Thoughtland

2011-09-20T10:22:00.001-04:00

Personal Record

2011-06-19T14:07:00.000-04:00

Dangerous Designers

2011-04-07T14:40:00.002-04:00

Gay Softball League

2010-05-12T11:42:00.001-04:00

Taken from The Week in National Review. I laughed out loud!!

A lawsuit has recently been filed over the 2008 Gay SoftballWorld Series, in which a San Francisco team called D2 wasstripped of its second-place finish for having three bisexualson its roster. The rules allow no more than two straight playersper team, and in the middle of the championship game, D2 wasangrily charged (by a team it had previously defeated) withinsufficient gayness. After the game, the accused were taken toa conference room and asked a series of rather personal questionsin an attempt to nail down their exact preferences. Theruling: Instead of adding up to one and a half heterosexuals, thefence-sitting trio were considered to be three “non-gays,” thusexceeding the quota. All three were suspended from gay softballfor at least a year; it was not made clear how they mightreestablish their eligibility.

Or in limerick form:

In the world of gay softball, it seems,
They take regulation to extremes.
Although here’s the big picture—
It boils down to one stricture:
You simply can’t play for both teams

The Prayer of Cyrus Brown

2010-03-16T20:43:00.001-04:00

"The proper way for a man to pray,"
Said Deacon Lemuel Keyes,
"And the only proper attitude
Is down upon his knees."

"No, I should say the way to pray,"
Said Rev. Doctor Wise,
"Is standing straight with outstretched arms
And rapt and upturned eyes."

"Oh, no; no, no," said Elder Slow,
"Such posture is too proud:
A man should pray with eyes fast closed
And head contritely bowed."

"It seems to me his hands should be
Austerely clasped in front.
With both thumbs pointing toward the ground,"
Said Rev. Doctor Blunt.

"Las' year I fell in Hodgkin's well
Head first," said Cyrus Brown,
"With both my heels a-stickin' up,
My head a-pinting down;

"An' I made a prayer right then an' there--
Best prayer I ever said,
The prayingest prayer I ever prayed,
A-standing on my head."

Sam Walter Foss.

Guilt vs. Conviction

2009-11-04T15:49:00.002-05:00

Many of us can be prone to feelings of guilt. I know that for me it is very easy for me to feel responsible for things over which I have no control, and to feel guilty for decisions that I made in the past. We may tend to see guilt as an effective motivator, allowing us to constantly be assessing what we have done and motivating us to be sufficiently sorrowful for our past actions. We may even see guilt as something that the Lord uses to inflict punishment on us for how we acted or thought. We may see guilt as a form of conviction.

However, I have recently come to the realization that there is a distinct difference between guilt and conviction. The Lord does not use guilt to accomplish His purposes, for guilt is focused on the past, and it stays there, not allowing us to look ahead. Conviction, on the other hand, is focused on the future. Conviction allows us to ask and answer the question, "So what do I do about it?" This is the opposite of guilt, which asks, "How could you do that?"

Since we know that Satan is the Great Accuser, and that he would rather have us focus on our past than on our future, know that if thinking about past mistakes does not cause us to focus on the future, then it is not from the Lord. Our God is a forward-thinking God, and He does not intend for us to spend our time and energy trying to be sufficiently penitent for our past mistakes. He calls us out of our past mistakes and onto a new path. One that is wiser and able to more effectively glorify Him.

Don't confuse guilt for conviction, and don't allow Satan to hold you to your past.

No Incumbents

2009-07-24T13:28:00.001-04:00

I think that I have finally found a solution to the issues in Washington DC. The main problem is that we have a ton of individuals who continue to create policies and pass legislation with the sole purpose of maintaining their own position of power and influence. We therefore have professional politicians who have lost all touch with the reality that everyday Americans deal with.

Therefore I propose a 100% turnover of congress every election cycle. Never vote for an incumbent. This will keep a fresh set of civic leaders who won't have enough time to be corrupted by special interest groups and lobbyists, but will only be there long enough to represent their constituents before going back home to get a real job.

Who's with me?

