tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374918652024-03-07T13:11:06.223-05:00Thou and Thou OnlyRiches we heed not, nor man's empty praise.<br><br>
This blog belongs to the family of JunkMale, a Christian and Georgia Tech alumnus. Target demographics might include conservative Christian, healthy-eating, homeschooling, interracial families, and others who do not call this world "home." Where homemade is usually better than store-bought. For more info, click the "About" link below.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-35949348652245936902010-08-10T08:59:00.000-04:002010-08-10T08:59:44.192-04:00If It Weren't Illegal, Would It Still Be Wrong?On the way to work a couple of weeks ago, I heard some mentions on the radio about the Arizona immigration law controversy. Somehow my brain then formulated the question posed in the title. I suppose my brain also accessed the memory of listening to some Mexican lawyer-type person on NPR talking about how corrupt Mexican law enforcement is.<br /><br />One of the purported purposes of this blog is to look at every day life as a stranger to this world, as someone just passing through. As someone alien to the customs that everyone else observes. So let's now look at the immigration debate from that perspective. <br /><br />Currently, it is illegal to cross the border without proper authorization, and as such, theoretically one will be deported if he is found to have done this. Now let's take the illegal part out and re-examine. Say there was no US law against entering the country without permission. Is the act of entering a sovereign country with (presumably) no harmful intentions wrong in God's eyes? I would think not. I admit to having no facts on this statement, but perhaps many of the illegal immigrants are trying to provide a nice life for their families? I feel sympathy for people who live in a country where corruption, extortion, and kidnappings are fairly common. I rather like that Harmony can take Pearl to the park during the day and not have a significant probability of being abducted.<br /><br />Obviously the government cannot just open the borders wide and not expect craziness to ensue; there'd have to be some other measures in place to document who's in the country. And we should not just let any old Juan into the country, especially if he has proven himself to be a rather unsavory character in the past.<br /><br />I wonder how enforce-the-border people would react if the government passed a sensible immigration reform law that made it much easier to enter this country? Would many of them be exposed as xenophobes? Or would it actually be true that they just wanted the law to be enforced for their safety? I would hope it would be the latter.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-77415835488372380412009-11-18T07:36:00.001-05:002009-11-18T07:59:25.111-05:00"Muslim First, Then American"<img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;width: 116px; height: 200px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_avUUQxpy30o/SwPqLLrAFqI/AAAAAAAACWY/o0rpEikjGdQ/s200/1233812_blue_mosque_4.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5405421455607338658" />I have read that Major Nidal Hasan (the Fort Hood guy, for anyone who lives in a cave, in which case that means your cave has internet access, which is really cool..) considered himself a Muslim first, American second.<br /><br />Would I be classified as a dangerous individual then, since I am a Christian first, American second? After all, I am an alien and stranger to this world, and my first allegiance is to God. (then again, I do not seek to do violence against anybody, so maybe the government would not consider me a threat) Indeed, I believe this should be the view of any devout Christian. I don't believe that being a Christian (or Muslim, or Mormon, etc...) above all else automatically makes someone a dangerous person.<br /><br />In searching for the phrase "muslim first then american," I came across <a href="http://muslimsforasafeamerica.org/?p=48" title="Muslims for a Safe American - National Security Survey Conducted At 2006 American Muslim Conventions" target="new">this interesting blog post from September 2006</a>. It's from a blog called Muslims For a Safe America, and the particular post shows the results of a survey of 307 American citizen Muslims who were attending an Islamic Society of North American conference. Here's one of the interesting questions:<br /><br /><b>Do you consider yourself to be a Muslim first, an American first, or both equally?</b><br />MUSLIM FIRST 214 (70%)<br />AMERICAN FIRST 4 (1%)<br />BOTH EQUALLY 86 (28%)<br />DID NOT ANSWER 3 (1%)<br /><br />Well, I got news for people who are outraged over this Muslim-first-American-second bit. If this surveyed group is at all representative of the general Muslim population, then an overwhelming majority of Muslims consider themselves Muslims first, Americans second. <br /><br />Then again, Major Hasan was in the military, otherwise known as the blow-stuff-up arm of the United States government. It seems to me that anyone who voluntarily joins the U.S. military ought to do so partly out of a desire to keep Americans safe, and at least not harbor terroristic ideologies.<br /><br />Here are some more interesting results from the survey:<br /><b>Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?</b><br />YES 117 (38%)<br />NO 139 (45%)<br />DID NOT ANSWER 51 (17%)<br /><br />This one is puzzling, and would've been nice if the people answering "NO" had a chance to explain their answers. Is it that they do not believe that the hijackers were not <u>true</u> Muslims, or is it that they believe that blonde haired blue eyed John Smiths were the real hijackers and the media is in on a big conspiracy to cover up that fact?<br /><br /><b>If you learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, would you tell law enforcement authorities?</b><br />YES 234 (76%)<br />NO 39 (13%)<br />DID NOT ANSWER 34 (11%)<br /><br />While I'm glad that 76% would notify authorities, it's a bit unsettling that 13% would not. Then there are the 11% of the surveyed who did not answer this question. What would they do? Why did they not answer? Fear of retribution from other Muslims, due to being a snitch? Or fear of answering the question because their answer was "no"?JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-48978049468271367572009-05-10T22:02:00.003-04:002009-05-10T22:18:24.023-04:00Prayers, PleaseOn their way back home from our house after a Mother's Day lunch, my parents received a call from a couple in their congregation that their not-quite-2-year-old son was dying in the local children's hospital.<br /><br />The boy, Daniel, had been sick for a very long time. He was born with a rare liver disease called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithine_transcarbamylase_deficiency">ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency</a>, which he shares with an older brother who had severe brain damage at birth due to the disease. Daniel had two liver transplants in his short life and everyone thought he was doing very well and had a chance of a normal life that his brother never had. Unfortunately, during a family vacation to Disney in September of last year, he started bleeding uncontrollably, his brain began to swell, and he went into a coma. He had his ups and downs since then, but today his heart couldn't fight anymore.<br /><br />Please remember Daniel's family in your prayers, especially for the mother who lost her baby boy on Mother's Day. I know they all need Comfort right now that no one on Earth knows how to give them.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-59609331615548798922009-02-02T20:10:00.003-05:002009-02-02T21:17:29.338-05:00Seriously DisturbingFrom <a href="http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2009/02/this-is-just-creepy.html">The Common Room</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>"A school in Las Vegas had children pledging allegiance to a huge photograph of Obama- an overhead projector image around 5 x 6 feet. A child came home and reported it, saying he did not want to go back to school (impressive)- and his parent actually didn't believe him because it's obviously incredible that any teacher could be so blind to the implications. <a href="http://newsblaze.com/story/20090127224509nnnn.nb/topstory.html">However, it's true</a>:<br />At least three of the five classrooms have an overhead projector and as the children stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the teacher turns on the classroom overhead and a full body image of Obama, with six U.S. flags behind him, comes up about 4 feet away from the flag that hangs on the wall. The screen is apparently around five feet by six feet."</blockquote>I certainly hope our President doesn't approve of such things (and for the record I don't believe that he does), but incidents like this are popping up all over the place. It is certainly cause for concern. How long before we are required to have pictures of Obama hanging in our houses, and a copy of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Audacity of Hope</span> on our bookshelves?Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-35396573591005187092008-10-08T06:38:00.000-04:002008-10-08T06:40:47.693-04:00He Cannot Destroy The SoulEvery time I think about the fact that we are only a month away from a presidential election, I get a bit apprehensive. Both McCain and Obama are politicians through and through. I don't buy any of this "Obama is post-politics" nonsense, and McCain's "maverick" gimmick is tiresome to me (especially since his forays into maverick-ness usually come in the wrong places). As I do not claim to be totally objective on this blog, I will state that Our Great Leader Comrade Obama prompts more dread than Old Man McAmnesty.<br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5254729635562310738" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px;" alt="Image from CNBC.com - McCain Obama" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_avUUQxpy30o/SOyMw0ZozFI/AAAAAAAAAyM/iQ2DRuj_9Oo/s200/cnbc_mccain_obama.jpg" border="0" />Lately, I have been telling myself that Our Great Leader Comrade Obama, with the government behind him, can only destroy the body. He cannot take my soul, although I'm sure many would be willing to pledge their souls to him. If he destroys my body, my soul will still live. Who we should really fear is God, who can destroy both the body and the soul.<br /><br />And you know, I don't really recall any place in the Bible that says we are guaranteed a comfortable life here on earth. There's no promise that taxes will be low so that we can better take care of our own families. There's no promise that governments will rule with responsibility. There's no promise that everyone will be able to have all the expensive things in life, like big flat screen TVs and cell phones more powerful than my current computer.