Based on my last blog, I wanted to do something fun.
I challenge each and everyone of you to give me one good reason why Homosexuality is wrong in our society and why Homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed the same rights as Heterosexual couples; that is, the right to civil marriage (not to be confused with civil union). Not too hard right? I'm only asking for ONE good reason.
There is, of course, one stipulation. Leave religion out of it. I'm not asking you to allow Gay Marriage in churches or synagogues or any other house of worship. After all, there is a difference between civil marriage and Holy Matrimony. And no, Christianity does NOT run our country. We have the First Ammendment to the Constitution to thank for that. So, please, check your religion at the door.
So....
Why is it wrong? Why shouldn't they be allowed equal rights?
And.... GO!
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Two Points on Homosexuality and Gay Marriage
In discussions about Homosexuality and Gay Marriage, two things always edge their way into the conversation. I'd like to discuss those two things with you here.
1. Homosexuality is "Unnatural"
and
2. Gay couples don't contribute to society the way Heterosexual couples do (that is, by procreating).
The first, that Homosexuality is unnatural, is used merely to show why Homosexuality is "wrong". But what makes Homosexuality wrong, and what makes it unnatural? By whose standard are we holding Homosexuality?
Recent studies have given us much insight into the fact that Homosexuality is more genetic than anything else. That said, if in fact Homosexuality is genetic, it could not be considered any more unnatural than a Heterosexual man or woman being sterile.
That last statement ties in with the second point that "Gay couples don't contribute to society the way Heterosexual couples do". We allow civil marriage to all Heterosexual couples, regardless of age and fertility; yet we deny the same type of civil marriage to Homosexual couples. Why? Because they don't all procreate? Why then do we allow sterile Heterosexual couples and elderly couples to marry? After all, they can no longer provide that same contribution to society. What gives them any more rights than anyone else?
Thoughts?
1. Homosexuality is "Unnatural"
and
2. Gay couples don't contribute to society the way Heterosexual couples do (that is, by procreating).
The first, that Homosexuality is unnatural, is used merely to show why Homosexuality is "wrong". But what makes Homosexuality wrong, and what makes it unnatural? By whose standard are we holding Homosexuality?
Recent studies have given us much insight into the fact that Homosexuality is more genetic than anything else. That said, if in fact Homosexuality is genetic, it could not be considered any more unnatural than a Heterosexual man or woman being sterile.
That last statement ties in with the second point that "Gay couples don't contribute to society the way Heterosexual couples do". We allow civil marriage to all Heterosexual couples, regardless of age and fertility; yet we deny the same type of civil marriage to Homosexual couples. Why? Because they don't all procreate? Why then do we allow sterile Heterosexual couples and elderly couples to marry? After all, they can no longer provide that same contribution to society. What gives them any more rights than anyone else?
Thoughts?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
RandomK's Random Art
So, I have this friend; let's call her "Kirsten." She likes to paint and draw and other stuff that involves art and drawing and painting. Right. It might come as a shocker... but she's pretty good; and I don't mean, "Oh, wow, 'Kirsten', you're good," but more of a, "Hot Damn, woman! You're freakin' amazing awesome crazy fantastic!" Yeah.
She's been known to do some abstract work. Now, I'm not too keen on abstract. I mean, what is it anyway? A spaceship? A three-legged dog? I dunno! But these make me smile. So you should too.
She's also been known to do mission work. You know, go down to Bolivia, help out some kids, paint some murals. She's cool like that. And God likes people who are cool like that. Here are some paintings she's done for others down in Bolivia.
What else does she do? Well, I'll tell you. She's been known to paint designs on clothing. What? Clothing. Yes, clothing. Like this one here.
On top of that, she's down with just some cool rat/dog paintings. Like this one below.
And honestly, who doesn't like a good rat/dog painting, eh? I know.
But I've saved the best for last. Dragons. What? Yes, dragons. But this just isn't any old dragon. This is a bad ass dragon. This is the dragon from my book. What's his name? Pshh, please. I'm not telling you. You'll probably steal the name and idea and go tell some big fancy publisher and make loads of $$ all for yourself. No, thank you, I'll keep Elan all to myself. :)
So yeah, as you can see, my friend "Kirsten" is really good. She's trying to get her name out a bit more. You know, get her drawings and paintings seen. She's looking for more artsy work. And she deserves it. So if you know anyone who wants anything painted or drawn or anything, do contact her.
You can reach her via DeviantART.com. She's also on Myspace and Facebook. Just look her up: Kirsten George.
She's awesome.
She's been known to do some abstract work. Now, I'm not too keen on abstract. I mean, what is it anyway? A spaceship? A three-legged dog? I dunno! But these make me smile. So you should too.
She's also been known to do mission work. You know, go down to Bolivia, help out some kids, paint some murals. She's cool like that. And God likes people who are cool like that. Here are some paintings she's done for others down in Bolivia.
What else does she do? Well, I'll tell you. She's been known to paint designs on clothing. What? Clothing. Yes, clothing. Like this one here.
On top of that, she's down with just some cool rat/dog paintings. Like this one below.
And honestly, who doesn't like a good rat/dog painting, eh? I know.
But I've saved the best for last. Dragons. What? Yes, dragons. But this just isn't any old dragon. This is a bad ass dragon. This is the dragon from my book. What's his name? Pshh, please. I'm not telling you. You'll probably steal the name and idea and go tell some big fancy publisher and make loads of $$ all for yourself. No, thank you, I'll keep Elan all to myself. :)
So yeah, as you can see, my friend "Kirsten" is really good. She's trying to get her name out a bit more. You know, get her drawings and paintings seen. She's looking for more artsy work. And she deserves it. So if you know anyone who wants anything painted or drawn or anything, do contact her.
You can reach her via DeviantART.com. She's also on Myspace and Facebook. Just look her up: Kirsten George.
She's awesome.
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Children's Bible in a Nutshell
I don't know who wrote this, but I got it as an email forward and had to share... enjoy!
---
Through the eyes of a child:
The Children's Bible in a Nutshell
In the beginning, which occurred near the start, there was nothing but God, darkness, and some gas. The Bible says, 'The Lord thy God is one, but I think He must be a lot older than that.
Anyway, God said, 'Give me a light!' and someone did. Then God made the world.
He split the Adam and made Eve. Adam and Eve were naked, but they weren't embarrassed because mirrors hadn't been invented yet.
Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating one bad apple, so they were driven from the Garden of Eden. Not sure what they were driven in though, because they didn't have cars.
Adam and Eve had a son, Cain, who hated his brother as long as he was Abel.
Pretty soon all of the early people died off, except for Methuselah, who lived to be like a million or something.
One of the next important people was Noah, who was a good guy, but one of his kids was kind of a Ham. Noah built a large boat and put his family and some animals on it. He asked some other people to join him, but they said they would have to take a rain check.
After Noah came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob was more famous than his brother, Esau, because Esau sold Jacob his birthmark in exchange for some pot roast. Jacob had a son named Joseph who wore a really loud sports coat.
Another important Bible guy is Moses, whose real name was Charlton Heston. Moses led the Israel Lights out of Egypt and away from the evil Pharaoh after God sent ten plagues on Pharaoh's people. These plagues included frogs, mice, lice, bowels, and no cable.
God fed the Israel Lights every day with manicotti. Then he gave them His Top Ten Commandments. These include: don't lie, cheat, smoke, dance, or covet your neighbor's stuff. Oh, yeah, I just thought of one more: Humor thy father and thy mother.
One of Moses' best helpers was Joshua who was the first Bible guy to use spies. Joshua fought the battle of Geritol and the fence fell over on the town.
After Joshua came David. He got to be king by killing a giant with a slingshot. He had a son named Solomon who had about 300 wives and 500 porcupines. My teacher says he was wise, but that doesn't sound very wise to me.
After Solomon there were a bunch of major league prophets. One of these was Jonah, who was swallowed by a big whale and then barfed up on the shore. There were also some minor league prophets, but I guess we don't have to worry about them.
After the Old Testament came the New Testament. Jesus is the star of The New. He was born in Bethlehem in a barn. (I wish I had been born in a barn too, because my mom is always saying to me, 'Close the door! Were you born in a barn?' It would be nice to say, 'As a matter of fact, I was.')
During His life, Jesus had many arguments with sinners like the Pharisees and the Republicans. (<-- I didn't write this!)
Jesus also had twelve opossums. The worst one was Judas Asparagus. Judas was so evil that they named a terrible vegetable after him.
Jesus was a great man. He healed many leopards and even preached to some Germans on the Mount. But the Republicans (<-- again, I didn't write this!) and all those guys put Jesus on trial before Pontius the Pilot. Pilot didn't stick up for Jesus. He just washed his hands instead.
Anyways, Jesus died for our sins, then came back to life again. He went up to Heaven but will be back at the end of the Aluminum. His return is foretold in the book of Revolution.
---
Through the eyes of a child:
The Children's Bible in a Nutshell
In the beginning, which occurred near the start, there was nothing but God, darkness, and some gas. The Bible says, 'The Lord thy God is one, but I think He must be a lot older than that.
Anyway, God said, 'Give me a light!' and someone did. Then God made the world.
