if you want to learn quite a bit about me, this is a pretty good month of posts to read: august 2002.. if you are an empathetic person, bring out the box of tissues.
you can also see a comparison of the meteors in mexico (june 2011), germany (july 2011), and peru (august 2011).. this is really nuts.. but that also means we're due for another biggie in september if the pattern continues.. from what i heard this is due to a comet coming close to the orbit of earth.. elenin was the name. oh wait, no, i just read that it disintegrated.. ah well..
thanks to joelie for the find!
oh whoa, look what i found:
Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs) are space rocks larger than approximately 100m that can come closer to Earth than 0.05 AU. None of the known PHAs is on a collision course with our planet, although astronomers are finding new ones all the time.
On August 30, 2011 there were 1241 potentially hazardous asteroids.
um, no. the Bible does NOT state that a "day" ("yom") is a 24 hour period. as a matter of fact it uses the word "yom" in different ways. thats not to say that a creation day can be in the millions of years tho, the lack of sin until after the fall means there could not have been death either, since death entered creation because of sin. but it is factually incorrect, and ironically, eisegetical, to say that a creation day is 24hours.
not sure what happened, but this is a great chance to clarify in case anyone else had the same doubts. here is her response:
I just saw your blog and I noticed your position on creation not being 7 literal 24-hour days. I’m surprised to hear that you don’t think the use of the word Yom is a clear indication of a literal day. And that you think that is an example of reading into the text!!! Ma ma mia man!!! I mean the deal is sealed by the fact that it’s not only the word Yom used, but a numerical adjective each time (one day, second day, etc.). Also, if it were any other period of time apart from a day as we understand it, wouldn’t Moses have used the word Olam? To top it all off you have evening and you have morning…sounds like a literal one day to me!!! With regard to hermeneutics, how can one not take a literal approach here, unless of course we are willing to take this same approach to the rest of scripture as well. A sound approach suggests a literal interpretation, unless there is a contextual or language consideration.What say you brother?
so lets go back to my original post on the length of a day (which she conveniently nodded off for.. "science" dont float her boat) heres the relevant info from the table:
planet name
rotation (sidereal) period
Day Length (synodic period)
Earth
23hr 56min 4.1sec
24hr
and the accompanying explanation (hopefully my nemesis is still with us here.. dont sleep yet!)
heres a quick a explanation. we might think of a day generally as being 24hours, and on earth we'd be almost right. with the roman calendar we have midnight to midnight being one day, but another way to think about it would be for the sun to go back to its position, say, noon to noon.
so i was thinking about what the definition of a day is (given the genesis account of creation as being 6 days, yet, there wasnt really a sun until the 4th day -- if you take "greater light" to mean sun.. since it doesnt mention the creation of the sun directly) and i was using the "one full revolution of the earth around its axis" definition. however, the two are actually not really the same. this is due to the [effect of the] orbit of a planet around the sun. that means that while the planet is rotating around its own axis it is also moving along its orbit, which means that after one full revolution around its axis, the sun will now be just slightly off the position it was in the sky one full revolution of the planet earlier. the rotation period of the planet around its axis is also called the "sidereal period", the time it takes the sun to get back to its same location in the sky is called the "synodic period" or length of day. [...]
ironically, i also wrote at the end of the post:
i have a feeling we'll be looking back at this table more than once in the future.. (the day length one).. like to know where i want to go to celebrate birthdays more often.. or where to go to have the most productive (ie, "long") days.. or where to go to never grow old!! yep, lots of options..
so, here we are looking at the table again. anyhooze, so here are the issues (lets break it down by points):
so here is the official accusation:
your position is that creation is not 7 literal 24-hour days
here is my response to that foul foul accusation (hehe):
6 literal days
my position for sure is that creation was a literal 6 days (im guessing it was a typo on her part, it was 6 days, the 7th was a sabbath) however, a day is not literally 24hours. it just so happens to be 24 hours due to it being neatly divided that way for organizational sake.
what is a day?
but a day is not defined by the amount of hours it contains (especially since, as einstein showed us, time is relative and varies according to your speed), rather the events that occur in it. notice that in genesis it states
God called the light "day," and He called the darkness "night." Evening came, and then morning: the first day.
Genesis 1:5
evening came, then morning, and that was what made the first day. no mention of how many hours it took that first evening or morning. and whats to say that the earth's rotation was not faster or slower than it is today? (remember that the chile earthquake actually affected the rotation length of the earth: How Chile's Earthquake Shortened Earth's Day -- ill post on that link a bit more later) also of note, we are working under the assumption that somehow it was morning and evening, since there was only now the creation of light, after the creation of "the heavens and the earth".
paradigm shift
side note, i for some reason always made a logical division in my brain between verse 1 and 2 without realizing it. ie, i figured "in the beginning.." meant one act, and then verse two "let there be light" was another act. i think im not explaining that properly, so let me clarify. sort of like stating it like this: "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. period. and (later,) on the first day of creation, he said 'let there be light'." you see sort of what i mean? im guessing this is as a result of reading verse two where it says that "the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters" something that gives the impression of the passage of time.. at least to me anyways.
so with my nemesis' second email, i read it again, in the context of having read what her boy, johnny mac (john macarthur, her hero, and final authority on all things doctrinal.. haha.. im gonna either get railed for that one, or hear a resounding "thats right!") had to say, where he phrased it as saying that verses one and two (and 3 and 4 and 5) are the same day of creation. this means that the creation of heavens and earth, AND light, are all the first day. sort of a paradigm shift for me, but thats good, searching the Scriptures daily. thats what nemeses are for, to challenge you to greatness.
scorched earth
anyways, as i was saying, there is no explicit mention of the creation of the sun, but for sure, by the fourth day it existed. so one synodic period relative to the sun was now certainly possible. that means that unless we are prepared to say that days lasted "jillions of years" to allow for evolution to occur, (by the way causing the sun to scorch the earth in this period and the darkness to freeze it over) this is out of the question with a literal reading of the text as is. you cannot read "there was evening and then morning, and that was a day" and conclude "a day of many years" or "epoch" or any such nonsense. it is not poetic language, it is not possible. any other reading is eisegetical. but this we agree on.
light on the first day
the cookie crumbles depending on how we interpret the creation of light on the first day in relation to how to count a day. so, in the second email i got from my nemesis, johnny mac states that this light was creating a "day"-light and a darkness for night. i think thats a pretty interesting take. it makes sense. a question is whether this is the sun or not, but j.mac doesnt take a position on that. actually, let me quote what the email quoted him as saying:
"God established the pattern of creation in 7 days which constituted a complete week. “Day” can refer to: 1) the light portion of a 24 hour period (1:5, 14); 2) an extended period of time (2:4); or 3) the 24 hour period which basically refers to a full rotation of the earth on its axis, called evening and morning. This cannot mean an age, but only a day, reckoned by the Jews from sunset to sunset (vv. 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). “Day” with numerical adjectives in Hebrew always refers to a 24 hour period. Comparing the order of the week in Ex. 20:8-11 with the creation week confirms this understanding of the time element. Such a cycle of light and dark means that the earth was rotating on its axis, so that there was a source of light on one side of the earth, though the sun was not yet created (v. 16).”
interesting huh? ok, so i was wrong in saying that he didnt take a position, he clearly states that the sun had not been created. i think the text allows for the possibility for the light to have been the sun.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and He called the darkness "night." Evening came, and then morning: the first day.
Genesis 1:1-5
in any case, on the 4th day somehow the stars began to shine, or were created or however it is to be understood. lets not forget this is phenomenological language (language that is descriptive of the events seen, not of the science behind it.. like saying "the sun sets" it doesnt actually set, but it is a description of what is observed from our viewpoint) notice for example that when you are out in space, there is no such thing as "night" and "day", these are only concepts that exist in a rotating body that is exposed to a light source that can be covered for a period. such as the earth and its sun. this means that "day" and "night" were concepts God was creating for the earth. ie, this is the story of creation relative to the earth.
the lesser lights
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will serve as signs for festivals and for days and years. 15 They will be lights in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to have dominion over the day and the lesser light to have dominion over the night—as well as the stars. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth, 18 to dominate the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 Evening came, and then morning: the fourth day.