<br /><br />For the Christian readers, let's try to remember and really act like our true citizenship is in heaven, and that our residency on earth is just temporary. One day all our bones and meat will be obliterated and we'll be on our way to Canaan's land <span style="font-size:130%;">♪</span> where the soul never dies <span style="font-size:130%;">♪</span>JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-72032867529929553452008-09-10T13:24:00.000-04:002008-09-10T13:24:29.100-04:00Church and Culture, Oil and WaterThis video is of Voddie Baucham on CNN, talking about Sarah Palin. Watch as the newslady cannot understand that Voddie takes his orders from the Bible, not man, feminism, or "diversity" quotas.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f14z3cnNzzo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f14z3cnNzzo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />The CNN newslady just can't seem to understand how many Christians can support Palin for VP when they (gasp) won't let women preach from the pulpit. The most important point is that the church operates on different rules than society (or at least, it should). Many people, probably including some Christians, just canNOT seem to grasp this. I don't blame them...from the outside looking in, we're all a bunch of religious nuts anyways ;) I'd also venture to say that many Christians who share Baucham's convictions probably still do not support the McCain-Palin ticket. <br /><br />Hopefully, there will always be a number of Christians who will actually take a stand against the sinful portions of whatever worldly fashion is "cool" at the time, whether it's liberalism OR conservatism...or something else entirely.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-82905270167231320292008-04-22T08:04:00.003-04:002008-05-14T06:49:42.938-04:00Ridiculous Article: "Might Our Religion Be Killing Us?"From the USA Today's Opinions section: <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/might-our-relig.html" target="newwindow" title="USA Today - Might Our Religion Be Killing Us?">"Might Our Religion Be Killing Us?"</a> For those that don't feel like reading, I'll attempt to give you an objective summary. I got this from <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1134" target="newwindwop" title="AlbertMohler.com - Are Children Threatening the Earth?">Al Mohler's blog</a>. (While I am not Baptist like Al, I do agree with much of his social commentary.) <br /><br />Oliver "Buzz" Thomas writes about how religions that promote large families could be hastening the destruction of the planet. He says that for each additional person, the planet Earth (and by extension, us) pays a big price. "There are simply too many people for the planet to sustain," he says. End objective summary.<br /><br />I'm not quite sure I have much useful to say about this article, but I did want to post some of my favorite portions of it. Perhaps you will have something useful to say.<br /><center><hr width="70%"/></center><br /><blockquote>We could be the ones who get blamed for destroying [civilization]. <br /><br />Here's why. The hundreds of scientists who make up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned recently that the environmental crisis is more dire than originally believed. We might have reached a tipping point. <u><b>Even if we stop producing harmful greenhouse gases immediately, temperatures could continue to rise and ocean levels along with them for the next 1,000 years.</b></u> How much? The IPPC [sic] says by as much as 11 degrees this century with a corresponding rise in ocean levels of nearly 2 feet. </blockquote><br />Wait, hold on a second. So if we were to somehow completely stop all emissions of greenhouse gases, temperatures and ocean levels would still rise? I must be missing something here...doesn't that mean that the planet is going to do what it's going to do, and we can't do much to stop it?<br /><center><hr width="70%"/></center><br /><blockquote>For each additional human, planet Earth (and the rest of us) pays a price. The world knows where this is all headed. <b><u>In fact, we even devote an <i>entire</i> day — Earth Day, which we'll mark Tuesday — to promote awareness.</u></b></blockquote> (bold and underline emphasis mine, italics were included in the original article)<br /><br />Is he being sarcastic? Perhaps this is faulty reasoning on my part, but if he were really that concerned, shouldn't he think we should devote more than a day? He speaks of a day as if it's a long period of time. It's a long period of time for a mayfly. <br /><center><hr width="70%"/></center><br /><blockquote>I recognize that religious organizations tend to be conservative institutions. <b><u>Their continued resistance to equal rights for women and gays is a good example.</u></b> A woman may be president of Harvard or speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, but in the largest religious organization on the planet, women still can't get ordained as parish priests. It's even worse for gays and lesbians.<br /><br />All this is to say that religion often comes late to the party — sometimes kicking and screaming, as did most Southern churches on slavery and civil rights. Only this time, we can't afford it. Not when the fate of the planet might hang in the balance. <br /></blockquote><br />Sometimes it is good that religion comes late to the party. In fact, sometimes religion should not attend the party at all, depending on what it's about and who's putting it on. Of course the church was wrong to turn a blind eye to (or condone) slavery and segregation. But the church should <i>not</i> seek to be a replica of society, only replete with crosses and Bibles. Women should not be denied the opportunity to be in high positions in secular society. However, I am talking about Christian churches. The Bible does not condone a woman to have authority over a man. It does not mean unequal rights; it means complementary roles. A woman is to submit to her husband, and a husband is to sacrifice for his wife. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that is what the Bible says.<br /><br />This last quote says to me that Thomas does not really see himself as an alien and stranger in this world. He wishes for religious people to conform themselves to the "tolerant" and "diverse" society which we are a part. But, as Romans 12:2 says, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."<br /><center><hr width="70%"/></center><br /><blockquote>Here's the thing. We need visionary religious and political leaders to start thinking about these problems if we are to have any chance of solving them. Not decades from now, when coastal cities could be flooding and Southern states struggling to secure enough fresh water.<br /><br /><b><u>There's little doubt that the human species has the ability to survive what lies ahead.</u></b> There is considerable doubt, however, as to whether we have the ability to rise above our personal and tribal interests to earnestly seek the common good.<br /></blockquote><br />So why did he write this column then? If temperatures and ocean levels are going to go up even without man's help (first quote), and if we are going to survive anyways (last quote), why spend so much time wringing his hands about the impending end of civilization? Just to feel like he's doing something?<br /><center><hr width="70%"/></center><br />Perhaps I have missed the point of the article? Read it yourself if you have spare moments; there's more good stuff that I didn't quote here. Perhaps he's just saying we need to live considerately of our global neighbors? What do you think? Have I missed the point? Or has he missed the proverbial boat?JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-32409887933348989272008-04-20T14:23:00.006-04:002008-04-20T15:17:53.038-04:00Note to CPS: Please Read the Bill of RightsThe Common Room has been following the FLDS/CPS debacle down in Texas very well. The Headmistress has been covering it for a while, so I won't link to everything she's written. The latest (as of writing this) is <a href="http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2008/04/thought-police.html">here</a>. More required reading <a href="http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2008/04/day-2-updates-from-flds-hearing.html">here</a>.<br /><br />If the girls were the ones in danger of current or future abuse, why remove the boys? In fact, why remove the children at all - why not remove the men suspected of <i>committing </i>the abuse? Searches and seizures should only be carried out against suspected criminals, and even then only with probable cause and a warrant substantiated with an oath or affirmation. That's the law. And since when could the government lock people away from their family without due process of law? That seems to me to be depriving them of liberty. And, since the government seems intent on treating children as though they were property, since when can they take children away from parents without due process?<br /><br />I don't like the FLDS - either what they believe, or how they practice it. But that doesn't matter. The state of Texas does not have the right to break the laws of the United States in order to prosecute a group of people for breaking the laws of the state of Texas. Not even for something as horrific as child abuse.<br /><br />A few things the American public should be thinking about:<br /><br />1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, <i><strong>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof</strong></i>; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.<br />(First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America)<br /><br />2) <i><strong>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated</strong></i>, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, <i><strong>and particularly describing</strong></i> the place to be searched, and<i><strong> the persons or things to be seized</strong></i>. <br />(Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America)<br /><br />3) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,<i><strong> nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law</strong></i>; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.<br />(Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America)<br /><br />4) In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;<br />And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;<br />And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;<br />And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.