Save the Frogs!

This article cracks me up. Or at least the quote from the PETA person does.

"We were shocked to discover that the dissection kit contains the carcass of a real frog," said spokesman Michael McGraw.

Well really, what'd they expect in a frog dissection kit. You know, PETA really gets under my skin. On one hand they try to make themselves look like their just being kind and say things like "Be kind, adopt a pet!" Which is all well and good. And then you had the spokeman who said "Sure, 5 million jews were killed in the holcaust, but over 100 million chickens die every year!" I mean, what sort of people are these?

I think we've had to much of Disney-esque personification of animals...people are actually beginning to give them equal footing with humans. I mean, I'm all for being nice and responsible, taking care of pets, etc. But let's draw a line somewhere, okay?

I'm just rambling though, so I'll be quiet.

My take

Living in a foreign country often gives someone some opportunities to dispel myths that people have about my country. In this paticular case I'm talking about the recent election. Or at least, if I'm not dispelling a myth, I'm taking a different approach than what's normally understood.

My take on it all is this: It's not really surprsing at all. From what I can tell, this is being treated as some grand revolution that's shocked the world, much like the republican win during Clinton's last mid-term election. Well, I hate to contradict people, but to me, this seems the same, business as usual cycle. I mean, has the president's party EVER kept control during the mid-term of his second term? I don't think so. So why is everyone acting like this is a major thing?

Okay, you have some what of an argument for it saying 'the president has lost the people's confidence' but even that's not much to me. I mean, people are so wishy washy on everything (even me) that it means beans about 'peoples confidence' as a real indicator of anything.

After all, in the early 90s people swore that 7-up was the greatest "uncola" and after a year long advertising blitz, sprite dominates.

But hey, that's just my opinion

New Kid in Town

I've been vaguely following the story about a game called Bully. This game is produced by Rockstar Games, the infamous creators of the Grand Theft Auto series. Simply the title and the producers seems to be enough to set off the ire of people, as the revered Jack Thompson, personal litigator for the families to bent on actually raising their kids to take the time to raise and outcry, has began prosecuting Rockstar to have it banned based on a Florida law.

Now the issue to me seems that none of the people objecting seem to know much about the game. They hear 1)Rockstar and 2)game called Bully and start screaming like a bunch of rabid howler monkeys fighting over the last banana. Add that there's actually fisticuffs and you got a near riot on your hands. Now, I haven't played it, and I really won't have a chance, not having any gaming systems it's not that surprsing that I don't play ANY video games anymore. But I have read some stuff about the game, and it seems to me that Bully is an ironic title, as the premise seems to be closer to the movie My Bodyguard. The big thug kid who, though not an angel, isn't a bully so much as he faces down the real bullies who are picking on the geeks and the girls.

I don't know, maybe I'm mistaken, but this doesn't seem to be a game like GTA: San Andreas, of which I can understand the objections, or even Doom, rather it's a rather mild, action, beat 'em up style game with a unique twist of actually accomplishing worthwhile. Who knows though, I could be wrong.

This is the body of Christ?

This story has me pretty irritated. This group, it seems, just likes making Christianity look awful. Really really awful. You know, I thought the point of Chirstianity was spreading the love of Christ to all the world. Apparently this group thinks it's better suited to offend people and ruin a healing process.

Don't get me wrong, their entitled to their views of why people are dying. They may even have something. But ruining a families moment is probably the worst way to make that point. Instead of winning people to their point of view, their alienating everyone who hears about them as they are being offensive. It's just awful. It's got me so irritated I can't even say anything more about it. Ugh

A small task

I lead a session in a middle school youth retreat a week ago. It was really good, we talked about the top 10 lies and cop-outs in dating and relationships. I think it went well, I think the youth listened, learned, all that stuff. It was fun.

What's a little more scary is in a couple of weeks I'm leading again at the high school retreat. But this time I'm doing two sessions, and the first is on what it means to be a man. Geeze, I'm supposed to cover in a 45 to 60 minute session something grown men in their 80s never figure out sometimes. I'm supposed to cover in an hour a subject that has huge numbers of books devoted to it.

