Sing, O Daughter of Zion

The Human Experience

2009-03-15T18:59:00.001-04:00

Nontheists (atheists more often than not) often ask the Christian to prove that their God exists. The Christian then will generally put forth the reasons they believe (e.g. anecdotal, logical). The nontheist questioning the Christian will then generally proceed to "explain away" the reasoning the Christian had for believing in God, legitimate or not. Subsequently, the nontheist will generally insist that the Christian, having no logical reason to believe, dismiss their belief. To their surprise, more often than not, the Christian remains devout in their belief.

Conversely, when the atheist's position is logically refuted (i.e. no evidence for the nonexistence of God, only that -at best- we don't know), and the Christian insists upon the dismissal of their atheistic belief, the atheist remains steadfast in their belief also.

When presented with "evidence" contrary to their belief, both parties seem to shrug it off and continue as if nothing had ever happened. Days go by, until the next week they find themselves at it once again. The process is repeated, and both the Christian and the nontheist come to the same conclusion: that the other is irrational, illogical, and (sometimes) deluded. This is par for the course in Christian Apologetics.

The reason for this blog is simple: I want to talk about why we shrug it off and try again.

It seems to me that despite whatever "evidence" one might bring to the table, there is always other baggage, metaphysical or not, that affects our perception. That baggage, in my experience (and in others': Christian, nontheist, and pagan alike), is always affected by and dependent upon the human experience. We each experience life, observe, participate, and understand things in varying ways and means.

A group of people watching a sunset will all experience it differently; those who witness some tragic or horrific catastrophe will have their own specific experience and observations. We are like snowflakes, vast a varying in shapes and sizes, but also in how we float along, always singular in our experiences, never the same as another.

Sure, it is certainly possible that there are others who experience life in the same way we do, but generally speaking, the way in which we experience life, observe, participate and understand things is distinct to each individual person.

What does this mean? It means that none of us, and I mean none of us, can definitively comprehend what precisely the other has experienced in life and how it has affected their beliefs, observations, perceptions, and understanding. Not even the most rational among us is capable of diverting the human experience, and getting rid of the baggage we carry, for it is only within our life's experience that we find the rational and logical.

So when someone comes to us with what they call "evidence", we listen, we think about it and, if it goes against our belief system, we generally reject it. Why? Because the things we have experienced, observed, participated in, and understood have all led us to the exact point at which we find ourselves at this precise moment. I am a Christian because of not only the events that have led me to this point, but the manner in which I experienced, observed, participated in and understood those events. Similarly, my atheist, agnostic, and pagan friends are who they are because of how they have experienced the events in their lives.

Is that to say that I won't stray from my current beliefs at some point in time? Not necessarily. I may have some experience tomorrow or next week which opens my eyes to an entirely different viewpoint. Similarly, any one of my atheist, agnostic, or pagan friends may have an experience in the future that opens their eyes to Christ. And that is why we shrug it off this week and try again; because what we say might not affect someone this week, but could forever change them the next.

The Standard of Evidence

2009-03-15T01:13:00.001-04:00

In argumentation, nontheists typically require the Christian to provide supporting evidence or proof for the existence of God. What I find intriguing is that the nontheist offers no standard by which the evidence must measure up (i.e. what evidences one would expect to see of such a God as the Judeo-Christian God and how those standards are developed).

What I would like to know is this:

1. What evidence would you expect to see/observe/experience in our world if the Judeo-Christian God did exist?
2. How do you come to that conclusion (i.e. how do you choose one evidence over another)?
3. What makes your evidences any better than someone else's?
4. Why should the Judeo-Christian God submit to your evidences?

Just Wondering...

2009-03-14T23:41:00.000-04:00

If some scientific applications we deem part of the world (e.g. Causality) do not necessarily apply as it concerns such complex things as the origins of the universe (e.g. Acausality as seen in radioactive decay), then how can we necessitate those same seemingly scientific applications to prove the existence of such an even more complex being as God?

Causality and Satan

2009-03-01T13:22:00.024-05:00

I've seen it over and over again, where those arguing against the Judeo-Christian God bring up things like pain and suffering in the world and how a benevolent God wouldn't allow such atrocities to occur. Such people often bring up Judeo-Christian ideas of God such as His benevolence, mercy, goodness, and love in an attempt to discredit such qualities in God. Yet, more often than not, those people fail to recognize two key factors: Causality and Satan.

All people should recognize the ever-present nature of Causality within our world. Regardless of the controversial nature of Causality at the grand scale of the universe itself, most, if not all, scientists regard Causality as a means of accurately relating one event to another in our day-to-day life. That said, most of the events, or atrocities, blamed on God can be easily explained by Causality, that is, that these horrendous events take place because of the actions of others (and even ourselves) throughout time.

The "butterfly effect" is a perfect example of this. Anything at any time could produce an outcome that could be potentially catastrophic enough to cause these seemingly natural occurrences that people so eagerly try to place on God. True, Causality does not explain all of the irrational pain and suffering we see within the world, yet there is something else that does adequately explain them.

