"Angry White Man" Defined

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh awhile ago and he read an article from the Aspen Times Weekly. A couple days earlier, in a conversation with a friend of mine, she said I sometimes sounded like an "Angry White Man." Hearing Rush read this article basically defining the Angry White Man," it really resonated with me, so I'm going to cheat today and just reprint the whole thing here, with maybe some words emphasized - here we go:

"There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

"Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

"There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

"His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

"The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

"He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

"The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.

"The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

"His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

"He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

"Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

"He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

"He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

"Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

"He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

"There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

"He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum." - Gary Hubbell

Amen! I guess I don't just sound like one, but I am an Angry White Man!

Farewell Fidel and HD DVD Format

I woke up today, did my normal morning routine, and eventually got on the internet to post something on the blog for today. The morning news pops up and I see that a commie fossil south of Florida is finally stepping down, and my favorite HD video format is quitting as well! Good and bad news!

Farewell Fidel, and good riddance. For those of you out there like Michael Moore who admire the man, or you young ones that think you're cool and a rebel when you wear his buddy's face, Che Guevara, on a tee-shirt, let's take a look at what he accomplished over his 50 years as a dictator:

• Led a violent overthrow of the Cuban government under Batista beginning in 1956 and ending in 1959 (after a failed attack in 1953, where the Cuban government tried, imprisoned, and then released him from jail - he fled to Mexico to train for his next guerilla invasion - they had him and let him go! - bad mistake).
• Sworn in as the Prime Minister of Cuba immediately after toppling the government.
• Led the transformation of Cuba into a one-party socialist republic (in other words, commie dictatorship) as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba.
• President of the Council of State as well as of the Council of Ministers in 1976 (more titles added to his commie dictator designation).
• Supreme military rank of Comandante en Jefe ("Commander in Chief") of the Cuban armed forces (in other words, commie dictator with lots of guns).
• Allied himself with the Nikita Khrushchev and the USSR (soviet commie dictator) in 1960.
• Shortly after in 1960, he "nationalized" (in other words, stole and incorporated into his centralized commie dictator government) all U.S. businesses and lands in Cuba.
• Drove out thousands of middle and upper-class Cubans who previously supported him with his communist economic system (in other words, the hard working people said "we're outta here!" and immigrated to the US and are now living in Florida).
• Lost all diplomatic ties with U.S. by 1961.
• Repelled US-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and this pissed him off (which is understandable).
• End of 1961 he declared that he was a Marxist-Leninist (in other words commie) and that Cuba was adopting communism (big surprise).
• In 1962, US embargo of Cuba began, and is still in place.
• Later in 1962 he almost started a nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis - he encouraged the USSR to strike the US first with its nuclear weapons if the US invaded Cuba, which the soviet commie dictator refused to do, thankfully.
• In the 70's he supported Marxist (commie) revolutions in other parts of the world, including Ethiopia (thus, we see images of starving kids in Ethiopia due to the wars there).
• In 1991, his commie friends of the government of the USSR went bankrupt and collapsed (thank you Reagan!), and Cuba went into the crapper - shortages were rampant, factories and such shut down.
• In the same year, a hurricane hit and Fidel refused US humaitarian aid, instead agreeing to a one-time purchase of food (commie thug pride shining through).
• Rather than relinquish his commie dictator hold on the country (which would have ended the economic embargo and open trade with his closest neighbor and allowed his country to prosper), he legalized the evil American dollar in Cuba instead (sort of a get his cake and eat it too measure) and allowed foreign nationals to transfer their US dollars home to Cuba.
• Recently he's found other commie dictator friends to help him out in Latin America (see Hugo Chavez, who called our elected President Bush the Devil at the UN, on US soil - and Democrats were silent!).
• He's killed thousands of political opponents after his rise to power, and imprisoned thousands more in concentration camps without trial (what commie dictators naturally do - see China).
• Labor camps were instituted in 1965 to put "social deviants" - like those pesky homosexuals and Jehovah's Witnesses - to work as slaves (camps closed in 1967 due to international pressure).
• He's an athiest (as most commie dictators are - atheism allows amoral actions).

This is not a man to honor or admire. He's an egotistical thug, who takes credit for what little is right, and blames the US for all that is wrong. For you US-haters out there who love to hear commie dictators spew venom against your own country, laugh with glee when our enemies put us down, and love to go to their countries and have them give you the dog and pony show, go live there for awhile and see how you like it. Try to get your opinions and movies approved and allowed to air on state-run television. Sooner or later, you'd end up in a political prison with the rest of them. That or dead.

We'll see if democratic reforms are instituted and honest elections held - it sounds like Fidel's 70-something brother Raul is going to rise to power - what they call commie dictator fossil succession, I guess. It would be nice to smoke a Cuban cigar with a clear conscience. Or maybe take a vacation to what could be a beautiful island paradise and is instead a dump of human poverty and suffering.

Now to the bad news: HD-DVD format lost the Hi-def war with Sony's Bluray format. Well, at least it was over quick! I picked the Betamax format, I guess. I'm only out a few hundred bucks on the player and the movies I've bought so far, but they will still always play, and some of them are Combo Format HD-DVD and standard DVD. I feel really bad for those who went out and bought a HD-DVD player for Christmas, only to have the rug pulled out from under you after a month and a half!

The deciding factor seemed to be the number of production companies signing with Sony - Warner Brothers being the latest - that many stores were only carrying Bluray, and the fact that Playstation 3 sales were good over Christmas. Seems to me like the consumer really didn't get a chance to decide which format was better - the corporations decided - and now 600,000 people are left with worthless players (at least long term). Sony now has a monopoly on the Hi-Def format - don't look for their prices to go down any time soon! The competition quit just when the war was getting going, because things weren't looking good. That's fine, but it's a pretty crappy thing to do to your customers!

It does bring to mind the reality of people quitting before the contest has really even begun. Presidential candidates quit after losing a couple state primaries. Investors quit after a little bad news, sending the stock plunging for no real reason. Half the country quits the War on Terror when it gets a little tough and there are a few setbacks, and instead believe we are the enemy, sending a message to the true enemies that we are not in for the long haul and we don't have the resolve. Unfortunately, today we want results and we want them now. And if we don't get them right away, we quit.

Where would our country be if we quit when the going got tough (which it certainly did) in the Revolutionary War? Or when we stormed the beaches of Normandy, and huddled in the frozen holes of Bastogne when the enemy surrounded them? Or when the firehoses were turned on American-African marchers in the south? We've become a nation of quitters, and people without resolve, and courage, and stomach, and instead sit back and watch young celebrity girls destroy themselves before our very eyes.

That is the one and only lesson we can take from good old Fidel - he kept fighting, he never quit, he kept giving his five-hour rambling speeches to his captive audiences, and kept pointing the finger at the US and brainwashing his people in the public schools - he certainly wasn't a quitter.

Happy Presidents Day (for Government Workers)!

Today we observe Washington's and Lincoln's Birthdays, on the third Monday in February to promote business. Like many of our national holidays, actually reflecting on the reason for the holiday is too often replaced by sales, shopping, and going out and having fun.