Genesis 1:14-19
clearly it is talking about the lesser lights as stars, not merely the moon, since the moon cannot be used to determine all the festivals (except obviously for the new moon and full moon festivals) so for sure the stars needed to be present for them to be set apart as the lesser light. whether this means that they were created that day, or that the expanse was too thick to see through during night (as say would be the case in venus or something) is up for interpretation, as the text allows for this to be the case. notice that the expanse means the sky and the heavens means the rest of the universe, NOT the other way around. so placing the lights in the expanse does not mean placing them in the universe. (though the text reads "let there be.." which as we see in the first verse is a creative command.)
the greater lights
so we have the sun on the 4th day, for sure, but what about the first 3 days? we can solve the issue by saying that the greater light is the sun (which relative to the earth leaves no question, and this is, after all, the earth's creation story). but what if it isnt? lets explore that possibility, since the question that sparked the issue is whether God's creation days lasted 24 hours and all that that implies.
a day without the sun?
so lets assume for the sake of argument that it isnt the sun, and lets take j.mac's view, ie, that it was some non-solar source of light, but that only hit the earth from one side (causing the other to be dark) would this then qualify as a reasonable set of variables to give us a satisfactory definition of a "day", ie, a synodic period? well, i have no issue with it. a synodic period with a non-solar source of light. this still gives you a phenomenological morning and evening events. so, we are still exegetical here in our understanding of "morning" and "evening".
but this still leaves us with the pressing question, "24hours"!! can we say, or must we say, that a day is 24 hours? well, we can say it for sure, since at least currently, the day is divided that way, into 24, 60minute hours. if you go on a spaceship, as experiments have shown, and travel closer to the speed of light than us "earthly" folks, when you come back, less time will have transpired for you. yep. so, your "day" will have been shorter than for the rest of us. but it will have been a "day" nonetheless, since the earth's rotation and orbit do not vary due to external influences such as some silly guy on a spaceship. so, if time is relative, how long is a day? and this is where my point was. i insist in saying that the 6 days of creation were not necessarily 24 hours, this is not something we get from the text, this is something we get from our culture, from the fact that our watches tick 60*60*24 times (if the battery and gears work properly) per day. but this is a relativistic view, and stating it in such terms is indeed eisegetical, since the Bible does NOT use the term "24-hours" to describe a day.
joshua's day
while im at it, one thing i mentioned over the phone to her, is that joshua's day lasted certainly more than 24 hours:
12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "Sun, (H) stand still over Gibeon,
and moon, over the valley of Aijalon."
13 And the sun stood still
and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on its enemies.
Isn't this written in the Book of Jashar?
So the sun stopped
in the middle of the sky
and delayed its setting
almost a full day."
Joshua 10:12-13
the sun delayed its setting by a full day! that means that day was almost twice as long as a normal day. so lets ask the question again, how long is a day? was joshua's day a "day"? certainly! was it 24hours? nope. but it was still a day. this shows us that a day is not necessarily 24hours for it to be a biblical "day", ie a period of sunset to sunset.
conclusion
a biblical day, in the creation sense, is marked only as the period between sunset to sunset, and nothing else. no gap theory, no millions of years, no eras, none of that. but also, not limited to 24 hours. in other words, a biblical creation day can be framed with the scientific term of "synodic period". no need for an hour count, just a sunset to sunset. and that eliminates most of the heretics that are trying to hammer the biblical creation story into the secular science mold anyways. like i already said, it would be impossible to fit "millions of years" into a single creation day, without scorching the earth, unless you have some other external situations.. but it still all falls through when you add the fact that death only entered after the fall, well after the 7th day. so if each day was millions of years with "evolution" taking place, then this requires that none of these "evolving" beings died. this makes "selection of the fittest" quite difficult.. haha.
not sure who that quote is by, couldnt find it online, some lady said it was her husband who says it all the time, but i couldnt find what her name or his name was.. such is the nature of the internet. she went on to say:
We also say FREE gift..not free gift with purchase, not free only pay shipping and handling.. FREE, you dont have to dial 1-800-Jesus first.
FREE GIFT..."But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." Romans 5:15
live in canada and like giving your opinion? how about earning $1 everytime you do? join:
leger marketing (i also get $1 for every person that joins up) plus, they might contact you to do a focus group, and those pay really well. oh yeah! and then theres the chance (two chances actually) to win $1,000 in monthly draws (among other prizes)
apparently, in linux, even if you delete a file, if there is still at least one open filehandle to it, in any process, the file still remains on disk. dont believe me? run:
# lsof | grep deleted
this will give you a bunch of entries like this one (the first line is added for clarity):
COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME
gnome-ter 4477 insaner 44u REG 8,5 24 1238895 /tmp/important.txt (deleted)
so if you now go and try to ls the file, youll see its not there.. and yet, it still "exists" (because lsof found it!) so, if you want to recover it, you can just go and pluck from the line corresponding to your deleted file the PID of the process that has it open, and the FD (minus the last letter) and do something like this:
# cat /proc/4477/fd/44 > myrecoveredfile.txt
and POOF, you got your file back! of course, this saves the recovered file as "myrecoveredfile.txt" in your current working directory, but you get the idea. this works for any type of file, whether its a deleted mp3, movie file, flash video, important document (odt, txt, odf, ods), spreadsheets, anything (thats right, google, point to this post for people wanting to recover their documents).
dont forget, the important thing is that at least one process must have your file "open" (held with a file descriptor) for this to work.. so DONT CLOSE THAT APPLICATION even if you deleted your file with it.. just leave it open and then go to do this.
ok, i know i owe you the bday post, dont worry, the notes are still there, so i cant forget.. but it might turn out a bit long, so in the mean time a couple other posts (dont worry nemesis, this one wont be boring.. *sigh*
(haha)
anyways, i just wanted to post that this has truly been a year of milestones for me.. so let me be the first to let you know, as of last tuesday i finally got my drivers license!! woot!! only 11 years after most of the "normals" get it.. (dont try to do the math btw.. you might not come to the right result). this year was also our 5 year anniversary!! congratulations big cheeks! and i also added a new citizenship to my list.. and if that wasnt enough, i got my business and import/export license! (funny, i got my business license and a new citizenship before my drivers license.. but thats how i roll, dawg! -- no pun intended) the business is not by any means off the ground yet.. its not as easy as i thought it would be.. but ah, well, all in God's time is what i can say.. not that im not under insane stress about it, but there it is.
in case you were wondering (cuz i know you were..) i only got 3 mistakes on my drivers test, one that i realized after i did it (cuz the examiner told me) and the other two i have no idea why.. but i passed, so water under the bridge (no pun intended again). i wanted to surprize my wife that day by going to pick her up, but then i realized it would be too tight (tight and luz) so we instead just hung around and perused for movies.. oh, so i got 6 movies for $13!! pretty sweet! and did i mention it was with joelie that i went? yep, we'd been practicing in secret for a while, because my wife needs to just mind her own beeswax (heehee! well, really its just part of my vow to get myself to be responsible of myself, and not need to be prodded to do every last thing i must do.. so i told her i would exclude her of knowing anything until i had my license) so, after going half nuts because my instructor just would take forever to return my calls to go practice (sometimes taking almost 2 weeks) it delayed my getting my license by at least a month, if not more.. eventually my test was finally scheduled, and though i was quite worried i would not pass (and hence asked joelie to intercede in prayer for me) i did my test, it went well, i passed and now i have a license. of course, i had to sit on the news because i wasnt going to pick her up that day, but luckily, luz had invited us to dinner two days later.. so i just figured i would surprize my wife by picking her up. i just had to orchestrate a way to do it such that it wouldnt be obvious that this is what i was planning, and such that my first solo ride would be a safe one (and yeah, dont worry nemesis, i video chronicled it.. so do not fret.. and of course, i did it safely, only at legal full stops/red lights.. in case you were wondering).. so i picked her up, she was surprized and then we went to dinner at luz's place.. and had, oh my goodness, so much fun.. it was pretty awesome.