He split the Adam and made Eve. Adam and Eve were naked, but they weren't embarrassed because mirrors hadn't been invented yet.
Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating one bad apple, so they were driven from the Garden of Eden. Not sure what they were driven in though, because they didn't have cars.
Adam and Eve had a son, Cain, who hated his brother as long as he was Abel.
Pretty soon all of the early people died off, except for Methuselah, who lived to be like a million or something.
One of the next important people was Noah, who was a good guy, but one of his kids was kind of a Ham. Noah built a large boat and put his family and some animals on it. He asked some other people to join him, but they said they would have to take a rain check.
After Noah came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob was more famous than his brother, Esau, because Esau sold Jacob his birthmark in exchange for some pot roast. Jacob had a son named Joseph who wore a really loud sports coat.
Another important Bible guy is Moses, whose real name was Charlton Heston. Moses led the Israel Lights out of Egypt and away from the evil Pharaoh after God sent ten plagues on Pharaoh's people. These plagues included frogs, mice, lice, bowels, and no cable.
God fed the Israel Lights every day with manicotti. Then he gave them His Top Ten Commandments. These include: don't lie, cheat, smoke, dance, or covet your neighbor's stuff. Oh, yeah, I just thought of one more: Humor thy father and thy mother.
One of Moses' best helpers was Joshua who was the first Bible guy to use spies. Joshua fought the battle of Geritol and the fence fell over on the town.
After Joshua came David. He got to be king by killing a giant with a slingshot. He had a son named Solomon who had about 300 wives and 500 porcupines. My teacher says he was wise, but that doesn't sound very wise to me.
After Solomon there were a bunch of major league prophets. One of these was Jonah, who was swallowed by a big whale and then barfed up on the shore. There were also some minor league prophets, but I guess we don't have to worry about them.
After the Old Testament came the New Testament. Jesus is the star of The New. He was born in Bethlehem in a barn. (I wish I had been born in a barn too, because my mom is always saying to me, 'Close the door! Were you born in a barn?' It would be nice to say, 'As a matter of fact, I was.')
During His life, Jesus had many arguments with sinners like the Pharisees and the Republicans. (<-- I didn't write this!)
Jesus also had twelve opossums. The worst one was Judas Asparagus. Judas was so evil that they named a terrible vegetable after him.
Jesus was a great man. He healed many leopards and even preached to some Germans on the Mount. But the Republicans (<-- again, I didn't write this!) and all those guys put Jesus on trial before Pontius the Pilot. Pilot didn't stick up for Jesus. He just washed his hands instead.
Anyways, Jesus died for our sins, then came back to life again. He went up to Heaven but will be back at the end of the Aluminum. His return is foretold in the book of Revolution.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God
The Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God
If the argument is successfully refuted, the implication then is that God has both free will and is capable of existing as a personal being. If the argument is upheld, the implication is that the Christian God cannot and does not exist.
The Argument:
The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
-----
The Author of the argument followed up by stating various obvious rebuttals faced in past debates. Those can be viewed by going to here. It will help to read those comments, as I will be referring to them later on.
I am also going to cite here some of what he wrote in order to further clarify the argument for the sake of my rebuttal. Nothing will be taken out of context, and everything can (again) be viewed by clicking on the link above.
He says:
“Free will requires 1) having more than one option, 2) a desire to choose, 3) freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), 4) power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and 5) the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.”
The Rebuttal:
To address this argument, it becomes somewhat necessary to address the first known choice made by the Christian God.
The first choice made by the Christian God (as far as we are able to know) is the choice to create the universe. This choice would not have interfered with His ‘nature’ since what’s being spoken of is the creation of the universe, not the degree to which it was created or qualities it would then possess. God was under no obligation to create the universe. There was the desire for fellowship, but not a necessity for it, nor a necessity for the universe to be created. And since time did not exist prior to its creation by the Christian God, there would not necessarily be any foreknowledge concerning it (or, rather, there would not necessarily be any foreknowledge to possess in the way that we understand the term).
Based upon that, we can draw conclusions that will satisfy the five criteria necessitated by the author of the argument:
1) Having more than one option
2) Having a desire to choose
3) Having a freedom to choose
4) Having the power to accomplish the choice
5) Having the potential to avoid the option
The first criterion, that God would need more than one option to be able to initially make a choice, is satisfied by His ability to either 1) create the universe, or 2) not create the universe.
The second is met by our knowledge that the Christian God wanted fellowship (the reason Man was created).
The third is met by His ability to act or not, despite His ‘nature’.
The fourth is met by His omnipotence and ability to create.
The fifth is met by Hs ability to act on the desire, to create or not to create the universe. There is nothing forcing God to create the universe.
In this, all of the criteria that allow God to possess free will are met. And since --as stated above-- there was no time before Time was created, by its very definition foreknowledge would not exist (as it pertains to you or I).
Therefore, up until the creation of the universe, God is perfecetly capable of free will and of being a personal being.
That said, the possibility of a problem comes into play once creation is created.
The answers to the five criteria listed above are still very much valid as God can always choose to interact or not to interact with His creation; God can, and obviously does, desire to interact (eg. Sending of Jesus Christ, miracles, prayer); He always has the freedom to choose, the power to accomplish the choice, and the potential to merely not interact.
The problem comes then in the Christian God’s omniscience, His divine foreknowledge. Yet even there, the problem is easily solved, depending on your view of omniscience:
Inherent Omniscience is the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
Total Omniscience, on the other hand, is actually knowing everything that can be known.
If we take the stance that the Christian God has Inherent Omniscience, then God can merely choose to not know certain things (which would grant Himself the ‘lack of foreknowledge’ needed to be able to make ‘free’ choices). Game over. Problem solved. Argument refuted sucessfully.
If we choose Total Omniscience, we have yet another obstacle to hurdle.
How does God, who, according to Total Omniscience, knows everything that can be known, have the sufficient ‘lack of foreknowledge’ to allow Himself the freedom to choose ‘freely’?
The answer, I think, would have to lie somewhere in the realm of eternity. For instance, one of the chief attributes of the Christian God is that He is infinite, or eternal. Within the scope of eternity there are several varying ways in which God can exist within eternity (eg. Existing outside of time; Existing outside and inside of time). I take the position of Augustine of Hippo who said that God exists outside of the created universe and therefore exists outside of time; because of this there is not a past or future for God, but only an eternal present.
If then, to God, creation exists within an eternal present, several things would happen. 1) God would know all things at the same time (since God exists in an eternal present, all events are eternally present before God); yet 2) God would not necessarily know the choices made by people (since He cannot see the future because there is no future to God, and since God is viewing the events in the present); this means that 3) God would not necessarily know the choices He Himself would make (since it's already been stated that there is no future to know) except as it concerns prophecy and other things God says will indeed happen.
This existence in an eternal present and lack of a future acts as the "state of uncertainty" mentioned in the argument. Whether or not it truly is a state of uncertainty is speculative; but for reasons concerning the argument and its logic, the 'eternal present' scenerio sufficiently satisfies the finite aspects of the "state of uncertainty".
Thus, the omniscient Christian God can be said to have free will, and is therefore capable of existing as a personal being.
And with that, the argument is rebutted.
To recap:
God meets the criteria for possession of free will as follows:
1) Having more than one option
2) Having a desire to choose
3) Having a freedom to choose
4) Having the power to accomplish the choice
5) Having the potential to avoid the option
The final criterion needed to be met is that of a certain 'lack' of foreknowledge/omniscience, which as shown above is met in accordance with the two varying definitions of omniscience: With Inherent Omniscience, God chooses to not know certain things; with Total Omniscience, God, viewed to exist in a state of eternal present, sees all things as in present time, and is then not seeing the future.
---
Now, all that said, we cannot really know everything as it concerns God, since God exists outside of our complete realm of understanding.
Consequently, I'm open to comments that would help me to then improve the integrity of the rebuttal.
If the argument is successfully refuted, the implication then is that God has both free will and is capable of existing as a personal being. If the argument is upheld, the implication is that the Christian God cannot and does not exist.
The Argument:
The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
-----
The Author of the argument followed up by stating various obvious rebuttals faced in past debates. Those can be viewed by going to here. It will help to read those comments, as I will be referring to them later on.
I am also going to cite here some of what he wrote in order to further clarify the argument for the sake of my rebuttal. Nothing will be taken out of context, and everything can (again) be viewed by clicking on the link above.
He says:
“Free will requires 1) having more than one option, 2) a desire to choose, 3) freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), 4) power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and 5) the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.”
The Rebuttal:
To address this argument, it becomes somewhat necessary to address the first known choice made by the Christian God.
The first choice made by the Christian God (as far as we are able to know) is the choice to create the universe. This choice would not have interfered with His ‘nature’ since what’s being spoken of is the creation of the universe, not the degree to which it was created or qualities it would then possess. God was under no obligation to create the universe. There was the desire for fellowship, but not a necessity for it, nor a necessity for the universe to be created. And since time did not exist prior to its creation by the Christian God, there would not necessarily be any foreknowledge concerning it (or, rather, there would not necessarily be any foreknowledge to possess in the way that we understand the term).