If anyone is going to argue against the Judeo-Christian God's benevolence, goodness, mercy, and love then they must also take into account other aspects given us by Scripture, namely, the presence of Satan at work in our world. Why should they take seriously that possibility? Because in arguing against the Judeo-Christian God, they must effectively take on the entirety of belief and doctrine surrounding Him. In other words, if they are going to presuppose God for the sake of argument, they cannot preclude such an adversary as Satan.

Not only is Satan mentioned in Scripture as living in our world, but as actively working in it as well. (Job, 2 Cr 4, Eph 2) Scripture tells us in both the Old and New Testaments that this is true: the story of Job, in Jesus casting Satan out of the possessed, in Jesus being tempted by Satan, and many more. These Scriptures show Satan as being active within the world and working toward his own end, that is, the destruction of God's people. This comes to us in the guise of pain and suffering to others by things we may deem irrational or natural (e.g. "Bad things happening to Good people", starvation, tsunamis and the like).

Am I saying that Satan is the direct cause of all of these things? Not necessarily. I am saying, though, that if someone is going to question the character of God, then they need to appeal to the Judeo-Christian belief in order to convince the Christian. To simply say that God wouldn't do such and such is fallacious at best. How do you know what God would or would not do or allow, or the reasoning for doing or not doing a certain thing?

The fact is that the Christian will always use Scriptures to reinforce their beliefs. And in the case where the Judeo-Christian God's character is under question, that is quite sufficient.

9 Must Have Apps for the iPhone

2009-02-28T19:01:00.002-05:00

Google – Aside from the search feature, the Google app has its own apps built in, namely Gmail, calendar, Talk (Gmail chat), Photos (Picasaweb), etc. Pretty much everything you can do on Google via a pc or mac you can do on the iphone. It’s saved me more than once, and it helps me to keep up with my pictures on Picasa.

Mobile Banking on AT&T – This has been a wonderful app because it allows me to keep track of all of my accounts without the hassle of having to log in to the bank’s actual website. One of the better banking apps I’ve found, it does require a pin each time you log in (for added security) and has been dead on accurate with my bank’s online updating of account info, purchases, and so on. I would also recommend Mint.com’s new app for those who like Mint’s built-in budgeting feature.

Shazam – Most iphone users (and non-iphone users for that matter!) know about Shazam, namely because it can tell you the name and artist of any song you play for it. There are a few restrictions, though. For one, I’ve read that Shazam is only able to detect English songs, whatever that means. I’ve given it a try with some of my Italian pop music, to no avail (Ma dai!) Shazam is also limited in that it cannot detect live music, though it has on several occasions been able to read live classical music for me. Regardless of the limitations, this is one of the better apps I’ve come across. Now whenever that song I’ve always liked but never knew the name of comes on the radio, I can pull out Shazam and finally know!

Slydial – This gem of an app is the one I’m most proud of. Why? Say you need to call someone back, but you know they’ll talk your ear off and you simply don’t have the time, or perhaps you have only a quick second to let your friend know the answer to a question they’ve been bugging you about all week. This app takes care of it for you. When you open Slydial it will prompt you to choose a contact from your phonebook or to dial a number. Take your pick and let Slydial do the rest. The number will be called, but will be preceded by a series of numbers inserted by Slydial. What this does is take you directly to the voicemail of the cell phone user you just called. I hate to admit it, but I have used Slydial a couple of times, and both times were to give answers to people that I didn’t have time to talk to otherwise. Needless to say, it was not anyone I speak with regularly or would see this blog.

Public Radio Tuner – For the regular NPR listener, the Public Radio Tuner (by American Public Media) is your link to your favorite public radio stations when you’re not otherwise able to listen. Admittedly, Public Radio does not have my local 90.7 fm WXEL station yet, but as long as I can hear Car talk and Fresh Air I don’t really mind.

Balls – Designed by iotic, this is an interesting app I found only in the last couple of weeks. Balls that can vary in size fall and bounce off of each other creating sounds that imitate wind chimes while their colors change each time they hit another ball. Settings include volume, ball size, gravity, friction, bounce, balls (number of), and trails (left behind by bouncing balls). I like to set mine up with the lowest number of balls (3) and just let them bounce around, creating very calming ambient noise.

AroundMe – Granted, I’ve only had this for a day, but this cool app by Tweakersoft is one of the best. Once it has your location, you can find nearly anything that is around you. Not sure where to find gas, hospitals, theaters, restaurants, bars, hotels, banks and more? Now you do. Get it. It’s free.

The Weather Channel – The built-in iphone weather app is good, but The Weather Channel app gives you hourly updates and a 10 day forecast, as well as any weather alerts. It’s definitely worth getting.

Pandora – For those who don’t necessarily have a specific library of music, and even those who do, Pandora will be a necessity on your iphone. Simply type in the name of a song or artist you like and Pandora creates a playlist of songs around that search. Pandora is your free personalized radio.