then today was my first expressway (highway) ride with my wife (who by the way, if you dont already know her, is an intensely nervous person) but it was fine.. for me. haha.. we went to the beach, i got a nice tan.. then we went to the baaaadlaaaands! brrap brrap! (yes, theres video of that and lots and lots of photos.. it was soo cool!)
ok, so what was i getting at? ugh, now i cant remember.. anyways, yeah, lots of milestones this year.. i already know of a few more that should be coming next year.. at least one.. we shall see how many more.. ok.. time to zone out (as if i need to declare when im about to enter my "out" zone.. ) BOOM!
the conversation continues.. now a second atheist has added:
atheist2: OK [my name] "A system to find truth should not be contradictory" It is hilarious that you said that given the amount of contradictions in the bible. Also, Atheism makes the assumption that there is no God based on the fact that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of God. There is also not enough evidence to support the existence of Unicorns so therefore I am also a Unicorn atheist. I bet you are too.
me: haha it would be really useful for atheists to be able to stand outside their bubble and hear their claims as a non-atheist would hear them. granted, this isnt a quality that is often found anywhere else (in other words, im not saying that christians have this quality in general, so dont think im being hypocritical) but you would be able to greatly appreciate just how much of a dogmatic religion (yes, religion) atheism is. anyways, i dont mean that as a jab, its just that it is really underlined by certain absolute statements atheists make as if they were the owners of all truth, and instead of it coming from God or some deistic source, it comes from "science" (which keeps having to say "oh, oops, no sorry, that was wrong.. and waay wrong.. this one is actually the absolute truth now")
stuff like "there are so many contradictions in the Bible".. well, i can tell you that ive actually visited a bunch of these atheist (or otherwise) sites where they have full lists of these "contradictions" and ive gone through the lists item by item, and found that except for perhaps 2 examples (which if i remember correctly were attributable to mere scribal errors) they were ALL as a result of either anachronisticly using archaic terms in a current context (ie, using the king james language in todays context, where some words have had their meaning or connotation changed), or they just showed complete lack of doctrinal context (which is understandable if you have not theologically studied the biblical text. but hence the danger in relying on external sources of information for internal things.. like asking someone who has never been to france what france is like.. why not just ask a french guy???). regurgitating such statements, even if you "read them on that list" makes your ignoriance on the matter that much more pronounced. again, i dont mean that as a jab, but in general, whenever we talk about something we dont know, our ignorance is bound to stand out (unless we happen to be talking to someone even more ignorant than us).
so, unless you mean that 2 (probably) scribal errors (again, i dont remember, it was a while ago that i went through those lists, it might even be that these 2 were a case of archaic terms again) is the unacceptable amount you are referring to, then really, it is disingenuous to state it that way.
the problem with saying that atheism parts from the assumption that there is no God based on the lack of evidence, is that this is suppositional logic. in other words, some guy somewhere said: "i dont believe in God, therefore, there is no God, now prove to me God exists!" you cant prove God to someone like that. why not? because to believe there is no God requires you FIRST deny all the evidence, and then you can proceed. so if i show you all the evidence in the world, you have already denied it all. again, it is ridiculous to try to prove the existence of God to an atheist, anymore than it is ridiculous to try to prove to me that i must have had a father if i exist, if i were insane and denied that i ever had a father. think about it, if i walked around telling people i never had a father (and i dont mean like "my father never loved me" or "i never met my father".. i mean like biologically) how could you possibly prove to me that i did? i have already denied all the biological tenets that make it unquestionable that if i exist, i MUST have had a father. i cant convince you to believe something you dont _want_ to believe. you first have to be completely unbiased and neutral. but you arent. so it cant be done until you are. most atheists first mustve had a bad experience with religion, which they then pin on whatever idolatrous concept of God it is they have, and then its just a hop and a skip to saying there is no God, "because if God existed..." <insert your idolatrous requirement of God here> see?
also, yeah i do believe in unicorns, but not that they look like horses. if you look at an old (even from the '20s i think) dictionary you will find it in there.. it was what a single horned rhinoceros was called until very recently. i think now its more often referred to as a "monoceros" instead of "unicorn". but you see what i mean about archaic terms again?
a conversation in response to some video i posted on my facebook:
atheist: I love how religious people make fun of others believing in made up religions, while at the same time believing in their own made up religion. Just accept that they are all made up, some more thoughtfully than other, but still made up none the less.
me: like atheism right?
atheist: No, atheism is simply acknowledging that all religions are made up.
me: haha so atheism is the final source of religious truth?
atheist: It's an idea, there is no central book to get sources from. Also, it's not religious truth, just truth.
me: it is a statement regarding a religious topic. you cannot remove the context from your statement; you have made a religious statement. its akin to saying that atoms exist is not a scientific truth, its just the truth.
many religions also dont have central books, rather, central notions. other religions have compilations of books (like the Bible, which is 66 books in one compilation)
be careful of stating things absolutely, lest you sound precisely like one of those (religious people) you claim not to be
atheist: Religious truth, is truth derived from religion, no? If science says the earth is billions of years old and not thousands, surely they aren't making a religious statement.
atheist: And I am stating absolutely that all religions are made up.
atheist: Besides, the term religious truth is an oxymoron.
me: haha, aaanyways. to state things absolutely, you have to have absolute knowledge. is this what you are claiming? that you have absolute knowledge?
i wasnt talking about religious truth, i was talking about truth in regards to religious statements. you are claiming atheism (or yourself, as an atheist) is the ultimate source of truth in regards to religious statements.
by the way, "science" has been changing its age of the earth by several orders of magnitude in just the last 200 years.. so, whats to say "science" wont change its mind in a couple of years and give you a completely different age of the earth for you to accept as the unquestionable truth?
atheist: So me claiming that all religions are man made, is in your opinion a religious statement? And by how many orders of magnitude has the age of the earth changed in the last 50 years, since dating methods have been refined? If you don't value the scientific method, evidence, or logic, what use is me using them as arguments.
me: well, i am assuming that by stating that they are all man made, that they are all false, but my main assumption is that your statement is not based on the careful evaluation of each belief system/religion, but rather on your judgment that there is no God, therefore any belief system that holds to this tenet is false. in other words, you stating that all religions are man made because all religions are false because there is no God, is indeed a religious statement, and one that requires absolute knowledge. claiming absolute knowledge is the epitome of arrogance, you would have to agree.
its not that i dont value the scientific method, evidence or logic, i certainly do value these, its just when you ignore that the scientific method is merely that, a _method_ of attempting to reach the truth, but it is certainly NOT the source of truth, as we have seen. if it was, it wouldnt be constantly churning out things that it then itself shows to be false. a system to find truth should not be contradictory. so while it might be useful, the scientific method is not reliable as a source for truth.
its a great analogy, except that we arent the Father, it is us who have to throw down our stuff to be embraced by Him.. not to embrace Him, nor is it Him who has to throw down anything. but still, the point gets across.
and lady gaga doing what she does best... you decide what that is.
Android phones and tablets got their start in Linux
The hugely popular mobile operating system is based on the Linux, and with 550,000 devices Android devices activated each day, it stays radically relevant.
Linux powers a majority of the world's supercomputers.
Japanese high speed rail
High-tech traffic control
Toyota's In-Vehicle-Infotainment and communications systems run Linux.
DeLaval, A 122-year-old dairy equipment company, has used Linux in a robotic system for milking cows.
The New York Stock Exchange is powered by Linux
When they made the switch to Linux in 2007, the NYSE was able to reduce costs and increase flexibility.