<br />(Pastor Martin Niemöller)Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-85415649983571167582008-04-10T07:23:00.000-04:002008-12-09T17:09:53.512-05:00Loyalty to God, Not State<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_avUUQxpy30o/R_34ZRDbvqI/AAAAAAAAAOs/GmFqtXHq1Mk/s1600-h/1984_movie.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_avUUQxpy30o/R_34ZRDbvqI/AAAAAAAAAOs/GmFqtXHq1Mk/s320/1984_movie.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5187575458758901410" /></a><br />I don't live in a secluded cave. I read about the California homeschooling controversy in the news last month. I just didn't have anything to add until my wife brought up what the presiding judge said. Actually, it's more like what the presiding judge <i>cited</i>, which was a statement from a 1961 case, also from California. The oft-quoted quote is underlined, with some of the surrounding verbage provided for context's sake.<br /><br /><blockquote>"In obedience to the constitutional mandate to bring about a general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence, the Legislature, over the years, enacted a series of laws. <u>A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.</u> [Citation.] The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468], held that: 'No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.'...(In re Shinn (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 683, 686-687.)</blockquote><br />The whole text of the court ruling is <a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF" target="newwindow">here</a>, if you want it.<br /><br />Ahem.<br /><br />As a Christian, my primary loyalty is to God. Everything is else (or should be) far behind. To someone who's not Christian or otherwise areligious, perhaps the underlined statement is not a big deal. After all, what's so wrong about patriotism and loyalty? For Christians, not much, unless it supercedes your loyalty to God. <br /><br />This primary purpose is incompatible with our goal, which is to glorify God and become more like Him. Which is why, barring death, dismemberment, or other dire circumstances, our future children will never receive compulsory education from the government. And that's only one of the reasons ;)<br /><br />As a Christian, I try not to be blinded by loyalty to earthly entities. During my drive home, I listen to the biggest local talk radio station, since it has the best traffic reports. Also on during this time is conservative radio host Sean Hannity. Hannity is my archetype for the typical conservative who is so in love with America that he believes America can do no wrong, except for obvious token cases like slavery. But I know that America is a nation composed of sinful people (myself included of course); in that respect, it is like every other nation on earth. Because it's filled with sinful people, it is no less likely to do wrong than other nations. I don't "blame America first." I blame America when it deserves the blame. I don't believe that blame is discretely EITHER this country's OR that country's...who says nations don't share blame?<br /><br />(BTW, I don't understand when Christians talk of capitalism like it's THE Biblically mandated economic system. Here are my thoughts on <a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2007/03/capitalism-and-christianity.html">capitalism and Christianity</a>.<br /><br />Of course, this is just one Christian's opinion. What do you think about the issue of loyalty to state?JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-20301915297687631242007-10-15T07:21:00.000-04:002007-10-15T07:21:19.256-04:00Idolizing FreedomSaturday night, I finally finished <u>The Myth of a Christian Nation</u>. There was a period of time where I didn't pick the book up for about a month or two, so I don't have a good enough feel for the book to put forth an unofficially official review. But it did spur my thinking a bit.<br /><br />One particular section has the author addressing some questions that could hypothetically be posed to him. One question asks that if Christians do not take a stand against gay marriage, then the slippery slope will eventually have the government outlawing proclaiming homosexuality as a sin. And then the hypothetical slippery slope would eventually make it illegal to become a Christian. At this point, I started to wonder whether American Christians might place a bit too much importance on their freedom(s).<br /><br />The typical conservative pundit will oftentimes gush about how America is the greatest nation God gave to man, and that freedom is one of the things which makes America great, and that America needs to sow freedom and democracy worldwide. In this sense, freedom generally refers to political or religious freedom. Yet is this sort of freedom ever guaranteed in the Bible? In my reading, the Bible seems to imply the opposite; many verses (or even whole books, like 1 Peter) talk about how we are blessed by God when we are persecuted. We find favor with God when we suffer for doing the right thing. I believe this sort of persecution is virtually non-existent in America today. And so I offer a quote from the book:<br /><blockquote><i>Instead of fearing the possibility of persecution someday, kingdom people should trust that if this happened, God would use it for the furthering of His kingdom, just as He used Jesus' death. In fact, as terrible as they often are, persecutions have usually had a positive kingdom effect.</i></blockquote><br />Of course, let me clarify. I enjoy the freedom that we have here. I don't <i>want</i> to go to jail or be executed. But from here on out, I will work on changing my thinking to not assume(*) that God "entitles" me to such political and religious freedoms. For nowhere in the Bible does it state that He does/will. <br /><br />I am always taken back a slight bit when people thank God that we can worship freely without fear of persecution. While it is nice from a human comforts point of view, this is not something that I would pray in my prayers. Christians are not supposed to place such importance on human comforts. The fact that I hear it somewhat frequently in prayers seems to indicate that American Christians place great importance on such freedoms, which are guaranteed nowhere in the Bible. <br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* - I initially thought this to be a split infinitive, but Harmony thought it might be appropriate use. Whether it is or not, could you have thought of a more concise way to state this? If so, please let me know.</span>JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-7538047344652785802007-10-05T07:03:00.000-04:002007-10-05T07:05:06.220-04:00VotingAs November 2008 approaches, there is more and more coverage of presidential candidates on news sites. This leads to people throwing their support behind this guy or that guy. Naturally, this leads me to think about what I should do in these situations, in the framework that I am *first and foremost* a Christian, not an American.<br /><br />I have a confession to make: even though I turned 18 in 2001, I have never voted in a public election. A good chunk of that non-voting time is because I was too lazy to register. But the more recent chunk of this non-voting time is because *personally*, I choose to abstain. Note the emphasis. This is a *personal* decision, which means I do not look down upon other true Christians for choosing to support candidate X or Y (well...). I personally do not believe in the "Christian duty to vote." Maybe more on that another time.<br /><br />A few years ago, I found it interesting and a bit too coincidental that all Republican virtues just *happened* to line up with typical Christian political values. I eventually came to the conviction that Christian virtues did not line up perfectly with Republican ones, and think that Christians who blindly pledge themselves to the Republican cause without a second thought need to give it a second thought. However, if you are a Christian, have given it many thoughts, and have pledged yourself to the Republican cause, that's fine with me. I acknowledge that I might have set up the straw man there, but I imagine that there are many uninformed voters who support R or D without a second thought. Case in point: single women and Hilary ("...because she's a woman."). So I assume the same thing happens with Christians and Republican-candidate-of-choice.<br /><br /><aside><br />I am cautious to accept the profession of Christianity from presidential candidates. Every president since Andrew Johnson has been officially affiliated with a Christian denomination. In my observation, not professing some degree of piety would be suicide for a presidential campaign. Mitt Romney's Mormonism has generated more publicity than any other candidate's religion. Do you think a militant anti-Christian atheist or agnostic would ever get elected these days? How would most of America accept a candidate who, when asked about his faith, said "I don't really believe in higher powers. I've been to church and it just bored me out of my mind. I think Christianity's a bunch of hullabaloo." <br />If I were a cold, calculating, and non-church-going presidential candidate, I would be thinking that I need to put on a good Christian face when necessary. To do so otherwise would be a gash to your campaign. If you're wishy-washy, you could just say you were a Unitarian and allow yourself to be photographed coming out of a church building sometime. A group that claims to be Christian but questions the divinity of Christ? I would daresay that is not a Christian group, but maybe "good enough" to appeal to certain church attendees.<br /></aside><br /><br />I am registered to vote. However, I'm not quite sure if I will exercise the option any time soon. As I fast approach senility, I find that I grow more suspicious of politics in general, and not just leftist politics (and our leftist reader rejoiced!). My issues with righty politics might come in another post another time (although if you really want to hear about it, let me know and I can upgrade its priority).JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-20893308034361367672007-05-09T08:31:00.002-04:002008-04-14T13:11:43.968-04:00Christian Duty to Vote?I've been thinking about the title phrase lately. Is it a Christian's duty to vote?<br /><br />One might think that no candidate best embodies whole Christian virtues. The Christian who is convinced of his mandatory suffrage would vote for the lesser of two evils. However, I am not convinced of mandatory suffrage lest-ye-be-cast-into-the-eternal-flame. I do not believe the Constitution says that U.S. citizens MUST vote; they have the <i>right</i> to vote. A right does not necessarily have to be exercised.<br /><br /><span style="width: 200px; float: right; text-align: center; border-top: 1px solid #000066; border-bottom: 1px solid #000066; background: #DEDED9; padding: 10px; margin: 5px 0 5px 5px;">I do not condemn other Christians for voting for who they believe is best.