further to the "right use of knowledge." One is passive, the other is active. One receives, the other gives. One is amoral, the other is moral. The first is good, the second is better.
What does all this talk of intelligence and wisdom have to do with me? How do I relate to philosophy when I do not possess the skills necessary for such an intellectual discussion. Ah, see this is where the deception of our society has crept in. One need not be intelligent to be a philosopher. In fact, philosophers are not so concerned with what you know, but how or why you know it. Intelligence is measured by the accumulation of knowledge but the philosopher is concerned with how you apply it to life. You can be tremendously wise, far above your peers, but never comprehend molecular physics, nor be able to explain Einstein's theory of relativity.
The hallmarks of a wise philosopher is his ability to turn what little information he may posses into life changing ways of living for tremendous personal or societal changes. Simply put, he takes the little and impacts much with it.
I describe wisdom's superiority not so as to devalue the importance of intelligence, but to introduce priority. Unfortunately, we have praised far too long the intelligent over the wise and are paying the price for it. For intelligence is like the weapon of war and the wisdom the proper training. What good is a gun without knowing how or when to use it? The prudent exercise of power can only be expected of the wise, not the intelligent.
I have written this blog today because I want to establish a foundation for my faithful readers for the next few weeks. Since, I plan to introduce many of these ideas, which, I admit, are new to me but maybe not to you, keep in mind I am a layman. I am not the professional theologian, or physicist. I am not a politician, though on all these subjects I profess my opinions the same as any other human. I am, however, convinced more so than ever before on my positions that I may come across too strongly. Forgive me of this, because it is not my intent to "bible-thump" or strong arm anyone to my side. All I ask is to keep an open mind as we walk together and explore what we believe about this world. And if you do manage to maintain your openness, you have already made your first steps down the path of a philosopher and I am happy to play a small part in your growth.
Friday, April 10, 2009
1 more reason to never sag your pants
Have your ever sagged your pants? Does it disgust you as much as it does me to see another man's boxers in public domain? Do you wish you had a video to show rappers that it's not in your best interest to have your junk on display? This video is for you. Make sure you turn your speakers up to hear the dialogue.
Here is an excerpt from the video.
Black dude: It's cold outside.
White dude: It's cold? What's this right here?
Black dude: That is my [hammer].
Context is so important. You know the transcript made you think, "NO WAY! I have got to see this video."
And for you Joss Whedon fans, here is word from our dear superhero friend, Captain Hammer.
Here is an excerpt from the video.
Black dude: It's cold outside.
White dude: It's cold? What's this right here?
Black dude: That is my [hammer].
Context is so important. You know the transcript made you think, "NO WAY! I have got to see this video."
And for you Joss Whedon fans, here is word from our dear superhero friend, Captain Hammer.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Hockey + Ninja moves = viral video
I want to know what Asian is giving away our secrets? Will the guilty yellow man please stand up? Oh wait, excuse me, will the guilty yellow man drop from the ceiling?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
I have the skills to be a Disney animator!
Have you ever noticed similarities in Disney animation? The dance sequences, chase scenes, facial expressions. Check this video out and see that you can be a Disney animator if you learned how to trace in kindergarten.
Monday, April 6, 2009
This is a tribute to Mega Man fans!
Notabale Quotables:
"MegamegamegamegamegamegaMAN!"
"I could shoot the legs off Jeffery Dahmer."
Thank you brentafloss.
"MegamegamegamegamegamegaMAN!"
"I could shoot the legs off Jeffery Dahmer."
Thank you brentafloss.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Rusty Pang is now a 3D comic strip character
I feel like this artist is trying to tell me something....
UPDATE: I apologize, here is the link to the page for the full graphic. Unfortunately, it won't show up in full here.
UPDATE: I apologize, here is the link to the page for the full graphic. Unfortunately, it won't show up in full here.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
How can an Asian be better at American baseball? Because we can...
Source: http://mariners.fandome.com/video/110321/Most-Amazing-Baseball-Hit-Youll-Ever-See/?q=k
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
What do you get when you cross mexicans and clowns? Border Patrol Fail.
UPDATE: I apologize, this video was taken from you before you even got to enjoy it, kind of like taxes...Anyway, here is the same video from another site. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