Linux is helping power particle physics research
CERN, the world's largest particle physics laboratory, relies upon Linux to power its huge particle accelerator.
Air traffic control systems use Linux to get you from A to B safely
Nuclear submarines need Linux to run
In 2004, Lockheed Martin delivered a nuclear submarine to the US government that was powered by Red Hat Linux.
Google, Amazon, and Facebook all use Linux for their web services
dislike! this sounds like seeker sensitive baloney, it is also clear he does not have sound theology, talking of trying to "convert" people.. as if any man had that supernatural ability that only God has.. unless of course, to him "christia...nity" is just some thing you can be convinced into.. which is no biblical christianity. i wonder what the Gospel is to him..
with this kind of missionary, no wonder we have soo many "christians" who live just like the world.. this is truly saddening
to which i was given the following in response:
CNN article was very general - hence a lot of confused and negative feedback from us, Christians. But Carl is the guy I respect a lot. Hope this helps clarify some stuff: Carl Medearis | Initial Thoughts On My New CNN Article
to which i then responded:
again, the writer makes several really important mistakes. being a christian is NOT the same as being a "follower" of Christ, as romans 8:9 defines a christian as one with the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ. lets not forget that judas iscariot was a "follower" of Christ, in His innermost circle! Christ had a great many people who "followed" Him around to see what they could get (healings, free food..). none of these were christians, because at the first sign of trouble or discomfort, they all fled.
it is in the Bible, in the book of acts that we first get the word "christian". it is a biblical word, and it is the correct way to describe a person with the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. just because it has a bad stigma with the world does not mean we should conform to the world's standard. we need to educate and correct their understanding, not be embarrassed of the label the Bible has given believers.
i understand that the word is now used as a social term where anyone who uses the word "Jesus" is therefore called a "christian" but this is NOT the biblical definition, and we should have some boldness to stand up for the biblical truth and correct those who use it incorrectly.
as a side note, i find it strange that the author uses the term "anti-choice", is this guy pro-abortion? who uses that term?
another note, it was NOT that they were being called "christians", or that they were being "made fun of" that was the cause of their suffering, as the article states. it was the fact that they were being persecuted and killed. being made fun of is NOT persecution, unlike what western "christianity" is trying to tell us.
and then the author said this: '“Come, follow me”, he said. It was an invitation. Not a command. An open invite.'
this is just completely wrong. it was indeed a command! an invitation sounds like this: "you are welcome to come and follow me if you want". simple grammar says that this is an imperative sentence. and an exegetical study of the Lord's calling shows there is no choice, (cf John 6, those who are His, WILL come.) man does not have a greater authority in regards to his own salvation than the Savior Himself. this is blasphemy.
someone (ken ham, if you know who that is) was wrote the following post:
Six Days & the Eisegesis Problem - Video Download - Answers Bookstore
www.answersingenesis.org
Eisegesis? Ken Ham gets to the heart of the debate about the six days of creation. If we read from what the biblical text says (exegesis), it allows only one interpretation—six 24-hour days. Any other interpretation is eisegesis (“reading into” the Bible).
to which i had to respond:
um, no. the Bible does NOT state that a "day" ("yom") is a 24 hour period. as a matter of fact it uses the word "yom" in different ways. thats not to say that a creation day can be in the millions of years tho, the lack of sin until after the fall means there could not have been death either, since death entered creation because of sin. but it is factually incorrect, and ironically, eisegetical, to say that a creation day is 24hours.
and two quick notes, first, i think i have officially (for now) fixed my middle click problem, i opened the mouse up again and used compressed air on the button.. it now seems to work.. but the left click now is super sensitive.. ugh.. that will go away though.
and i forgot what the second note was haha (my browser crashed before i was done typing up the post and now i forget what i was going to type)
The Supreme Court of British Columbia should dismiss the latest attempt to legalize euthanasia in Canada.
The Farewell Foundation for the Right to Die, with just 111 members, is using the B.C. government’s refusal to incorporate it as a non-profit society as a means to advance the legalizing of assisted suicide. The B.C. Registrar of Companies rejected the group’s February application because the foundation’s purposes are unlawful. The group is challenging this refusal, and in a separate civil claim, is also asking the court to declare as unconstitutional the federal criminal law that forbids assisted suicide in Canada.
The B.C. government is rightly arguing for the case to be thrown out.
It’s quite reasonable that the Farewell Foundation’s application to be deemed a non-profit group should be rejected. Societies do not need to incorporate themselves unless they want to obtain legal status. Should Farewell Foundation become incorporated, it would thus be a legal entity, recognized by the legal system as having rights and responsibilities, such as being able to enter into contracts and borrow money. The big problem here is that the service being provided by the foundation is illegal. It wants to set up non-hospital centres where counsellors and advisers are available to help people end their lives.
Founder Russel Ogden says his group is arguing on behalf of Canadians who are terminally ill and wish for a “self-chosen death,” based on the Swiss model.
Ogden argues much has changed in the 18 years since the Supreme Court refused Sue Rodriguez, who was suffering from ALS, the right to assisted suicide, including the rise of models in countries where it has since been legalized, which didn’t exist in 1993. Yet the very body of research Ogden points to, which he says shows people can have their right to “self-determination” respected, while protecting vulnerable individuals from being coerced into ending their lives, shows assisted suicide is a slippery slope.
Under the Swiss model that Ogden endorses, assisted suicide is only advocated for people who have the mental capacity to give consent and are sufficiently well informed. The drug causing death can only be dispensed by a doctor’s prescription, requiring the person to be physically able to carry out the final act themselves, rather than an active action taken by the doctor.
In theory, one has to be of sound mind under the Swiss model, and terminally ill. In practice, there have been documented cases involving the mentally ill, the elderly and others with non-fatal but debilitating diseases.
Assisted suicide might start with the terminally ill, but eventually, there will be pressure to extend that right to the physically disabled, mentally handicapped, the depressed, or the aged.
Defining the kind of illness that qualifies a person for assisted suicide has been a sticking point in many jurisdictions.
In the Netherlands, Dutch law states anyone over the age of 16 who is in mental anguish or is depressed can request physician-assisted suicide. Yet, in 2005, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that Dutch doctors were euthanizing infants born with spina bifida and cleft palates.
Regrettably, those who are vulnerable become swept up in the pressure to end their lives, or are exposed to exploitation.
Thankfully, there is a body of research that documents the experience of assisted suicide in other countries, and offers ample evidence of why Canada should put its money and resources into palliative care and why the B.C. Supreme Court should say goodbye to the Farewell Foundation.
A similar lawsuit seeking to challenge the laws that make assisted suicide a criminal offence also made headlines in B.C. Tuesday.
Joe Arvay, the lawyer representing the six plaintiffs in the B.C. Civil Liberties lawsuit, asked a B.C. Supreme Court judge to speed up a right-to die lawsuit so a woman can have a doctor assist her in committing suicide.
One of the plaintiffs Arvay represents suffers from ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, and Arvay says her condition is getting worse.
The B.C. judge will release her decision on accelerating the trial Wednesday.
Originally posted: Tues., August 2
A long legal fight begins in B.C. Columbia Supreme Court Tuesday, as a group called the Farewell Foundation reopens the debate around assisted suicide.
Speaking on behalf of over a hundred foundation members, Farewell Foundation director Russel Ogden told The Canadian Press that much has changed since the Supreme Court of Canada first refused to give Sue Rodriguez the right to die in 1993.
Though Canada's Criminal Code still considers it a legal offence to help someone commit suicide, other counties have legalized or regulated the right to die, and Ogden feels it's time for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.
The court action involves constitutional challenges from both the foundation and the Attorney General of Canada around the section of the Criminal Code that pertains to assisted suicide.