George Washington - "Father of His Nation" - is in my estimation the greatest American of all. After he led the revolutionaries to victory, our new country wanted to crown him king, and he declined. He even declined the various majestic titles they wished to call him by after winning the presidency, and preferred to be called "Mr. President," a tradition to this day. He reluctantly served, and served only two terms - a tradition that remained until FDR anyway, and then made into law.

Up until the 1960's, Presidents Day was Washington's Birthday. Lincoln's birthday was added in 1968. Rather than focus on Abraham Lincoln as well, we'll focus on "the reason for the season" so to speak, and rather than continue listing all of Washington's great achievements, I think we should just read a few of his own words:

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company."

"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence."

"Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession."

"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

"Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected."

"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery."

"I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an Honest Man."

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

"If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."

"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

"It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it."

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."

"Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience."

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

"Let your heart feel for the afflictions and distress of everyone, and let your hand give in proportion to your purse."

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth."

"Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government."

"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

"Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe."

"The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon."

"The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure."

"The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government."

"The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it."

"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments."

"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

"There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate, upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."

"We ought not to look back, unless it is to derive useful lessons from past errors and for the purpose of profiting by dear bought experience."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

We should really just take a moment to listen to everything he's said here and take it in. There are certainly a few quotes that convicted me - there are more than a few that reinforce some of the ideas I've put forth myself on this blog. How about you? Or are you too busy planning on what to buy at Kohl's Presidents Day Sale!

Need to Know the End!

I woke up today and started reading my pile of Spawn comics again - I'm over a year behind in the story. Things are getting really good - the battle of Heaven and Hell is starting up (a quasi-Gnostic understanding is put forth by the writers), and Spawn is caught in the middle, and his power is running out, and everything has been leading up to this, AND-?!

The issue ends with a cliffhanger, to be expected, but I'm missing the next issue in my pile of comics! It's the one issue I'm missing, and it's the end of the story! I need to know the end!

I started thinking about this need to know the end. Beyond just the normal stuff - like sticking with a real groaner of a movie just because you either paid the money at the theater to see it, paid to rent it, you're in an hour already so might as well see it through, or more often than not, you need to see how it ends (or in the case of a lot of horror movies, how it doesn't end).

Many Christians take great comfort in the "fact" that they know the end of the story. They know that in the end, God will triumph, the Devil will be defeated, and all those who believe will spend eternity in Paradise. And thanks to the Book of Revelation, they know how it all is going to happen as well!

First off, Revelation barely made it into the Bible. It was considered a "disputed book" in the 4th Century, when the canonization process of the New Testament began, and even was disregarded by Martin Luther as "neither apostolic nor prophetic" 1200 years later.

Secondly, interpretations of Revelation have been used over the centuries to "predict" the end of the world. Christian movements have set dates for the end of the world based on Revelation - and of course they have been wrong, because we're all still here. Many believers believe that we are currently living in the "End Times" - which accounts for the popularity of the "Left Behind" series of "books" (I use the term loosely - if you've ever cracked one of them open, the writing is abysmal and the printing so large and spaced out to warrant each chapter being sold as a separate book - I might rant about the money-grab of the Left Behind series at a later date - what a scam - the Christian flock sure was fleeced on that one).

Third (and related to Secondly), some Christians are overly obsessed with Revelation, and because it foretells Jesus coming back, some work to see the events in Revelation happen. I suspect that working to resettle Jews in the Holy Land after the horrors of World War II was influenced, at least in part, by the idea that the End Times will not happen and Jesus will not come back until "God's Chosen People" are back home in Israel. Many churches support building efforts in Israel to see Christ come back in their lifetime. I personally support Israel because they are the only democracy in that backwards area of the world, but I don't know that foreign policy decisions and diplomacy in the Middle East should be swayed and influenced by a strange book written almost two thousand years ago - doesn't seem like the right course to take to me.

Lastly, and most importantly, I think a belief in the events of Revelation, a "knowing how it all ends" mentality, excuses inaction when action in the world is needed now more than ever before. Why bother fighting against real evil in the world, when we all know that God will triumph in the end? In fact, let's just let it happen, because then maybe Jesus will come back sooner! This mentality can be seen both globally and locally, in our own lives. It excuses inaction - excuses a belief that we won't make a difference anyway, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and that it all is really in "God's Hands." Just "turn the other cheek" as the Savior taught, right?

Think of the heroes of history, and if they had this impotent understanding and outlook on the course of human events - a bunch of farmers wouldn't have rebelled against an Empire, ordinary people from across the ocean wouldn't have freed a continent and saved "God's Chosen People" from a ruthless dictator - I don't care to think about it, I choose to appreciate and honor the heroes of the past who stood against evil and said "no more."

What would the course of history look like if Revelation had never been written, or gained acceptance? I think the world would be a much better place - inaction would not be excused - we would not "know" how it all is going to end, and be able to relax in that comfort and allow it to happen. The Book of Revelation fulfills a basic human need - knowing how it all ends - and if it wasn't Revelation it would have been some other made up book.

I think I need to be blunt: Jesus is not coming back. We are not going to be whisked away in some wonderful "Rapture" and be spared the "Tribulation" and horrors of this world, watching from Heaven above as God kicks ass. If we let the "End Times" happen, we will be right in the middle of it, like those poor souls trapped in the World Trade Center towers when they came crumbling down. Goodness, and righteousness, and freedom, and peace, and love, is all up to us, inspired by our God-given Reason to work and fight for a better tomorrow.

Radio Ga Ga

You know, I really have to change my clock radio to a music station - it's pretty depressing to wake up to the news. Kind of ruins your day.

No, it wasn't the news of the guy killing a bunch of people at a university that sunk me - unfortunately that kind of news is all too common. Perhaps some day I'll talk about why I think this young generation cannot deal with reality and choose to slaughter a bunch of innocent people instead on their way out - and it's not because of guns!

It was the news about the Fed Chairman saying they may lower the Fed interest rate again! Would you please stop tinkering with things and just let the recession happen!!! You're only going to make things worse when the correction occurs!

My time in New Zealand was very instructive on the relationship between the government treasury interest rate and the value of the currency. When interest rates go down, investors are less likely to buy the currency, so the value of the currency drops. When interest rates go up, investors are more likely to buy the currency, so the value of the currency increases. We were always watching the value of the US dollar versus the NZ dollar to try to get the best deal when we transferred money back home.

The value of the US dollar has been on a downslide for some time now. That's why we have inflation, and why a dollar "back in the day" got you a lot more than it gets you today. The Fed just lowered interest rates a couple weeks ago 1.25% (I believe) - a huge adjustment and almost unheard of - to try to help stave off the approaching recession. Now that the market still is going down (which it always does - the market will bounce back a little on news of an interest rate drop, but reality always comes back into play), the Fed is saying another rate cut is coming. What this does is increase speculative investing - because money is so cheap - artificially pumping up stock prices and the economy. Eventually, we're going to have to face reality, and the correction will be even more painful. I say lets just take it now - staving it off just involves more and more people in the pain - those who screwed up should have to feel the pain, not the rest of us.