And of course, any session on men, has to have a bit on women. After all, the whole session is true love waits. And to understand any of it you have to understand first what it means to be a man, then what it means to be a woman, then everything that goes on between them. That's the basic approach the whole session takes, but it's kind of dautning to think I'm going to have to tell these guys where they need to grow, what it really means to be a man.

So I've been praying. Praying and reading. It's no secret that I really think a lot of the book Wild at Heart by John Eldredge. I recently reread that and am near the end of the women's book Captivating by John and Stasi Eldredge. This has been a good source for organizing my thoughts, but the problem still is that it's so much to fit in. How am I supposed to exlain in an hour the three things a man craves, that we have a question about success, and that we are all wounded, that we must over come this woundedness, that we must offer our strength, real strength, to our women. How am I supposed to explain the wondrous mystery of woman hood? It's all a bit much, but I hope ti will work out well, with the Father's help.

It's all about the attitude

I've been thinking a lot about attitude and reaction. One of mybiggest conclusions has been that I am responsible for them. I know most of you are saying "Well duh," but hear me out. How many of you are like me and have felt offended? Or bored? Or disinterested? Those are what I'm talking about.

It all comes down to choice. I choose to be offended. I choosed to be disinterested. Granted, somethings are easier to take offense at, but in the end it's my choice. This means that being offended can even be a sin. Man have I failed if that's true. This means being aloof is a sin, again, guilty. Geez, this is a nasty train of thought, really. But it's only logical. If I am responsible for me, despite all the influences and temptations, then I am responsible for my emotions. God has called me to love, therefore anything other than that such as anger, offense, resentment, disgust, are lack of love. Not obeying God, i.e. loving those around me, is sin, so those poor attitudes are sin. Makes my whole teenage years look like a cesspool, doesn't it? And it's not like I'm doing super well at the moment either.

What it all boils down to is I'm responsible more and more for myself. The deeper my spiritual walk gets, the more I realize how awful I am. Funny isn't it? The closer to God I get, the more astute my sense of just how screwed up I am gets?

We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.

It seems I'm married. It is simultaneously a simple change and an enormous addition. It barely seems my life has changed, and yet it's so profound. My mind says simply "Of course I'm married, what else would I have done?" and yet there's so much more. No one told me it was so pleasant to wake up with her there beside me. My mind is simultaneously serene and chaotic. It's a sort of blissful dream I'm in, and I hope to never awake.

However, a trip back to Russia awaits us at the end of the week, and shortly thereafter "real life" renews. I'm excited, but also a bit disappointed. The honeymoon was/is great (technically I say we're still not in Russia, so we're on our honeymoon), and it's kind of disappointing to leave it behind. Yet God has called us on. We've rejoiced in the newness of one another, and we'll continue to rejoice in it. But there is work to be done. He has called us to do His work, and we're not about to get in His way. In fact it is the honor of serving him that inspires us, that is the central part that has made our relationship work so far. It is God and his provision that has taken us to the seemingly impossible point of being Husband and Wife. So how can we not serve the One who has brought us so far?

Up up and away!

I saw superman the other day. It was pretty good, but at the same time disappointing. I guess I remember the originals to much, and think to much of the original ideals of superman. Truth, Justice, The American Way. A person of the highest moral standards. Well not this superman! Warning: SPOILER AHEAD. Don't get me wrong, he still always tells the truth. He puts his life on the line for everyone. Yet...he has a kid. That's right, apparently Lois Lane had the son of Kalel. Oh, she plays it off as the son of her fiance (who she lives with) but by the end everyone (except maybe the fiance and the boy himself) knows it's Superman's. Okay, it DOES follow Chirstopher Reeves' Superman timeline, it is a continuation. So theoretically they WERE married in Superman II, but then again, that would be one tremendous gestation period. Or, more likely, the engaged in extra-marital relations. Sad, just sad. There's also the lack of "The American Way" in the movie. There's no tribute to America. No US flag anywhere, which there WERE in the first four at least once in the movie, if I recall correctly. I just wish Hollywood could get it RIGHT. Superman is a hero for the world, but USA is his home. There's nothing bad about that, it just is true. Then there was the rating, PG-13. How many 6 year olds missed the show their parents really wanted the to see because they weren't allowed to see such a strong rating?

Now, really, I did enjoy the film. And it had some great Christ analogies, but it was lacking in areas that were really sad to miss out on as they are the core, to, of who superman is.