Based upon that, we can draw conclusions that will satisfy the five criteria necessitated by the author of the argument:
1) Having more than one option
2) Having a desire to choose
3) Having a freedom to choose
4) Having the power to accomplish the choice
5) Having the potential to avoid the option
The first criterion, that God would need more than one option to be able to initially make a choice, is satisfied by His ability to either 1) create the universe, or 2) not create the universe.
The second is met by our knowledge that the Christian God wanted fellowship (the reason Man was created).
The third is met by His ability to act or not, despite His ‘nature’.
The fourth is met by His omnipotence and ability to create.
The fifth is met by Hs ability to act on the desire, to create or not to create the universe. There is nothing forcing God to create the universe.
In this, all of the criteria that allow God to possess free will are met. And since --as stated above-- there was no time before Time was created, by its very definition foreknowledge would not exist (as it pertains to you or I).
Therefore, up until the creation of the universe, God is perfecetly capable of free will and of being a personal being.
That said, the possibility of a problem comes into play once creation is created.
The answers to the five criteria listed above are still very much valid as God can always choose to interact or not to interact with His creation; God can, and obviously does, desire to interact (eg. Sending of Jesus Christ, miracles, prayer); He always has the freedom to choose, the power to accomplish the choice, and the potential to merely not interact.
The problem comes then in the Christian God’s omniscience, His divine foreknowledge. Yet even there, the problem is easily solved, depending on your view of omniscience:
Inherent Omniscience is the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
Total Omniscience, on the other hand, is actually knowing everything that can be known.
If we take the stance that the Christian God has Inherent Omniscience, then God can merely choose to not know certain things (which would grant Himself the ‘lack of foreknowledge’ needed to be able to make ‘free’ choices). Game over. Problem solved. Argument refuted sucessfully.
If we choose Total Omniscience, we have yet another obstacle to hurdle.
How does God, who, according to Total Omniscience, knows everything that can be known, have the sufficient ‘lack of foreknowledge’ to allow Himself the freedom to choose ‘freely’?
The answer, I think, would have to lie somewhere in the realm of eternity. For instance, one of the chief attributes of the Christian God is that He is infinite, or eternal. Within the scope of eternity there are several varying ways in which God can exist within eternity (eg. Existing outside of time; Existing outside and inside of time). I take the position of Augustine of Hippo who said that God exists outside of the created universe and therefore exists outside of time; because of this there is not a past or future for God, but only an eternal present.
If then, to God, creation exists within an eternal present, several things would happen. 1) God would know all things at the same time (since God exists in an eternal present, all events are eternally present before God); yet 2) God would not necessarily know the choices made by people (since He cannot see the future because there is no future to God, and since God is viewing the events in the present); this means that 3) God would not necessarily know the choices He Himself would make (since it's already been stated that there is no future to know) except as it concerns prophecy and other things God says will indeed happen.
This existence in an eternal present and lack of a future acts as the "state of uncertainty" mentioned in the argument. Whether or not it truly is a state of uncertainty is speculative; but for reasons concerning the argument and its logic, the 'eternal present' scenerio sufficiently satisfies the finite aspects of the "state of uncertainty".
Thus, the omniscient Christian God can be said to have free will, and is therefore capable of existing as a personal being.
And with that, the argument is rebutted.
To recap:
God meets the criteria for possession of free will as follows:
1) Having more than one option
2) Having a desire to choose
3) Having a freedom to choose
4) Having the power to accomplish the choice
5) Having the potential to avoid the option
The final criterion needed to be met is that of a certain 'lack' of foreknowledge/omniscience, which as shown above is met in accordance with the two varying definitions of omniscience: With Inherent Omniscience, God chooses to not know certain things; with Total Omniscience, God, viewed to exist in a state of eternal present, sees all things as in present time, and is then not seeing the future.
---
Now, all that said, we cannot really know everything as it concerns God, since God exists outside of our complete realm of understanding.
Consequently, I'm open to comments that would help me to then improve the integrity of the rebuttal.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Omnipotence Paradox
I present for your enjoyment, The Omnipotence Paradox (as it was first told to me)
First, we must assume God is omnipotent.
Now if God is omnipotent, can He create a rock He cannot lift?
If He cannot create a rock that even He cannot lift, His omnipotence isn't omni, but limited, since He cannot create said rock, thus proving God isn't 'all powerful'.
If He can create a rock that even He cannot lift, then He proves He is not omnipotent, since he cannot lift this rock which a being with control over the fabric of reality would be able to lift.
Oh, there is one stipulation, He has to be able to do one or the other; He cannot not be able to AND be able to simultaneously.
The Rebuttal:
An omnipotent being would in no way be limited or bound to our logic, since said being is all-powerful. So with that, the paradox becomes null and void. Let me explain:
What is happening in this paradox is that God is being placed within certain parameters; parameters set up by our human logic:
1) Assuming God takes physical form.
2) Assuming God is finite.
3) Forcing our natural laws onto God.
4) Forcing our logic onto God.
If God is not bound by our human logic then we cannot bind God to the parameters set up within this paradox (which is based on our logic) without limiting God therein.
And since we have no alternate means of testing God, the whole of the paradox crumbles.
First, we must assume God is omnipotent.
Now if God is omnipotent, can He create a rock He cannot lift?
If He cannot create a rock that even He cannot lift, His omnipotence isn't omni, but limited, since He cannot create said rock, thus proving God isn't 'all powerful'.
If He can create a rock that even He cannot lift, then He proves He is not omnipotent, since he cannot lift this rock which a being with control over the fabric of reality would be able to lift.
Oh, there is one stipulation, He has to be able to do one or the other; He cannot not be able to AND be able to simultaneously.
The Rebuttal:
An omnipotent being would in no way be limited or bound to our logic, since said being is all-powerful. So with that, the paradox becomes null and void. Let me explain:
What is happening in this paradox is that God is being placed within certain parameters; parameters set up by our human logic:
1) Assuming God takes physical form.
2) Assuming God is finite.
3) Forcing our natural laws onto God.
4) Forcing our logic onto God.
If God is not bound by our human logic then we cannot bind God to the parameters set up within this paradox (which is based on our logic) without limiting God therein.
And since we have no alternate means of testing God, the whole of the paradox crumbles.
Friday, August 15, 2008
The Hunger Site
In a time when even we are feeling the repercussions of this economic recession, we may find ourselves reluctant to help those less fortunate than us, those who have even less. Because really, if we have steady internet access and the time to forward emails and the like, we mustn't be that bad off, eh?
I'm not asking that you buy some food for the homeless guy on the corner street, or sell any of your old junk (yes, we all have junk-- even me), volunteer at a soup kitchen or even donate food to a food pantry --though all of those things are wonderful and you should porbably do them at some point or other.
All I'm asking is that you click on the link below for thehungersite.com, and click on a button. Yes, a button. I want you to click on it. I won't go into the craziness that explains how it works. All I know is that it does. You click on a button and coorporate sponsors donate based upon that number of clicks.
Snopes.com says it's true, and Snopes is known to be 99.9% reliable. That said, you can bet it's legit.
So, as I was saying, just go to the site --thehungersite.com-- and click on the box that says, "Click Here to Give -- it's FREE!" That's it. It's that simple. Really.
While you're there, be sure to check out the links at the top of the page:
See the tabs at the top? There are tabs that say Breast Cancer, Child Health, Literacy, Rain Forest, and Animal Rescue. Those tabs take you to similar pages where you can likewise click on a button to donate to those causes as well.
So while you're helping fight hunger, maybe you should help fight breast cancer, literacy, child health and more. After all, they're fairly worthy causes, right?
So check it out...
...and maybe you can help make a difference.
I'm not asking that you buy some food for the homeless guy on the corner street, or sell any of your old junk (yes, we all have junk-- even me), volunteer at a soup kitchen or even donate food to a food pantry --though all of those things are wonderful and you should porbably do them at some point or other.
All I'm asking is that you click on the link below for thehungersite.com, and click on a button. Yes, a button. I want you to click on it. I won't go into the craziness that explains how it works. All I know is that it does. You click on a button and coorporate sponsors donate based upon that number of clicks.
Snopes.com says it's true, and Snopes is known to be 99.9% reliable. That said, you can bet it's legit.
So, as I was saying, just go to the site --thehungersite.com-- and click on the box that says, "Click Here to Give -- it's FREE!" That's it. It's that simple. Really.
While you're there, be sure to check out the links at the top of the page:
See the tabs at the top? There are tabs that say Breast Cancer, Child Health, Literacy, Rain Forest, and Animal Rescue. Those tabs take you to similar pages where you can likewise click on a button to donate to those causes as well.
So while you're helping fight hunger, maybe you should help fight breast cancer, literacy, child health and more. After all, they're fairly worthy causes, right?
So check it out...