There are plenty more apps that are just as awesome, but these nine did it for me, not only because they're useful and fun, but because they are all free.

Dawkins' Delusion

2009-02-18T13:20:00.001-05:00

I’ve been meaning to pick up Richard Dawkins’ infamous book, The God Delusion, for quite some time; I just haven’t had the chance. Now, more than ever, I think I will pick it up. Just a couple of days ago a friend of mine, Jonathan, wrote a blog titled Conceding Dawkins. In that blog, Jonathan posted several quotes by Richard Dawkins that gave me a bit of insight into what Dawkins thinks of faith. Furthermore, Dawkins was quoted as saying that the more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed towards atheism. Additionally, Dawkins is also quoted as saying that "even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes."

Now, I’ve always been a believer in religious freedom, in people having the right to believe what they believe without fear of repercussion. That said, I absolutely cannot stand it when non-theists (and theists, for that matter) say things regarding belief in God that are incredibly false. As I’m sure you can guess, Dawkins has done this, and I intend to point it out.

First up is a quote by Mr. Dawkins wherein he claims a case for ones beliefs does not have to be made:

“Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don't have to make the case for what you believe.”

While it is indeed virtuous to have faith without evidence, belief in God and Jesus Christ is not dependent upon it. It is actually demanded that we test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21). As for making a case for what we believe, this too is a staple of the Christian faith. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always be ready to defend our beliefs and 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 says we are to cast down arguments. Mr. Dawkins’ assertions on this topic are in fact unfounded.

Next, Mr. Dawkins asserts that an understanding of evolution would naturally push one towards an atheist view. What I find hard to believe is that such a reasonable scholar of science would come to such a conclusion. The truth is, evolution (and science, in general) is neither theistic nor atheistic. And neither is there definitive proof through evolution that would push one towards atheism. The evidence simply does not exist. Mr. Dawkins, being the good scientist, has failed to check his metaphysical baggage at the door. And the truth is that none of us properly check our metaphysical beliefs at the door. We all carry with us something that prevents us from totally unbiased and rational decisions, whether it is metaphysical assumptions, experiences, or something else. What this means is that the purveyor of rationale and logic is himself, like he claims theists to be, somewhat deluded.

And finally, "even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes." If religious wars rage because varying faiths believe each other to have caused some wrong to occur, then how are Dawkins and the new atheists any different? Don't they "wage war" on Christianity (mostly) because they feel we've done some wrong in the world? Don't they believe Christianity to be nothing more than a delusion? Aren't their atheist beliefs lacking in true reason and logic, as they so adamantly claim ours are? The only difference between them and other extremists is that they don't brandish weapons and actively hunt down theists. But then again, there is always a time before fanaticism occurs.

I am by no means implying that atheism will evolve to an extremist position like those of terrorists. But the issue isn't about what I believe can happen, but what Dawkins believes can happen. And if he believes that the moderately religious can eventually evolve into fanatics, then surely it follows likewise for the moderately irreligious. We are all subject to our own bodily desires and emotions, previous experiences and metaphysical assumptions. These things help shape us and bring us to our ultimate positions and stances. The irreligious are no different.

It is through these emotions, experiences, and metaphysical assumptions that Mr. Dawkins comes to the conclusions he does (as seen within this blog). Mr. Dawkins has fallen prey to false reasoning. And by the false reasoning that leads Mr. Dawkins to atheism, he may himself become susceptible to that which he fears can/does eventually happen to religious moderates.

This is not limited to Mr. Dawkins. Any and all who claim a logical and rational position and bring to the table their emotions, experiences, and metaphysical assumptions are all guilty of false reasoning.

Action Needed!

2009-02-12T13:44:00.002-05:00

Two-Minute Action Needed Today: Click this link: http://capwiz.com/artsusa/issues/alert/?alertid=12612041 to send a quick e-mail to these Senators to let them know we're paying attention to their votes and are disappointed they voted to support the Coburn amendment.

We want to know why our Senators voted for this damaging amendment -- see below for details.

The U.S. Senate approved an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that prohibits funding for "...museums, theaters and arts centers..." This amendment was approved by a vote of 73-24.

Copy and paste the link below to review all the votes on this amendment: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00051

Please take a couple of minutes to send an e-mail by clicking the link at the top of this e-mail. Our national partner Americans for the Arts has made it easy for you to communicate your disappointment and ask why.

Thank you for your continued advocacy efforts.

Anselm on the Atonement

2009-02-08T18:29:00.000-05:00

Anselm (1033-1109); from Cur deus homo?