Superproblems

Parallels between the US and Russia are amusing to me. Not the social ones, those are just interesting. No it's the politics.

Both nations seem to find themselves suddenly at a loss in the international political realm. U.S. has lost a lot of its support not from 'Criminal Wars' like Iraq (as some would suggest) or 'being a bully' but because Communism fell. Communism is nothing more than a couple of dictatorships. That's what they really are now, China isn't communist, it's a dictatorship with semi-control over it's economy. So, the U.S. finds that it can't just say jump and see whole continents flying up in the air.

Similarly, Russia finds itself in an awkward place. After the fall of communism, Russia had a pretty little economic decline (read recession/collapse/currency explosion). Now they managed to right themselves with the help of soaring oil prices. Now they feel tough, and are trying to reassert their muscles against the west. The problem is, the ones they use to hold under their protective wing are now telling them to kiss off and mind their own business. They had a decade or two without to much russian oversight, and they're doing just fine thank you. But Russia doesn't like that, so they're using their new found economic and energy power to be a bully. Which is, of course, endearing their neighbors and the rest of the world to Russia.

Now throw things like Iran, terrorist-Islam, the EU as an almost coherent socio-economic entity, Iraq, rising oil prices, and Michael Moore* into the mix and you have a mess. The line isn't as simple anymore. There's less us versus them to clearly show the path, the waters are now muddy...and most of it's mud you'll sink waist deep into if you take a wrong step. Isn't life fun?

*I added the Michael Moore comment just for fun, he's not really more than an annoyance, no where near being a real problem.

Net Neutrality

You might notice I altered the blog a little and there's now a pertty little picture on the right. It's about Net Neutrality. Essentially, Net Neutrality is saying that Internet Service Providers must treat all the internet the same. They can't favor Google over Microsoft, my blog over PvP. There is currently legistlation that will provide legal backing to shut down net neutrality, allowing ISPs to charge a premium to websites if they want full service. If sites don't pay this fee, ISPs can slow down bandwith, even possibly shutting it down. Now, there's always the 'vote with you dollars' method. I.e. you can drop all the ISPs that offer 'premium' service to websites. But for some areas (for instance my parents') don't necessarily have that choice. And there's only some many choices out there anyway. For more information, here's a pretty good article about it: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.internet09may09,0,4559120.story

Now, what I did and what I'm encouraging others to do is 1) Call your congressmen 2) Click on the picture and send the petition to them. If the picture won't link you can go to http://www.savetheinternet.com

How about I plunge head first into a hot topic for once?

An editorial on the Moscow Times (see sidebar link) got me thinking on the issue of homosexuality and its rise into the spotlight. It's a complex issue, discussed and debated by people much smarter and better educated about it than me. However, I have the habit of sounding off on things way over my head, so why not this?

The first thing is I believe homosexuality is a sin. No if, ands, or buts. It's a sin. However, it's not any worse (or better) than being an alcoholic, having a temper, being a liar, or any other of the numerous sins. Sin, when it comes to a heavenly basis, is sin no matter the label given it. Some have more earthly consequences. Gluttony is bad, murdering is worse, but both separate you from God.

The real stickler comes in with the attitude that is being coupled with homosexuality. This attitude is a sort of "This is the way I am, accept it!" attitude. Change it from homosexuality to alcoholism, drug addiction, gluttony, or whatever, and it's called a justification and referred to as 'not facing up to' the problem. To quote an over quoted Alcoholics Anonymous step: "The first step is admitting you have a problem." Okay, some people are more inclined to struggle with homosexuality, so with greed, other's with food, other's with alcohol. That doesn't mean that's "just how I am." I believe it's how you are vulnerable. The modern movement with homosexuality has become defiant, stating it isn't a problem. Hence the clash in society.

The way I see it, we're all people and we all sin. I sin in my areas of weakness, you sin in your area of weakness. The reality that gives me hope is God loves me and sent an eternal sacrifice for my sins to redeem me. That means, however, that I have to admit my sins and come to the Father in meekness and repetence. This is usually a repeating thing for me, as I identify all to well with what Paul says in Romans. That, I think, is what alienates the homosexual movements, as well as the sexual liberation people, and a lot of others. We love you and you can come to God, but you have to admit you have a problem. You do NOT have to solve it. Think of God as a doctor. To go to a doctor, first you have to admit "Okay, I'm sick" and then go. You don't go if you don't admit you're sick, and you don't go after you're well...in fact you go because you can't get well by yourself. That's the way sin is. We are sick, and I mean really sick, and there's no possible way you can get better with the Doctor.

