What I really think…

January 27th, 2010

I knew it wasn’t anger then, watching the knife fall in slow motion, ripples on the water. This thing that tears away at my insides, not pain… channeled into rage and violence. And yet I seem to be incapable of violent emotion. Reactions ebb and fade as I stare blindly. Left with nothing but this putrid calm. My head reeling from things that I’ve done… but would it reel like this if I wasn’t so sick? Guilt, fear and passion swallowed by depression, churned and mixed until there’s nothing left but exhaustion. No desire for revenge, no desire for escape or release, no desire… at all. (If this is Samadhi I’d rather have a mildewed mind). Except perhaps for the meaningless fleshly “delights”.

I’ve stepped out of my comfort zone without adapting to the new surroundings. So this is what it’s like to live with the consequences of your mistakes. If it was anger I could hurt my enemies without any remorse. If it was pain I would be able to think of a reason, and it wouldn’t tear apart the fabric of my soul. Maybe it’s nothing but allergies… but then it would mean all this suffering is meaningless (not to mention that it would fail to inspire any prose).

I think the philosophers were insane.

Phoenix – an old favorite of mine

January 27th, 2010

So this is who I become
When You leave me to myself
A burned-up, hollow, angry, empty shell
An actor on a barren stage
An even-keel with unchanneled rage
Sinking deeper into hell

Bind me to You
Pierce me straight through
Consume me with Your fire
Ravage my heart
Tear me clean apart
And still be my Desire

As I descend it starts again

Sliding down, spiraling
Gasping on the breath of corruption
Fighting undertow
Holding on, realizing
My own hopeless helplessness
Finally letting go

All is madness as the flames engulf me
Oblivion
Refining fire making ashes of this life
Burn, Fire, burn
Clean this holy temple
Resore Your holy Name
In the onslaught of Your love

And now, as gradual as the fall
The dawn of hope
The brilliant sun sending all the shadows fleeing
Sweet daylight
A new man rising from the ashes
Clothed in white, bearing a new name
I leave it all behind and take to flight

– Ace Troubleshooter

The Kids Aren’t Alright

January 22nd, 2010

When we were young the future was so bright
The old neighborhood was so alive
And every kid on the whole [...] street
Was gonna make it big in every beat

Now the neighborhood’s cracked and torn
The kids are grown up but their lives are worn
How can one little street
Swallow so many lives

Chances thrown
Nothing’s free
Longing for
Used to be
Still it’s hard
Hard to see
Fragile lives
shattered dreams

Jenny had a chance, well she really did
Instead she dropped out and had a couple of kids
Mark still lives at home cause he’s got no job
He just plays guitar and smokes a lot of pot

Jay committed suicide
Brandon OD’d and died
What [...] is going on?
The cruelest dream – reality

Chances thrown
Nothing’s free
Longing for
what used to be
Still it’s hard
Hard to see
Fragile lives
Shattered dreams

- The Offspring

Broken promises

January 19th, 2010

Just mentioned this link to a friend of mine… I’ve always thought of MSNBC as a liberal news source. So you know Obama’s popularity is declining when it gets to the point where even MSNBC can no longer ignore it. Here’s the article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34941329/ns/politics-white_house/

P.S. I’m still going to elaborate on my comments about how far America has strayed from it’s roots, so keep your eye-balls peeled! :)

Guess what!

December 16th, 2009
Your eyeballs don’t actually explode if you sneeze with your eyes open! I know; … I tried it…

I gave up…

December 16th, 2009

… on waiting until I had an extremely thought-provoking response to the heresy that all non-Jewish governments are also bound by the laws that were handed down to Israel by Moses in the dessert. And if there weren’t enough prepositions in there for ya’, I don’t know what to tell ya’…

Anyways, the contents of my file:

Deut. 12:32 – “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” is often quoted as an argument that we don’t have to follow any of the laws the government makes, as long as they don’t appear in the Bible. I have to say, this is a damnable perversion of scripture. It is, I suspect, intentionally taken out of context. A quick glance through Deut. 12 will reveal that these are laws that were specifically intended ONLY for the children of Israel while they were living in the promised land. The laws didn’t even go into effect for them, until AFTER they possessed their inheritance. (See v. 1, “which ye shall observe to do IN THE LAND…”, v. 10, v. 29. )

Also go back and read the whole of chapter 11, especially v. 8 and vs. 31-32. See also chapter 8, v. 1 and v. 11 – read the whole chapter and then answer this question: to whom did Moses give the commandments. And on what day? (Hint, part of the answer is in chapter 1:1). Also look at chapter 5:1.