</span>When you vote for a political candidate, you vote for his platform. There are some things on his platform with which you might not agree. If you vote for him in spite of these things, is this not compromising your beliefs? In some areas, a compromise might be fine. But there are other clear cut areas where I will not compromise my Bible-derived beliefs.<br /><br />Googling for the phrases "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=christian+vote+lesser+evil" target="newwindow">Christian vote lesser evil</a>" and "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=christian+duty+to+vote" target="newwindow2">Christian duty to vote</a>" return lots of results. You will find writers on both sides of the issue. Some go as far as saying it is <a href="http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6304.article" target="newwindow3">sinful for a Christian not to vote</a>. If you're going to make a strong statement like that, you need to have a very strong scriptural case, which I believe this guy does NOT have.<br /><br />I found what I perceive to be a good argument in favor of abstaining suffrage <a href="http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/081.voting.html" target="newwindow4">here</a>. I'll quote the section here, because I think the author states it well. I have added emphasis myself, as well as links (because I'm nice).<br /><blockquote><i>Those that are in Christ are supposed to be a new creation, not part of this world’s system. "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ," <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20corinthians%205;&version=49;" target="newwindow5">II Corinthians 5:17-20</a>. The analogy is given that we are just like a nation’s ambassador. How valid is this analogy?<br /><br />The United States ambassador to Moscow is not a communist. He does not regard the U.S.S.R. as his government, because it is mortally opposed to his government. The Ambassador does not enter Soviet politics nor attempt to mitigate the evils in its system. He doesn’t vote in Soviet elections nor join its army to fight for its cause. Nor is he allowed to do these things. Yet the American ambassador is subject to, and must abide by, Russian laws and rules.<br /><br />This analogy is almost, but not entirely, the same as a true believer in his native country. Wherever you live, your government is basically against the Bible and those who follow it. You are to be an ambassador, a government representative, of the Messianic Kingdom. No man can serve two masters, two opposing government systems, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%206;&version=49;" target="newwindow7">Matthew 6:33, 24</a>. The Messianic Kingdom is diametrically opposed to the Babylonish governments of this world. </i><b><u>Our spiritual citizenship is reserved in Heaven</u></b><i>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%201;&version=49;" target="newwindow8">I Peter 1:4</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202;&version=49;" target="newwindow9">Ephesians 2:19</a>.<br /><br />BUT, we are, in effect, also physical citizens of our respective countries as well. And, under the laws of Western democracies, we have the right to vote. The American ambassador to Moscow doesn’t have the right to vote in Soviet elections.<br /><br />We have other rights, such as the right to appeal to the courts for redress of wrongs. As followers of the Messiah, we may carefully and under the right circumstances, exercise these rights. As we have seen, Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citizen when he was personally affected in an important matter.</i></blockquote><br />I have not yet exercised my right to vote. I don't know if I ever will. Perhaps I will exercise it in referendums where there is a clear right and wrong. When you vote for a political candidate, you vote for his package of political beliefs; in a referendum, it's sort of a la carte. So what am I to do in the mean time? Pray. I pray and I try to increase my faith that God hears my prayers for this world and considers them.<br /><br />I leave with this; I do <b><u>not</u></b> believe the Bible says "Thou shalt vote," nor do I believe there are enough smatterings of "Thou shalt vote"-like teachings in the Bible for me to conclude that, in fact, "Thou shalt vote." In other words, I believe it to be a Biblically disputable matter. Thus, although my presence at the voting booth will be rare, I do <b><u>not</u></b> condemn other Christians for voting for who they believe is best. I'm not totally convinced on the matter, although I lean very heavily towards not voting...if a fellow Christian has a good case for why I should vote, let's retire to the comment page and discuss it over tea. I like green tea with brown rice, with nothing else added, thank you.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">P.S. - Call me a shallow voter, fundamentalist, or woman hater, but abortion is the make-or-break issue for me. I never intend to vote for anyone who is pro-abortion, no matter how good their platform is.</span>JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-55224085101739750152007-04-18T15:57:00.000-04:002007-04-18T16:18:50.910-04:00Supreme Court and Partial Birth AbortionThe Supreme Court has <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266724,00.html">upheld the partial birth abortion ban</a>, making the practice now illegal all across the country. The decision was close - 5 to 4 - but a slim majority is still a majority. There are many of us who read this blog who would like to see abortion in general outlawed, but I at least am very glad for this small step forward.<br /><br />Look for the abortion proponents are now going to be up in arms about the decision. However, President Bush has said, <blockquote>"Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."</blockquote>The ban was enacted in 2003, but appeals have kept it from becoming law since then.<br /><br />Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the Supreme Court, said that the decision is "alarming... it tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."<br /><br />And, one final statement from our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi: "I am disappointed. Criminalizing doctors for performing medically necessary procedures to save a woman's life or protect her health is wrong. The Court's decision is a significant step backwards."<br /><br />I would like to point out that our country's Declaration of Independence states that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life... [and] That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." I am glad to see that the Supreme Court has made this decision. It was not only morally right, but also was exactly as the Court said: the ban does *not* violate any Constitutional rights (or "rights", such as the "right" to abortion). At the point in time where many partial birth abortions are performed (usually over 21 weeks), the baby would be viable outside the womb. Even people who do not believe that a fetus is a human should be able to understand that if the woman had a cesarean instead of an abortion, both she and the baby would be given a chance at life. With the abortion, only one is given that chance. Thank you to Justices Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia.<span name="intelliTxt" id="intelliTXT"></span>Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-37187394562022139452007-04-12T08:03:00.001-04:002007-04-12T08:03:56.307-04:00Who Relativizes, LosesDisclaimer: I am not a philosopher, nor did I take any philosophy classes in school. This is a critique of relativism from a Christian viewpoint.<br /><br />Recently I've been thinking about people who follow their own moral code and believe that everyone makes their own way in life. I guess specifically I am talking about atheists or people who subscribe to no specific religion. Or maybe people who describe themselves as either "spiritual but not religious" or "opposed to organized religion." I picture these people as wearing berets, seated in a coffee shop, with eyes half closed, and nose turned up condescendingly at you.<br /><br />If each person makes his own way in life and sets his own morals, don't you think this would be a chaotic society? Supposedly in contemporary relativism, there still exist some universal truths. For example, it's probably widely agreed that one is free to do as he wishes, as long as he doesn't hurt his fellow man. But who says? Without God, what moral law is there that says I can't hurt someone? What if <b>my own moral code</b> says that it's not wrong to hurt others? If I want something, then I should just take it. Especially if there is no heaven and hell, a.k.a. eternal accountability. If this life is all there is, then I better do whatever I can (lie/cheat/steal/harm) to have all the stuff I want. <br /><br />If indeed some say that truth lies in the heart of the individual, then you should not object if someone steals your stuff or harms you. For who are you, O man, to impress/impose your stuffy property ownership values on "the less fortunate?" Impression and imposition; that is what is being done here, isn't it? It makes no difference if many other people agree that stealing and killing is wrong; if <b>MY</b> truth and <b>MY</b> heart feel that it's okay, then for me, it is. I'm just making my own way, and who are you to tell me I can't do X, Y, or Z? BTW, "I am out of my mind to talk like this." You know I don't actually believe all this relativism, right? These are all just suppositions I made assuming I was a rather crass relativist. I submit myself to God, the one true higher power. I know that there is more to this existence than can be perceived with photons, photoreceptors, and oscilloscopes.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-69304490770084045652007-04-10T10:20:00.000-04:002007-04-10T11:23:34.996-04:00Career = Fulfilled?I find it so amusing that so much of the feminist propaganda today revolves around the idea that having a career is fulfilling, and that staying home with your family is not. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone come home from work and say, "Wow! What a fulfilling day at work!" In fact, according to the most <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17348695/">recent numbers</a>, more and more American workers are unsatisfied with their jobs. This doesn't sound like the fulfilling life that is supposedly found in a career....