First it was the "dot-com" bubble burst. To not make things too painful in the aftermath, the government artificially propped up the housing market with low mortgage rates (based on low Fed rates). As housing costs artificially skyrocketed, people used the phantom equity to buy all kinds of toys, artificially propping up the economy. Well, now the housing bubble has burst, and people's houses are worth less than what they owe the bank, and the government is busily trying to stop the correction again! Let it correct! If you want to do something, cut back on taxes and spending - we just set a record for the largest budget in history - $3.1 trillion dollars!

So the government is giving money to people as "tax rebates" and telling them to spend it to help prop up the falling economy - giving these rebates to the 50% of people who don't pay taxes, mind you - when the average credit card debt in this country is $5000 or something like that (don't quote me, but it's in the thousands). We need to save! We need to stop spending like drunken idiots and start being responsible! This whole economy is smoke and mirrors, and has been running on debt for too long! Let those who are irresponsible take the hit, instead of bringing everyone else down with them (kind of sounds like the guy shooting up the school before killing himself, doesn't it?)!

But no, we can't have any pain or any lessons learned in this country. The idiots who bought a house that was too expensive for them are now being bailed out - the banks forced by the government to extend the sub-prime and prime interests rates for these morons - who do you think pays for it? We do! The responsible people out there who save and spend wisely, because if the banks cannot collect the interest they are owed, we do not get a decent interest rate on our money. And all the artificial propping up of the economy with free money and lower interest rates causes the value of the dollar to fall, so the dollar you diligently saved today is worth less tomorrow! Interest rates are lower than inflation!

Who else should feel the pain? How about the greedy, speculative bastards out there who were riding the gravy train of increasing house prices, buying homes and "flipping" them (you've seen the shows on television) - and now their investment is worth less than they bought it for. Or how about the real estate funds on the stock market? Oh boo-hoo! I lost a bunch of money on a stock when I was going to college, and did I whine to the government to give me my money back - no! I took the hit and learned from the mistake.

I should make something very clear, so there are no misunderstandings: I am not rich. Not in the slightest. I have a very modest home that I am fixing up myself, and two older-model toyotas. My wife and I live a pretty simple life - DVDs are our only vice. I buy cheap beer.

But mark my words: we are in for some real problems, and they are coming soon. Thanks to our government-run public education system, we have an entire generation of people out there who believe they deserve and are entitled to success and happiness. No, you have the right to "pursue happiness" and nothing more - but they wouldn't know that because US history isn't taught anymore. These people want what you have spent years, or maybe a lifetime saving for, and they want it now. I call it the "self-esteem generation," and they cannot deal with reality. Life is hard. Life sucks. Your feelings don't matter. These are foreign concepts to these people. And when the harsh realities of life come home, these people get really pissed off. They cannot deal with failure. If they don't have money because they haven't saved or made wise choices, they will elect people to steal it from you and me, who have saved. Why not? You read my last post - might as well, everyone else does in this country!

Or, in rare instances they walk into a classroom at a university and start shooting, taking everyone else down with them. Same motivation. Same outcome.

Steal from the Rich and Give to the Morbidly Poor-bese!

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Ben Franklin, Founding Father, Deist, and All-Around Brilliant Guy.

I found myself wanting to say more about "Denying Darwinism" and expand on it even more in light of the UWSA (United Welfare States of America).

Those that justify "caring for the poor" by legally stealing money from other people to give to the poor would claim that they are only doing what Jesus would do (WWJD?). They usually quote Jesus when he said: "I assure you, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me. (Matt 25:45)" Never mind that he's referring to people as individuals - he's referring to charity - not social justice or government programs.

Why do "progressives" only think they can "give to the poor" via government programs, and only when everyone else is forced to "give" at the point of a gun as well? What happened to freedom of choice? What happened to freedom period? Progressives (I'm using this term instead of Liberals or Democrats or RINOs to not offend) would say in response "If we don't force people to give by taxing them, how can we trust that they will do the right thing and give? Who is going to help these people?" We are. You and me, free individuals, choosing to give our hard-earned money to help our fellow man. People aren't thankful with entitlements, or if they are receiving justice - they feel they deserve it.

I gave up trying to understand progressives a long time ago. When you really examine their beliefs, they are schizophrenic at best, and hypocrites at worst (and fascist at really worst). They have effectively manipulated the tax code over the years to create a dependent voting block. They pit poor against rich - class warfare - dividing the country along economic lines - demonizing the successful amongst us that innovate, create wealth, create jobs, and keep this economy strong. They soak the rich and redistribute their money to the poor, and then when tax relief comes along, they get all worked up that the tax breaks are only for the rich - the only ones who are paying taxes!

This from the IRS:

39% of all income taxes are paid by the top 1% earners.
86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% earners.
97% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50% earners.
That means 50% of of this country pays for almost none of the federal budget!

50% of the country is not in the game - they are not invested - in fact, much of them are likely receiving net positive money from the government in benefits and welfare programs. This makes it very difficult for fiscally responsible people who are seeking political office to win. This is probably why only property owners had the right to vote initially - if you are in the game, you care how the money is spent. The US Constitution has been all but forgotten - the role of government is not even a question anymore. People are asking "Not what I can do for my country, but what can my country do for me?" when they go to the polls. The progressives have created a dependent voting block who are not in the game financially - it costs them nothing when the government wants to create another feel-good program to redistribute wealth. Read Ben Franklin's words of wisdom above one more time - once the 50% who don't pay taxes becomes 60%, it will be impossible to turn this country around without another revolutionary war - our beloved republic so many have shed blood to create and protect will be destroyed, and the USSA (United Socialist States of America) is on its way!

And the feel-good elitist progressives, who love to feel guilty about their own success and need to atone for their sin, who are so compassionate and kind with other people's money, conveniently forget these passages from the Old Testament:

"When this offering is given to the Lord to make atonement for yourselves, the rich must not give more, and the poor must not give less. Use this money for the care of the Tabernacle." - Exodus 30:15

"Always judge your neighbors fairly, neither favoring the poor nor showing deference to the rich." - Leviticus 19:15

And the whole idea of a tithe in the New Testament is basically a flat tax - whether you make $100,000 or $100, the amount is still ten percent.

So, to get people to behave the way they want them to - termed Social Engineering - the progressives use the income tax code as a lever. Never mind that we fought our War for Independence over a 0.5% tea tax (or stamp tax, I can't remember, but the tax was really small compared to the taxes today!), or that the income tax has only been in existence since the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913 (mainly to help fund World War I). We had to amend the Constitution to make collecting a federal income tax legal - otherwise the government, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, does not have the power and authority to steal your money from you - without the 16th Amendment, income taxes are unconstitutional! And it was only ratified to fund the war! And the tax was only 1%!!! Now hardworking people are slaves, and work for the goverment for four months out of the year.