Book I
xi. The problem is, how can God forgive man's sin? To clear our thoughts let us first consider what sin is, and what satisfaction for sin is. ...To sin is to fail to God His due. What is due to God? Righteousness, or rectitude of will. He who fails to render this honour to God, robs God of that which belongs to Him, and dishonours God. This is sin. ...And what is satisfaction? It is not enough simply to restore what has been taken away; but, in consideration of the insult offered, more than what was taken away must be rendered back.
xii. Let us consider whether God could properly remit sin by mercy alone without satisfaction. So to remit sin would be simply to abstain from punishing it. And since the only possible way of correcting sin, for which no satisfaction has been made, is to punish it; not to punish it, is to remit is uncorrected. But God cannot properly leave anything uncorrected in His kingdom. Moreover, so to remit sin unpunished, would be treating the sinful and the sinless alike, which would be incongruous to God's nature. And incongruity is injustice.
xiii. It is necessary, therefore, that either the honour taken away should be repaid, or punishment shouyld be inflicted. Otherwise onenof two things follows--either God is not just to Himself, or He is powerless to do what He ought to do. A blasphemous supposition.
xx. The satisfaction ought to be in proportion to the sin...
xxi. And thou has not yet duly estimated the gravity of sin. Suppose that thou wast standing in God's presence, and some one said to thee--'Look yonder.' And God said, 'I am altogether unwilling that thou shouldest look.' Ask thyself whether there be aught in the whole universe for the sake of which thoug oughtest to indulge that one look against the will of God. Not to preserve the whole creation from perishing oughtest thou to act against the will of God. And shouldest thou so act, what canst thou pay for this sin? Thou canst not make satisfaction for it, unless thou payest something greater than the whole creation. All that is created, that is, all that is not God, cannot compensate the sin.

Book II
iv. It is necessary that God should fulfill His purpose respecting human nature. And this cannot be except there be a complete satisfaction made for sin; and this no sinner can make.
vi. Satisfaction cannot be made unless there be some One able to pay to God for man's sin something greater than all that is beside God. ...Now nothing is greater than all that is not God, except God Himself. None therefore can make this satisfaction except God. And none ought to make it except man. ...If, then, it be necessary that the kingdom of heaven be completed by man's admission, and if man cannot be admitted unless the aforesaid satisfaction for sin be first made, and if God only can, and man only ought to make this satisfaction, then necessarily One must make it who is both God and man.
xi. He must have something to offer greater than all that is beow God, and something that He can give to God voluntarily, and not as in duty bound. Mere obedience would not be a gift of this kind; for every rational creature owes this obedience as a duty to God. But death Christ was in no way bound to suffer, having never sinned. SO death was an offering that He could make as of free will, and not of debt. ...
xix.Now One who could freely offer so great a gift to God, clearly ough not to be without reward. ...But what reward could be given to One who needed nothing--One who craved neither gift nor pardon? ...If the Son chose to make over the claim He had on God to man, could the Father justly forbid Him doing so, or refuse to man what the Son willed to give him?
xx.What greater mercy can be conceived than that God the Father should say to the sinner--condemned to eternal torment, and unable to redeem himself--'Receive my only Son, and offer Him for thyself,' while the Son Himself said--'Take me, and redeem thyself'?
And what greater justice than that One who receives a payment for exceeding the amuont due, should, if it be paid with a right intention, remit all that is due?

Does God Owe Us?

2009-01-16T13:58:00.004-05:00

The following comes from the blog A Christian Perspective.

I really enjoyed this blog as it brings quite a bit of insight into how we tend to react and respond in times of need and/or suffering. It reminds us that we are only human and that we will indeed suffer, but that through our suffering hope can be found and that, hopefully, it will lead us to God.

So, without further ado, here is A Christian Perspective's blog titled "Does God Owe Us?"

-------

Recently, when I was talking to a close relative the subject of God came up as it sometimes does. In the course of the conversation the individual protested that he had some questions for God when he died. There's nothing wrong with that of course, I'm sure most of us could say the same. There are things that happen in all of our lives that we just can't understand why God would allow them. We sometimes feel that in order to have resolution we need to have an answer. But in this case it wasn't just that he wanted an answer, it was the inflection with which the statement was made that hinted strongly of bitterness and indignation. It was spoken more like a demand. More like God owed him an explanation.

This isn't uncommon especially amongst skeptics who claim to not even believe in God. For many, they are ready to storm the gates of heaven and ask for God's head on a stick, if that were possible. In one instance a person tried to sue God for negligence. Now of course they didn't expect him to show up on the witness stand, they were trying to make a point (got it loud and clear!) They're contention is if there is a God, than he certainly isn't a loving one for allowing all of the suffering that he has.