<br /><br />Before I was married, I used to work for a huge financial institution. According to my boss I was a very good worker and had a lot of potential for advancement in the company. I really liked my coworkers, and I thought the job was somewhat fun at times. But it was also boring much of the time, and I was expected to do things that did not agree with my morals (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">ie</span> - tell "white lies" to the customers to increase sales, encourage financially unsound people to borrow more money, etc). Before that, in my last year of college, I spent a semester doing an engineering design project in a factory about an hour away from the college. The goal of the project was to determine why a new carpet backing was not responding the same way to a chemical treatment, and then to fix it so that the treatment worked again. Some of the work was interesting, but the factory was dirty and noisy and always smelled of chemicals -- probably not very good for my health! The work was also at times boring and repetitive. And that is *exactly* the type of work I would have done had I gotten a career in my field (polymer engineering).<br /><br />Before the work at the factory, I spent some time in the summers working at a summer camp caring for children. That work was a lot of fun, but also tiring and (after a while) a bit wearing on the nerves. Ten twelve-year-old girls in the same cabin for a week will start to get up to all manner of mischief. I had also spent a week as a cook in the camp's kitchen. That work was completely thankless, although I did enjoy the people I worked with, and there were fun times. But it was also hard work, and *again* there were times that I was completely bored.<br /><br />Before working at the camp, I also spent some time at a retail store as a salesperson. This was not a high pressure sales job, which I was glad of, and I did enjoy much of the work. However, I spent about half the day most days wandering around the store with nothing to do. Plus, my feet always hurt from standing so much.<br /><br />I have also done telephone research (not telemarketing -- 99% of the calls I made were to out-of-service phones... the purpose was to record which out-of-service message was heard), I have played in symphonies, bands, and choirs. I have been on athletic teams (although that was *never* a viable career option, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">lol</span>), I have taught music lessons, and I have been a tutor. Every single thing I have ever done that could have led to a career involved hard work, much of it unseen, and was at times extremely boring. I have never felt "fulfilled" or complete because of what I was doing. I enjoyed much of it, but I never in any way felt that I was validated because of the work I was doing.<br /><br />And, by the way, that includes my current "career" as a stay-at-home wife. Laundry isn't the most fulfilling task in the world, although I don't mind doing it. And while I like saving the family money, I don't feel like my life is complete because I do it. I expect it will be the same thing when we have children. The feminists are right in that respect. Mothering is not glamorous work, nor is it fulfilling -- at least not in and of itself. But the truth is that careers aren't doing it for the working populace, either. I have experience enough of the working world to believe that I have just as much chance of being happy at home as I do in an official career. The secret is that happiness doesn't depend on the things of this world. "God has set eternity in the hearts of men" -- looking for fulfillment in the things of this life is futile.<br /><ul><li>"The fear of the LORD leads to life: Then one rests content, untouched by trouble." Proverbs 19:23</li><li>"I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. <span id="en-NIV-29439" class="sup"></span>I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. <span id="en-NIV-29440" class="sup"></span>I can do everything through him who gives me strength" Philippians 4:11-13</li><li>"But godliness with contentment is great gain. <span id="en-NIV-29780" class="sup"></span>For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it." 1 Timothy 6:6-7</li><li>"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. <span id="en-NIV-30551" class="sup"></span>For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. <span id="en-NIV-30552" class="sup"></span>The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever." 1 John 2:15-17<br /></li></ul>Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-56583095051114875232007-03-29T11:14:00.001-04:002008-04-14T13:17:31.319-04:00Capitalism and ChristianityI recently posted my thoughts on what I believed the Bible had to say about socialism and its underlying principles. If you haven't read that and would like to, here's <a href="http://http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2007/03/socialism-and-christianity-part-1.html" target = "newwindow">Part 1</a> and <a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2007/03/socialism-and-christianity-part-2.html" target = "newwindow">Part 2</a>.<br /><br /><span style="width: 200px; float: right; text-align: center; border-top: 1px solid #000066; border-bottom: 1px solid #000066; background: #DEDED9; padding: 10px; margin: 5px 0 5px 5px;">Capitalism is not mandated in the Bible. There is no one "Christian" form of government.</span>For fairness' sake, I decided to do a post on what I believe the Bible has to say about capitalism and its underlying principles. In my previous mini-series, I attempted to let the Bible speak as much as possible, and I will be trying to do that here as well. My guide will be the New American Standard Bible, although I will cross-check translations if something sounds too good/bad to be true. Let's see how unbiased I can be. Let me remind you that I myself am biased in favor of capitalism and against socialism, but I'll do the best I can.<br /><br />First, let's define capitalism as it pertains to the scope of this post. I would define capitalism as an economic system where assets and means of production are privately or corporately owned, where the competitive free market is a driving force behind prices and growth, and where there is little government interference (if any at all) and consequently more freedom. Once again, since the Bible never says "Thou shalt follow the capitalistic ways which listed below in 8 pt font," I'll see what I can find.<br /><br />Capitalism, I believe, allows for much more entrepreneurial freedom, and more freedom in general. Socialism says "one size fits all." Capitalism says "pick your own size, to best meet your own needs." More freedom is good because it allows you to best meet your family's needs (which, according to <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Tim%205:3-16;&version=49;">1 Timothy 3:8</a>, is supremely important)<br /><br />Admittedly, I found this study a bit more difficult. There are lots of verses in the Bible about the ensnaring quality of money and wealth. But those verses shouldn't be restricted to just the capitalism portion of these posts. Even in a socialist system, a Christian can become ensnared by money. A big portion of socialism is welfare. The Bible has plenty of verses and examples of welfare. What does the Bible have to say about free market economies? Competition? Maybe I just didn't look hard enough. However, I did find some examples which tell of how economic freedom can be a good thing.<br /><br />One interesting (and very telling) parable is in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2020;&version=49;9;31;" target="newwindow">Matthew 20</a>. It's the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Basically, a landowner hires day laborers at different times during the day. At the end of the day, they are grumbling because even those who got hired late got paid the same amount. Here's the portion that I want to examine:<br /><blockquote><sup>10</sup>"When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. <sup>11</sup>"When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, <sup>12</sup>saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.' <sup>13</sup>"But he answered and said to one of them, Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? <sup>14</sup>'Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. <sup>15</sup><b>Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?</b>'</blockquote><br />Don't think that this is approving of socialism and equal wages for all and whatnot. The landowner <i>chose</i> to pay each man a denarius. There was no government coercion that said he <i>had</i> to pay according to the number of hours worked. Therein lies the redeeming quality of capitalism. <b>The landowner had the freedom to be generous.</b> However, although capitalism can give us the freedom to be generous, it also gives us the freedom to misuse wealth.<br /><br />Anyone looking to defame capitalism could do so by quoting the many scriptures warning against the dangers of being rich, or pursuing wealth. However, I don't believe that putting the government under a strict socialist diet would cure this. People will always want more wealth. Capitalism can provide the best means under which a person can be a truly cheerful giver. Socialism makes one give under compulsion, and probably grudgingly as well.<br /><br /><blockquote><sup>6</sup>Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. <sup>7</sup>Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, <b>not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.</b></blockquote><br />Further on down, Paul says this:<br /><blockquote><sup>10</sup>Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness; <sup>11</sup>you will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God. <sup>12</sup>For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God. </blockquote><br />If you are made wealthy, it is because God wants us to supply the needs of the saints. The NIV says "so that you can be generous on every occasion."<br /><br />Capitalism is not mandated in the Bible. There is no one "Christian" form of government. Each system has its bits and pieces which are good and bad, and we should be willing to concede that capitalism has flaws and socialism has merit.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-46364820312230658602007-03-26T16:07:00.002-04:002008-04-14T13:14:47.210-04:00Socialism and Christianity, Part 2<a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2007/03/socialism-and-christianity-part-1.html" target = "newwindow">Part 1</a> was a general look at socialism and Christianity. Here, I discuss the specific topic of welfare, which is a big tenet of socialism. <br /><br />(<i>In this portion, I use the New American Standard translation, in order to be more literal-from-the-original-Greek.