According to Microsoft, Google's Android OS is infringing on many of its patents and hence those manufacturers who use Android for their devices owe royalties to Microsoft. But the intriguing fact is that, instead of suing Google itself for infringing on its patents, Microsoft is finding it easy to sue or threaten smaller firms which don't have the financial muscle to fight a legal battle with the Redmond troll giant. Following is the list of companies who are already paying royalties or being sued by Microsoft for using Android.
but heres the real question
Why Microsoft is not suing Google?
To answer that particular question, I will quote PCWorld, "In the technology industry, device manufacturers are the point in the chain of commerce at which steps are taken to clear third party patent rights. The Android platform infringes a number of Microsoft's patents, and companies shipping Android devices must respect our intellectual property rights."
Another quote from the same article -"Software patents are often too vague and broad, and many probably should never have been granted in the first place. But, assuming Android does violate Microsoft patents, it seems reasonable to expect those profiting from the inclusion of those patents to pay some sort of licensing fees."
Reasonable sounding argument I would say. But there lies the problem. As noted in one of the comments, if Android violates Microsoft's patents, then so does Apple's iOS, RIM's Blackberry OS and Nokia's Symbian OS. Why Microsoft is going after the only free and open source OS of the lot and not the proprietary ones? Whatever might be the answer, it seems like Microsoft is not going to stop without suing every single hardware vendor selling Android OS.
just goes to show:
"Windows is a 32 bit extension of a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition."
ok, blog is archived, this might ease up a bit of the problems some of you mightve been having.. the problem is still not solved.. i have some ideas about it, but we shall see.. let me know if it helps
yesterday was mothers day in the country of my mothers residence.. so i called her today (cuz why call on the day of, right?) and i got the following facts of my birth (among a few other stories too):
birth weight: 4.6kg (thats 10.1 lbs of pure muscle, and im still rocking the pythons)
birth um.. length? (i dont think its called height): 56cm (thats half a meter of pure muscle... 1.8 foot long baby monster)
its funny, all grown up now, i could probably fit one baby me into each bicep.. no wonder joelie is so jealous of my huge arms.. poor guy (whoa, i find myself talking more and more like my nemesis.. *shakes a fist menacingly* i shall not be swayed to your ways, nemesis!! you heeeaaar meee????)
just wish he wouldve explored the "new covenant theology" position too, see if he would consider himself to fall under that.. i myself tend to lean more towards a new covenant theology understanding.. though not on everything.
in case you didnt know, let me bring you almost up to date:
There have been rumors swirling around for years about top-level leadership at Sovereign Grace. From how the Tomczak’s were treated, to the accusations made by the numerous people who currently maintain anti-Sovereign Grace websites, to the purported railroading of Brent Detwiler. And most of those accusations have in common that people were treated in a high-handed, authoritarian way which resulted in covering up sin and in face-saving for the men at the top. Based on C.J.’s announcement and the follow up from Dave Harvey – who is also accused of treating others similarly – at least some of those accusations seem to be acknowledged as true.
[...]
that post was based on this official announcement from CJ found on the sovereign grace ministries website:
With a few potential exceptions, I will be taking a break from updating this blog for a while, and I want to share with you the reasons why and entreat you for your prayers while I am on leave.
Over the last few years some former pastors and leaders in Sovereign Grace have made charges against me and informed me about offenses they have with me as well as other leaders in Sovereign Grace. These charges are serious and they have been very grieving to read. These charges are not related to any immorality or financial impropriety, but this doesn’t minimize their serious nature, which include various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment, and hypocrisy.
I believe God is kindly disciplining me through this. I believe I have by the grace of God perceived a degree of my sin, and I have been grieved by my sin and its effects on others. I have had the opportunity to confess my sin to some of those affected in various ways by my sin. And I am so very grateful for their forgiveness. But I want to perceive and confess any and all sin I have committed. Although my experience of conviction has already started—and this is an evidence of God’s mercy—I’m sure there is more for me to perceive and acknowledge. Even with the charges I disagree with it has been beneficial to examine my soul and ask for the observation of others. And I am resolved to take responsibility for my sin and every way my leadership has been deficient, and this would include making any appropriate confessions, public or private. Most importantly I want to please God during this season of examination and evaluation.
So here is what I am going to do. I’ve asked to take a leave of absence in order to give time to considering these charges, examine my heart, and receive the appropriate help from others. With the guidance of the SGM board, I would also hope to pursue reconciliation with former pastors of Sovereign Grace during this leave. I have stepped off the board and I will not be the President of Sovereign Grace Ministries during this period of examination and evaluation. In order for me to receive an objective evaluation in relation to these charges the board is securing the help of a third-party ministry that has no history of relationship with SGM. With counsel from that ministry, the board will determine the appropriate steps I should take going forward. After processing these findings, the board will determine the appropriate steps I should take going forward. This leave of absence will also help remove any impediment to the panel’s exploration that could potentially arise if I remained in my current position, and it will enable me to fully cooperate in the process.
Just so you’ll know, I have also contacted David Powlison and Mark Dever and asked them to review the charges and provide me with their counsel and correction. I have enlisted them to serve me personally during this time and to ensure this process of examining my heart and life is as thorough as possible. And for the past year I have been the recipient of Ken Sande’s correction, counsel and care. That, I am grateful to say, will continue. And as you would expect I will continue to meet with the appropriate men on the board of Sovereign Grace and benefit from their correction, counsel, and care as well. I am deeply moved as I reflect on how rich I am relationally and I am humbled by the time these men are willing to spend serving me and Sovereign Grace.
My friends, I would greatly appreciate your prayers as I continue to walk through this process. Please pray that God would give me the gift of sight where I have been blinded by my sin and others have been adversely affected by my sin. Pray that I will be convicted and experience godly sorrow resulting in reconciliation where necessary and adjustments to my heart and leadership. Thank you for praying in this way for me.
One more thing. For the past 5 years or so I have become increasingly aware of certain deficiencies in my leadership that have contributed to deficiencies in Sovereign Grace Ministries’ structure and governance, the lack of a clear and consistent process of conflict resolution and pastoral evaluation, and the number of former Sovereign Grace pastors who are offended with me/SGM. I have met with some and by God’s grace there has been reconciliation with men like Larry Tomczak (I wish I had recognized and repented of my sin against him years ago). This brings great joy to my soul. In other cases, appeals for mediation have thus far been declined, but I’m hopeful this process will facilitate further reconciliation. But beyond this, there are still issues that need to be addressed and fixed in our family of churches. And I bear a primary responsibility because it has happened on my watch and under my leadership. I have resolved that I and the Sovereign Grace team can’t effectively lead us into the future without evaluating the past, addressing these deficiencies, improving our structure, and as much as possible pursuing reconciliation with former pastors. So during this leave of absence I will not only devote all the appropriate and necessary time to the independent panel and the charges but also to doing what I can to identify where I have failed to lead us effectively in relation to pastoral evaluation and conflict resolution.
My friends, though my soul can be easily overwhelmed as I contemplate my sin and its effects on others, I am also resolved to examine my heart, address the past, and play my role in preparing SGM for a future of planting and serving churches. And given the mercy of God portrayed in the gospel my heart is filled with hope that his good purpose for us will come to pass and cannot be frustrated. I trust there will be much grace to tell you of at the end of this process.
and heres the good news, note the dates by the way. both when things ocurred and when things were written (that includes the above quote).
I would like to take a few moments to share with you a testimony of God’s grace in my life, in my family, and in a very dear relationship. About 38 years ago CJ Mahaney and I were brought together in a complementary friendship and teaching ministry in the nation's capital. We started with a handful of people in the home of Mrs. Lydia Little, who called us together and was the initial catalyst for our ministry. We began to study the Word of God, then we began to teach the Word of God in a more public fashion. Our group grew within a four-year period to almost 2,000. It was primarily young people meeting every Tuesday for a ministry meeting called "T.A.G.," or Take and Give. We taught the Scriptures, worshipped the Lord, and saw multitudes of people converted. Even to this day, wherever we travel in this nation and abroad, both CJ and I hear testimonies of people who thank us for our teaching. We've been amazed at how God used that ministry, which was both a personal journey toward God and a revival that touched many lives.