Remember the post where I talked about how fast things become entrenched in reality - the income tax has not always been - it's not even existed for 100 years! Ben Franklin's words should be heeded. The words that inspired the Declaration of Independence read "Right to Life, Liberty and Property" and were changed to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness."

I'll close with those words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Preamble of the Declaration of Independence

Denying Darwinism and False Advertising

I've been thinking about what I said earlier about Evolution, about God still creating and still perfecting his creation. In the case of humans, physical evolution has stopped. Due to our advances in technology, medicine, agriculture, etc., the mechanism of Natural Selection has effectively been wiped out in developed countries. There is no advantage in today's developed world if you are naturally strong, resilient to disease, and healthy - you'll just maybe live a little longer when you can't reproduce anyway.

Some could argue (and I probably count myself among them) that a "reverse eugenics" is actually occuring, where basically stupid and irresponsible people are reproducing like rabbits and being supported financially in their efforts, and intelligent and responsible people are waiting to have kids when they can afford it (because so much of their paycheck is being used to support the irresponsible baby machines out there). This case not only can be made locally, but also globally - birth rates are down in developed countries, while birth rates continue to climb in developing countries - it is a tragedy that so many poor children die in developing countries, because it's not their fault that their parents are stupid, irresponsible, and ignorant, but developed countries do send tons and tons of aid to support these starving populations. We feed children who, in some cases, will grow up and want to blow themselves up in the middle of our supermarkets. In some cases, we are feeding the enemy and they hate us anyway - there is no doubt about it. Talk to any soldier who served in Somalia.

Jesus said the poor will always exist. That shouldn't be viewed as an excuse not to do anything, but he believed it was more important for people to live right, than eat right. People like Bono who think we can "Make Poverty History" by wearing white wrist bands are kidding themselves at best - at worst they are just making themselves feel better by believing they are doing something, and that they are more compassionate than everyone else. Sing your songs and shut up, please. This wristband craze is a joke - they don't do anything but make your wrist smell. If you want to "bring awareness" to a problem, give the homeless drunk/drug addict on the corner a sandwich instead of your change. Instead of "Make Poverty History" I think we should say "Make Enabling Poverty History."

In Auckland I had a young, perfectly healthy dirtball come up to me and my pregnant wife and ask if he could have some of my kabob (which is like a Muslim burrito - they're really good). This was my dinner. I offered him some of my fries instead, and he made a face and said, "No, I don't like chips." To get the dirtball to leave me and my pregant wife alone, I tore off a piece of the kabob and sent the dirtball on his way, probably to bother someone else. Fries weren't good enough for this dirtball. There is no reason why this dirtball couldn't get to work and make something of himself, but why work when he can berate people into getting what he wants? And he's viewed as a victim by "compassionate" and "progressive" elitists among us, who love to steal our money via taxes to give to these people via inefficient progressive society government programs.

Overwatering a plant kills it, after all, and these people have been killed inside by people promoting ideas of "social justice."

The War on Poverty is the real quagmire - it will never end, and its weapons of entitlement programs have drained our economy and destroyed our incentive to succeed. One of the many reasons it will never end is that the War on Poverty has mutated into the War of Envy. Poverty itself has become a relative term, hasn't it? Poor people in the US have more electronic toys and gizmos than I do - that is not poor. Who would've thought we'd have fat poor people! I'll say that again: fat poor people (image on left from John Edwards' Poverty Tour)! If you've got a free roof over your head, and clothes on your back, and food in your ample tummy, and heat and running water and free television and internet access and cell phones and free medical care - YOU ARE NOT LIVING IN POVERTY! You are living on the government gravy train, filled by the hard working people who never get a single thank you, but demanded to allow the government to steal more and more.

Whew - I got a little side-tracked there, but what I'm getting at in general is that the process of Natural Selection in humans has been stalled due to our compassion for our brothers and sisters and the scientific advancements that have kept us fed, fixed our health problems both environmental and genetic, and allowed us to reproduce even if by Biblical standards we would be "barren." Unless a superbug pops up and wipes out a bunch of us, or entire economic and social systems collapse, or maybe an asteroid hits and screws everything up, I don't see Natural Selection coming back into play. We are a compassionate and innovative people, and we desire to leave the world better than we found it - it gives us purpose and makes us feel as though we will be remembered. And thank God for that. But let us not get carried away - let us remember what got us here.

On a lighter note: Not only is Natural Selection null and void, and may well be reversed, the idea of Sexual Selection is well on its way to be eliminated as well. Another feature of Darwinism is the idea that health and beauty mates with health and beauty, and so health and beauty continues. The good genes are protected, in effect, and the gene pool isn't spoiled over time by the ugly/unhealthy genes.

In light of this, does anyone else think that plastic surgery amounts to false advertising? A guy meets a beautiful girl - with perfect eyes, nose and teeth, as well as a slim, healthy figure - and they very well might have a bunch of hideous, fat kids! That guy was cheated. Same goes for the reverse case, although it probably is less prevalent. False advertising!

Pi and the Infinite Mind

I remember one time when I was a kid, talking to my dad about God and stuff like that, and he said that he had read a book by Carl Sagan, and at the end of the book Sagan talked about the number pi. My dad's eyes lit up, and he said "And when I got to the last sentence of his book, I said 'He proved God exists!'" I can't remember if the book was Contact or Cosmos.

Sagan was at worst an athiest, and at best a skeptic. He once said "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." (As a side note, I don't just remember all these quotes and pluck them out of the air - Wikipedia is a great thing and makes you look pretty smart).

Of course, the Laws of Nature didn't just spring into being - if we go back to Aristotle's Prime Mover or First Cause concept, they had to be created. Laws of Nature are not God - but they are certainly from God, and are evidence of his immense power, timelessness, and omnipresence.

Whatever Sagan was spiritually, he had to be honest with himself about the number pi. The number pi is a ratio of two numbers: the circumference of a circle to the diameter of the circle. Or, the area of a circle to the radius squared of the circle. Or, 3 times the volume of a sphere to 4 times the radius of the sphere cubed. There's a ratio for the surface area of a sphere too. We all learned these equations in high school. Pi is also central to understanding trigonometry; the relations between a triangle's angles and the lengths of its legs. Pi is required to explain much of reality mathematically.

What is the universe? It's a bunch of spheres rotating around larger spheres in circular or elliptical orbits, isn't it? I imagine if we could slow down the electrons to view their orbits around the nucleus, atoms could be described in much the same manner.

Pi is an irrational number - its decimal is non-terminating and non-repeating - which means that it goes on forever and has no pattern. It is also a transcendental number, apparently (which sounds really cool doesn't it?), which means that there is no equation of finite numbers that are manipulated by algebraic operations that can equal its value - it can only approximate it.

22/7 has been used to approximate pi. Now, in the age of extraordinary computer power and speed, mind-boggling equations have been discovered to approximate pi. Mathematicians in the past worked out by hand the endless stream of decimals, setting records and publishing books of numbers approximating pi. Some poor souls made it their life's work, only for future mathematicians to discover they made an error on page 100 or so, and the continuing decimals that made up the rest of the book were wrong. The current record using supercomputers is approximating pi to 1,241,100,000,000 decimals (or 1.2411 trillion decimals). To put that in perspective, that approximation of pi would fill a book 383 million pages long! The spine of this book would be almost 16 miles wide - I don't know how many libraries you'd need to house the book, but it must be a few!