...and maybe you can help make a difference.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Not Fashionable
the UN estimates that between 26,500 and 30,000 children die of hunger everyday. hunger. not war, not disease, not natural disaster. hunger. totally treatable, clearly curable and absolutely preventable. when the UN says that up to 30,000 children die of hunger everyday, they are only talking about kids five and younger. but we let it happen. they don’t get a mention in the obituaries or make headline news. they die silent, painful, lonely deaths. they die off camera and in the poorest places on earth.
we can change this. you can bring change. we don’t have to let this sort of thing happen. the point is not to guilt people into pinching a couple pennies so that we can let ourselves off the hook. the point is to restore humanity to these children. to let them die like this, night after night, is saying something about the way we view life and people. we aren’t talking about making everyone rich or inventing a new concept. we are talking about equality and compassion. we wouldn’t let our own brothers and sisters starve to death if it was within our power to save them. know that it is.
they say that apathy never killed anyone.
so think. think about how blessed you are. don’t forget that justice and mercy are at the very center of why you are the way you are. remember that anytime someone asks you what these shirts mean that you are actively making someone aware of something that they cannot ignore. always remember that you are fighting for the people who aren’t going to make you famous or rich, but people whose hope you are restoring. God is on the move.
this is notfashionable.com
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Tales of Beedle the Bard
Last year, J.K. Rowling auctioned off one of the seven hand-written/illustrated copies of the children's fairy tales (as seen in Deathly Hallows), The Tales of Beedle the Bard (Click here to view). The book, auctioned at Sotheby's in London, fetched a meager $4 million. The purchaser? Amazon.com.Mrs. Rowling donated the full proceeds to The Children's Voice campaign, "a charity she co-founded to help improve the lives of institutionalized children across Europe," Amazon.com says.
Recently, it has been announced (as maybe some of you have heard) that The Tales of Beedle the Bard is being published for commercial sale. That said, the entire net proceeds from the sales of these books, which includes a Uk edition, US edition, and collector's edition, will again be donated to The Children's High Level Group.
The cost is quite affordable, except if you want to be one of only 100,000 to own the collector's edition, which will set you back a hefty $100. The collector's edition, on top of being a limited printing, is bound and jewel-encrusted so that it resembles as closely as possible the originals. That will certainly help ease its considerable cost.
In total, the proceeds are estimated to be somewhere near $8 million in net proceeds, all gifted to the children's charity, and certainly a fine gift from a most undoubtedly generous woman.
I myself have already purchased my copy, though I admit I did buy the UK edition.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Makeover...
Last night I gave my old website, blearyeyedme.com, a makeover.
There wasn't much to be done; but I did take down the stuff about my old band, blearyeyedme, and some other things like pictures, writings, and art (which can all be found by clicking on the links given: Myspace, Facebook, DeviantART, etc.). I'll probably go back and add the music of blearyeyedme (which can otherwise be found on its own Myspace page here).
So, there you have it. That's all.
Cheers!
Edit: Click on the blearyeyedme.com logo and it will take you to the music page. Once there, click on the logo again to return to the main page.
There wasn't much to be done; but I did take down the stuff about my old band, blearyeyedme, and some other things like pictures, writings, and art (which can all be found by clicking on the links given: Myspace, Facebook, DeviantART, etc.). I'll probably go back and add the music of blearyeyedme (which can otherwise be found on its own Myspace page here).
So, there you have it. That's all.
Cheers!
Edit: Click on the blearyeyedme.com logo and it will take you to the music page. Once there, click on the logo again to return to the main page.
Monday, August 4, 2008
As the Ruin Falls.
Apart from Thanatopsis by William Cullen Bryant, As the Ruin Falls by C.S. Lewis has to be my favorite poem of all:
All this is flashy rhetoric about loving you.
I never had a selfless thought since I was born.
I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through:
I want God, you, all friends, merely to serve my turn.
Peace, re-assurance, pleasure, are the goals I seek,
I cannot crawl one inch outside my proper skin:
I talk of love --a scholar's parrot may talk Greek--
But, self-imprisoned, always end where I begin.
Only that now you have taught me (but how late) my lack.
I see the chasm. And everything you are was making
My heart into a bridge by which I might get back
From exile, and grow man. And now the bridge is breaking.
For this I bless you as the ruin falls. The pains
You give me are more precious than all other gains.
This poem was written about his wife, Joy Davidman Gresham. This is who Lewis is speaking of when he uses the personal pronoun 'you'. During this time she was battling bone cancer (a battle to which she ultimately succumbed). In the third stanza when Lewis writes, "And now the bridge is breaking," you can see how he is suffering alongside his wife, 'dying' as she is. It helps to know what Lewis was going through, to understand his suffering as you understand his wife's. This, for me, has made this one of the most compelling poems ever written. And how profoundly romantic that last statement: "The pains you give me are more precious than all other gains."
All this is flashy rhetoric about loving you.
I never had a selfless thought since I was born.
I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through:
I want God, you, all friends, merely to serve my turn.
Peace, re-assurance, pleasure, are the goals I seek,
I cannot crawl one inch outside my proper skin:
I talk of love --a scholar's parrot may talk Greek--
But, self-imprisoned, always end where I begin.
Only that now you have taught me (but how late) my lack.
I see the chasm. And everything you are was making
My heart into a bridge by which I might get back
From exile, and grow man. And now the bridge is breaking.
For this I bless you as the ruin falls. The pains
You give me are more precious than all other gains.
This poem was written about his wife, Joy Davidman Gresham. This is who Lewis is speaking of when he uses the personal pronoun 'you'. During this time she was battling bone cancer (a battle to which she ultimately succumbed). In the third stanza when Lewis writes, "And now the bridge is breaking," you can see how he is suffering alongside his wife, 'dying' as she is. It helps to know what Lewis was going through, to understand his suffering as you understand his wife's. This, for me, has made this one of the most compelling poems ever written. And how profoundly romantic that last statement: "The pains you give me are more precious than all other gains."
Friday, July 18, 2008
Wow! A Blog Post!
So as you've probably noticed, my blog here has been laid to the wayside. It's not intentional, of course. It just happened that way. I've been terribly busy with work, on an odd schedule, and in my free time I've been enthralled by the fantastically talented Mrs. J.K. Rowling.
Now, seeing as I completed my schooling at Hogwarts a week ago, you might ask why I've just now gotten around to blogging again. Well, I shall answer you! In short, I've begun writing again; and I'm more determined than ever to finally finish my first novel. I'm not that far from finished realy. Coming in at about 40k words, I'll probably sqeak out another 10k or so and call it a day. It's a multi-part series, so don't fret... there will be more. Just as soon as someone picks it up and decides it worth publishing.
Until then, I'm always up for ideas...
Now, seeing as I completed my schooling at Hogwarts a week ago, you might ask why I've just now gotten around to blogging again. Well, I shall answer you! In short, I've begun writing again; and I'm more determined than ever to finally finish my first novel. I'm not that far from finished realy. Coming in at about 40k words, I'll probably sqeak out another 10k or so and call it a day. It's a multi-part series, so don't fret... there will be more. Just as soon as someone picks it up and decides it worth publishing.
Until then, I'm always up for ideas...
Monday, May 26, 2008
Flowers of Memory
Today is a day of remembering, of honoring, and of celebrating the lives and heroicism of the men and women who have fought and served, taking up arms, and dedicating their service to a calling of sacrifice and duty. But as we remember and honor these heroes--both the quick and the dead--we must also remember the forgotten ones, those whose families have all but faded away.
It was eight years ago that a French couple made it their duty to honor and remember our fallen heroes when their own families could not. Les Fleurs de la Memoire, or Flowers of Memory, was created; and volunteers have taken it upon themselves to adopt the graves of the fallen Americans at Normandy, and use this day to honor them with flowers, with ceremony, and with the rightful memorial they deserve.
During the ceremony, a French priest recites the Lord's Prayer, while a Rabbi chants the Kadish. Finally, a French military band performs the "Star-Spangled Banner." Simple as it is, these men and women of Les Fleurs de la Memoire are giving us a gift more precious than we can come to grasp. They are becoming a part of our families, and making us a part of theirs.
May we all take today to remember our family, to honor them, and to thank them for their loyal commitment. But more importantly, may we take their memories with us each and every day, and let them become more a part of who we are. Maybe then, we might just grow into a better people, a people willing to help and to love and to sacrifice for others the way they have sacrificed for us.
To learn more about Les Fleurs de la Memoire, read the article on npr.org to learn more.
It was eight years ago that a French couple made it their duty to honor and remember our fallen heroes when their own families could not. Les Fleurs de la Memoire, or Flowers of Memory, was created; and volunteers have taken it upon themselves to adopt the graves of the fallen Americans at Normandy, and use this day to honor them with flowers, with ceremony, and with the rightful memorial they deserve.
During the ceremony, a French priest recites the Lord's Prayer, while a Rabbi chants the Kadish. Finally, a French military band performs the "Star-Spangled Banner." Simple as it is, these men and women of Les Fleurs de la Memoire are giving us a gift more precious than we can come to grasp. They are becoming a part of our families, and making us a part of theirs.
May we all take today to remember our family, to honor them, and to thank them for their loyal commitment. But more importantly, may we take their memories with us each and every day, and let them become more a part of who we are. Maybe then, we might just grow into a better people, a people willing to help and to love and to sacrifice for others the way they have sacrificed for us.
To learn more about Les Fleurs de la Memoire, read the article on npr.org to learn more.
Monday, May 19, 2008
A Dead Poet's Myspace Page
I was remembering one of my literature classes I took at Florida Atlantic University and looking for one of the poets online. I couldn't remember his name for the life of me and then I found him: Gerard Manley Hopkins, an English poet and Jesuit priest. His poems were the highlight of that semester. Just an overwhelming love, a rhythm like no other, and alliteration out the wazoo! In fact, here's my favourite of his many poems: Pied Beauty.