Certainly none of us are exempt from suffering. Most of us all have experienced some amount of suffering at one time or another.The first person that usually comes to my mind when I think of suffering is the Biblical figure of Job. One could easily make the case that he is the poster child for suffering in the scriptures. The interesting thing to note about his situation is that he never really gets an answer to the why question. You are lead from one end of the story to the next, as the story builds one might expect that Job is going to get some sort of explanation from God as to why all these things happened to him. After lamenting about his former life (chapter 29) Job begins to grieve about his situation:

"I cry out to you. O God, but you do not answer. I stand up, but you merely look at me. You turn on me ruthlessly; with the might of your hand you attack me. You snatch me up and drive me before the wind; you toss me about in the storm. I know you will bring me down to death, to the place appointed for the living. Surely no one lays a hand on a broken man when he cries for help in his distress. Have I not wept for those in trouble??Has not my soul grieved for the poor? Yet when I hoped for good, evil came; when I looked for light, then came darkness. The churning inside me never stops; days of suffering confront me. I go about blackened, but not by the sun. I stand up in the assembly and cry for help. I have become a brother of jackals, a companion of owls. My skin grows black and peels; my body burns with fever. My harp is tuned to mourning and my flute to the sound of wailing. Job 30:20-31

Later God finally answers Job. This is his golden moment. An audience with the soverign of the universe. Finally he has got his attention. The chance many have only wished for, only the response is probably very unlike what Job was expecting:

"Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!" 38:2-5. This goes on for quite a while.

Picking back up in chapter 40 verse 2:

"Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!"

Job answers the Lord:

"I am unworthy-how can I reply to you? I put my hand in my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer-twice, but I will say no more." Job 40:4-5

Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storrm: (verse 6)

" Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? Do you have an arm like God's and can your voice thunder like his?" Job 40:7-9. Once again Job gets an ear full.

Look I don't want to sound cavalier. It may very well be that God will sit down with us and explain to us what he was doing in all of those circumstances. The scriptures do tell us that God will comfort us, wiping away every tear from our eyes (Rev. 7:17,21:4) As Christians though, we do need to find away to make peace with God, to live not in bitterness and anger toward him, but to find a path to peace even if we don't get the answer we are looking for right now. Are we in any kind of place to either demand or expect answers from God? Does God owe us a detailed explanation of all apparent injustices against us? Do we have a legitimate charge to bring against the Almighty? Has God been unjust in allowing suffering in our lives?

What's interesting is that we all seem to forget that none of us are untouchable. We see stories of trajedy all the time on the news and shake our heads. It's not as though we are unaware these things happen, but when it touches us, we can't seem to believe it. Are any of us above sorrow? We fail to recognize that each one of us may only be a few steps away from something similar. Yet, even Jesus told his disciples that in this world we would have trouble, but he also offered this message of hope; "But take heart! I have overcome the world." (John 16:33) So although Jesus did not resolve to save the apostles from their future sufferings, he did assure them there was hope. In the same way he overcame, we shall too, through him. Within' 50 years all of them with the exception of John would die a martyrs death. Paul who later became an apostle would experience floggings, stoning, shipwrecks and eventually martyrdome himself.

Their cause of course was Christ, so at least they understood to some extent that their sufferings would be of some benefit to the spreading of the gospel (not always though). What about Job? What about when there doesn't seem to be any possible answer or good coming out of a trial? Is it possible to cope when an answer is not forthecoming? Part of it lies in our inability to look beyond our circumstances to the larger picture. The problem with that is, we do not always have access to the larger picture, only God does. My question is, is it possible that there is a purpose even when we don't see it? Are you willing to trust that even in the worst circumstances God can bring good? Are you willing to have faith that He will? Even if you don't see it in this lifetime?

When I read passages like the ones in Job, it reminds me just how small I am. I can only imagine how Job must have felt. What had Job done to deserve all that happened to him? He had served God faithfully and was rewarded with the most intense of trials (the death of family members, fortune, boils, etc.) One trial after another until Job reached the breaking point. Job's petition to God is probably very much like what our own would sound like, although probably not as eloquent. I would argue most of us wouldn't have lasted as long as Job did. He was indeed a man of great faith. When trials of this nature come upon us, it is easy to get the feeling that not only is God negligent, but perhaps He is even persecuting us! We might feel betrayed and alone much like Job. However, even though God did not give Job the answer he was looking for. I think he did put things in perspective and the result is very sobering.

What is also interesting is to observe the myriad of ways in which people will deal with suffering in their lives. I'll never completely understand why one raises their fist in defiance of God, while the other falls prostrate to the floor. One seeks vengeance, while the other seeks mercy and comfort. I suspect it has something to do with the age old stumbling block of pride. The humble man in his sorrow realizes his insignificance in the broad spectrum of things. That all we hold onto as our own, really belongs to him, as does our very lives, even down to our holey underwear (and I'm not talking about Mormon undergarments) . We all too often forget this. Sometimes it's only after something is gone that we realize it, something that we highly valued. How we respond to such cirumstances may be the greatest test we ever have to endure. So what would you do if you lost your most valued treasure? What if it was your health, your children or your home? Would you forsake God?

This brings me to my next question. What is the most important thing in your life? Are you willing to surrender it to God? Even if God allows you to lose it with no apparent answer? These are hard questions. I only ask them to challenge you to ask yourselves, how deep is my faith? Am I really prepared to give it all to God? How would you respond should some such trajedy come into your life? Would you run away from God or run to him?