</i>)<br /><br />Let's look at what the Bible has to say about welfare. For this paragraph, my main text is <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Tim%205:3-16;&version=49;" target="newwindow">1 Timothy 5:3-16</a>. Since it is a lengthy passage for a blog post, I implore you to open it in another window and refer to it as needed. You see in the latter part of verse 16 that, indeed, the early church did care for widows in need. <span style="width: 200px; float: right; text-align: center; border-top: 1px solid #000066; border-bottom: 1px solid #000066; background: #DEDED9; padding: 10px; margin: 5px 0 5px 5px;">What does the Bible say about being a burden on others? Don't.</span>However, reading the text from verse 3 onward indicates that the conditions for getting help from the church were very stringent (verses 4,9,10). It also indicates that the <span style="font-style: italic;">widow's family is to act as her Social Security</span> (verses 4,8). Paul even instructs Timothy NOT to put younger widows on the list. Why? Among other things, they get into the habit of <b>idleness</b> (verses 11-13). Younger widows should not seek welfare from the church, but should instead seek to marry and have children (verse 14). I should note that verse 16 says that women with widows in the family should help them so that they <i>won't be a burden</i> on the church.<br /><br />What does the Bible say about being a burden on others? In a word (technically two), don't. Verse 16 says for family members to relieve the burden from the church by taking care of their own. This is done so that the church can help those who really need it, i.e. they fit the requirements set forth in verses 4/9/10 and don't have other family to help.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%204;&version=49;" target="newwindow2">1 Thessalonians 4</a><br /><blockquote> <sup>11</sup>and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, <sup>12</sup>so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and <b><i>not be in any need.</i></b> <br /></blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=60&chapter=3&version=49" target="newwindow3">2 Thessalonians 3</a><br /><blockquote> <sup>6</sup>Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. <sup>7</sup>For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, <sup>8</sup>nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day <b><i>so that we would not be a burden to any of you</i></b>; <sup>9</sup>not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. <sup>10</sup>For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: <b><i>if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. </i></b></blockquote><br />When someone takes advantage of state welfare when not *really* needing it, they contribute to the burden that is placed on everyone else. The apostles had every right to eat and drink on the church's tab (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%209&version=49" target="newwindow4">1 Corinthians 9</a>, especially verse 4), but chose not to exercise that right, in order to set the model for the church, which was to not be a burden on others. Idleness is looked down upon in the New Testament teachings.<br /><br />So enough of all the exposition; what do <b>I</b> think about socialism? The early Christian church seems to have embodied some socialistic ideals. I think that socialism is an ideal that can only be reached within the context of the Christian church. I do not think that ideal will be reached if more socialist concepts are implemented in the U.S. As is true even these days, people back then fell easily into idleness. <b>There's also the one extremely pertinent fact that the entire population of the U.S. is not united by/with Christ</b>. <br /><br />I personally do not like the idea of having to give up large chunks of my earnings in order to care for everyone else. "Oh but what of the children and the poor, and what about free health care for all," you ask. First of all, universal health care will not be free for anyone, both in terms of time and money (we're all looking forward to waiting months and months for an initial doctor's visit, right?). I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but my money needs to go towards caring for my own family before caring for everyone else. The Bible says that I am worse than an unbeliever if I do not care for my own family. Heavy taxation is the only way to provide socialistic health care and wealth re-distribution, and heavy taxation interferes with my ability to provide for my family. In my opinion, <b><i>socialism and/or welfare has a place, and that is within the confines of the family, then church.</i></b> If the Democrats/leftists end up implementing universal health care, I have no choice but to accept it. Although I might be entirely displeased with the whole thing, the Bible commands me to submit to the government.<br /><br />In my analysis of socialism, I tried to be as unbiased and Biblical as possible, so that if you had a problem with what I said, your problem would be with the Bible. However, it is not possible for a human to be truly unbiased, and so if you have issues, let's take them up in the comments.<br /><br />(<i>Tentatively</i>, a similar analysis on Christianity and capitalism will follow.)<br /><br />EDIT: Here's my post on <a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2007/03/capitalism-and-christianity.html">capitalism and Christianity</a>JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-26833814967269481402007-03-24T10:48:00.005-04:002008-04-14T12:57:47.958-04:00Socialism and Christianity, Part 1<!--<span style="font-size: 200%; float: left; padding: 0 3px 2px 0;">I</span>-->I'm writing this to try</span> to find out what the Bible has to say about socialistic concepts and, by extension, socialism itself. Socialism has already penetrated U.S. society in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Socialistic health care seems to be looming over the horizon. What's a Christian to think? We'll see.<br /><br />First of all, let me preface by saying that I am no economist or sociologist and have not done extensive research into this topic. I have tried to be as open-minded and unbiased as possible in this post, while letting the Bible guide my thoughts. <span style="width: 200px; float: right; text-align: center; border-top: 1px solid #000066; border-bottom: 1px solid #000066; background: #DEDED9; padding: 10px; margin: 5px 0 5px 5px;">The early Christian church is the ideal to which socialists aspire.</span>That said, let's tare the scale and define socialism for the scope of this post. I know that socialism can take many different forms, so my definition is this: a socio-economic system wherein the government has extensive control over wealth re-distribution and general welfare (among other things). It seeks to minimize the individual needs, while championing the common good over all.<br /><br />I'm a Christian, and not a citizen of this world, so I seek to find what the Bible has to say about socialistic concepts. God never explicitly commanded us to be socialists, and so there is no direct mention of it in scripture. However, let's take a look at some telling examples and scriptures.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%202:42-47;&version=31;" target="newwindow">Acts 2:44 - 45</a><br /><blockquote>44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%204:32-36;&version=31;" target="newwindow">Acts 4:32-35</a><br /><blockquote>32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.</blockquote><br />It would seem as though the early Christian church is the ideal to which socialists aspire. However, I believe there is one element that makes ALL the difference here: <b>Jesus Christ</b>. All the believers were one in heart and mind, with Christ as the focal point. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%203:26-29;&version=31;" target="newwindow">Galatians 3:28</a> mentions that we are all one in Christ. When a government tries to implement socialism, the government itself is at the head; Christ is most definitely not at the head (especially with governments that separate church and state so stringently). It's like trying to perform the surgical procedure of a head transplant; first, it's gruesome, and second, it wouldn't work. The socialistic concepts seen in Acts are similar to what contemporary socialists would want the government to do, except nowadays, the giving would be compulsory, as opposed to voluntary and from the overflow of the generous heart. I also personally believe that the distribution of goods was much more efficient in Acts because there was no labyrinthine bureaucracy to navigate. However, that last sentence remains a personal thesis of mine, because the Bible mentions nothing about how efficient the distribution of goods was.<br /><br />Solidarity is a big selling point of socialism. This says that we are all one, we are all equal, or at least, we are all made equal by the government. In the church, this can be possible, because we have Christ to bind us. However, in the world, this is not entirely possible. Per 2 Corinthians 6, we are not to be yoked with unbelievers. There is no harmony between Christ and Belial. Likewise, since not everybody in the U.S. is a Christian (far from it), it cannot work to try to "unify" all citizens and rally them under the government.<br /><br />Basically, a socialist government tries to emulate the function of the church, except with the glaring flaw that Christ is not the head. I believe that <span style="font-weight: bold;">since Christ is not the head of any government of this world, socialism can never reach the ideal that is exemplified in Acts</span>.<br /><br />What do you say? Do you agree? Am I crazy? Is my analysis flawed? Let me know.<br /><br />In <a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2007/03/socialism-and-christianity-part-2.html">Part 2</a>, I delve into the specifics of what the Bible says about welfare, and I will give you my own opinion on socialism, in case you were wondering.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-49071590869977195052007-03-19T08:18:00.000-04:002007-03-19T09:02:38.068-04:00Upward SpiralHarmony and I continually find ourselves in an upward spiral these days. That would be the opposite of "downward spiral," which is a commonly used term in vernacular English. Our upward spiral means that we are becoming more and more traditional as time goes by. Want to know how "weird" we've become? Read on. For the short attention spans out there, I've <strong>bolded</strong> the continual steps of our upward spiral.<br /><br />For a time in college, I thought that after Harmony and I got married, that she would work part-time. I have always wanted my wife <strong>staying home with my kids</strong>, I believe, so I would've been fine with her quitting when kids came along. But then Harmony presented me with some reasons why it could be a jarring adjustment to not have that extra income (etc.) anymore and I was quite easily won over. I think she had just begun reading conservative Christian blogs at this time. Somewhere in there we also <strong>decided against using birth control.