Random stuff

Springs here, grass is growing...ah...it's nice. It also rains a lot, not so nice, but it is what's making the grass grow, so that's worth it I suppose.

We (my fiance and I) have been having pre-marital counseling. It's been a lot of fun. We meet with two other engaged couples with a different set of counsellors every week. Around a half dozen different couples from our church are covering different topics each week. It's been really good seeing the other engaged couples, hearing the different married couples points of views. It's kind of sad that next week is our last one. It has been good though, and I thank the Lord for having such a supportive group of believers here.

Talking about supportive groups of believers, our families are wonderful. They have helped us so much with planning and preparing for this wedding. It's been really good. As an added bonus, it keeps us from stressing, or at least me. I don't think my fiance is stressing, but she could be good at hiding it. But why are we talking about that? Anyway, if either of our families are reading this, THANK YOU!

"We need to quit treating undocumented immigrants like criminals"?!

I've decided to post my thoughts on illegal immigration in the States, even though I've had the discussion with two other people, and I usually only use this place to talk about things I haven't talked about other places.

The title comes from a rather ironic quote from a man protesting the new bills in the States. If you read 'undocumented' for what it really means, illegal, it's out right hilarious!

Okay, first handling the problem of people coming in: Make it hard, make it harsh. Put up tight security and make it a felony to both enter and aid illegals in entering this country. I'm talking anything from huge fines to jail time. At the same time they need to ease the legal entry process. The whole idea is to make it attractive to come here legally as they want to come, US needs them, and they are in general good people. As long as legality is more attractive the illegal status, they should be going for it. There, problem solved.

The current residents are where the tricky stuff starts. Obviously we can't just deport them, there's to many and many now have children who are US citizens, and do we really want to start tearing apart families? I think the current proposal on the legistlature floor is pretty good, the results, however, had better come through.

There are a couple problems I see with the current population (not including the illegal status of many). First, there seems to be this uncanny clinging to Mexico. Okay, you came from there, great, but do you really want to say "Viva la Mexico!" and profess a desire to be American? If I came here and said "GO USA!" I'd be arrested, most likely. It's okay to like your home country, but if you're going to call a place home, why don't you start treating it that way? The second problem is English. Now, I do honestly believe most of them speak english pretty well, they just often hide it when pulled over by cops. The solution to me would be to make it so if they can't communicate, the cop hauls them to the precinct, files a report, and they have to wait until a Spanish speaker arrives to talk to them. I think you'd be amazed at how fast they all 'learn' english.

It's a tricky issue with the current residents. But this problem needs addressed, otherwise there's going to be BIG problems soon.

I have *issues*

This story amused me slightly. It's a sort of bizarre mind set this article reveals, as if things are always private even if you are in public. Can't you just hear the indignity of "We weren't doing anything wrong!" and the unspoken desire to sue a 'big brother' government? I hate to say it, but in public, people can take pictures of you. Additionally, anti-war protestors, in the middle of a war, are just BEGGING the government to look in on them. This doesn't have to be nefarious, but when you have people actively undermining you, you keep an eye on them. Oh the humanity! I talk bad about someone and they watch me!

Sorry, that wasn't kind, but it is how this comes accross to me. Americans are SO obsessed with this idea of privacy, that they expect to have it even while in public. They expect to be doing anythign they want and as long as it is illegal, for the government to stay completely away. Well, it just seems silly to me. After all, if you're doing something illegal, you think you'll advertise it? And if not, how in the world is the government supposed to stop it? Now, there is a line, but I think most people expect the line to be much to far over. If it was as far over as the ACLU wants it, there'd be a field day on criminal activity.

I think another reason this amuses me is living here. For about a week my roommate and I were being cased by the FSB. It was pretty obvious. Everytime I left and every time I returned the phone would ring. We saw guys who did not live in our building habitually around and in our building, occaisionally knocking on our door. It was as if they didn't care if we knew. And here americans are whining about photos being taken in a public place of an event they were doing to TRY and effect the government? Boggles the mind.