Note that this is a continuous dialog. Moses starts his address to the children of Israel in Deut. 1:1 and ends it in Deut. 34:12. You can’t just pull 12:32 right out of the Bible and try to hit us over the head with it.  You can’t separate that verse from all the verses that come before it, about how this was a legal code handed down specifically to the nation of Israel, one they were expected to follow once they entered the promised land.

Then there’s Deut. 4:2… which comes right after verse 1. Forget about verse 1. Don’t look at it, don’t think about it. Verse 2 isn’t for the children of Israel, it isn’t a laying down of the law for that particular nation at that particular time. No, that isn’t stated specifically in verse 1 or anything, really. But don’t look at verse 1 to find out whether I’m lying.

Also, the context isn’t further clarified in verse 5; verse 6 doesn’t make any distinction between the way the Israelites live and the way other nations live; and verses 7-8 don’t a rhetorical question which points out that NO OTHER NATION HAS STATUES AND JUDGMENTS LIKE THESE. No, the covenant that the Lord made with the children of Israel on that day (verse 13) was binding on all governments of all nations until the end of time.  Also don’t bother to check verse 14 and find out, once again, why I can’t believe the covenant doctrine, or whatever it’s called,  is anything but intentional deception.

Even those famous 10 commandments are for the children of Israel. Look at Deut. 6:1-3. I guess those who tell us we are expected to live and die by these 10 commandments, and that we are free to break the law with impunity if it doesn’t limit itself to them, are counting on the fact that most people just look at the commandments all by themselves, and don’t view them as a part of the whole chapter or the whole book, or the whole Bible.

So which parts do apply to me? Well, for starters, probably not the verses that come with an explicit explanation of exactly how and why they don’t apply to me. And for seconds, probably not the infamous verse about how Abraham took up the knife to slay Isaac his son. Boy wouldn’t I be confused, if I had to choose to believe that Isaac was my son, and that I was supposed to take up a knife and slay him? Or that I had already done so? I can’t even begin to fathom what sorts of things would follow from that; In fact, my perception of reality would end up so skewed that it would prevent me from functioning in society. I might even be called insane, because I chose to believe something the Bible clearly was not trying to teach.

This is where that saying, God gave you a brain, use it, comes into play. God doesn’t want us ripping random verses out of the scripture and perverting them to support our anti-social lifestyles. He wants us to compare the way we live to what we find in scripture, honestly. If it doesn’t mesh, then we ourselves, and not our subjective interpretations of scripture, should be adjustmented.

The reason we don’t do this is that we want to give up too early, blaming a faulty understanding of scripture for our own shortcomings, rather than going through the fire and allowing patience to have its perfect work.

But back to the question, which parts of scripture apply to me? Quick answer, Acts 15:1-29. Here the Holy Spirit explicitly states that non-Jews are not to be burdened with Levitican law.

“What then, shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” – Rom 6:1&2 I mean, I can hear you saying, “Abraham, all those laws have to be there for a reason. Surely you don’t mean to tell me there are huge sections of the Bible that aren’t applicable to modern-day Christians!?”

Of course not. The Bible is there, as it always has been, to convict us of sin. To reveal the nature of God in contrast with our own sinfulness. To help us grow in faith. I’ll direct you to I Pet. 2:1-3 and Galatians 5-6:1. Also to John 16:7-8.  And Romans 7, particularly verse 7.

And finally, to Hebrews 8:10-13. If you need to be taught laws and codes of conduct in order to live right; if your conscience doesn’t tell you what is right and wrong; if it isn’t pricked when you are tempted to live in violation of the teachings of I Peter 2:12-20, (but esp. v. 16),  and by the example of the Lord Himself in Matt. 17:24-27; if you can’t hear the voice of the Holy Spirit leading you in the right way and convicting you of sin; if the law of love isn’t already written on your heart, then maybe it’s time to find out where you are before the Lord, and whether or not you may be in need of salvation from the death sentence that is found in the law.

quick-and-dirty hack for dealing with chronic rudeness

November 20th, 2009

If you tell a truly inconsiderate person that they’ve been rude, they will sincerely deny it. This is why we call them “inconsiderate”;  they habitually fail to consider or even realize how their actions affect others.