Any way. I was looking him up when I found a myspace page for him. I shook my head in disbelief, that some twit had created a myspace page--a freakin' myspace page--for a dead poet. Well, apparently it's a pretty common thing. Because not only did I find Hopkins' myspace page, but ones for W.B. Yeats, D.H. Lawrence, William Blake, Percy Shelley, Matthew Arnold, Wordsworth, Shakespeare, Samuel Johnson, T.S. Elliot, Poe, and so on until I found one for George MacDonald, who is without a doubt one of my favourite writers and novelists of all time. So I had to check out his page.
I saw the comments and it hit me: these pages give people a chance to thank those--like MacDonald--who have helped them in so many ways through their writing. The comments were so moving and just incredibly amazing. Not only are those writers living on through their works, but they are living on through the comments and many displays of appreciation shown by others. To see how one person has touched so many lives, and for someone to create an outlet--like a myspace page--for that person to share their gratitude is one of the most amazing and awesome things I've witnessed in my entire life.
That's all, really. I just wanted to share that.
"He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him."
Any way. I was looking him up when I found a myspace page for him. I shook my head in disbelief, that some twit had created a myspace page--a freakin' myspace page--for a dead poet. Well, apparently it's a pretty common thing. Because not only did I find Hopkins' myspace page, but ones for W.B. Yeats, D.H. Lawrence, William Blake, Percy Shelley, Matthew Arnold, Wordsworth, Shakespeare, Samuel Johnson, T.S. Elliot, Poe, and so on until I found one for George MacDonald, who is without a doubt one of my favourite writers and novelists of all time. So I had to check out his page.
I saw the comments and it hit me: these pages give people a chance to thank those--like MacDonald--who have helped them in so many ways through their writing. The comments were so moving and just incredibly amazing. Not only are those writers living on through their works, but they are living on through the comments and many displays of appreciation shown by others. To see how one person has touched so many lives, and for someone to create an outlet--like a myspace page--for that person to share their gratitude is one of the most amazing and awesome things I've witnessed in my entire life.
That's all, really. I just wanted to share that.
"He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him."
John Atkinson Grimshaw
Back in the early spring of 2006 I worked the International Fine Arts Exposition at the Palm Beach County Convention Center here in West Palm Beach, Florida. It was the first Union gig I had ever worked, thanks to my friend Tristan, and I was excited to see the expensive art that everyone kept telling me about. The beauty of the works, the history and the depth of it all took an uncomfortable backseat to the number of dollar signs placed next to each frame.
It was during my time here, though, that I got to see some of the most beautiful paintings I had ever witnessed. From Pierre-Auguste Renoir to Pablo Picasso and Sophie Anderson, this art show was deluged with rich art history and talent; and I wanted to drink it in as much as I could.
It was when I reached this one particular area that things really started getting good. It was here that I saw several paintings by the English, Victorian-era painter, John Atkinson Grimshaw.
His paintings were simple landscapes that could easily be passed over. But a second look pulled you into the world Grimshaw created on each canvas he touched. His uncanny attention to detail blew my mind; and though seemingly similar, each piece carried its own depth, cast its own shadows, conveyed its own mood. And until the day that xposition loaded out, I would always stop by and just stare at those paintings.
It was during my time here, though, that I got to see some of the most beautiful paintings I had ever witnessed. From Pierre-Auguste Renoir to Pablo Picasso and Sophie Anderson, this art show was deluged with rich art history and talent; and I wanted to drink it in as much as I could.
It was when I reached this one particular area that things really started getting good. It was here that I saw several paintings by the English, Victorian-era painter, John Atkinson Grimshaw.
His paintings were simple landscapes that could easily be passed over. But a second look pulled you into the world Grimshaw created on each canvas he touched. His uncanny attention to detail blew my mind; and though seemingly similar, each piece carried its own depth, cast its own shadows, conveyed its own mood. And until the day that xposition loaded out, I would always stop by and just stare at those paintings.
How do these paintings make you feel? What similarities can you find between the paintings?
Saturday, May 17, 2008
California Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage
In what some will call the most positive thing to come out of George W. Bush's Presidency (though having nothing to do with it himself), the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, May 15, 2008.
Coming after a 4-3 ruling, and years of debate and controversy, the court came to the conclusion that the state's constitution granted a natural "right to marry" to all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation. Though not without its own controversy, opposing groups are already working on getting an initiative attached to this November's ballot that will address the issue directly, amending the state's Constitution, and banning same-sex marriage in California once and for all.
"No matter how you stretch California's Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, to the Los Angeles Times.
It would certainly be prudent to recall that not fifty years ago most societies condemned the equality of Blacks to Whites, and of women to men. Every injustice that has been overturned has carried its fair share of controversy and adversity. This is certainly no different.
"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Justice Ron George wrote for the majority. "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
And to those who would dare to strike at the liberality of the California Supreme Court, it should be noted that six of the seven justices are Republicans. Certainly if they can find enough cause and be open enough to change their views, others will see this as a good thing as well.
Even Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation aimed at legalizing gay marriage, has said "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."
The ruling, made on the 15th of this month, will be effective within 30 days. This gives same-sex couples wishing to marry through mid-June to make their arrangements. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called the "decision a victory for California," stating that he would officiate as many same-sex marriages as possible.
The ruling allows all same-sex couples in California, as well as same-sex couples throughout the entire United States, the opportunity to be legally married. Though the decision grants same-sex couples in California the same full rights as heterosexual couples, it does not include all rights on the federal level, such as granting Social Security to a same-sex husband or wife. Similarly, states that do not allow gay marriage are not legally obligated to recognize the validity of its residents' new marriage.
Many believe this historic event will set a precedent for other states and, eventually, the federal government to make amendments defining marriage as not just between a man and a woman, but as between any consenting adult and another.
Coming after a 4-3 ruling, and years of debate and controversy, the court came to the conclusion that the state's constitution granted a natural "right to marry" to all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation. Though not without its own controversy, opposing groups are already working on getting an initiative attached to this November's ballot that will address the issue directly, amending the state's Constitution, and banning same-sex marriage in California once and for all.
"No matter how you stretch California's Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, to the Los Angeles Times.
It would certainly be prudent to recall that not fifty years ago most societies condemned the equality of Blacks to Whites, and of women to men. Every injustice that has been overturned has carried its fair share of controversy and adversity. This is certainly no different.
"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Justice Ron George wrote for the majority. "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
And to those who would dare to strike at the liberality of the California Supreme Court, it should be noted that six of the seven justices are Republicans. Certainly if they can find enough cause and be open enough to change their views, others will see this as a good thing as well.
Even Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation aimed at legalizing gay marriage, has said "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."
The ruling, made on the 15th of this month, will be effective within 30 days. This gives same-sex couples wishing to marry through mid-June to make their arrangements. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called the "decision a victory for California," stating that he would officiate as many same-sex marriages as possible.
The ruling allows all same-sex couples in California, as well as same-sex couples throughout the entire United States, the opportunity to be legally married. Though the decision grants same-sex couples in California the same full rights as heterosexual couples, it does not include all rights on the federal level, such as granting Social Security to a same-sex husband or wife. Similarly, states that do not allow gay marriage are not legally obligated to recognize the validity of its residents' new marriage.
Many believe this historic event will set a precedent for other states and, eventually, the federal government to make amendments defining marriage as not just between a man and a woman, but as between any consenting adult and another.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Edwards Backs Obama
For months now, the public has waited for the former North Carolina Senator's endorsement of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But at a rally for Mr. Obama on Wednesday, John Edwards made a surprise appearance saying, "There is one man who knows this is the time for bold leadership ... and that man is Barack Obama." Wanting to begin unifying the Democratic Party, Mr. Edwards also stated that Obama has joined on with him to cut poverty in half within 10 years. Moments later, Obama confirmed that message to the audience in Grand Rapids, Michigan.Some say that Edwards' endorsement comes too late, stating that his backing of Obama could have helped the Illinois Senator earlier on in the campaign trail. Regardless, Edwards support of Obama could certainly turn the tables, possibly bringing Super-Delagates over to Obama; not to mention the possibilities within the remaining primaries of Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota.
Though giving his endorsement of Obama, Edwards also praised Hillary Clinton at the Michigan rally. MSNBC reports Edwards as saying, "We are a stronger party" because of her involvement and "we're going to have a stronger nominee in the fall because of her work."
In response, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement: "We respect John Edwards, but as the voters of West Virginia showed last night, this thing is far from over." Indeed, with the race as close as it is, and with Clinton winning three of the last five primaries, the former New York Senator surely still has a viable chance at making it to a nomination.
Clinton herself has said she will continue through the remaining primaries in an attempt to convince the American people that she is best suited to defeat John McCain come November.
John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, remains steadfast to Mrs. Clinton, stating her healthcare plan as the superior one. She did not accompany her husband to Michigan; neither did her endorsement.
This blog brought to you in part by NPR and MSNBC.
Photo courtesy of Jae C. Hong, from npr.org.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Jeremiah, This Is For You.