Comics

If you didn't know, I'm a fan of the comics. Or rather, of some comics. I notice everytime I look at the comics pages in the newspaper, I actually dislike a big number of them.

For instance, let's look at Blondie. There hasn't been an original joke in Blondie for as long as I can remember. It's all about how dagwood eats, sleeps, and runs late. Recycle and repeat. Why is that in the paper? It was barely funny the first time, why is it funny the 100th time.

Then there's Garfield. If you buy the orignals they're funny. It's really funny. It's so funny you actually can see why it got so popular. Read them now, and you wonder why they're printed. It's like a Robert Jordan book I think. People read it hoping it's going to be good like the first ones were. Instead they feel like the author and newspaper cheated them and they owe them their 5 seconds of life back, because it really was like having that 5 seconds sucked out of you. I've heard rumors about a paper saying garfield is actually funny if you remove the cats speech, but then it's not garfield anymore.

Peanuts...I really don't know what to say. It's an undead freak of nature, resurrected in the name of the almighty dollar-I mean the family keeps it in print for the sake of good ol' grandpa chuck. Or at least that's what they say. Really, why can't you let it die. Peanuts was good (less so in recent years, but not quite as bad as garfield has gotten), but it's not worth preserving in newspapers for eternity. Let some up and coming artist have the space, let people have laughs not small smiles of recollection. Heck, *I* recognize most the peanuts they're re-printing.

Family Circus. Not funny...never has been...never will be. It might have a short cutesy factor, but really, it's jsut a waste of ink. It's like it's trying to be funny with kids, but the author really just doesn't know, and so just puts his old home videos to ink. But they're the sort of homevideos that only the parents appreciate.

Oooh, 1 more...Beetle Bailey. Never been funny either. It's like garfield, but without the element of having been humorous at one point in time. Here's the whole plot line: Every man is an idiot and has a big flaw. There you go, no need to read anymore.

I know these are cultural icons. My argument is that if they are such, then they belong in a museum! Hello, the comics is about humor, not about the world of yester-year.

Blessed be your name

"Blessed be your name
In the land that is plentiful
Where the streams of abundance flow
Blessed be your name

Blessed be your name
When I’m found in the desert place
Though I walk through the wilderness
Blessed be your name

Every blessing you pour out,
I turn back to praise
When the darkness closes in, Lord
Still I will say…
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be your name
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be your glorious name"

A song that has been running through my head the past three days, that has a rather interesting point. Every blessing is a reason to praise. In our sorrows, we should praise him still for we are still blessed by him even when we don't see it.

After all, God called us to suffer as He suffered, isn't that an honor? I know from an non-christian point of view it's a rather dubious honor. But the reality of the situation is we all will suffer in this life, but do you have a comforter who can tell you honestly "Yes, I have walked that life and gone throuhg misery"? That's the joy of Christianity, we have aknowledged our depravity, our inadequacy, and then we aknowledged the harshness of the world. And despite all that, we have a God who loves us despite the depth of despair in the world, despite our flaws. We have a father who has lived life and wants to see ours put to right, even if we have to learn it at the school of Hard Knocks, He will allow us to grow closer to him if we will let Him.

Isn't God wonderful?

Poem

I look upon the moon so far away
pale and white, a mocking sight
a spiteful hint of the coming day.

I look around the pit so deep
a dirty mire that makes me tire
of climbing up these walls so steep.

How came I to this dark chasm?
Why do I try to rise up and fly?
Why do I feel despair's cruel spasm?

How can I fall on my knee
and pray until the light of day
and yet there's nothing from Thee?

He's not abandoned me I know
His love eternal, his grace eternal
and yet I feel the biting cold of snow.

Is it life that we must spend
our time pushing up and waging
against despair of a lonely end?

Bliss?

Ecclesiastes 1:18
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief NIV

Or in the the NASB
For in much wisom is much vexation; and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

Ecclesiastes always has some sort of fascination for me, I don't know why. These verses in paticular I keep tumbling over in my mind. Maybe it's a key to frustration I seem to regularly feel with the world and with myself (coupled with Romans 7 of course). I don't know, but it does seem to support the idea that ignorance is bliss.