If you respond rudely instead, then over time they will begin to recognize, either consciously or subconciously, the Pavlovian connection between their own inappropriate behavior and your negative response, and they might learn. If they catch on and say, “Why are you being rude? *I didn’t do anything [this time]*,” then you can respond with, “Well neither did I.” ;)

Justification: the truly inconsiderate do not have a respect for the social contract. They live by the “me first” code. Of course, this wouldn’t work if everyone tried it, but even though they’ve been told this, they stoically await tangible proof. Showing these folks what it would be like “if everybody did” provides them with the undeniable scientific proof they seek. (I was quickly cured of my inconsiderate, “me first” thinking by someone who rewarded me in kind of a minor rudeness. It was nothing nasty but I took the lesson to heart and it changed me permanently.) Also, you have no need to fear karma as long as you don’t go above and beyond what is called for, and as long as your rude behavior is calculated to do more good than harm. (Read carefully)

One final note of warning: if you do try to use this technique, have a strategy in place to avoid hours-long discussions about the minute difference between their rude behavior and your negative response, that one, all-important difference that makes their behavior completely acceptable and condemns yours.

Conservatives for Net Neutrality

October 27th, 2009

The other day I heard a conservative talk show host decrying the evils of Net Neutrality. I don’t feel that Net Neutrality is contrary to the views of conservatives, so I wanted to educate my conservative-leaning friends on the subject.

Here’s a copy of the bill before congress, S. 2917-109. [NOTE: This is an older version of the bill. A link to the latest version can be found in my comments below.] It’s only two or three nine pages long, and a “layman’s terms” explanation can be found here. I’ve read the bill and agree with the explanation at savetheinternet.com, but the bill itself really isn’t very complex or lengthy, so please take the time to acquaint yourself with it.

The strongest argument for why Net Neutrality doesn’t fit in with the conservative platform is that it relies on the government to regulate something which has traditionally been unregulated. However, the internet started out as a secret military network, was eventually transformed into a public, non-profit-only network, and eventually the backbone servers were sold off to private interests. So the argument that the internet was originally unregulated, and therefore the “big, bad government should just keep its nose out,” is balogna.

Conservatives have voted again and again for legislation that keeps the market free and prevents unfair competition. The law-suit against Microsoft, and the breaking up of AT&T into “Baby bells” was supported by some conservatives who understood that one of the intended functions of our conservative, federalist government was to preserve the lazie-faire system. Don’t view Net Neutrality as “more mis-placed, big-government regulation.” View it as a government-mandated deregulation. View it as a shackle around congress’s legs, that takes away the power of special interest groups and lobbyists to demand more government regulation.

Two other important things to note in the bill: one is that illegal content is not protected. In other words, unlawful content is specifically excluded from the list of things ISP’s won’t be permitted to block. The second is that these are not new restrictions. ISP’s don’t currently engage in any of the practices that are prohibited in the bill; it’s purpose is to clarify that they are still not permitted to engage in those practices. (Unfortunately, the legal climate has recently become more favorable to some of these practices, and certain companies have expressed an intention to start abusing that fact.)

You can support Net Neutrality by signing the petition at savetheinternet.com. If you are a conservative who has heard bad things about Net Neutrality, please be aware that most of the tech-savvy conservatives I’ve talked to support it.

Educate yourself, and don’t let someone else (yes that includes me) tell you what you believe in. Read the bill for yourself and then make up your own mind.

Arguments against Net Neutrality can be found here. Some of the claims made about the bill in this article are outright lies, such as “Under the proposed Internet Freedom Preservation Act, to pick just one example, the definition of ‘neutrality’ goes on for several hundred words, and the implementing ‘rules’ are left to the FCC to define,” a lie which you will be able to recognize immediately if you’ve actually read the bill. [Addendum: the newer version of the bill does, in fact, leave quite a bit to the FCC. However, what he is calling the "definition of Neutrality" is actually the meat and potatoes of the bill, the proposed amendment itself.] He also provides some rather compelling support for the bill in a “my opponents say” format.

Larry Downes talks more about Net Neutrality here, and you can see by looking at other sources – like this one, (see the question, “How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?”), this one, and this one – he doesn’t have much to stand on with his claim that the “the problem doesn’t exist yet.” Point #2 can be refuted by looking closely at section 5 of the bill, which permits providers to prioritize content, as long as it doesn’t charge for prioritization. And I already talked about point #3 above.

This is a single example, but it’s a good one, because it typifies the arguments I’ve heard elsewhere. He attempts to use your own ignorance (and his authoritative-sounding position as a prestigious lawyer) against you. He speaks in generalities and states his own opinions as fact, without providing a way to verify his claims.

I can’t stress enough that you should go read the bill for yourself and then make up your mind. If after reading the bill, you don’t feel that it has much to do with you, you’re very probably correct. The only reason I’m bringing it up here is because it’s important, and it would really stink of this sort thing were to be shot down because a large group of people was mobilized under false pretenses. I don’t want you to get roped into supporting obscure political agendas that don’t serve your personal interests!