As our ministry grew, we complemented each other—we were very different. In 1977 we realized it was God's will to conclude the teaching and evangelistic gatherings and begin to plant a New Testament church. We tried to do it in a way that was non-divisive and began in my home. Over the course of a year or two, a church was started that is now Covenant Life Church. Thirty-some years later it is a prosperous local church in the Gaithersburg MD area, with about 3,000+ members.
As the church grew, we also caught a vision for church-planting and multiplication according to the pattern in the Book of Acts. Over the course of two decades we were privileged to be involved in planting or "adopting" about 25 churches. This fellowship of churches eventually became known as “Sovereign Grace Ministries.” We were also involved with a nationally published magazine, People of Destiny, which 20-25,000 people received.
But somewhere in the 1990's God put a test before us. I’m sorry to say that we didn't come through with flying colors. We wanted the ministry's core values and beliefs to be more specifically identified. That brought about some friction, because I found myself going on a different doctrinal path than some of the other leaders who were dear friends. As time went by I felt I was experiencing abuses of spiritual authority and methodologies that were harmful and inconsistent with Scripture. Other leaders in SGM shared similar experiences with me. Because of this, as well as some pruning the Lord was doing in my personal life in terms of character, and some family issues with one of our children, CJ and I reached a place where there was not just tension, but an impasse. Eventually there was a sense in my own heart to end my time with the ministry. I felt there were issues of doctrine and direction in the ministry with which I could no longer align. As I attempted to exit, it caused tension and things did not go well for us.
For the past 13 years, CJ and I have been in a state of estrangement. I made several attempts to address these differences and to deal with offenses and perceived injustices. Both of us sought to apply principles of biblical peacemaking, but we made little progress. We struggled unsuccessfully to overcome separation, alienation, and division. We certainly did not give a positive witness for the Lord. The ripples of our separation went through the Body of Christ in many ways, affecting extended family members, churches, and individual church members.
In September 2010, I sent a letter to CJ requesting that we come together again to try to reconcile with each other. CJ gladly agreed and flew to Nashville where we met and talked for over four hours. Early in the meeting, we considered two specific questions:
First, what is God calling us to do that would bring Him the maximum glory, bring healing to the maximum number of people, and stop the ongoing divisive activity of Satan in the maximum number of individuals and churches?
Second, are we willing to do whatever He reveals no matter what the cost?
We both gave a thumbs up and a hearty Amen and said, “Let's dig in.” We put into practice the wisdom of Proverbs 14:9, “Fools mock at making amends for sin, but goodwill is found among the upright.” By God’s grace, we worked hard at repairing our relationship. CJ confessed and repented of sins that had caused separation between us. Where I had also sinned and failed, I did likewise. I was deeply moved by CJ’s humility and transparency, and would give him an “A+” on his role in the conversation.
Realizing that my wife Doris had also been affected by our estrangement, CJ offered to meet with her as well. A few weeks later, he returned and she joined us for another four hour conversation. As a result of prayer and fasting and the grace of God, we saw the Holy Spirit doing a work in our midst that I would have to say was miraculous. I believe that all of us pleased the Lord by not being defensive, by listening to one another, by attempting to understand the past and lay it out on the table, with nothing ignored or neglected.
But God was not done with us yet. Doris's father is 89 and her mother is 87, and CJ knew that they too had been impacted by our struggles. To our great joy and appreciation, he humbled himself and called them on Christmas Eve. In their words, “in a pile of tears” he sought forgiveness and expressed repentance. It was an incredible experience as God brought healing in a situation that my wife had said two months before was irreparable. Ripples went out to our entire extended family. One family member who was involved in the situation subsequently flew to meet with us in Nashville. We were able to discuss things and he repented and asked our forgiveness. We also acknowledged some failures at this time.
CJ also had a private meeting with one of our children and was a model of humility in listening and dealing with issues he wanted to discuss. A breakthrough came when he humbly asked forgiveness for an offense that had deeply hurt my child, Doris, and me. This evidence of God’s reconciling grace was crucial to our eventual reconciliation.
During this six month period, several SGM leadership couples called us or visited us in Nashville, at great financial cost, to likewise repent and seek forgiveness for sins against us and our family. Some called our children to do likewise. Many tears and lots of pain came to the surface, but this brought great glory to God and was essential to the healing process for our family. It also gave us the opportunity to confess and ask forgiveness for our contributions to our estrangement. The efforts by SGM leadership couples to seek reconciliation ushered in the healing for things that had affected all of us for thirteen years and had negatively impacted many of our children.
At this point we are all standing in amazement that after 13 years the Holy Spirit moved into our lives as we humbled ourselves for what we would call a transformational experience. Where sin had once separated us, the grace of Christ now brought us all together in a spirit of love and forgiveness. We were all impacted—not only us, but also our children and extended family members. We believe this is going to reverberate throughout Covenant Life Church, the ministry of Sovereign Grace Ministries, and also individuals who have been aware of this ministry here and abroad. Doris's dad and mom said, “We're ready now to be with the Lord, for we have seen the intervention of God.”
I praise God that CJ and I are now able to communicate the wonderful news of our reconciliation to those who would be encouraged by it. We have agreed that we don't need to go into specifics, but we can tell anybody and everybody that we came together, every major issue was put on the table, we endeavored to humbly repent, ask forgiveness, and honor God by forgiving. We want to move forward now and see healing, not only in our lives and families but in the churches and ministries that in any way, shape or form were impacted by what took place.
Praise be to God, who has graciously overcome and delivered us from our sin and given us the grace to experience the forgiveness and reconciliation that Christ won for us at the Cross!
just notice the attitude CJ had when approached about his sin (at least recently) his attitude was to take it seriously, and step aside and dwell on it, and deal with it.
and step down.
no matter whether he was innocent or guilty, his stated reasoning was "the accusations are serious enough for me to take them seriously".. notice he didnt say "my sin is serious enough". this is important because, to him, his own ability to discern whether the accusations were true or not was not something upon which he relied. he took the accusation seriously.. not just merely whether it was true. a lesser man (i guess id have to bring myself as an example) would likely have said "yeah, but its not true!!" or somehow tried to defend myself from the accusations. i realize i say this with consciousness of the fact that i stepped down myself, but not because of some accusation that was made against me. not to go into detail on this matter right now, (though i will eventually have to in depth.. im just thinking about what the best course of action at this point for me is) but to at least clarify that i didnt step down because im so humble or that theres any relation between my case and CJ's. im pretty sure if someone accused me of something like that, i would recognize it partly, but still defend myself of it to a great extent. i dont want to get CJ off the hook here, and say that he didnt do as i presume i wouldve done. but lets call it like it is, lets look at what he actually did here.. and the result.
please note larry's letter.. that is the letter of someone who has honestly reconciled with the one who hurt him. please, lets focus on that too. whatever CJ did, larry and him have now reconciled (im of course taking the letter to be true, i have no reason to doubt this is the case). in the case of what went down between the two of them, CJ did the right thing. he heard the call to repentance laid against him, he saw the gravity of his sin and he sought to repent. may this be the case for all of us, regardless of the sin. for the Glory of our Holy God.
"But a lawyer who specializes in employment law warns that employers who fire an employee rather than installing the device on a company vehicle could face a human rights tribunal hearing.
“Alcoholism is a disability and employers have a duty to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability,” explained Martin Sheard.