The question is, are we doomed then if we want wisdom? Is happiness an indication of idiocy? I would hope not, yet this makes me wonder. Maybe I'm just moody as I write this. I would hope so anyway, as the opposite is very despressing.

Education

What a heart warming story!
Now isn't that unfair...the state of California is now saying you have to HAVE an education to get a diploma. This is my favorite part:
"The lawsuit also claims the state is denying some students their fundamental right to an equal education."
Geez, making sure they actually were educated is denying them their right to an education? What sort of reasoning is that?

I think the problem is the assumption that a diploma (or passing a class) means you're educated. Which is why the state created these exams I would assume. Thousands of kids are passing who shouldn't be, and graduating when they shouldn't be. So the state set's the bar, and then people whine. And americans continue to lament the state of their children's education, while suing that any attempt to HOLD a standard is sued as 'unequal discrimination.'

From this story you also get the data that 100,000 are failing...geez, maybe the problem isn't the test, how about the kids education? Nooo, it's the test. Can't be inflated grades, poor students, unhelpful parents, it's all the TEST's fault.

Man this is so sad. I can't even really ridicule it very well, I'm so disgusted.

Being a real man

I've been thinking about the way man is addressed in the Bible. I'm not talking about using the term 'man' when often it can mean people in general. I'm talking about when it's definitely male specific.

For instance, Genesis 3, the fall of man. After eating of the fruit God says first to the woman:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
About 25 words, two curses (child birth, husband ruling)
To man he says:
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken;for dust you are and to dust you will return."
About 60 words, multiple (if related) curses (Painful toil for food, eating 'of the field' instead of 'of the garden', the land producing weeds to oppose him, mortality).

It implies to me that Adam is the one who got them kicked out (note the use of hte word field instead of garden) and Adam is the one who made them mortal. So really it seems to me that man was the more responsible one for the fall. Even was responsible, yes, and she got her due, but it really seems to me like Adam's sin lead to the fall of man, not Eve. Let's you know how the responsibility really fell, eh? Also, notice that Adam was specifically chided for his sin...which seems more than just doing against what God commanded, but in choosing his wife over God. He also failed to protect his wife as it says:
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Adam was there, and did nothing. The first failure, I would say, was that of Adam, not Eve. Man, I believe, had an inherent responsibility having received the commands directly from God (Genesis 2:17) before Eve was around (genesis 2:21-22). And he failed her, then he turned around and failed God. I would even venture a hypothesis that there might have been redemption for Eve had Adam not fallen, but sorry girls, we failed you.

Honestly, I believe that. I believe that if you took any man and placed him in Adam's situation, he'd have done exactly the same thing. We are as equally responsible for the fall as Adam was. That's why we need Christ, period. Everyone of us has failed, and will fail again. And the law condemns us. It is only through Christ's blood that the curse of the Law is removed and we are redeemed. But the responsibility doesn't end there. No, Paul lays it on more thick for us to.

In Ephesians 5 Paul, like Genesis 3, addresses the women first (this time in the context of marriage):
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
About 50 words, requiring 1 thing, physical obedience as a model after the relationship to Christ.

Now the man:
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
About 140 words telling husbands to Love their wives. That's right, action, but even deeper, you must have your heart in it. And actually, ideally if a husband does this the wife's job is easy, because in his love he will do things for her in such a way that she does not have to assert herself. Notice men are also given about 5 verses of admonishment for why this is right, how it is to be done.

I think that there's an implicit push in there for men to step up to the plate and serve their wives. Kind of daunting actually, every man, I suppose, should get 'The Buck Stops Here' engraved on the inside of their wedding ring. This stuff that's kind of been on my mind with the upcoming marriage. God has shown me directly what a responsibility I have to this wonderful lady to whom I am going to forever join myself to. It is an awesome job, for my job requires heart. And Adam showed us what can go wrong if I don't. Actually, I guess I should go ahead right now and apologise to my fiance for my upcoming failures. I'm constantly reminded how human I am, how imperfect next to the perfection of Christ I am. All I can do is apologise, I suppose, and hope I can avoid as many mistakes as possible and learn from the ones I do make.

Anyway, more ramblings, I do ramble a lot.