Jeremiah, I know Mary-Anne's let you hear the baby's heartbeat over the phone; but there's just something about seeing it as well that makes it so much better. So I took a few clips with my phone and thought I'd share them with you.Take care, brother. We'll see you when you get home.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Charlie's Golf Tournament
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the then upcoming Charles R. Rubado Memorial Gold Tournament. Well, the tournament has come and gone, and so I thought I'd share the details of the day's events.
The same artist also unveiled a new piece, inspired by Charlie, dedicated to all the servicemen and -women who put themselves on the line for us so selflessly and honorably.
Then it was off to the tournament!
Okay. Let me tell you one thing. The Hollingsworths are not golfers. So we didn't golf. But we had a great time all the same! We stayed in at the clubhouse most of the day, had some lunch at the restaurant there, and just had a good time. Later the players came back in and we had dinner in the clubhouse. Awards were given out, and a check was presented to the Rubado family for the Charles Rubado Scholarship at FSC. This year's total amount given to the scholarship fund was over $4,000, nearly topping the first year's total.
The day began at the Annie Pfeiffer Chapel at Florida Southern College in Lakeland, Florida, where a memorial service was held in honor of Charlie. During the service, resident artist and co-founder of the American Ideals Foundation, Inc (Not For Profit) Greg Crumbly of Lakeland, who also works for the group who "put on" the service, presented Charlie's parents and Mary-Anne with an original work, a representation of Charlie's life.
The same artist also unveiled a new piece, inspired by Charlie, dedicated to all the servicemen and -women who put themselves on the line for us so selflessly and honorably. We then heard the premier of a piece written for piano, by composer and co-founder of the American Ideals Foundation, Robert Moffa. The piece, titled "The Military Hero," also inspired by Charlie, was a "musical portrait" of Charlie's life, his call to duty, and his farewell.
Afterwards, there was a releasing of butterflies, the symbol of new birth.
Lots of pictures were taken once the service had concluded.
Mary-Anne took us to see the ROTC library dedicated in honory of Charlie. There we also saw the bench bought by the Zeta Sorority House in honor of Charlie.
Then it was off to the tournament!Thursday, May 8, 2008
Publix Green Bags
I know this is nothing new, but this evening when I went to my local Publix Supermarket I decided to buy the re-usable green bags instead of using the now standard Publix plastic bag. In an articale I read about the green bags, one website reports that 1 million plastic bags are used in the United States every minute, and that the average family accumulates an average of 60 bags in only four trips to stores.
Those kind of statistics are quite disheartening. But what's more is that the article reports 100 billion plastic bags discarded each year by Americans; bags that took nearly 12 million barrels of oil to produce.
It really makes me re-think using plastic, especially if not using plastic will not only help the environment, but could possibly cause a chain reaction that would decrease the number of barrels of oil consumed, and thus possibly allowing for a price drop in the cost of oil.
So I'm here to challenge each of you to re-think using those plastic bags. Most supermarkets produce and sell re-usable bags, like Publix Supermarkets. Some markets, like the world's largest retailer of natural and organic foods, Whole Foods Market, have even completely rid their stores of plastic bags, asking customers to BYOB (or, Bring Your Own Bag). At both Whole Foods and Publix, their re-usable bags can be purchased for no more than $1.49. Right now, Publix is offering their's for $.99.
These green bags, generally produced from Non Woven Polypropylene (NWPP), though plastic in itself, are re-usable and can most likely be used for years to come. Some bags, like Whole Foods re-usable bags are made from recycled plastic bottles, thus helping the environment in two big ways. These bags are also generally designed to hold the amount of food that would usually fit into 3-4 standard plastic bags, so there's less to carry when you leave the store.
And for those of you who do still use plastic bags, or who plan to continue using them, I say this. Re-use them when you need to take lunch to work (like I've been doing) or when you need to tote something around. But when you finish, or when you go back to the supermarket, take them with you. Most supermarkets offer recycling bins specifically designed for your old plastic bags.
Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus!
At work this week I've been working the musical adaptation of Mo Willems' award-winning picture book, Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus! The three-person crew (two of which act as the cast) has been wonderful and spirited during this week's run. It's been a privilege working with them and I wish them all the best, especially CJ (who is to be married this August 16, 2008)! 
The books (Yes, there is more than one Pigeon book!) seem funny; enough so that they've won author/illustrator Mo Willems multiple children's books awards. On top of the now six Pigeon books (two of which are board books), Mr. Willems has also written and illustrated the Knuffle Bunny books, the Elephant and Piggie series and other, all of which have become highly acclaimed and award-winning children's books. Mo Willems has also won six Emmys for his writing on Sesame Street, and has done vast work for Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.
I have yet to personally read any of Mr. Willems' books; but having seen the Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus! musical play this week, I can assure you that both children and adults alike will be laughing and learning as they enjoy the crazy shenanigans Mo Willems offers.
Mo Willems' books can be bought wherever books are sold, as well as Amazon.com. For the collectors out there, autographed copies of Mo's books can be purchased at CuriousToys.com.
Mo currently keeps up a blog here on blogspot.com, where he talks about his books, posts little doodles, and just generally keeps his audience informed. He also keeps a FAQ blog for people to write him and ask questions.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Birds Eye Steamfresh Vegetables
Recently, my mother-in-law-to-be made the new Birds Eye Steamfresh Green Beans with dinner. It was the first time she had tried them, and it was my first time as well.
Both of us were very surprised with them as they were not only very good, but they tasted remarkably similar to fresh green beans. I honestly thought they were fresh. Never would I have assumed them to have been frozen vegetables.
So we tried the other varieties: corn, peas, broccoli, mixed vegetables, and even a mixed veggies with white rice. All of them have been incredibly good. Everything tastes as if it were just picked, brought in, and cooked.
So here I am writing about how awesome some frozen vegetables are. Do yourself a favor and try them. I promise you you won't regret trying these Steamfresh vegetables.
The Show Goes On... Unfortunately
It is with deep sadness that I announce that Riverdance will continue its run at the Kravis Center, as the owner of Riverdance cancelled their contract with the Kravis Center and hired the union to replace it, allowing them to complete their run at The Raymond F. Kravis Center for the Performing Arts.
I guess I should have known this would happen. Babies generally get what they want, right?
There has already been talk of another union strike to take place when the next Kravis-presented yellow card show, Go Diego Go Live!, comes to the Kravis Center on June 18, 2008.
Whatever. I still have a job.
It was interesting to see this the union workers this morning. Sure enough, half of them were on stage working, the other half outside sitting down doing nothing. What else is new?
An article (with a union slant) written by the Palm Beach Post can be read here.
I guess I should have known this would happen. Babies generally get what they want, right?
There has already been talk of another union strike to take place when the next Kravis-presented yellow card show, Go Diego Go Live!, comes to the Kravis Center on June 18, 2008.
Whatever. I still have a job.
It was interesting to see this the union workers this morning. Sure enough, half of them were on stage working, the other half outside sitting down doing nothing. What else is new?
An article (with a union slant) written by the Palm Beach Post can be read here.
The Cost of Doing Business
Effective May 12, 2008, we will see changes in the cost of stamps as well as other methods of shipping with the United States Postal Service. Though not necessarily a significant increase, as the cost of stamps rise from $.41 to $.42 per stamp, it's rather inevitable that people will have mixed feelings.
On the one hand, even though a $.01 increase is not a large hike, some penny-pinchers will disagree given the state of increase on the cost of nearly every other good or service provided in the U.S. And some may simply disagree with it on the basis of principle. On the other hand, even if you purchased a roll of 100 stamps, it would only amount to a $1 increase per 100 stamps. Surely that's not too steep a price to pay given the business' cost of operation.
Whether or not you feel the cost increase is necessary, the Postal Service has already given you a break. In April of 2007, the USPS released its Forever Stamp. This stamp, at the cost of $.41, will always be good, no matter the present cost of stamps. In other words, even if the price of stamps jumps to $.75 per stamp (purely hypothetical), the Forever Stamps you purchase at $.41 will still be accepted. Now that's a pretty good deal. But you'd better stock up on these stamps now, because come May 12, you won't be able to purchase them for that price.
On the one hand, even though a $.01 increase is not a large hike, some penny-pinchers will disagree given the state of increase on the cost of nearly every other good or service provided in the U.S. And some may simply disagree with it on the basis of principle. On the other hand, even if you purchased a roll of 100 stamps, it would only amount to a $1 increase per 100 stamps. Surely that's not too steep a price to pay given the business' cost of operation.
Whether or not you feel the cost increase is necessary, the Postal Service has already given you a break. In April of 2007, the USPS released its Forever Stamp. This stamp, at the cost of $.41, will always be good, no matter the present cost of stamps. In other words, even if the price of stamps jumps to $.75 per stamp (purely hypothetical), the Forever Stamps you purchase at $.41 will still be accepted. Now that's a pretty good deal. But you'd better stock up on these stamps now, because come May 12, you won't be able to purchase them for that price.
If you want to see what changes will take place on May 12, 2008, please visit the United States Postal Service website. And if you want to see a price chart comparison of prices now and those effective May 12, visit the Pitney Bowes website.
Stamps can be purchased at any USPS location, the online USPS store, as well as your local Costco Wholesaler.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
I.A.T.S.E. Local Bag of Crap
Today I got my first taste of a union strike, something that's been ongoing at my work, The Raymon F. Kravis Center the Performing Arts, for the last 7+ years.