CNSNews.com - Joe Biden: ‘We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt’

2009-07-17T11:23:00.001-04:00

CNSNews.com - Joe Biden: ‘We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt’

Posted using ShareThis

College Republicans Demoted at Two Religious Universities - Political News - FOXNews.com

2009-07-10T13:46:00.001-04:00

College Republicans Demoted at Two Religious Universities - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

More spelling errors plague Obama releases

2009-07-10T13:21:00.001-04:00

More spelling errors plague Obama releases

Posted using ShareThis

A little too familiar

2009-06-20T22:42:00.001-04:00

Power Play

2009-06-09T20:37:00.001-04:00

This is a good article on Bloomberg on the efforts of the Obama administration to influence as many businesses as possible.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aaaBdVMkjPnU

GM

2009-06-01T15:08:00.002-04:00

Mr. Congressman,

I would like to go ahead and sell the shares of GM that you recently purchased for me. I'm not in the habit of investing in a business with a fundamentally flawed business model. I would also appreciate it if you would not make investment decisions of this type without my consent.

In fact, until your organization is able to figure out how to keep it's own balance sheet in the black, please refrain from taking on any more failing businesses.

Frustratedly yours,

Kevin

Organic

2009-05-19T18:17:00.003-04:00

I am all for eating healthy.

We typically consume way too much fats and oils, but let's not go overboard here people. Not everything is better raw or uncooked or organic. Yeah, organic eggs or milk might have a higher level of (insert vitamin or mineral here), but is it really something that you can't replace with a vitamin pill? Because you know what else is organic, salmonella!

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water when we set out to eat healthier. We live longer than people did before pasteurization came along.

Stimulus?

2009-02-05T13:39:00.003-05:00

I wanted to add my voice to the cacophony of noise out there regarding the stimulus package being debated by congress and the president.

The arguments are all based on the programs to which the money is being directed. However, my question is "What money?" The government doesn't have any money to spend. They aren't pulling this out of a bank account, they are having to borrow the money. The government may be borrowing from other countries or from banks, but when the government goes to pay back that loan where are they going to get the funds...from us!

The US citizens are basically giving the government a loan, so that the government can turn around and spend it on some programs, so that the citizens can have opportunities to make more money...got it? How about the government just cut out the middle man and give us all tax breaks, thereby letting us keep more of our own money to begin with. It would make things much simpler. However, how would these politicians justify their jobs if they didn't have these ridiculous bills to pass?

Our New Old Home

2008-11-17T13:47:00.002-05:00

I've been reading through the book of Exodus this last week. It has been so interesting to me to see the parallels between the people of Israel and those of us who identify ourselves as followers of Christ.

One thing that has stuck with me has been the correlation between the ultimate destination of the Israelites and our ultimate home. It is very interesting that we refer to heaven as home. But what kind of home is one that you have never been to? We refer to ourselves as ambassadors to a foreign land, but are there any US ambassadors who have never been to the US? In the same way, the people of Israel were going home, but it was not a home that they were familiar with, but do you know who was familiar with it, those who had gone before them. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all came from the land that was flowing with milk and honey and now God was bringing his people back to the land he had promised long before they were every born.

Christ came from our ultimate home, and he is there waiting on us. Those of us who have been saved from the shackles of sin are having to endure this desert while we travel home. We must continue to allow our faith in the unseen push us forward through the realm of the seen. May the God that shepherded the Children of Israel through the wilderness also shepherd us through this temporary land with our eyes firmly fixed on the land that we have been promised.

Amen

Been a While

2008-02-18T18:19:00.002-05:00

I know, I know, it's been way too long since my last post. Well, I have a new resolution. In the past I have been so concerned about creating a full-length masterpiece with each posting that it would keep me from posting anything. Well from now on, I will post more frequently, but will make each posting a little shorter and a bit more practical. So, check back often for my thoughts on everything from politics and religion to everything in between.

What I'm Reading

2007-05-14T10:28:00.000-04:00

Here is a link to a great article in Christianity Today. It is a debate between Christopher Hitchens (author of the recent book God is Not Great) and Douglas Wilson (one of my favorite thologians).

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

The website will be posting the back-and-forth all month long.

Also, here is a link to Douglas Wilson's blog:

http://www.dougwils.com/

Box of Bones

2007-03-21T12:31:00.001-04:00

I imagine James Cameron was hoping for a “titanic” reception to his recent “crocumentary” (I can’t believe I fit two puns into one sentence). However, the reaction from the academic, archaeological, and journalistic community has been chilly at best. This despite the best efforts of the Discovery Channel and the media to portray his television special as “groundbreaking” and “enlightening”.