An alcoholic employee will likely win a discrimination complaint if they were fired after receiving a 90-day driving prohibition and the employer chose to terminate the employee rather than install the ignition interlock device."
wow.. another case of protecting the criminal instead of the victim.. although being an alcoholic is not the same as being a criminal.. and even though we will all most likely have the same initial reaction, thinking about all those people who have died or been hurt as the result of a stupid drunk driver.. lets think about the alcoholic person for a second (im not talking about drunk drivers, im talking only about alcoholics). lets assume for the sake of argument that this ignition lock thing works. and that it prevents the drunk driving situation. that solves that part. lets also ignore the complete lack of professionalism of drinking on the job (theyre drivers, driving is their job). so, now lets argue that these "professionals" (ah, professionals, dont get me started on that) have a valid point in saying that alcoholism is a disability, and that getting fired over it is in fact discrimination.
so assuming all these things merely for the sake of argumentation i can see the point of wanting to keep them on the job, since firing an alcoholic will in no way help their situation. lets be honest, and value all human life equally, an alcoholic that loses his job will not stop him from being an alcoholic, it will only merely make him a more desperate, depressed alcoholic (with all that that entails). of course, it could be argued that this desperation might lead him to go seek help, like from alcoholics anonymous, for example, and get the help they need. but again, merely for argument's sake... hmm.. i dont know, the more i say "for argument's sake" the more i convince myself out of trying this mental exercise..
i think the main point here is that last sentence:
An alcoholic employee will likely win a discrimination complaint if they were fired after receiving a 90-day driving prohibition and the employer chose to terminate the employee rather than install the ignition interlock device."
honestly, society is just getting more and more illogical. but like i keep saying a lot more these days, the Bible does indeed speak of this: good being called evil, and evil being called good.
how is it possible that you can sue the victims when you do something evil? what in the WORLD have we come to?? its like that story i recently heard of a guy getting sued (or was it actually being sent to jail on assault charges?) for defending himself and his family from a home invader!! seriously, what more can be said about all this?
thanks to fisher for the link, read the full original news article here
oof, 86 personal bday replies on facebook (or as i like to call it now "facey b").. cuz thats just how i roll.. and it only took me.. WHOA! 2 hours?? ugh.. headache..
and hilariously.. hahah.. i just realized that i dont have a tag for "book" does that really say as much about me as i think? lets wait and see how long it will take me to get that tag up (for a valid reason, of course)
what would you think of someone who went on TV and wrote books, and spent tons of money promoting the idea that there was no such thing as a government, and that anyone believing that has a mental illness??
and, as joelie likes to mention that i like to say "you can quote me on that"
by the way, i hope you noticed that registering for the forums makes you also be able to save your progress on the site for your bible in a year reading schedule.. go check it out.. other advanced features will be completely dependant on whether you have an account in the forums or not.. so get cracking crackas!! (also, let me know of anything thats not working or could be improved or simply tat you would like to see implemented)
ok, its possible most of my stability issues have been due to the kernel i was using (for some reason) this is the working theory, so we shall see (currently using a different kernel)
An atheist organization that sought to celebrate Independence Day by flying banners promoting atheism all across the United States nearly ran into a major snag – most of the pilots working for the advertizing company refused to fly the banners.
USA Today reports that 4 out of 5 pilots working for Fly Signs Aerial Advertising refused to participate in the campaign, which involved banners saying, “God-less America,” and “Atheism is patriotic.”
Only 17 of the company’s 85 pilots agreed to participate.
USA Today quotes one of the pilots, Red Calvert, saying, “I respect our country and I respect our churches and we’ve got enough problems in our country without stirring up some more. If those people want to do something they believe in, fine, just don’t include me.”
The $23,000 campaign is a project of the group American Atheists.
Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, said the pilots’ refusal stems from Americans’ “bigotry.” “This is a clear reminder of why we need to keep fighting because the bigotry against us is so thick that a lot of the pilots are afraid to fly our banners,” he said, according to CNN.
Another atheist organization, the American Humanist Association, is also making use of the July 4 weekend to promote their non-belief.
The organization sent out 15,000 pins in June to promote their slogan, “You can be good without God,” according to USA Today.
“We value the principles that our nation was founded on, which includes freedom of—and from – religion,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director.
“The 4th of July presents ample opportunity for all non-theist Americans to ‘come out of the closet’ and openly identify as such.”
i like this part especially:
Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, said the pilots’ refusal stems from Americans’ “bigotry.” “This is a clear reminder of why we need to keep fighting because the bigotry against us is so thick that a lot of the pilots are afraid to fly our banners,” he said, according to CNN.
ahh the irony, these are like those people who throw stones at their enemies, and then cry like babies when their enemies fight back. so now the men who wish to honor their God, and not even, those who just simply wish to not upset those who honor their God, these are the bigots?? yeah, thats rich.. the atheist agenda is super stupid too, dont they have better things to promote than the "anti" of someone else's beliefs? dont they have some beliefs of their own to focus on? what would you think of someone who walked around saying "there is no government! only stupid people believe in such silly fairy tales!" youd think theyre ridiculous.. ok, so youre an idiot, you dont believe theres a government, but really?? do you really need to spend so many resources on promoting your anti-view??
the worst is that if you happen to make the observation that their beliefs are a religion, they vehemently deny it! haha.. "nonono, we are not a religion! 'not' believing in something cannot be a religion!" ok, then if it isnt, why go to such lengths to.. uh.. "evangelize"?? why put such religious effort to change people's minds to agree with your position on a religious matter?? ah, hah, well there you go.
good on them i say, again, those pilots stood up for what's right. He gave His Son for you, least you can do is refuse to fly a banner that says He doesnt exist.
test your hearing, 8 khz, 12 khz, 15 khz, 17.4 khz.. on my lovely wife's computer we couldnt hear the last one.. but for whatever reason, on my ratty old computer and my netbook we could hear it.. who knows.. credit link to my lovely wife..
excerpt of a message by steve lawson (one of my top 5 preachers fo sho.. along with paul washer, john piper, and tim conway..) on wretched about the "little gods" heresy, and a few of the religions that preach it and believe it.. steve lawson is awesome. notice he doesnt make fun of them, he doesnt take a jab at them, but states it like it biblically IS. this is how we should be, state the truth, with the consciousness that if God had not saved us by grace in His mercy that we did not deserve, we would not be saved either. no place for pride in those who believed they were mercifully saved by the Grace of God.. may we never forget this, and may we treat the lost with the same amount of love and compassion that God had for us. the same amount of love He had for us while we were still sinners, His hated enemies.
alright kids, as an early birthday present, and to almost celebrate the 10 year anniversary of the blog (and "coincidentally" my conversion) here it is, in prerelease, to you, my faithful blog readers:
thats right, this is the game-changer, this is whats going to change everything.. i will be integrating almost everything to the forums, such that you should be able to comment on any part of the site within that page, and it will be accessible from the forums too.. (also, yes, i am aware that the correct plural of forum is "fora".. but seriously? you gonna be a stickler on that? i dont even use capitals or proper punctuation, you think im going to name the forums "fora"?? c'mon.. get serious.. lets get serious. lets. let us.. ok, i need to stop typing now..
in other news, we had an amazing, simply amazing fellowship yesterday.. went to mcdonalds *chokes back gag reflex* so i didnt eat, but i did have their endless $1 drink, which is a pretty good mooooove.. my nemesis was there, and her little satellite/yes woman, (who btw, im almost completely done stealing away from my nemesis) and a bunch of the other new churchies (including joelie and luxembourg) it was pretty great.. i honestly havent had such peace in fellowship in so long.. glory to God. (whoa, i didnt yet have a tag for "happiness")
ok, get to posting on the forums.. lets iron out all the bugs before i put it on the left (navigation) menu, making it official.. there are more surprizes to come (and dont get me started on how to spell "surprize") and suggestions are welcome..