Today we were supposed to load in Riverdance as they gave their farewell performances. That load in never took place.
Apparently the local theatre union, I.A.T.S.E. Local 500, didn't want the Kravis Center working Riverdance, a yellow card show (union show). It makes sense that they would be upset that a show specifically designated for their employees was now being worked by non-union members. Riverdance did, however, sign a contract with the Kravis Center, fully aware of its non-union status. And so this morning, the local union did what it does best: prevent any real work from getting done.
Come on, Local 500, get over yourselves.
As stated above, this isn't our first run in with the union. The Kravis Center used to be a strictly union house, but has since retired its yellow card, hiring its own full-time house crew to take over. With that change comes the influx of ivy-league lawyers and the promise of a long, drawn-out courtship that will ultimately end in an even more bitter divorce than the fighting that brought it there to begin with.
So today ended well for everyone except the theatre-goers. Kravis Center crew got a well needed day of rest; Kravis hired Part-Time Tech (PTT) workers got a free ride today; It was business as usual for the union members holding the picket lines. Looks like everyone got a good deal out of it except for those now having to deal with getting refunds for the show that did not go on.
As it stands now, it's up in the air as to whether or not the show will go on. There are talks of whether the union will get the show or whether Riverdance will say farewell early and dance into their next city fully rested.
Today we were supposed to load in Riverdance as they gave their farewell performances. That load in never took place.
Apparently the local theatre union, I.A.T.S.E. Local 500, didn't want the Kravis Center working Riverdance, a yellow card show (union show). It makes sense that they would be upset that a show specifically designated for their employees was now being worked by non-union members. Riverdance did, however, sign a contract with the Kravis Center, fully aware of its non-union status. And so this morning, the local union did what it does best: prevent any real work from getting done.
Come on, Local 500, get over yourselves.
As stated above, this isn't our first run in with the union. The Kravis Center used to be a strictly union house, but has since retired its yellow card, hiring its own full-time house crew to take over. With that change comes the influx of ivy-league lawyers and the promise of a long, drawn-out courtship that will ultimately end in an even more bitter divorce than the fighting that brought it there to begin with.
So today ended well for everyone except the theatre-goers. Kravis Center crew got a well needed day of rest; Kravis hired Part-Time Tech (PTT) workers got a free ride today; It was business as usual for the union members holding the picket lines. Looks like everyone got a good deal out of it except for those now having to deal with getting refunds for the show that did not go on.
As it stands now, it's up in the air as to whether or not the show will go on. There are talks of whether the union will get the show or whether Riverdance will say farewell early and dance into their next city fully rested.
Kung-Fu Fighting! Hu!
Living in South Florida--and Palm Beach County at that--I've seen more homeless people than I care to ever see again. I've gotten the bums that come up to your car windows and ask for money. I'll admit, I've purposefully stared straight ahead, pretended to be on the phone or otherwise engaged in order to get them to leave me alone. I'll also admit that I've given more money to them than I'd ever give again. Whether I give or not usually depends on my mood and whether or not (usually not) I have cash on hand. I've heard the sad stories and seen the signs meant to induce guilt in its readers. But never have those stories been quite as charismatic or original as the one above. So I salute you Mr. Homeless-Kung-Fu-Lesson-Needer. For your unending quest for the ultimate cardboard sign, you are unsurpassed in your efforts. So take a bow and breath of that much needed fresh air, for today no ninja can touch you.I would have definitely given that guy some money. Especially with those smiley faces. Oh yeah.
Friday, May 2, 2008
August Rush
Taken from my old blog:Having been released on November 21st and grossing a mere $28 million at the box office (As of December 22, 2007), August Rush may not have made an impression as a holiday blockbuster or an epic tale of good versus evil, but it has made an impression seen only in its steady numbers and its stay among the top ten at the box office this last month.
In an age where people speak of the lack or originality of Hollywood with apathy and indifference, as a collective bent solely on the prospective buck, it's quite phenomenal to see a movie such as this slowly creep its way into our lives and into our theaters.
The story in and of itself is a simple one, of an orphan boy whose sole purpose in life is to find the parents he was separated from at birth. The journey, however, is so much more than simple. The boy discovers he has an innate musical ability rivaling Mozart as a boy genius who can [assumingly] pick up any instrument and play it as if he's always been able to. It is now that we begin to hear the music that has been yearning to escape from the young Evan Taylor.
Freddie Highmore, Terrance Howard, Keri Russell, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and Robin Williams star in this captivating and miraculous film of hope, of love, and of a higher purpose.
In an age where people speak of the lack or originality of Hollywood with apathy and indifference, as a collective bent solely on the prospective buck, it's quite phenomenal to see a movie such as this slowly creep its way into our lives and into our theaters.
The story in and of itself is a simple one, of an orphan boy whose sole purpose in life is to find the parents he was separated from at birth. The journey, however, is so much more than simple. The boy discovers he has an innate musical ability rivaling Mozart as a boy genius who can [assumingly] pick up any instrument and play it as if he's always been able to. It is now that we begin to hear the music that has been yearning to escape from the young Evan Taylor.
Freddie Highmore, Terrance Howard, Keri Russell, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and Robin Williams star in this captivating and miraculous film of hope, of love, and of a higher purpose.
Gimme Fuel, Gimme Fire, Gimme That Which I Desire
In the ongoing quest to find cheap gas, I've taken it upon myself to find the cheapest gas (within my normal rounds) in Palm Beach County. From what I've seen, and from what I've spent, I can tell you that, for the most part, your best bet is sticking to one of three stations: Sunoco, BP, or Hess. Generally those three will have fairly similar prices, and you can bet that they're going to be cheaper than most any other station by at least $.04-.05 per gallon. It may not sound like much, but we all know where that got us: "Oh, $.25 isn't too much of an increase. Now $.20 more isn't so bad." Yeah. Right. And if the $.04-.05 savings isn't enough of an incentive, how about this. Both Sunoco and Hess have little to no dealing with Middle-Eastern oil companies. Also, I found this website, InternetAutoGuide.com, that will give you the cheapest gas stations listed by city. Take a gander. I filled up today for $3.659 at one of the Sunoco stations listed there. The pricing is accurate (or at least as accurate as I can tell). If anyone comes across any other sites that point out cheaper gas, be a chap, do share.
The Happening
M. Night Shyamalan's latest supernatural thriller, The Happening, is coming to theaters Friday, June 13, 2008. A story about a "family on the run from a natural crisis that presents a large-scale threat to humanity," The Happening stars Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo, and Signs star Abigail Breslin's older brother, Spencer. This will be M. Night's eigth film as director, sixth as producer, and ninth as writer.
Many people were skeptical about taking on this film, what with the relative success of Shyamalan's last two films, The Village and The Lady in the Water. Lucky for us, Fox struck a deal with the brilliant writer/director; and after some re-writes gave Shyamalan the go to start filming.
Personally, I'm thrilled to see a new M. Night film. Since The Village, most have fallen off the wagon, leaving only the true M. Night followers to revel in the depth and richness of his films. I truly am amazed everytime anyone speaks of the simplicity of his recent movies. Maybe it's not the films that are simple, though, but the minds of those who simply do not get it. It's not about aliens, living like the amish, or "those we don't speak of." It's not about a lady in the water, per se. It's about the journey; what part do we play? Do we see signs? Do we understand that an innocent saved innocence, and not the lies of our parents? Do we understand that we can all make a difference, and help to shape and change the future of our own world?
We can all make a difference. At least that's what I get from his films; and that's how I feel after seeing his films, like I can do anything, that I matter, that I can and am supposed to play a bigger part in my role here as a man living on a tiny planet called earth.
Do yourself a favor. Make sure you see The Happening when it comes out Friday, June 13, 2008.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
SmartBike
A friend of mine recently told me of her trip to Spain. She was excited about their public transportation system, and more specifically about this SmartBike system in Barcelona. Now just yesterday I saw on the news that the same SmartBike system has come to the United States. In Washington D.C., users can pay an annual fee of $40 that grants them access to a number of SmartBike bicycles. These bikes, located in strategic places throughout the city (usually in places of high traffic, business districts, shopping areas, and tourist markets), are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at no additional cost to the user.Next, just wave the SmartBike user card in front of the card reader at the station and it will assign you a bike, unlocking it, and you're on your way. Smartbike.com also says that because the user cards and card readers use radio frequencies, you may not even have to take the card out of your wallet or purse.
There is a time limit on the rental of the bike, though. Yet in the same time that you return your used bike, you can pick up a new one. It's that simple. Users are responsible for their bikes while in use; and since user cards are used to rent and return bikes, those cards can be used to identify whether or not a user has returned their bike. A three hour time limit has been posted on use of smartbikes. And should your bike not be returned within 48 hours, you will be charged the cost of the bike. That said, I am glad they do put at least some responsibility in the hands of the SmartBike users. It being such a great deal and terrific solution to some traffic issues, I'm sure people won't mind.