</strong><br /><br />Not surprisingly, a short time afterwards, she brought up the subject of <strong>homeschooling</strong>. I'd not had much experience with homeschooling. I'd only known one person who'd been homeschooled, and she didn't seem any more weird than the rest of us. I think I did bring up the default question of "socialization" but I don't remember what came of it. All I know now is that I have no desire to socialize my kids in the Godless socialist environment that is tax payer funded child abuse (a.k.a. government/public schools). So you would think that I would naturally want to put my kids in private Christian schools, right? Well, not really. Contemporary classrooms still follow the age-segregated peer education model. I attended private school for a while and I can tell you that no majority of students are Bambi-eyed cherubs who espouse Christian virtues when presented with the opportunity to do evil. In general, I <strong>do not plan to practice age segregation</strong>, so this means that the only option left is either a one room schoolhouse or homeschooling. I think you know which one I intend to choose.<br /><br />(Of course, I do not condemn you if, for whatever reason, choose/chose not to homeschool. Besides, humans have no power to condemn anyone. It's like trying to will the sun not to rise.)<br /><br />Of course, age segregation is present in churches today. Youth groups, young adult ministries, teen ministries, this-and-that ministries. I have read reasons why some people choose not to put their kids in youth groups, and I must say that I agree with the reasons.<br /><br />I've also become much more traditional in my preferred church music. Before I came to college, I was all into the contemporary styles of musical worship. But I started attending a quasi-church of Christ in college. Quasi- meaning it was a denomination split from the churches of Christ, which generally do not use instruments. Over the years I became accustomed to and developed affinity for <strong>non-instrumental 4 part a cappella hymns</strong> as my preferred method of musical worship. I do not believe this is a salvation issue and therefore do not condemn any who do use instruments in worship.<br /><br />After many years of eating entirely unhealthy foods in college, we started getting more much "weird" about <strong>eating healthy foods</strong>. At first it started with Harmony trying to cut out extremely sugary foods from her diet. Then we somehow got to slowly <strong>cutting out trans fats</strong> from our diets. We started buying organic every now and then. Now, we <strong>try to make things from scratch</strong> whenever possible. We also try to <strong>substitute other things for sugar</strong> (like honey or Sucanat-which-is-painfully-expensive), since my dad has relatively recently developed diabetes, which means I might be susceptible as well.<br /><br />Harmony has recently also been reading up on hybrid seed varieties and seed saving or whatnot. I think she's on a new quest to <strong>be a responsible gardener</strong>, which means not using pesticides and using "good" seeds only. (Pssst...Harmony might want to revise this paragraph later.)<br /><br />One area which I've become much less strict on is the issue of salvation. Actually, I got considerably <em>more</em> strict before coming back down to what I think is a happy medium. The church I attended throughout college used to hold to a rather cult-ish belief that only those who held to their doctrines and every single one of their extra-Biblical beliefs would enter Heaven. There was lip service given to those select few outside the church that (theoretically) had come to the church's beliefs independently. However, most of their extra-Biblical beliefs were exclusively practiced in that church only, so in practice, no one but church members fit. To its own credit, many of these churches have reformed their beliefs and have become pleasantly progressive (relative to former positions), although there are still some who hold to such narrow and cult-ish beliefs. Old beliefs die hard among some. Anyways, I used to buy into the One True Church mindset, but do so no longer. Coincidentally or not, Harmony and I now attend a traditional church of Christ. Before college, I think I was too quick to label many people as being "Christian" without having the lifestyle to prove it. I no longer just assume that anyone is a Christian just because he/she says so, but also no longer believe that only people in my former church are the only ones who hold the keys to heaven (what would that mean for me, who no longer attends?)<br /><br />...But don't let all this scare you off from talking to us. I think on the outside we still resemble normal people. I'm left wondering how much more traditional/conservative we'll become in the next decade.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-76948892899485009402007-03-10T08:37:00.000-05:002007-03-10T08:52:27.738-05:00It's Not Me, It's ThemRecently, I found myself waiting in a doctor's office. I also found myself in the presence of three probably college age young women. To my eyes, they were provocatively dressed. To society's eyes, they were probably dressed somewhat moderately. One of the girls had shorts that didn't cover much, and the other two were wearing jeans, but their tops did not exactly do much to conceal their figures, nor did they come down far enough. <br /><br />Since I've been out of college, I'm not around this type of dress very often. I initially thought "What's wrong with me? Why am I being tempted more than I was before?" I thought that since I didn't get out into society much, I must not be used to this style of dress anymore.<br /><br />I quickly realized it was not ME that had the problem, it was THEM. It was everybody else who chooses to dress in a way that's meant to provoke. It should not be that I "get used to" seeing people dress like that. There is no reason for women to be dressing like that outside the presence of their own husbands, if even married. I consider it a good thing that I am no longer numb to seeing women dressed in provocative ways. <br /><br />Of course, it is not entirely their fault that I was tempted by flesh. Rather, I think the burden lies with both genders; women to not dress in a way to get attention, and men to keep their own thoughts and temptations in check.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-40690300107707777772007-02-20T14:47:00.000-05:002007-02-20T15:15:35.932-05:00Would I Have Been a Liberal Back Then?As times change, so does what is considered "conservative" or "liberal." I hope that if I had lived 200-300 years ago, that I would've had a number of liberal traits.<br /><br />Back in times of slavery, it was the conservative position that there was nothing wrong with slavery (if I'm not mistaken). It was the progressive, or liberal, position that slavery was wrong. Now, I haven't exactly done my research, but I believe that until the Revolutionary period, almost no whites spoke out against slavery. If I had been living back then, would I have had any twinge of guilt if I had been a slave owner? I suppose that since the Bible does mention that slaves should obey their masters, maybe I would've used this as justification, since it does not necessarily condemn slave ownership. And if I did own slaves, I sure hope that I would've treated them in a manner according to Ephesians 6.<br /><br />During the American Civil Rights era, would I have held a progressive position towards civil rights reform? I hope that I would've been clear-minded enough to realize that there was no Biblical justification for mistreating people solely based on skin color. I hope that I would've sided with the peaceful protesters, perhaps even enduring ridicule even though I'm not black. Then again, as a Korean, I probably would've advocated civil rights reform anyways, since they probably benefited Asians as well.<br /><br />Would I have disapproved of interracial marriage, during times when it was looked down upon, and even illegal in many US states? I hope that I would've had the mind to think that there was no New Testament justification for condemning interracial marriage. Harmony and I have currently not experienced any indemnity for our interracial marriage, aside from all the stuff that happened during our engagement. To my knowledge, we've not gotten any disapproving sneers when people see us together.<br /><br />Then again, being liberal in your beliefs should only extend so far. The liberality of my beliefs only extends as far as the Bible allows it. To take two hot-button issues of the day...the Bible does not condone murder of innocent children (among murder of other demographics), nor does it condone homos*xual relations. Therefore I do not condone them either, however much contemporary society tries to tell me that these are normal and acceptable behaviors. Speaking of other commonly accepted behaviors, the Bible does not condone divorce and remarriage to another spouse, if the first spouse is living; therefore, I do not condone divorce and remarriage, unless the original couple is being reunited. "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" I'm just very glad that I'm not in a situation like that, nor will I ever be.<br /><br />What exactly is my political label? I don't really know. There's "liberal," there's "conservative," but I hope that I could label myself as "Biblical."JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-59204705816637980112007-02-07T09:39:00.000-05:002007-03-15T09:15:51.582-04:00Picking and Choosing Political IdeologiesSome people might look at my position that abortion should be outlawed by the federal government and speaketh ill of me, considering that people like me are usually not for government control over people's lives. However, in being a Christian, this world is not my home, and I am not bound to conform 100% to these earthly ideologies of government control or freedom from government or whatever. I do not pick and choose from the Bible (or try not to, anyways). I DO pick and choose from political ideologies, as I see appropriate from what the Bible says.<br /><br />The following passage is Acts 4:32 - 35<br /><blockquote><p>32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that<br />any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With<br />great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord<br />Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among<br />them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought<br />the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was<br />distributed to anyone as he had need.