Most of us if we are lucky will live to maybe our 70's or 80's. Some of us will die before our 40's and some even younger. I think it is important to remember that mankind was created with eternity in mind. As bad as things get in this life, it's not forever. Forever is something completely different. Some might call that wishful thinking and some might say that God is a crutch. My point would be, if it is true that we are all spritual handicaps, then a crutch can be pretty useful to get around. Such a contention does nothing to disprove the existence of God anymore than a broken and depressed individual finding in God a true father figure. In fact it may prove the opposite. why do we have such a yearning for more? Is this just a trick of evolution? Some kind of deceptive survival advantage later to be discarded? Have we evolved past a need for God or religion? I firmly believe the answer is no to all of those questions. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but the existence of suffering does not disprove God, Jesus Christ himself can attest to that. However, in place of the Christian answer to suffering, atheists have offered a seductive alternative. It doesn't matter, life is without any real meaning or purpose, unless we choose to give it meaning or purpose.We don't have to be angry at God because he doesn't exist. How much easier is it to cope now? I know I feel much better (sarcasm) As even the former christian and converted skeptic Bart Ehrman mentioned, after we die that's it, we will cease to exist. This is the atheist gospel. Although it certianly would solve the inconvenience of eternal seperation from God, it doesn't exactly scream of meaning and purpose does it? I mean if we are just glorified animals, accidents of nature and all. Should we take that word to the streets, would that give strength to those comtemplating suicide or struggling with depression? That's one way to answer the why question. There is no answer. Or is that a lack of an answer?

The atheist gospel is no gospel at all of course. In fact it is a contradiction in terms. If Christianity's answer to suffering is insufficient. How much more the atheist. Rather than giving hope in times of struggle, the atheist answer or lack thereof, destroys it. How does this result in a better world?

I'll leave you with these words from Job:
"I know you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. You asked 'Who is this that obsures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know." Job 42:2-3

Perhaps God can bring beauty and peace even out of our darkest moments. I believe He not only can, but that he does all the time, even when we don't see it.

Hell on Trial

2009-01-07T20:14:00.003-05:00

So another friend of mine wrote a nice blog on Hell. Sounds weird to say "nice" and "Hell" in the same sentence. Anyway. I've always been a little shy to the idea of a literal fire and brimstone-type Hell, especially given the nature of God and Jesus Christ, and what we know about Hell to be true (simply put, it is the absence of God). That said, my theory leaned more toward a metaphorical and analogous "Being in Hell (without God) would be like burning in a lake of fire" type of definition of Hell.

I don't claim to have any evidence for that idea of Hell, but my friend, Jonathan, does bring quite a bit to back up his idea of Hell.

So with that, here is Jonathan's blog on Hell titled: Hell on Trial.

------------------------

Hell on Trial, by Jonathan.

(I'll be completely honest--For many months now I have had countless doubts about many things concerning God, faith, and all that kind of stuff. Many of those doubts stem from this topic. I hope this blog benefits those who share my same doubts, who raise the objections that I wish to clear up, and for those who are simply curious about the subject. My argument might be wrong--I am open to that and I am open to criticism. I just want to offer another perspective on the subject. Enjoy)

Hell. When you hear that word what comes to mind? No matter where it is said--its description among the majority is pretty consistent. Usually people think of thousands of naked people being burned by giant flames, others falling from a huge hole in the ceiling where demons are flying around like bats, demons poking all those who are screaming in pain with red pitchforks, and the Devil himself sitting on a throne in the background. These images have been promoted to us through the centuries by popular books and plays. The most famous would of course be found within Dante's Inferno where the damned read the words "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here" as they walk to meet their eternal damnation. Some have even argued that they have actually recorded the sounds of hell. In this blog I wish to argue that hell is not a place of conscious, eternal torment. I wish to argue that the fate of those who die without Christ (according to the Bible, even if it's inspired or not) is quite different. The view that hell is a place full of smoke and fire with billions of people being tormented for eternity is outright wrong, harmful, and somewhat sick. Many people ask questions similar to, "How can a loving God torment people for all eternity?" I think it's a valid question and I hope my argument offers a valid perspective on the subject (although some may find it to be heterodox). To begin, we must define some terms:

Tartarus

There are 3 words in the Bible that are translated as "hell" in our English versions. One of them is Tartarus. This word only appears once and it is found in 2 Peter 2:4, which reads, "God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." In this scripture it states that God has already cast the angels that sinned, including the Devil, down to "hell." But the angels and Satan aren't frying somewhere right now since the Bible already states that Satan is out-and-about doing things (1 Peter 5:8). All you have to do is read the gospels and you'll read stories of Jesus casting out these fallen angels (demons). Tartarus simply means "dark abyss" or "a place of restraint." It isn't a place of torment and fire. 2 Peter 2:4 clearly states that the angels that sinned are "reserved unto judgment," which means that one day they will be punished. Obviously they aren't roasting as we speak.