The news report I saw commented on how the SmartBike system in Barcelona--the one my friend saw on her trip--had grown from 1,500 bikes to 6,000 bikes. The SmartBike website (http://www.smartbike.com/) says that Barcelona now has 80,000 registered users with each bike being used an average of 12.5 times per day, and that through the SmartBike program an annual savings of 2,500 tons of CO2 is achieved.
SmartBikes aren't only being used in Barcelona, Spain and Washington D.C. either. SmartBikes can be found in France (Caen, Dijon, Perpignan, and Rennes), Norway (Drammen, Oslo, and Trondheim), and Sweden (Gothenburg and Stockholm).
If all goes well with this trial run in Washington D.C., we could very well start seeing more SmartBikes on our city streets. And with it being such a smart and eco-friendly solution to the problem of automobile emissions, I think we can all breathe a bit easier knowing that at least someone is not only helping the environment, but trying to help with the issue of auto traffic as well.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Popemobile
That's right. The Popemobile. His Holiness has his own personalized ride, usually a Mercedes-Benz, out-fitted specifically for him. Though some of them are open-air, they are usually covered with, you guessed it, bullet proof glass.In one respect it's kind of cool that the Pope has his own pimped-out ride. Of course, I think it's pretty ridiculous that he needs bullet proof glass. If that's the case, why not ride in a car that would draw far less attention? I guess that's part of the job though: being visible (but couldn't they have at least tinted those windows? He must be burning up in there!).
I'm not exactly partial to the Pope, though. I think the idea of a Pope is ridiculous. That's not to say I don't respect the man-- I did capitalize his title, didn't I? That's also not to say that if I saw him I wouldn't treat him like any other person. I would treat him differently. Maybe not like some people would, but I'd treat him better than if I had, say, a celebrity in my house. Unless it was Matthew Perry. He'd get the good hand towels... and I'd buy yoohoo too.
I think it's funny that people get so excited about religion when the Pope comes to town. I bet more than three-quarters of the people following him around, lining the streets, or going to mass wouldn't be there were he not there. Why don't people get excited about Christ all of the time? Is it because the Pope is such an important and visible leader (so-to-speak)? Is it that he's actually, physically here (where Christ is with us in spirit)? Regardless, the Pope is nothing more than a man. Who cares (aside from the millions around the world)?
The Pope coming to bring the Good News is great. The fact that the Word of Christ is probably being sidelined by stupid people only interested in the Pope is not very great.
But who knows, maybe someone will come to Christ--and actually come to Christ, not just come to church.
Love Story
I'm sure we all know that infernal cliche: "Love never means having to say you're sorry." Well, I've only one word to say to that. Rubbish!Sure, it worked for Ali MacGraw and Ryan O'Neal in the 1970 film Love Story, but does it work for us today, in the here and now, in the real world?
If love means never having to say you're sorry, then one can do whatever one wants--whether hurting the one they love or not--without consequence. And that, in my opinion, is not love at all, but rather greed and self absorption.
Do you want to know what love really is? Love is saying you're sorry for the things you've done wrong. Love is caring for the other while putting yourself on the back burner. Sure, there will be fights and times when you don't particularly feel fondly of your significant other, but that's no excuse to forget your love. Make things right. Own up to what you've done. Say you're sorry. And learn from it.
That's the main thing, you know-- learning from your mistakes. And if you can learn from those mistakes, then you're one better than a lot of people.
Just remember that it's not about you anymore, just as it's not about me. We are a collective. We are one.
Love is sacrifice. Love is hard. Love is saying you're sorry.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Trees
Little known fact about me: I like trees.That's right. I'm a tree-hugging, save the planet one tree at a time, arbor day loving, let's all plant a tree kind of guy. I may have been a little lapse in my fight for trees the last 26 years, but I'm back! And my first order of business is toset straight a few facts about trees and to educate the public on trees!
For instance, did you know that it's better for the environment to use a real Christmas tree than a fake one (for every tree bought, three are planted in its place)?
Did you know that the government does not own the majority of Unites States forestland?
Did you know that there are 10 million more acres of forestland than there was only 15 years ago and that the amount of forestland in the United States is actually on par with what it was 100 years ago, even with our population tripling in size?!
Did you know that the wood and paper industry account for nearly 1.7 million of the 4 million new trees planted each and every day (effectively planting triple the amount of trees they harvest each year)?
I'm sure you did, but did you know that trees are big helper in the fight against global warming?! For every ton of wood a forest grows, it removes 1.47 tons of carbon dioxide and releases 1.07 tons of oxygen into the environment.
Did you know that almost every part of a tree is used in production?
Did you know that using things like paper plates and paper towels are actually not bad for the environment?
Read more at abundantforests.org.
While you're at it, find out how you can Plant It Forward!
If you're feeling really frisky, try going to plantabillion.org and donate. A dollar a tree is a pretty good thing. And these trees will be planted in the Atlantic Forest, a tropical rainforest in South America that is suffering and is now less than 10% of its original size!
The Books of the Bible
On my way to work this morning I heard on 88.1 WAYfm that there is a new version of the Bible out called The Books of the Bible. This version utilizes Today’s New International Version (TNIV) of the Bible.About The Books of the Bible (from website):
Researchers such as George Gallup, George Barna and the Bible Literacy Project have shown a disturbing deficiency in biblical knowledge among the American public.
The Books of The Bible project encourages better Bible reading, particularly by emphasizing the reading of whole books. The result is an inviting and clean visual presentation of the Bible that can be understood and enjoyed more easily. The Books of The Bible differs from the format of most current Bibles in significant ways:
- chapter and verse numbers are removed from the text (a chapter-and-verse range is at the bottom of each page)
- individual books are presented with the literary divisions that their authors have indicated
- footnotes, section headings and other supplementary materials have been removed from the text (translators’ notes are available at the back of each book)
- the books of the Bible have been placed in an order that provides more help in understanding, based on literary genre, historical circumstance and theological tradition
- single books that later translations or tradition divided into two or more books are made whole again (example: Luke-Acts)
- single-column setting that clearly and naturally presents the literary forms of the Bible’s books.
For more info, go to their website at: thebooksofthebible.info.
It seems like a good idea to me. It's certainly a change from the book/chapter/verse that we're all so very used to. But indeed, those chapter/verse additions weren't made until the year 1205AD. Pulling them out would give us a better look at how it was originally read.
I like the idea of the Bible being more like a regular book. Not that it is a regular book, but that it hopefully won't intimidate its readers as much. I know, I know. It sounds ridiculous, but perception is key. And I'm sure this version will certainly help people come to a better understanding of the Bible. If only it helps people actually read the Bible then it will have done its job.
It'll also allow its readers to focus on whole passages and not merely single verses. I always hated when someone brought up a particular verse of the Bible. "Oh! See! That's a contradiction! Your Bible is false! God doesn't exist!" Oh, well gee, maybe if you read the verse in the context of the entire passage you'd see the meaning, genius.
I think I'll add this to my wishlist.
(Don't worry Shannon. I'll read my other books first.)
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Good Night, Blog.
Good night, blog. It's time for bed.
And good night, world.
Click on the picture to see the larger image. It's pretty neat.
And good night, world.
Click on the picture to see the larger image. It's pretty neat.
3rd Annual Charles R. Rubado Memorial Golf Tournament
For the third year now, Florida Southern College is hosting the Charles Robert Rubado Memorial Gold Scramble this next Saturday, April 26, 2008 at the Cleveland Heights Gold Course in Lakeland, Florida. The tournament is open to the public.Come out and play some golf, enjoy the company of others, and help raise money for the Charles R. Rubado Scholarship at Florida Southern.
My brother-in-law Charlie, a 2 Lt. in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Tiger Squadron, United States Army, was killed in action on August 29, 2005 while on duty in Iraq.
He is missed by all who knew him, by all whose lives were touched by this great man of God, and by those who know him if only by his legacy.
More information about the Gold Tournament can be found at Florida Southern College's Website.
"The Lord"
First, let me make this absolutely clear. I'm a Christian. I love Jesus. I love God. There is no way I'd be the man I am today without the love of God in my life. Without His grace and mercy, I am nothing. Okay? Good.Why am I prefacing this blog anyway?
I have the tendency to cringe inside whenever I hear anyone refer to God as "The Lord." Don't ask me why. I certainly don't know. I just do. For some people it's fingernails and chalkboards. For me it's "The Lord." It's just automatic.
When it's Scripture, it's completely fine. Certain other times I'm absolutely fine with it as well. But for pretty much the rest of the time, why can't they just call Him God, or Jesus, or something? Anything. Anything other than "The Lord." Just typing it is making my ears hurt.
That's all.
Justin Roberts and The Inventors' Magic Key
We've had this children's show running for the last week at work: The Inventors' Magic Key by Don Butler. It's actually a really good show. Excellent writing, but phenomenal acting. The actors really make it worth while. It's probably pointless to say, "Hey! You should go see it!" since the last show is tomorrow before it goes on the road for a week. Regardless, it's a good show.The reason for this blog is actually the pre-show music I've been playing: Yellow Bus by Justin Roberts. At first I jokingly mocked it, but now it's actually grown on me. It's really good, decent music for children. Beyond that, it's just good music. Oh, and my favorite song from the Yellow Bus album is Rocketship. :)
If you have children, you should definitely check out Justin Roberts' music. You never know, you just might like it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