<br /></p></blockquote><br />Now, you read this and you will likely think socialism or communism. However, I don't believe the text indicates any sort of authoritarian coercion. This is what I believe could be called ideal conservatism; no coercion, but people are taken care of because of the generosity of the population. However, I will conceded that money from real estate *was* put at the apostles' feet in order to be distributed. So maybe socialism isn't to be 100% condemned. After all, Christianity cannot be contained in one political ideology. Anyways, some random paragraphs follow:<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy">Christian Democracy</a><br />I agree with a lot of the points here. However, I don't know how far the average Christian Democrat advocates the social solidarity bit (i.e. welfare, high tax on the rich, etc). I'm all for reducing poverty and getting people off the streets. Regarding welfare: the government should not give free hand-outs to any low-income person who asks. After all, "If a man will not work, he will not eat." That's a Bible quote, for those who don't know. Regarding high taxes on the rich: again, ideally the rich will be generous with their money, thus alleviating the necessity of taxes. <br /><br />Crunchy conservatism<br />For anyone that does not know, crunchy conservatism puts family, social conservatism, and environmental-friendliness into one lifestyle. Overall, these would probably be the people more likely to attend church regularly, have large families, buy organic groceries, vote Republican, and homeschool. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. The person to first put the ideology in one manifesto was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Dreher">Rod Dreher</a>, although the lifestyle has been around for longer than his book. Speaking of which, I enjoyed his book; I did not, however, like the part of his book where he said that a crunchy conservative would naturally gravitate towards "classic" religion like Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I am Church of Christ and have never felt any pull to go towards "classic" religion (no offense intended to Catholics/Orthodox). And I might not agree with crunchy conservatives on death penalty and war (no I would never spit on soldiers/marines/airmen/sailors or do anything like that), where they (on average) traditionally side with the Republicans. <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic">Consistent Life Ethic</a><br />This says that all human life is sacred. I haven't read too much on this one. Anyways, I haven't totally been able to reconcile some of my views and choices on the consistent life ethic subject. For example, I work for a company that makes high-tech gadgets that could be responsible for lots of loss of life, but I am opposed to taking human life. I work in somewhat of a supporting role and am not directly involved in the things that could take human life. Just because I work to support some high-tech projects doesn't mean I can't have a consistent pro-life ethic. If you think about it, all of us who pay taxes to the government have funded wars in one way or another. So the only way to avoid such a thing would be to not pay taxes, which is against the law of the land, which the Bible says we should obey. I haven't totally figured it out myself, folks. Convictions on complicated issues like this aren't built in a day. <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism">Libertarianism</a><br />This, I believe, is "liberalism" in the true dictionary sense of the word, not the current political definition. If I wanted to hold to a consistent political ideology, I'd choose this one. However, I tend to disagree with libertarianism on social issues like legalizations of abortion, prostitution, gay marriage, and the like, since the Bible does not look favorably on these sorts of things. Given a choice between leftist and libertarian, I'd vote libertarian. At least they'd keep their hands off of me, my family, and my family's sustenance (a.k.a. the money I earn).<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite#Theology">Mennonites</a><br />I don't swear oaths, because my yes is yes and my no is no. Um....there's not really anything political about this, nor do I know of any political ideology that shuns oaths. Which is why I've linked to a religious group instead of a political one. I've only had to invoke this conviction once, and that was when we were getting our marriage certificate. Harmony and I "affirmed" that all of the information on the application was correct.<br /><br />Where the Bible is clear on things, you bet I am completely close-minded! No viewpoint but the Bible on those sorts of things. However, where it unclear or silent, there's room for open-mindedness. If you think I'm crazy on any of these points, please feel free to let me know.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-41104762964495243752007-01-23T11:21:00.000-05:002007-01-23T11:36:41.623-05:00When I Grow Up....I was listening to Neal Boortz this morning (whose religious views I in no way support, but whose political views are often spot on), and I was introduced to an alarming bit of <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0112/p11s01-algn.html">news</a>. An amazing 43.4% of Rochester, NY teenage girls want to be a celebrity personal assistant when they grow up. Can you believe that?! What about "I want to be a mom," or "I want to make the world a better place"?<br /><p class="text"></p><blockquote><p class="text">"Globally, kids don't know the names of their own heads of government or what their country exports," says Jeff Davidson, author of "Breathing Space: Living & Working at a Comfortable Pace in a Sped-Up Society," via e-mail. "But they do know the name of Tom Cruise's baby."</p><p class="text">Fame also appears ever more obtainable to Generation Y. So-called "reality TV" shows such as "American Idol," "America's Next Top Model," and "Making the Band," reveal how stars are manufactured. "Now all of a sudden the process is more transparent," says Hill.</p></blockquote><p class="text"></p>This is alarming to me -- after all, what values are these celebrities instilling in the general populace? American Idolatry of celebrities has gotten out of hand, end of story.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-18210196638007029122007-01-23T09:41:00.000-05:002007-01-23T10:15:44.566-05:00Nothing New Under the SunPeople who say that the Bible is outdated and not appropriate for the times are just making excuses for their sin or other people's sin.<br /><br /><blockquote>Jeremiah 2:27 <br /><br /> 27 They say to wood, 'You are my father,' <br /> and to stone, 'You gave me birth.' <br /> They have turned their backs to me <br /> and not their faces; <br /> yet when they are in trouble, they say, <br /> 'Come and save us!' </blockquote><br />"They" refers to the Israelites who had gone astray. I find it interesting that similar things can be said about the secular / anti-God factions that exist today, who champion evolution as their god and abortion as their holy sacrament, among other things.<br /><br />Although I think the context is different, the concept (to me) remains the same. Secularists "worship" the creation instead of the Creator. There's nothing new under the sun, as Ecclesiastes states. H0m06uality (go away crazy Google searches) has been around since ancient Biblical times; abortion has been documented as early as 515-500 BC; exploitation of children has been around; although obviously internet smut did not exist long ago, men have always been lustful in their hearts, as seen by the existence of concubines throughout history.<br /><br />So don't tell me about how "the world is a changing place" and that Christians need to be in step with "the times." That's all garbage talk. There is nothing new that is borne in the hearts of men. Allow me to counter all this garbage with the supreme eloquence and wisdom of the Bible:<br /><br /><blockquote>Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, <br /> what has been done will be done again; <br /> there is nothing new under the sun. <br /><br />Ecclesiastes 1:10 Is there anything of which one can say, <br /> "Look! This is something new"? <br /> It was here already, long ago; <br /> it was here before our time. </blockquote><br />If you notice throughout Israel's history, and through church history, there are constantly cycles of gradual backsliding, followed by returns to Biblical tradition. Reading the Biblical history of Israel, you see that the Israelites were constantly falling back into idolatry and other sin, then being brought back to repentance. When the period of kings began, you see lots of up-and-down from king-to-king. The Jews were constantly going back to planting Asherah poles and whatnot. The Reformation movements, the Anabaptist movement, the Restoration movement; these were all rebuttals to the Christian norms of the day. They all started as united fronts, then split off into their splinter groups. Could be another hundred years or so before the next one comes along, but I guarantee that it will. I say all this to emphasize that there is nothing new under the sun.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-25902855563426711812007-01-22T08:39:00.000-05:002007-01-22T09:31:47.284-05:00Blue MondayI heard on the radio that today has been declared "Blue Monday," because today is the day that people hit their lowest point of the year. People will (supposedly) be more depressed today than at any other point in 2007.<br /><br />The reasons why people are so depressed are as follows:<br /><ul><li>The weather (although my family loves it!)</li><li>The Christmas bills are beginning to come in the mail</li><li>By now most people are depressed about failing in their New Year's Resolutions<br /></li></ul>Perhaps if people had more <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2042:5;&version=47;">hope</a> during bleak times, they would be able to cope with such things?<br /><br />And I am finding it quite ironic that it falls on the anniversary of the Roe vs Wade decision.... Kim has a sobering post about abortion at <a href="http://inashoe.blogspot.com/2007/01/sober-thoughts-today.html">Life in a shoe</a> that is worth your time.<br /><br />For more on the depressing front today, <a href="http://www.biblicalwomanhood.com/2007/01/maybe-its-about-time-i-start-looking.html">Crystal</a> indicates that she might want to look into foreign citizenship in the event that a certain former first lady is elected to higher office. I'll just let Crystal know that there is no reason to resort to such extreme measures. She and Jesse are perfectly welcome to share the bomb shelter that my husband and I will retreat into. ;)Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com2