Islam strikes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060206/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings
This story is rather indicative to me about the problems between the middle east and the west. I honestly don't think that a country with a majority of muslims can be truly democratic as freedom of speech is one of the more important parts of maintaining a democracy. Yet Islam can NOT abide the image of the "prophet" Mohammed. Period. It's not just it being insulted, it's that it was even made. I'm aware of the less than stellar moments in any society, but this shows to me the inherent incapacity of Islamic nations to hold freedom as allowable. Christianity has enough permissiveness in it, allowing that God wants people to have a choice, to allow democratic ideas. One could argue those principles are part of the reason for democracy.

Islam I don't think actually has that capacity. It's the Law re-made into a harsher form. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, your average american muslim is NOT a moderate, he's incredibly liberal. They are not the norm. I'm not trying to inflame hatred, I just see Islam as being dangerous and mis-represented.

I also like a remark Jacques Chirac made asking people 'to respect each others beliefs' apparently ignoring the fact that those two beliefs in question were incompatible. The idea of journalistic freedom is totally contrary to the idea that certain things (i.e. a representation of muhammed) are forbidden for printing. I hate the Bhaii-ist idea that everyone can get along, ignoring the mutually exclusive beliefs held by differing faiths. Why is it so hard to believe that people can believe different things that are NOT compatible. Oh right, it because we all have an inherent ability to get along. We are all generally good!

That was sarcasm by the way. I don't think since Adam let down Eve and let her eat the fruit has any human been good (note: Christ wasn't just human, so I'm not including him in that, yes he was fully human, but he was more to).

Senseless Musings

I read fantasy and Sci-Fi books. I have for a long time, started with The Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings and has gone on from there. I often wonder why I find these paticular genres so engrossing. I mean, I've read fiction, non-fiction, historical fiction, philosophy, histories, technical manuals, and theology but as a genre, I keep find myself drawn to Sci-Fi and fantasy.

I can justify some of it. Sci-Fi ends up being some of the most interesting in social commentary, as it can create a future or distant world in which one thing or another has happened or some system is in place, and make a point about it, good or bad. The same with fantasy. But that's not really why I read it.

I think it's the escape from reality. I'm a cynical realist by nature. I find humanity to be depraved, I think that the best system is the system that minimizes overall corruption as it's impossible to completely eliminate. My overall idea of the world is none to pretty. Now, I don't hold such cynicism to the individual to the degree I hold it to the general population. I tend to give individuals the benefit of the doubt. But failures don't surprise me, in fact I tend to expect them, as I do it all the time and I'm no better nor worse than the average person. And if that's true, then the world is a pretty dark place.

So maybe Sci-Fi and fantasy is a way to escape this reality for a moment, to see good versus evil. To see triumph. Maybe it's also the sense of adventure that's more believable because it takes place on another world. Modern fiction I ahve a hard time accepting as most of them mean that our police/governments are so grossly incompetent at handling ordinary situations that we are in danger of serious harm at anytime. I can suspend disbelief much easier if the nature of the universe demands such. Maybe at heart I'm more a dreamer than I let most people know. I do often wonder what I might have done had I been able to share my creativity.

Or maybe I just find them entertaining. That's probably the most important thing.

Responsibility

This article almost makes me want to laugh. Okay, yes, junk food bad...but why in the world is it the companies fault? Where did personal responsibilty, or more so in this case, PARENT responsibilty go? After all, it's not like 8 year olds are self-sufficient, so either Mom and Dad are providing for them, or letting them mooch of their friends. Disclaimer, yes, I know I'm not a parent and know I'm not aware of all the trials, but isn't this a bit elementary? When did raising children become the responsibility of the Kellog Corporation and Viacom? It reminds me of those commercial I saw couple years back about 'the truth' and how our problems with smoking are the tobacco company's fault. Well, not to be cruel, but I would think that'd be the responsibilty of the person who smoked. It's not like it wasn't known those were dangerous. I'm not advocating smoking, I hate it, and wish it was banned. But suing the company for killing your husband is stupid, you should be suing your husband for ingesting poison. Why can't people just accept the fact that life is their own responsibilty, and deal with it? Maybe it's because we can't accept the fact that we're nearly hopeless outside of God. I mean, I know I fail, somehow, daily, but it's hard to admit that, especially if you want me to go into specifics. We are so low, and we don't want to admit it's our own fault.