On the other hand, if you find something in the bill that sounds either really good or really bad, do some research. Verify any claims you hear against original sources (the bill itself, the history of related court battles and legislation, etc.) If it really is important, you can’t afford to let
someone else do the thinking!

The Theory of Relativity started at Babel

October 21st, 2009

Wikipedia defines linguistic relativity as “the idea that the varying cultural concepts and categories inherent in different languages affect the cognitive classification of the experienced world in such a way that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it.” (Click the word “Wikipedia” for a more in-depth explanation – not for the faint of mind.)

In layman’s terms – the language we speak affects the way we think, and the way we perceive things.

Of course this is a heavily debated claim… but have you ever asked yourself how far the linguistic divide reaches? I mean, when you and I look up at the sky we both say, “It is blue….”, but are we both really seeing the same color? How would anyone ever know if we weren’t? How do I know that when you say ‘up’, you’re thinking of the same thing I think of when I say ‘down’? After all… even if you were, you’d still call my ‘down’ ‘up’, and I’d never be the wiser. Neither would you.

A perfect example that illustrates this vividly is the Japanese word for “blue.” Well, they call it green. Of course they have a word that means “green” as well, but they only use it for plants. So a train car or a traffic light (which is just as green in Japan as it is here in the US) is “blue,” and a plant that is exactly the same color is green.

But you know what? The Japanese are 100% certain that the two colors are completely different. When they look at a stop light, they really “think” they’re seeing the color blue – and maybe they are!

So I’m starting to develop this theory… in the story of the tower of Babel it says that He confused their languages, and we tend to think, well that’s where all the different languages in the world came from. But what if the Lord made a change that was even more fundamental, a change that was even more subtle?

What if, in confusing our languages, He confused the very way we think about things? Not in a way that made us actually confused as individuals, but in a way that made it impossible for us to efficiently collaborate? After all, isn’t that why he did it – to make it impossible for the Babel builders to work together?

Earlier I observed that having views which deviate sufficiently from those of others can tend to separate us from each other. What if it’s literally impossible for two people to “put aside all of their differences”, “see eye-to-eye”, “be on the same wavelength”, or be “with each other all the way” on absolutely everything?

In fact, that sounds like common sense, and it’s why we have settled for “agreeing to disagree” with so many different people, about so many different things. Is it unreasonable to guess that this could be a result of what happened at Babel? That our widely varying perspectives actually serve as a handicap?

Before the tower of Babel, were there any wars? Think about it… maybe the key to Undiluted Perception has been hidden beyond our reach, only to be revealed when the Lord returns. Maybe the reason humans fail to agree about basic facts, including the best way to do things is because we lack the fundamental ability to do so – maybe we can’t arrive at the same version of “the truth”.

Just one more thing to look forward to, I guess.

On second thought…

September 30th, 2009

If you are of a heavily liberal leaning inclination, you may be deeply offended by this post. You have been warned.

Now before you read this article, keep in mind two things.

#1. I strongly disagree with Megan’s position on abortion.

#2. There are two PG-rated words in the article. There are also some other issues with the article, so you may want to be careful about showing it to children. (The article is linked to, but not included, here).

There, it has been disclaimed:

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/the_war_on_the_war_on_abortion.php

Having said all that, this is a fairly even-handed, open-minded treatment of the subject… quite a bit more thoughtful than something I would normally expect to come from this quarter.  (I’m sorry for the horrible style… I am writing/riding on a lack of sleep.)  And I find it very interesting that Megan, had she been pro-life, would have been less tolerant of Dr. Tiller than the professor (from my last post on this topic) would have been. In fact, she has such a good argument for Tiller’s demise that I am tempted to come over to her side.

However, I’m not the least bit tempted by this statement: “Moreover, I don’t think many other people believe [abortion is] murder, either, for all that they profess to.  They mostly don’t, for example, want fourteen year old girls who have abortions hauled off to lengthy juvie terms.” Really? She knows what pro-lifers believe even better than they do? Let me tell you (since I am pro-life). No, I don’t want 14-year-old-girls being shipped off to juvenile hall for having abortions… I want them not to have the abortions in the first place. If juvenile hall serves as an adequate deterrent, then yes, send them! Because I do, in fact, consider abortion to be murder, and I would want anyone who committed that crime to be penalized for it.

Of course, you also have to ask yourself who should take the fall for this crime… the doctors, or their victims (the mothers who they deceive)? How easy would it be for abortion doctors to fool them into undertaking this horrific, traumatizing experience if the mothers knew someone who had received a murder penalty for getting an abortion?

Think about it.