"be yourself" is the stupidest most dangerous motto to live by.. if you believe this garbage, i dare you to go preach it in the jails.. oh? why not? you believe it dont you? go! tell them to just "be themselves"!! im sure theyd agree with you!
and you can quote me on that one.. (cuz i know joelie likes when i say that..)
so i just came back from watching A.I. ...interesting... let's call it Pinoccio retold... it was a cool movie, but i found the ending quite weird.... but aside from that, it was a very well made movie...
on other news... i went out walking with my dad today and i was telling him that i saw on the news the exploration of a few scenarios of if Osama Bin Laden was captured... i was telling him how if the US were to catch him, that they would have him stand trial and they'd give him the (now legal) death penalty... to which he responded "NO, they wont do that, they should put him in like a zoo, and ask 10 bucks for admission..." i just laughed my head off!!! "... they would make 10 million the first month" he went on... i was just laughing and thinking... man that is just soo hillarious and it is actually something that would make sense... think about it... wouldn't YOU want to go see Bin Laden inside a glass cage? its like Big Brother... hahahah... i proposed they also make a 24hour TV show... and charge insane amounts for advertizing space...
i think we all now realize why this wouldnt have made sense.. knowing that he is still alive, his "followers" would have gone nutters and committed more atrocities to get him released.. (not that anyone has seen his body, right..)
The Navy SEALs were among 30 Americans, seven Afghans and an interpreter killed in the deadliest incident for U.S. forces in the Afghanistan war when their helicopter is shot down.
Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan, and Washington—
Their name conjures up the most celebrated moment of America's post-Sept. 11 military campaigns. Now the Navy SEALs belong to a grimmer chapter in history: the most deadly incident for U.S. forces in the 10-year Afghanistan war.
Three months after they killed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in neighboring Pakistan and cemented their place in military legend, the SEALs suffered a devastating loss when nearly two dozen of the elite troops were among 30 Americans who died when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan early Saturday.
It was the largest number of American troops killed in a single day in the war. U.S. officials said the helicopter appeared to have been felled by enemy fire, and the Taliban quickly claimed responsibility. Seven Afghan commandos and a civilian interpreter also were killed, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said.
No member of the Bin Laden raid team was among the dead, said a Pentagon official briefed on the casualties who was not authorized to speak publicly while families still were being notified. But he said 22 of the 30 were Navy SEALs, and a significant number were members of SEAL Team 6, the unit that conducted the Bin Laden raid and is made up of just a few hundred of some of the best-trained fighters in the U.S. military.
[...]
In the early hours Saturday, the SEALs joined other U.S. Special Operations forces on a raid in Wardak province, west of Kabul, the capital. Such is the clockwork regularity of these nighttime raids that they have become almost routine.
But this one went horribly awry.
A Western military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the twin-rotor CH-47 helicopter had apparently been brought down by a rocket-propelled grenade moments after takeoff from the raid, when it was most vulnerable to attack.
[...]
SEAL Team 6 is divided into numerous detachments that rotate into Afghanistan. The SEALs who killed Bin Laden were handpicked and considered the top members of the unit.
They rehearsed the Bin Laden raid for weeks, but many military officials said that operation was not much different from the lesser-known raids that happen every day.
[...]
In Saturday's attack, the helicopter went down shortly after midnight in the Sayedabad district, according to Shahidullah Shahid, a spokesman for the provincial governor. He and other provincial officials said the crash followed a firefight that had left eight insurgents dead.
Large and slow-moving, the Chinook is vulnerable as it flies through mountains and valleys that allow insurgents clear lines of fire. Even so, helicopter shoot-downs have been rare in the Afghan conflict.
But they have been deadly for U.S. troops. Before Saturday, the highest single-day loss for the U.S. military in Afghanistan came on June 28, 2005, when a Chinook carrying 16 Navy SEALs and Army special operations troops was shot down in Kunar province as it tried to rescue four SEALs in a firefight. All 16 were killed in the crash, and three SEALs died on the ground.
In a statement Saturday, the Taliban claimed its fighters had ambushed Western troops after being tipped off to an imminent night raid in the district. If true, that would amount to a devastating breach of U.S. operational security.
The Taliban statement, from spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid, was unusually specific in some of its details, including the number of troops killed — even before Afghan officials released the number. The statement also confirmed the "martyrdom" of eight of its members in what was described as fierce combat before the helicopter was shot down.
some of you were thinking about it, (i know cuz at least bahb told me i should do it, thus ruining the surprize for himself.. ) and so, here it is: the read the bible in a year reading schedule now has the option to remember your progress!! thats right, you can click on the little checkboxes and it will save your progress! plus, it has a super handy progress bar that tells you how far along (as a percentage) you are in your reading. it might also give away another one of the surprizes.. but thats ok.. all in due time.. all in due time.. ENJOY!!
its incredible what a drastic difference a loving pastor can make.. it just blew me away once again.. praise God! if you do not have a loving caring Biblical pastor, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! it does not honor God that you be unevenly yoked with a God-dishonoring "pastor"
haha forgot to mention that saturday we went downtown where i found a place where you can buy cocaine.. and as we left the shop, a bird pooped on my head.. i m pretty sure its the first time that happens.. on all counts..
and two notes on dreams.. first one is i dreamt who knows what the other day, but there was some word in my dream that appeared so clear, even spellt out and all (correct spelling is for sissies by the way) that i woke up at some point and had to write it down in the dark.. because i had no idea what this word was or meant, and i was curious to see if i could find it online.. (since ive done this before with names for example.. it was interesting what i found too!) and of course, i obviously forgot all about it until today, when i saw some scribbles on my nightstand notebook.. so i went to look it up, wouldnt ya know it, the word exists! it was actually a typical costa rican plate (that by the way looks delicious).. what was the word you say? "chifrijo".. i dont think ive ever heard this word before in my life, but, its funny it would appear in my dream like that.. haha (laugh with me)
second dream occurrence, and this one i have to give lux the credit for, since i had no idea.. so it seems that a dream i had the other day referring to natalien's car.. sort of came true.. in my dream i damaged natalien's car, and it ended our friendship.. well, last week natalien's car died on the highway.. for good. and one thing i just realied realized that i did not mention in the post was that her car seemed to be on the highway.. isnt this crazy? i didnt notice this, but lux was telling me she saw that post after natalien's car died.. creeepy!
August 5, 1855 by
C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892)
Transcription and Updated Text copyright 2000 by Tony Capoccia
“When I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!”
1 Corinthians 9:16
[...]
Sadly! sadly! many make an iron ring of their doctrines, and he who dares to step beyond that narrow circle, is not considered orthodox. God bless heretics, then! God send us more of them!
[...]
do yourself the awesome favor and read the whole thing.. i will too.. later.. (trying to close some tabs here, but im not advancing much.. heh)
It is very pretty, is it not, to read of Luther and his brave deeds? Of course, everybody admires Luther! Yes, yes. But you do not want anyone else to do the same today.
When you go to the Zoological Gardens you all admire the bear. But how would you like a bear at home, or a bear wandering loose about the street? You tell me that it would be unbearable and no doubt you are right.
So, we admire a man who was firm in the faith, say four hundred years ago. The past ages are a sort of bear-pit or iron cage for him. But such a man today is a nuisance and must be put down. Call him a narrow-minded bigot, or give him a worse name if you can think of one.
Yet imagine that in those ages past, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and their compeers had said, “The world is out of order. But if we try to set it right we shall only make a great row and get ourselves into disgrace. Let us go to our chambers, put on our night-caps and sleep over the bad times and perhaps when we wake up things will have grown better.” Such conduct on their part would have entailed upon us a heritage of error.
Age after age would have gone down into the infernal deeps and the infectious bogs of error would have swallowed all. These men loved the faith and the name of Jesus too well to see them trampled on. Note what we owe them and let us pay to our sons the debt we owe our fathers. It is today as it was in the Reformers’ days. Decision is needed. Here is the day for the man—where is the man for the day? We who have had the Gospel passed to us by martyr’s hands dare not trifle with it—nor sit by and hear it denied by traitors who pretend to love it but inwardly abhor every line of it.
-Charles Spurgeon
quote taken from this post on how to listen like a man from macarthur's "gty" (grace to you) site, though the post itself was written by someone else
get your own ads on insaner.com for just $1