Gehenna

This word is derived from the name of a rocky, narrow valley south of Jerusalem where trash, filth, and the bodies of dead animals were burned. Jesus spoke of this word a few times in the New Testament, as in Matthew 5:22 where he warned about the "danger of hell (Gehenna) fire." This scripture and others like them do in fact refer to fire. In Gehenna there was trash and there were bodies that were burning. Jesus was using this common, yet unpleasant, imagery to make a point about judgment and of course fire, but when will this fire burn? In one of his parables Jesus answers it quite clearly in Matthew 13:39-43:

the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares (weeds) are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

From these words we can see that there will be a "furnace of fire." When will it exactly burn? Christ said it will at the end of the world. The apostle Peter taught the same thing in 2 Peter 3:7. Jesus and Peter taught that there will be fire but that it is coming in the future and that the earth and all of the evil deeds within it are reserved for that future judgment. So those that have sinned without a remedy are not burning right now below our feet within a flaming-hot furnace. Judgment is reserved for the future; no one is burning right now.

Hades

If you take a look within the book of Revelation there is a scripture that reads, "death and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire" (20:14). In this scripture hell (Hades) is cast into the lake of fire. Therefore Hades (or hell) is not a fiery place, but it is instead tossed into a fiery place. Hades literally means "the grave" (and most Bibles have this footnote somewhere in the text). In the Old Testament this word is called "Sheol." We can see this clearly throughout the New Testament, especially in 1 Corinthians 15:55, which reads, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave (Hades), where is thy victory?" This scripture is talking about God's people. This scripture is talking about God's people ascending from Hades, or the grave, when he returns to the earth. If Hades literally means a fiery place of torment, how can anyone imagine God's own people residing there? If you don't believe me then read the entire section (1 Corinthians 15:51-55).

To sum up these 3 points:
1.) Tartarus is a place of darkness of restraint; Satan and his angels are there now but they obviously aren't roasting.
2.) Hades refers to the grave, which those who are saved will one day resurrect from.
3.) Gehenna refers to a place of fire and punishment, which will come at the end of the world.

Now that we have these words out of the way, let's deal with some more scriptures that seem to pose a "problem." I believe that scripture indicates (whether we believe it was inspired or not) that those who die without Christ will not be frying for all of eternity but will instead be destroyed, annihilated, or will simply cease to exist.

Everlasting Fire

Revelation 20:15 reads, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Will those inside the lake of fire be burning throughout all of eternity or will they simply burn up, and therefore cease to exist altogether? Most jump immediately to scriptures that state, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41). Is there a contradiction between scriptures like these according to the perspective that I am arguing? Maybe so. The Bible states in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." So will the damned forever roast in this "everlasting fire" or will they perish? If they do in fact burn forever then they obviously also have eternal life (just a much more uncomfortable one!). The fire will burn them up forever and its result is eternal--complete destruction. Let's proceed...

Revelation 20:10 reads, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." That means that they'll be sizzling forever, right? Wrong. Ezekiel 28 also speaks about the fate of Satan at the judgment. After discussing the King of Tyre, the prophet looks even further to identify Lucifer himself. This is what Ezekiel says about the fate of the Devil, "I turned you to ashes upon the earth In the sight of all who saw you....You have become a horror, And shall be no more forever" (verses 18-19). So which one is it? Will Satan be frying forever or will he be burned up and be no more forever? It's important to note that the book of Revelation is saturated in imagery. We must not interpret the entire Bible from one isolated text. Let's dig deeper...

Sodom and Gomorrah

In the book of Jude it reads, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (verse 7). We all know the story. These two cities were burned up by fire and brimstone falling from heaven. The physical cities were completely destroyed. The punishment of those in the cities is "set forth as an example" of what will happen to all those who die in their sins. So this "eternal fire" destroyed them in a moment, as the book of Lamentations records, "For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment" (4:6). These two cities were destroyed by "eternal fire" but does this mean that they are still burning? No. The fire came from God and the results last forever (eternal). These two cities are an example for eternal fire, yet they burned up in a moment. How can that be? "Eternal fire" obviously doesn't mean that people will be burning forever. They will be destroyed, which lasts forever.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Many people have read this parable given by Jesus in the book of Luke. It's kind of long so I'll put it into a nutshell: There was a beggar named Lazarus who was full of sores who laid at the rich man's gate desiring to be fed. When the beggar died he was carried off to "Abraham's bosom" and when the rich man died he was buried and found himself being tormented in Hades. The rich man can see the beggar from Hades and he asks him for some water to cool his tongue. This seems to be the greatest text used to support the idea that billions of people will be frying forever. But I must make it a point that this a parable and didn't actually take place. If the rich man was really burning in Hades then how on earth was he keeping the conversation that he was? Simply try burning your finger while talking to someone. If the rich man was burning then why would he only want water for his tongue instead of his entire body? If he entered into flames right after he died then why does Jesus and the apostles teach that fire will be at the end of the world? Please consider these questions.