Edit: Found this which illustrates my point wonderfully, thank you Scott Kurtz

It's Alive!

For a an unbelievably funny experience click here . It's absolutely hilarious. I've only heard the first two, as I don't have sound at the computer Lab, but Scott Kurtz of PvP and Kristaufer Straub of Star Slip Crisis, another very funny comic I recently started reading, have created an animated, of sorts, PvP. Basically it's the two of them screwing around, and it's hilarious.

What's even funnier was reading the message board over at PvP after the first one was posted. It was hilarious as people got all irritated over quality, commenting on the poor voicing, animation, blah blah blah. All it was meant to be was a moment of goofing around, and people were treating it like it was an audition for the emmies. I don't know WHERE these people come from, or how they can be so clueless, but it does help reinforce my opinion that people are basically stupid and/or mean. Oh sure, some can be nice, but in general, those outside the grace of God and his boundless love tend to be rather self serving and ignorant. Even those of us in his grace have a horrible time of backsliding. And then there's the whole issue of satan encouraging us the wrong directions...sigh. Sorry, I'm not quite that pessimistic, just tired and that makes me a little more cynical than usual.

The Way We Are

Insights into human desires I've gained:

I want a government with the latest army, the best infrastructure, and most supportive social systems.
I also want very low taxes.

I want to reduce military spending, as it encourages war.
I also want all our troops out fitted in the latest body armor to protect them.

I want the newest, most cutting edge drugs brought about by drug-company researchers.
I also want those same companies to be mandated for lower prices.

I want freedom for the world.
I also want my country to mind its own business.

I want every one to have freedom.
I also want everyone to be equal.

I want free education.
I also want the highest standards and top notch quality teachers.

I want to be able to do all my shopping in one place.
I also want us to stick up for the little guy.

I want a booming economy.
I also want big business to be weakened, because those guys are doing nothing but exploiting us.

I want freedom from others religious views being preached in the classroom.
I also want my views to be represented in our schools.

I want to have freedom to choose.
I also want to be free of any responsibility.

This is not (entirely) a political tirade on my part, I'm as guilty of most some of these as the next. I just find our behavior ironic. Take schools: philosophy is religion and vice versa, but both sides want their 'philosophy' taught (ID or evolution), but want the other's 'religion' out. It's just sad to me. Mutual exclusion doesn't seem to occur to us when laying our dogmatic beliefs out (and I am intentionally using the first person plural).

Again no point, except people are horrid. Thankfully God loves us anyway and is trying to redeem us.

Nice one, Zing!*

You know, every group has it's icons. More so, every group has their idiots. Pat Robertson may be both, I'm not sure. Pat has done a lot of good, I'll admit. His charity organization is probably one of the most efficient in the world. Yet he seems to have the worst case of "foot in mouth" disease I've heard. Whether you agree with some of his stuff, you do NOT go on national television and suggest the things he's been saying. It makes him sound hearless and cruel. And what's worse, is it drags the rest of us into it. How many non-christian, centrist to left do you think the Christian conservative movement alienated by having a person who a majority do not agree with make us look hateful and cruel? Again, I'm not saying Pat is necessarily a bad guy, I just think he's done the Christian right a lot of damage recently.

Okay, let's switch groups, consider Mrs. Kerry during the last election (yes, I forgot her first name). In one interview she managed to earn herself a gag from stupid statements. Coming from some sort of fairy world, she managed to incense stay-at-home mothers, insult Laura Bush (while mixing up her facts), and basically alienate a whole group of voters. May the thought that this person would have the gag removed post-election have pushed centrists to Bush?

My point is there may be people with very good and honorable intentions who, frankly, are horrid when it comes to opening their mouth in national forums. These are places where the slightest misspeak is exaggerated and grossly misconstrued to mean things even greater than normal considerations. Now take someone who makes statements that are already pushing it in a normal, benefit-of-the-doubt conversations, and you've got the recipe for a PR nightmare. And the opposite side is just waiting to sink their teeth into it.

My point? I don't know, do I have to have one? I guess my point is that if you want to be in a public forum, think about what you say, because you will have to eat your words.

*Title inspired by Max Powers, character of PvP (see side bar)

Great News!

Not much of a post, just jubilating that I'm engaged! Woohoo!