(As a further side note, to put our bloated federal budget into perspective, if each decimal place was worth a dollar, the decimal record for pi would have to be 2.5 times larger to equal the proposed 2008 US federal budget - and we aren't taxed enough in America? Gimme a friggin break! But that's a completely different issue)

I keep emphasizing the reality that even though we've figured out pi to 1.24 trillion decimal places, it is still just an approximation. If we took all the computers on the face of the earth and plugged them all together, and let them chug away on calculating pi until Christ comes back, it would still only be an approximation of the infinite number pi.

Pi is a number that is everywhere, and is in everything. The greatest human minds could only calculate it to a few hundred pages of decimals; the greatest supercomputers with the most efficient equations could only calculate it to fill the pages of a book whose spine stretched the distance of a good day's bike ride. But the reality is, a book as thick as the distance to our nearest star would still not be thick enough to contain pi! It is infinite, and has no pattern.

Only the Infinite Mind of God could conceive of such a number, and use it to build His Creation. It is there when you look up into the stars shining above, just as it is there when you gaze down into your child's shining eyes looking back up at you.

Taking up the Yoke

I took the Sabbath off. I should stop saying "tomorrow" to conclude my posts!

First off, I must say that I have not read Rob Bell's book Velvet Elvis, where he proposes ideas regarding Jesus as rabbi and the interpretation of the meaning and interpretation of his "rabbinical yoke." Viewing Jesus as a Jew, and more specifically as a rabbi, does cast some of his teachings and words in a dramatically different light. I came across some of these ideas when I listened to a sermon by one of my pastors in New Zealand on the subject, unknown to me using Rob Bell as his source.

Basically, it goes something like this:
1) When Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life" he is saying that he is Torah.
2) When Jesus tells his disciples "For my yoke fits perfectly, and the burden I give you is light, (Matt 11:30)" he is referring to his "rabbinical yoke" or his interpretation of Torah.
3) Jesus was fully trained as a rabbi – in the rabbi tradition, a rabbi cannot teach until he reached the age of 30 – this is why Jesus waited until he was 30 to begin his ministry.
4) Jesus' disciples were more than likely young boys who flunked out of rabbi school – this is why they were fishermen, etc. – they had no hope of having a rabbi ask them to take his rabbinical yoke upon them, and so jumped at the chance when Jesus asked them, and left everything behind (because it was an honor to study under a rabbi and take his yoke).
5) The intent of taking up the rabbi's yoke was to learn from him and to become like him, eventually taking on students themselves and passing on the rabbinical yoke.

All of this really repaints the whole story of Jesus and his disciples. It solidifies the idea that Jesus was completely counter-cultural – the last will become first, and the first last – turning everything on its head in choosing a bunch of uneducated boys to be his students – entrusting his legacy as a rabbi to people not good enough for the religious establishment.

Hearing this, the Gospels seemed to crystallize in my mind – it all seemed to make sense now, in reading the story with the Jewish rabbinical tradition in mind. Here are some quotes out of Velvet Elvis (from another blog) by Rob Bell:

Now the ancient rabbis understood that the Bible is open-ended and has to be interpreted. And they understood that their role in the community was to study and mediate and discuss and pray and then make those decisions. Rabbis are like interpreters, helping people understand what God is saying to them through the text and what it means to live out the text...

Different rabbis had different sets of rules, which were really different lists of what they forbade and what they permitted. A rabbi's set of rules and lists, which was really that rabbi's interpretation of how to live the Torah, was called that rabbi's yoke. When you followed a certain rabbi, you were following him because you believed that rabbi's set of interpretations were the closest to what God intended through the Scriptures. And when you followed that rabbi, you were taking up that rabbi's yoke.

One rabbi even said his yoke was easy.

The intent then of a rabbi having a yoke wasn't just to interpret the words correctly; it was to live them out. In the jewish context, action was always the goal. It still is.

Rabbis would spend hours discussing with their students what it meant to live out a certain text. If a student made a suggestion about what a certain text meant and the rabbi thought that the student had totally missed the point, the rabbi would say, "You have abolished the Torah," which meant that in the rabbi's opinion, the student wasn't anywhere near what God wanted. But if the
student got it right, if the rabbi thought the student had grasped God's intention in the text, the rabbi would say, "You have fulfilled the Torah."

Notice what Jesus says in one of his first messages: "I have not come to abolish [the Torah] but to fulfill [it]. He was essentially saying, "I didn't come to do away with the words of God; I came to show people what it looks like when the Torah is lived out perfectly, right down to the smallest
punctuation marks."

"I'm here to put flesh and blood on the words."

Most rabbis taught the yoke of a well respected rabbi who had come before them. So if you visited a synogogue and the local rabbi (Torah teacher) was going to teach, you might hear that this rabbi teaches in the name of Rabbi So-and-So. If you were familiar with the yoke of Rabbi So-and-So, then you would know what to expect from this rabbi.

Every once in a while, a rabbi would come along who was teaching a new yoke, a new way of interpreting the Torah. This was rare and extraordinary.

Rob Bell is big on interpretation, which I have been stressing here lately. On the conflict between Science and Religion that I discussed previously, Gerald Schroeder agrees when he writes:

So where does the problem lie? In that acknowledged experts in science may assume that although scientific research requires diligent intellectual effort, biblical wisdom can be attained through a simple reading of the Bible.

Rob Bell is saying the same thing: basically, to fully understand scripture, we need to know the context in which it was written – historic, cultural, scriptural etc. – as well as how it was written, to be taken literally, allegorically, metaphorically or even poetically. I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. The problem with this sentiment is that it does result in scripture conflicting with itself, which calls into question the authority of scripture as the infallible Word of God, and thus the Fall of the House of Cards.

The critics of Rob Bell see where the reality of the importance of interpretation leads – a Bible of mush that means different things to all kinds of different people. Here from a critical review of Velvet Elvis by Greg Gilbert (Director of theological research for the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an elder at Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, KY - it is a thoughtful discussion, so do go read the whole thing):

But I am convinced that when Bell brings all these things together, the result is something far more revolutionary than what appears on the surface. In fact, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Bell actually ends up throwing the entire Christian gospel up for grabs. God is made so mysterious, doctrine is deemed so questionable, and biblical interpretations are so relativized that in the end, Bell leaves us wondering if anything can be known for sure, or if any understanding of the Christian faith and gospel is any better than any other.