When Jesus gave this parable he was talking to Pharisees who were deriding him with their tongues (Luke 16:14). They believed that the rich were blessed and that the poor were cursed. Jesus flipped it entirely around. The rich man begging for water to cool his tongue was a warning pointed at them that their mouths were endangering them of hell fire. Fire will be at the end of the world, as the scriptures teach, but no one will be frying forever. Jesus wasn't formulating a theology of eternal damnation here.

Jesus and the Cross

I'll make this one short and sweet because I see it as the most important. Scripture teaches that Jesus paid the price for sin on the cross. The Bible states that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Jesus obviously died on the cross on behalf of the world, which can't save itself. Let's assume that if someone dies without being saved that they will fry for eternity. If that is the punishment for sin then how did Jesus pay the price for sin if he only died without frying for eternity? If that is the punishment for sin and Jesus endured that punishment then it would follow that Jesus is still burning. Wrong. He died, which is the price for sin as the Bible teaches, and Jesus paid that price by dying. If the punishment for sin is frying forever then it follows that Jesus must be frying right now since he paid the price for sin. This is obviously wrong.

Conclusion

In this blog I don't wish to affirm anything on the nature of the soul, the fate of those who are saved and what happens to them before Jesus comes again, etc. I just wanted to focus on the nature of hell and punishment (as the Bible says, even if it's not a divinely inspired book). It's clear that words translated as hell refer to the grave, which everyone will be residing in. Others refer to a fire that will burn up the unsaved at the end of the world. It is clear that there is a fire coming, it will burn up many but that they won't be burning forever...only the results will be forever (I haven't gone completely in depth but I think this is good for now). I sure hope that God won't burn billions of people for all eternity (that idea has created countless atheists among many things). If He really inspired this book then I think it's quite clear that He won't. Trust me, I still have many doubts about The Bible, God, faith, etc. But every time I read these words I can't help but stop and wonder: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

The Gay Challenge

2008-11-22T12:30:00.001-05:00

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!

Two Points on Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

2008-11-22T12:25:00.003-05:00

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?

RandomK's Random Art

2008-11-16T15:50:00.010-05:00

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.

The Children's Bible in a Nutshell

2008-08-22T20:26:00.003-04:00

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.

The Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God

2008-08-20T20:06:00.020-04:00

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.

The Omnipotence Paradox

2008-08-19T19:08:00.001-04:00

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.

The Hunger Site

2008-08-15T23:00:00.000-04:00

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.

Not Fashionable

2008-08-14T23:48:00.002-04:00

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

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

2008-08-11T21:13:00.002-04:00

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.

Makeover...

2008-08-05T10:27:00.004-04:00

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.

As the Ruin Falls.

2008-08-04T19:27:00.003-04:00

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."

Wow! A Blog Post!

2008-07-18T10:25:00.003-04:00

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...

Flowers of Memory

2008-05-26T13:13:00.004-04:00

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.

A Dead Poet's Myspace Page

2008-05-19T15:49:00.003-04:00

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."

John Atkinson Grimshaw

2008-05-19T14:18:00.015-04:00

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.

How do these paintings make you feel? What similarities can you find between the paintings?

California Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage

2008-05-17T21:40:00.004-04:00

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.

Edwards Backs Obama

2008-05-15T08:48:00.009-04:00

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.

Jeremiah, This Is For You.

2008-05-14T21:35:00.000-04:00

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.

Charlie's Golf Tournament

2008-05-12T22:43:00.000-04:00

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 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!

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.

It was great seeing Charlie's parents to happy. It had been a long time since I saw them smile last. We all had a great time. Shannon got to say hi to her soon-to-be nephew, and I got to see my sister. And yes, Mary-Anne is really pregnant! Wow! :)

Publix Green Bags

2008-05-08T21:00:00.005-04:00

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!

2008-05-08T14:44:00.013-04:00

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.

Birds Eye Steamfresh Vegetables

2008-05-07T17:55:00.010-04:00

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

2008-05-07T16:43:00.006-04:00

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.

The Cost of Doing Business

2008-05-07T13:23:00.009-04:00

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.

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.

I.A.T.S.E. Local Bag of Crap

2008-05-06T22:38:00.008-04:00

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.

Kung-Fu Fighting! Hu!

2008-05-06T16:03:00.003-04:00

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.

August Rush

2008-05-02T20:37:00.003-04:00

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.

Gimme Fuel, Gimme Fire, Gimme That Which I Desire

2008-05-02T18:44:00.006-04:00

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

2008-05-02T17:02:00.005-04:00

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.

SmartBike

2008-04-30T14:01:00.011-04:00

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.

The Popemobile

2008-04-19T19:45:00.004-04:00

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

2008-04-19T11:55:00.005-04:00

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.

Trees

2008-04-18T18:47:00.005-04:00

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

2008-04-18T14:53:00.013-04:00

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.)

Good Night, Blog.

2008-04-17T22:59:00.004-04:00

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.

3rd Annual Charles R. Rubado Memorial Golf Tournament

2008-04-17T22:40:00.005-04:00

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"

2008-04-17T21:56:00.003-04:00

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

2008-04-17T20:51:00.007-04:00

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.