History is replete with men who have tried to argue the validity of a physical resurrection for Jesus. From ancient proponents of Gnosticism, to the most recent novel, “The DaVinci Code”, people have tried to present arguments that attempt to bring Jesus out of the realm of the supernatural and confine Him exclusively to the realm of the temporal. The motivation behind these arguments is that if Jesus was no different than any of the other good teachers of history, such as Gandhi, Muhammad, Buddha, etc., in that He taught people how to live a moral life, and then died just like all of the other good teachers, then we can write Him off as a teacher and nothing else. If He is only another teacher, then we can put Him in the box of bones with the other influential dead guys.

There is a funny thing about Jesus though; He refuses to stay in the box. Despite the best efforts of man to keep Jesus confined to the box of death and irrelevance, Jesus emerges resurrected and victorious.

Believe me Mr. Cameron, the nation of Rome tried to keep Jesus in that grave, they really wanted Him to stay dead, and they were unsuccessful. I doubt you will fare any better.

Quote

2006-09-18T11:07:00.000-04:00

"In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die."

-Dorothy Sayers

The Myth of Objectivity

2006-08-03T11:57:00.000-04:00

There have been numerous debates surrounding the bastion of liberal ideology known as The New York Times. The most recent controversies revolve around the appropriateness (and legality) of publishing United States wiretapping and overseas account monitoring of suspected terrorists. While I believe The New York Times was completely out of line in publishing these stories, the part that is truly unbelievable is the persistent and adamant claim by the paper that they are able to report on a story objectively.

Take the Fox News Channel for example. The reporting and questioning is blatantly skewed conservative, and that is okay, but do not call yourself “fair and balanced,” because you are not. I completely support CNN’s right to be a mouthpiece for liberal propaganda. All I ask is that they admit it. Have James Earl Jones come onscreen and say, “This is CNN; the mouthpiece for liberal propaganda.” How refreshing would it be to have Dan Rather say “I’m Dan Rather, and I loathe the Bush administration”? I would prefer honesty to this patronizing nonsense that all of these reporters and journalists are somehow above ideology, and that they alone are able to objectively view a situation.

I’m not sure at what point in time the field of journalism declared themselves to be free of prejudice and preconceived notions, but it might have been around the same time as scientists. It is impossible to interpret or communicate anything without preconceptions. Everything we view or tell is filtered through our own experience and knowledge. The sooner that scientists and journalists realize this, the sooner they can remove themselves from their self-made pedestal.

The DaVinci Opportunity

2006-05-19T14:54:00.000-04:00

Since the release of The DaVinci Code a cultural phenomenon has erupted over the contents of this unoriginal novel. An array of books has been published to refute the claims of Dan Brown’s book. From Breaking the DaVinci Code, and The DaVinci Deception, to The DaVinci Myth, and Dan Brown is the Devil (okay, I made that last one up), more ink has been spilled over this book than any novel in recent memory. With the release of the movie, the rhetoric will only increase.

What is the Biblical response of Christians to this attempt to undermine our beliefs? Do we boycott the book/movie, crying “heresy” and preventing anyone from exposure to the lies and shady historical claims of the author? Is the modern Church strong enough to withstand this assault on our beliefs?

There are many nuances to this debate, but at least we are having a cultural discussion about Christ, which is always good. Heretical claims have been brought against the truths of scripture for thousands of years. As clever a writer as Dan Brown is, his ideas are not new. When claims against the deity of Christ arose in the past, what was the reaction of the Church? Historically, as was the case with the Council of Nicea, the Church came together and reaffirmed the doctrines of Christianity based on a commitment to the foundations of the faith. The fear of the modern church is that those Christians who see the movie or read the book will not know enough about their own faith to gauge accurately as false the claims of The DaVinci Code. The question is, “Whose fault is that?” Is it the fault of Dan Brown that we have an ignorant mass of sheep in our churches? Is it the fault of Ron Howard or Tom Hanks that new believers could not know fact from fiction? How is a boycott of the book/movie going to fix the real problem of ignorant Christians? It’s not! If the Church did its job and educated the body, we would have no more reason to fear a book like The DaVinci Code than a book claiming the sky is red.