I seem to be circling my point and not really making it, don't I? Well, Rob Bell's interesting interpretation of Jesus' rabbinical yoke, after some searching on the internet, while definitely ringing true with me as a Deist and many others in the Christian Emergent Church, appears to be historically inaccurate. From New Testament scholar Ben Witherington's blog:

Rob, since he wants to stress the Jewishness of Jesus and his followers, needs to have a better understanding of early Judaism in a number of ways. In the first place, Jesus was no rabbi. So far as we can tell, there is no archaeological evidence at all for bet Talmud or bet Midrash in Jesus’ day in Galilee. There were some schools in Jerusalem but they were far from Galilee. After 70 A.D. of course some schools were established in Galilee because Jerusalem was no longer capable of supporting such things. This became totally impossible in Jerusalem after the Bar Kokhba revolt in the early second century when the Romans turned Jerusalem into a pagan city with a temple to Jupiter/Zeus and renamed the city Aelia Capitolina. In fact, you will notice that Jesus has no encounters with ‘rabbis’. Scribes yes, Pharisees yes, Sadducees yes, priests yes, synagogue Presidents like Jairus yes--- but no rabbis. This is because there were no ordained rabbis hanging around synagogues in Jesus’ day. It is a huge mistake to read the Talmuds and the Mishnah as if they were describing the world that Jesus lived in, when in fact they mostly described Judaism after the two Jewish wars when Judaism had been whittled down mostly to Pharisaism and had become a much more Torah-centric religion. Jesus was not a rabbi, nor did he have close encounters of the first kind with ordained rabbis. There were none in his day.

So, the interpretation of the rabbinical yoke rings true with me, yet it is not correct. I did not read this interpretation in Rob Bell's book, but heard it in a sermon, preached as if it was historically accurate. Rob Bell's book has been out for only two years now, yet its interpretations are spreading like wildfire in the Christian Emergent Church and across the internet (it took me some amount of time to track down good information on this subject, and not just a regurgitation of Rob Bell). I'll repeat: TWO YEARS.

The Gospel according to Matthew was written between 80-85 A.D. – at least 50 YEARS after Jesus was crucified! It should be noted as well, that according to Ben Witherington above that "After 70 A.D. of course some schools were established in Galilee…" Interesting. When the gospel was written that contained the words of Jesus referring to his "yoke," the rabbinical schools and tradition did perhaps exist outside Jerusalem.

A larger point to be made is this – how had the story of Jesus (if he did exist) change and morph over those 35 to 70 years that passed between his crucifixion and the writing of the Gospels? How many facts were twisted into legends? How many traditions were just created out of thin air? Moreover, Paul's Epistle to the Galatians is the first book of the New Testament to be written (49 A.D) – he had no Gospels to refer when writing this letter - and there are no quotations of Jesus to be found in the letter either.

The historical, cultural, and scriptural context of these books that so many people base their entire belief system and world-view upon do need to be understood to interpret the meaning of the scriptures effectively. And I say again – Reason is the foundation to understanding Jesus' words themselves!

When I was getting ready to ask my wife to marry me, I thought that the tradition of buying a diamond ring was a long-standing tradition. It rang true with me – a diamond is the strongest mineral substance; I learned that in high school geology – made sense that you'd propose with a gift that would last forever. Later I find out that DeBeers created the tradition via a massive television campaign in the 1950s. Forty-some years later and I'm thinking it has always been that way.

Same thing goes for Washington chopping down the cherry tree and Betsy Ross making the first American Flag – they never happened. They were made up, and passed on, becoming "fact" in a short span of time to be taught 200 years later in every classroom in the country.

And I'm asked to believe a story written down 35 to 70 years after it happened (65 to 100 years if you count the Christmas story), and voted as the official story 300+ years after it happened?! And this belief is a requirement to avoid Hell and enter Heaven?

The evidence of God is everywhere – we don't need some supposed holy scriptures to see Him. Simply put, in my mind, we only need to contemplate one number. More to come!

The True Origin of Species

I still haven't read the entire book, but physicist and biblical scholar Gerald Schroeder's "The Science of God" is quite the eye opener. It was definitely one of the most important steps in my "walk of faith" which is fast becoming a "walk of reason."

He spent some amount of time on the conflict of Science and Religion, and how it need not be so. This, from Gerald Schroeder's website, since I can't find the damn book for some reason:

"If I had to assign chief blame for the ongoing struggle between science and religion and the resulting erosion of biblical credibility, it would be to the leaders of organized religion. Since Nicolaus Copernicus had the audacity to suggest that the Sun, not Earth, was the center of our solar system, their kneejerk reaction to scientific discovery has been to deny its validity. Yet what does the position of the Earth have to do with belief in a creator of the universe or the validity of the Bible?! Nowhere does the text claim that Earth is central to anything."

And some more:

"Similarly, Kepler's discovery of the elliptical orbit of the planets did not sit well with the religious establishment. Circles were perfect geometric shapes, ellipses are defective. An infinitely powerful God would be expected to produce perfect orbits. Of course, the Bible doesn't teach that a circle is better than an ellipse! Yet the Church condemned Kepler's discovery."

And then we come to the king of the science heretics, according to the church, and controversial to this day, Charles Darwin. Here's what Gerald has to say about Chuck:

"Then, Charles Darwin appeared on the scene. The thought that life in general (and humans in particular) had developed from lower life forms was simply unacceptable to the Church. The concept of evolution was condemned as heretical, notwithstanding the fact that Darwin in the closing lines of his book attributed the entire evolutionary flow of life to "its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator in a few [life] forms or into one." Nonetheless, the gauntlet of heresy had been thrown down."

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that conflicts with the idea of a Creator! Gerald Schroeder does go on to make some interesting claims in his book that the creation story of Genesis actually matches the steps of the Big Bang and Evolution theories (and reconciles the days with millions and billions of years using Einstein's theory of relativity), but we won't get into that here - maybe some other time, 'cause it's pretty cool.

In his conclusion, Darwin is referring here to the idea of God as the Prime Mover - or the First Cause. Aristotle coined the term, and Aristotle's proof for the First Cause/Prime Mover/Unmoved Mover was:

1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

Darwin basically supports this idea in his closing paragraph of Origin of Species - the cherry on the sundae - let's just read the whole paragraph, because it is quite reverent and beautiful (and some might even say, giving praise to God):

"It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Wow! What Darwin is saying here, really, is that creation is still occuring! God's work is not complete! Whether it be random, or directed, is for you to decide, because it still is just a theory, and the fossil record is full of gaps; as Gerald states: "It is no wonder that Darwin himself, at seven locations in The Origin of Species, urged the reader to ignore the fossil record if he or she wanted to believe his theory."

For full disclosure, after being savaged by the church, and losing his young daughter, whatever faith he held in Christianity and a beneficient God disappeared. I can sympathize with his reasoning. For a good summary biography of Chuck, go here.

But why don't we take a positive spin here: Imagine God, residing in the eternal now, saying "It is not yet accomplished!" His hands still at work, perfecting his creation! Praise Him! When considering the reality of evolution, the reality of the creative process not yet finished - never finished, really, always pushing towards perfection - is that not better evidence for better days yet to come than the strange, apocalyptic images put forth in the Book of Revelation?

On the conflict between science and religion, Schroeder states:

"The medieval philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote that conflicts between science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible. Our (Jewish) Sages always viewed Torah knowledge in light of prevailing scientific theory. In fact, Jewish law states:

"'Only wise and understanding men are to be appointed to the Sanhedrin. They must be experts in Torah law, with a wide breadth of knowledge. They must also know secular subjects like medicine, mathematics, astrology and astronomy.' (Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin, chapter 2)"

We're getting back to the importance of interpretation again. Tomorrow, we'll look at an interesting interpretation of "The Yoke" as described by Jesus.

Signs of "The Kingdom"

My wife said she was annoyed by my use of “I submit” and “I further submit” in the last post – made me sound pretentious or something. I hereby promise to never say “I submit” again (if “hereby” doesn’t sound too pretentious?). One of the recurring themes here is KISS – Keep It Simple Stupid, so I won’t make things sound too academic.

Continuing on from yesterday: Where would we be today if we hadn't chosen to reject religious superstition and restrictive doctrines and dogmas in favor of trusting God enough to learn about His creation through our observations of it? I'll tell you where: we'd still be in the Dark Ages – eating the freeze-dried crap pudding previously mentioned.

The truth is never created - it is only discovered. The Founding Fathers of America did not take the time, ink and parchment space to defend their statements in the Declaration of Independence – they said “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Quite a statement. And if there has been anything that we as humans have learned since the Enlightenment, human curiosity, discovery and quest for truth should not be stifled when it leads to ideas contrary to those interpreted from the Bible or other "holy" book.

Jesus says in John 14:12: "The truth is, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father."

What were the works of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels? Jesus says in Matt 11:4-5: "Go back to John (the Baptist) and tell him about what you have heard and seen - the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised to life, and the Good News is being preached to the poor." There are many instances in the Gospel where Jesus is said to have healed every form of sickness. These miracles are often referred to as signs of the Kingdom of Heaven, or Kingdom of God.

Jesus said in Matt 4:17 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” Most of Jesus’ parables were about the kingdom of heaven. Many churches claim to be made up of “Kingdom people.” And what are kingdom-people supposed to be doing? Preach the Good News, heal the sick, and drive out demons.

Is this “Kingdom” in fact here?

Let's see, over the past 200+ years or so, with our advancements in science and medicine due to our trust in God to discover the truths of his creation, people who are legally blind can see with first optical lenses, then contacts, then Lasik surgery, and soon microchips implanted on the retina (and in my daughter's case, Retinopathy of Prematurity was prevented through laser eye surgery on the blood vessels in the retina - a blindness that only occurred once we figured out how to keep premature babies alive!).

People who are lame can now have knees replaced, ligaments restored, braces to correct a deformity of growth or development over time, artificial limbs that allow legless people to not only walk again, but run again. And what’s next? Advancements in organic and inorganic interfaces (what my uncle is working on at Cornell) make “cyborg” technology a real possibility.

Leprosy can be treated and is better understood, such that the social stigma attached to it in Biblical times is not necessary anymore (lepers no longer need to be quarantined and forced to live in leper colonies and actually enjoy a normal life). Lepers in Christ’s time were shunned – except by Christ himself, of course – they were considered “ceremonially unclean,” had to wear tattered clothes, and had to let their hair “hang loose” or be disheveled, and they had to cry out “Unclean!” when a healthy person approached (Leviticus 13:45-46). These poor people! So, not only were they forced to be outsiders, but they had to fashionably match the appearance of their skin and faces by wearing rags and having ratty hair. All commanded by God, of course! Thank God he gave us Reason and compassion to figure out the disease, and many other diseases considered monstrous or freakish in the past.

Next, the deaf hear with Cochlear implants (and some are looked down on by the deaf community because they choose to hear again and aren't a part of the group anymore - isn't that a great problem to have!). A sign-language was first created in the 17th or 18th century in Italy (funny how all the advancements occurred right around the Enlightenment?) so that the deaf could communicate beyond just an ad-hoc language in their own home. Maybe before that time people just prayed for them to miraculously hear again, and when it didn’t happen they just figured it wasn’t God’s will for these people to have a happy life.

The dead are raised to life in Emergency Rooms everywhere, even after being dead beneath the ice for some time (I seem to remember 45 minutes, but it may be longer). These people are clinically dead, and they are jump started again because of our discoveries of electricity (thank you Ben Franklin – a Deist!).

Every form of sickness (almost – there are antibiotic resistant bacteria and super-viruses that have evolved because we are too good at fighting disease) has some kind of cure, including mental illnesses - mental illness in Biblical times was commonly referred as people "possessed" by demons, thus the idea of "driving out demons" has been achieved as well, by understanding how brain chemistry works.

The list goes on and on - and none of it achieved supernaturally, or by prayer, or by miracle of laying on hands and asking for healing in Christ’s name - but by a devout trust in God in following the truth where it leads, even at the risk of being labeled heretical by the church. You could make the claim that Jesus said he is “the truth,” so a search for truth would be a search in “His name,” but that’s a convoluted stretch. But, it is clear that Jesus looked at the world around him and in summary said, “It need not be this way.” And he took revolutionary action for change.

Stoning adulterers according to Moses’ Law – it need not be this way!

Money changers in the temple to avoid the graven image of Caesar in the presence of God – it need not be this way!

Jews as the chosen people of God, favored above all others – it need not be this way!

Lepers as outcasts and unclean – it need not be this way!

Sinners as despised and shunned – it need not be this way!

Not working – even good works – on the Sabbath – it need not be this way!

The whole of Moses’ Law – it need not be this way!

The meek and poor without hope – it need not be this way!

Freedom only when Rome is overthrown – it need not be this way!

What is the drive of science and innovation, if not looking at the world around us and saying “it need not be this way!” Science and Reason are not at odds with God - they are from God, and thank God for them! The conflict between Science and Religion is a man-made conflict - Religion rejects science because, based on their interpretation of their "infallible" man-made but God-inspired holy scriptures, it conflicts with holy scripture, and likewise Science rejects and attacks religion because of being labeled heretical - who wouldn't lash out when attacked? It need not be this way.

Tomorrow: The Prime Mover in Darwin’s Original Origin of the Species.

Reason as foundation to "Word of God."

Why did Jesus speak in parables? Why do we need to interpret the "Word of God" as given to us in the Holy Bible if it alone is sufficient? Why the strange imagery of the Apocalypses? If the Word of God as written in the scriptures is truly paramount to our salvation, why is it delivered in such an obscure, confounding and mysterious manner? For those that would say the Word of God shines bright and true, and is infallible, why the hell do we have so many denominations? Why the division between Catholic and Protestant? Eastern Orthodox and the Church of Rome? Predestined and Free Will? Name your interpretation? All of the various interpretations of the Holy Bible and what it means to us as God's children are enough to drive you mad. Or, unfortunately, drive you to Athiesm or Agnosticism.

I submit that Reason is the foundation of our relationship with God, our understanding of our relation to him, and our responsibility to him and our fellow brothers and sisters. I further submit that the foundation of our God-given Reason is required to understand the truths from the lies of the Holy Bible.