The second point is that while we do not believe the claims of The DaVinci Code, vilifying the author or the actors in the movie is a waste. Why are we surprised when individuals who are not believers act in ways consistent with that unbelief? Would we be furious if a blind man steps on our toe? Of course not, but we are furious when individuals who have not had their eyes opened to the truth of the Gospel insult or act in ways inconsistent with the Gospel. The DaVinci Code is not Dan Brown’s biggest problem, nor is it what is separating him from God; it is Mr. Brown’s unbelief in the Gospel. I do not hate Dan Brown; I am sad that he continues in his unbelief, and I have no reason to believe a boycott of his book is going to change his mind. Therefore, the Church should strive to educate the flock and pray for the lost. Boycotts do not change hearts.

Quote

2006-04-18T10:25:00.000-04:00

A government that is large enough to supply everything you need is large enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson

American Jobs- RIP

2006-04-10T19:44:00.000-04:00

The debate over immigration has uncovered many facets of the American economy and culture. One of these facets is the issue of jobs for citizens in our country. Here in Virginia there have been numerous layoffs due to corporate downsizing. Many of the jobs have been moved oversees, where the workforce is cheaper. Couple that with the number of illegal immigrants taking countless jobs from citizens because the businesses are not required to pay them a minimum wage. This conveniently brings me to my thesis. Minimum wage laws are crippling the American economy. The initial reaction to such a statement would be “Americans cannot live on less than $5.25 per hour.” When you consider that much of the world’s population survives on much less than what the American workforce makes, the statement that we cannot "live" on less than minimum wage loses it's impact. In relation to the rest of the world, our poorest citizens live better than a large portion of the global population. Just look at the illegal immigrants. They are coming into America to work for less than minimum wage, and they are happy to do it. They have decided that it is better than the conditions in their homeland. A corporation can hire workers in India for half of what it costs to hire an American worker, and they have potential employees beating down the door because the alternative is unemployment. If you were to ask one of the workers in America who has been laid off, “Would you rather make $3.00 an hour or $0,” they would at least have an option. Better than what they have now, which is nothing. If a business had an option to hire one person for $8 per hour, or two people for $4 per hour, shouldn’t they have that choice? Shouldn’t the employee have the option to take less money, if he feels it would be better than having no job at all? Why can’t the employee and the employer reach a mutual decision about what is best for both of them without the government telling either one what they do and do not deserve?

Have we ever stopped to consider that maybe the cost of living is driven by the salaries? We assume that costs of goods precede income, but I submit that cost of salaries paid by companies causes the price of goods to rise. Maybe people in America cannot afford a certain standard of living because companies know that if people have a job they are able to afford a certain price. If companies did not have to pay a high minimum wage, is it possible that they would lower the prices of goods? Some company would take advantage of the lower cost of employment and send their prices to the floor, everyone would begin to shop there, and other companies would follow suit or go out of business.

We should abolish the minimum wage and allow Americans to compete for the lower paying jobs. Or we could demand higher wages for American workers and continue to wave goodbye to the businesses and jobs as they go oversees.

Ground to stand on

2006-01-23T17:53:00.000-05:00

There is a story I heard once about a scientist who told God, “Mankind does not need you, we can create from the dust of the earth. We can even create humans better than you!” To which God replied, “Okay, you’re on.” The scientist reached down to pick up a handful of dirt, and God quickly interrupted “Uh-uh, you get your own dirt.”

This story holds a much deeper truth than is initially evident. The common response of the non-believer, when challenged about the existence of God is, “Prove it.” This challenge has precipitated the study of apologetics by many Christians, in an effort to “prove” the validity of our belief system. The danger that many apologists face is to allow the non-believer to utilize science, reason, and logic against the Christian intellectual position. This is impossible for the non-believer. The use of reason and logic by the non-believer to try to discredit the philosophy of the believer is akin to taking a pen and paper and writing an argument against the existence of ink. The very fact that reason and logic exist is proof of an objective reality. The naturalistic viewpoint argues that the entire cosmos is a product of random chance. Isn’t random chance the basis of evolution? How did the scientist arrive at that conclusion? Was it through a scientific method, based on the rules of reason and logic? Science is based on experiments that are repeatable and observable. If everything were random, and not guided by objective laws, nothing would be repeatable (this also shows the struggle of science to prove or disprove the past, but that is for another posting). The believer has sole authority to use reason and logic, for it is only through a presupposition of order and design that reason and logic are used. The non-believer has a philosophy that is fundamentally flawed, and is irreparable, unless objective truth is conceded. The mind of the unbeliever is in need of regeneration. It is not merely a matter of two competing arguments; there really is no ground on which the non-believer can base an argument. The mind of the non-believer is in complete opposition to the truth of the Gospel. It is only belief in the God of the scriptures that man is able to see clearly the world around him.