"Had God, from time to time, spoke to all mankind in their several languages, and his words had miraculously conveyed the same ideas to all persons; yet he could not speak more plainly than he has done by the things (his Creation) themselves, and the relation which Reason shows there is between them. Nay, since it is impossible in any book, or books, that a particular rule could be given for every case, we must even then have had recourse to the light of nature to teach us our duty in most cases; especially considering the numberless circumstances which attend us, and which, perpetually varying, may make the same actions, according as men are differently affected by them, either good or bad. And I may add, that most of the particular rules laid down in the Gospel for our direction, are spoken after such figurative a manner, that except we judge of their meaning, not merely by the letter, but by what the law of nature antecedently declares to be our duty, they are apt to lead us wrong (emphasis added). And if precepts relating to morality, are delivered after an obscure manner, when they might have been delivered otherwise; what reason can you assign for it's being so, but that infinite wisdom meant to refer us to that law for the explaining of them." - Matthew Tindal from "Christianity as Old as the Creation"

There is a term in the Christian faith that describes the use of Reason to understand scripture and our application of God's laws/will: Discernment. I'm sure you've heard "He/she has the gift of discernment." The truth is, we all have that gift from God. When something doesn't quite sit right with you, that shocks your mind, or even rings true and makes you want to shout "Yes (Amen)!" that is your God-given Reason working within your mind.

If this is the case, which I believe it to be true, why then does Martin Luther say: "Reason is the enemy of Faith"? Reason is required to understand the teachings of Jesus! No, unfortunately, "People of Faith" too often demonize and condemn people for using their God-given reason in deference to a blind faith in scripture. My friends, if you compromise your God-given Reason to have faith, you are apt to believe in anything - that good is bad and bad is good. There are too many examples of this tragedy of thought to list here.

The popular interpretation of Paul's letters has Paul showing a lack of respect, and downright disgust, for what is commonly referred to as "human wisdom/reason" or "wisdom of the world." As if wisdom/reason were not from God in the first instance! In 1 Corinthians 3:18-20, he writes: "Stop fooling yourselves. If you think you are wise by the world's standards, you will have to become a fool so you can become wise by God's standards. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, 'God catches those who think they are wise in their own cleverness. (Job 5:13)' And again 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are worthless. (Ps 94:11)'"

At its most flippant, he seems to be saying that we cannot know the mind of God, so why even try? Just have faith in Christ, because that's all you need. At its most reasonable, he seems to be saying that human wisdom - while good and wise from our perspective - is nothing compared to the mind of God. Which is true, but our limited wisdom could not be said to be foolish. In either case, he is saying that to begin to understand the mind of God, great humility is required (so much as to be self-depricating) - this is definitely true, but try to tell that to church leaders centuries later who burned heretics at the stake.

Jesus says: "And I, the Son of Man, feast and drink, and you say, 'He's a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of the worst of sinners!' But wisdom is shown to be right by what results from it. (emphasis added)" (Matt 11:19)

In other words, the proof is in the pudding. What was the pudding of the Dark Ages, where the Church was in charge? I think it probably tasted like freeze-dried crap. Tomorrow we'll look at what has resulted from a God-trusting search for the truth and wisdom, and that Jesus did in fact predict such results.

New blog and the "Fall of the House of Cards"

I just created a new blog for family updates here. This blog will not include any family update stuff.

Lots has happened since my last post, foremost being I have drifted further and further away from Christianity and closer and closer towards the truth - which is best defined as Deism. What brought my house of cards down, near as I can tell, was when I realized that this whole idea of "original sin" was a lie; that the idea that we as humans carry some mystical stain inherited from Adam and Eve that prevents us from being the presence of God, and that stain is only removed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, is a complete fabrication, and conflicts with our God-given Reason. It is not reasonable that we should inherit the sins of another, when we had nothing to do with it, and are punished for it if we don't have faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. This idea conflicts with everything we know about God and his character, truths that are self-evident and undeniable, in his infinite goodness, justice, and reason. But the Holy Bible teaches that we all carry this stain, and will burn in Hell forever if this stain is not removed with the blood of Christ.

You tell me - does my daughter carry this stain? Does my daughter - who has been through so much since she was ripped out of her mother's womb 3 months too soon into this world, fighting and struggling to survive in an incubator, on a ventilator and having to endure spinal taps to check for infections, and ten months later having her skull cut open, removed and replaced because she has a birth defect completely unrelated to her prematurity - carry this mystical stain of original sin? She is completely innocent, and yet the Bible teaches that she carries this stain of original sin, and even if she lives a perfect life (which is impossible - we as humans fall far short of the glory of God) she will be judged and punished for the inherited sin of Adam and Eve if she does not accept Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. Do you really believe this? Does it make any sense at all? It doesn't. It is a lie. It is a fabrication to build the house of cards of the Christian faith, and is in fact its foundation. Once this idea of a mystical and supernatural stain "original sin" is exposed as a falsehood, the whole house of cards comes falling down.

Consider this in Deuteronomy 1:39: "Moreover, your little ones whom you said would become a prey, and your children who at this time cannot discern between good and evil, they shall enter Canaan (the Promised Land), and to them I will give it and they shall possess it." This is knowledge of good and evil is commonly referred to as the "Age of Accountability." In essence, God was saying that the children should not be denied the promised land due to the sins of their parents. This also in Deut. 24:16 "Parents must not be put to death for the sins of their children, nor the children for the sins of their parents. Those worthy of death must be executed for their own crimes." How can the New Testament writers and the dogma and doctrine of some churches conclude that children not baptized will at worst burn in Hell, and at best go to some place called "Limbo" with all the other unbaptized children. Huh? Or that we all inherit the sins of our first parents? This is what I mean by the House of Cards. One puff of wind of reasoned thought causes the whole thing to blow apart, and thank God it does.

Thomas Paine says this: "Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child cannot be true."

And likewise Jesus said this: "Truly I say to you, unless you repent (change your mind, turn about and change your path) and become like little children, you can never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever will humble himself therefore and become like this little child is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives and accepts and welcomes one little child like this for my sake and in my name receives and accepts and welcomes me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in and acknowledge and cleave to me to stumble and sin (right conduct or thought), it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be sunk to the depth of the sea."

In other words: KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid! The religious system of Christianity is chock full of contradictions and teachings that shock the mind, even the minds of children. I imagine that many Athiests out there are Athiests because they don't believe in the teachings of the Holy Bible - what a tragedy that they reject the idea of God due to the teachings of a man-made church!

As can be seen above, on the one hand the Bible teaches - more specificially Moses' Law teaches - that children are innocent, and yet many Christian denominations teach that children inherit the sin of Adam. This is a falsehood, and strikes at the heart of faith, which is that the Holy Bible is the Word of God, unerring and fully true. It is not, and its falsehoods have been used since Jesus' death to justify the most unspeakable atrocities that clearly do shock the mind and conscience of a reasonable human being.

More later on the importance of our God-given reason in understanding and discerning the teachings of Jesus tomorrow.