Science and logic have many uses, but science will never be able to answer the greatest questions regarding the meaning of life. Science is not equipped to answer these questions, and the unbelieving man will search in vain to find them. It is only through faith in Christ that science can accomplish its purpose, to glorify and honor the Creator.

Economics 101

2005-12-08T13:52:00.000-05:00

Now that I think about it, I have yet to tackle the topic of economics in any of my previous postings. I know everyone has been wondering aloud “When will we get to hear what Kevin thinks about the topic of economics?” Well, wonder no more.

The particular economic system under which the United States supposedly operates is the free market system. The reason behind the inclusion of the word “supposedly” will be discussed later. This system is more commonly known as capitalism, so we will use the words synonymously. In a capitalist system, the citizen is free to buy and sell as he or she wishes, with the intent to meet an existing demand for a product(P) or service(S) to other citizens. When the citizen sells the P or S for more than he or she paid to purchase the P or S, the citizen makes a profit. At that time the citizen can save the profits or use them to purchase more P and S to sell. It sounds simple, right?

The illustration of a lemonade stand might prove helpful. Owner A sets up a lemonade stand across from a construction site, in order to sell lemonade to thirsty workers. It costs Owner A 20 cents to make a cup of lemonade and he sells the lemonade for 50 cents per cup, so his profit is 30 cents per cup. This works well, and Owner A continues to make more lemonade and gain more profits. After a couple of weeks, Owner B sets up a lemonade stand across the street and sells his lemonade, which tastes the same as the lemonade from Owner A, for 45 cents per cup. The construction workers know a deal when they see one, and begin to buy lemonade from Owner B. Owner A and Owner B are now in competition with one another for the same product (lemonade) in the same market (the construction workers). If Owner A wants to stay in business and continue to make money, he must sell his lemonade for less. Therefore, Owner A begins to sell his lemonade for 43 cents per cup, this cuts into his profits, but the alternative is to lose his business to Owner B and go out of business, which earns him no profits. The real winner is the construction workers, who, because of competition, are now able to buy the same lemonade for less money.

The concept of competition is very important in a capitalist system for the following reason. If there were no competition, there is no incentive for Owner A to sell good lemonade, at a fair price. If Owner A were the only lemonade stand in town, the construction workers would be forced to pay whatever Owner A wanted for a cup of lemonade. This is called a monopoly, because there is no Owner B to provide competition. Owner A could sell terrible tasting lemonade, for 2 dollars per cup, and the construction workers could do nothing about it.

The reason I described the system we have in the United States as “supposedly” capitalist is because the United States government has a monopoly on a vast number of markets in our economy. In a system where competition exists, the construction worker has the ability to take his or her money and spend it on the lemonade from Owner A or Owner B, but ultimately the decision up to the construction worker. We as citizens have no such decision in many areas. Whether it’s social security, public education, or welfare, the government has no competition, and therefore has no incentive to provide the best “lemonade” and a fair price. There are only two areas in which the government can efficiently operate; national security, and protection of civil rights. If the government is involved in any other capacity, you can be sure it will be terrible lemonade.

Bondservant of $

2005-09-19T15:25:00.000-04:00

I was reading some statistics recently on the amount of debt that we as Americans are incurring on a daily basis. We save an average of -3% of our income each year! Not only are we not saving anything for the future, we are going further, and further into debt. Our materialism has spiraled out of control, to the point where we no longer have any plans beyond the satisfaction of our immediate desires.

This is a sad condition for our country, but the real tragedy is this same materialism has taken hold of the American church. According to the Barna Research Group, the average church has 6% of its members tithing. These numbers represent an alarming philosophy of our personal finances. As Christians, we should recognize that we are merely stewards of the money God has given to us. We may claim that we “earned” the money at our jobs, but who gave us the health to perform that job, and the mind to excel?

The tithe is a physical representation of the surrendering of our lives and resources to God. It is a way to demonstrate our money is not our own. In reality the church does not need your money, when God moves He provides, and if you are lucky enough to attend a church where God is moving, He will provide the resources to continue in obedience. God certainly does not need your money, and I hope our pride has not allowed us to believe that we are doing God a favor by tithing, or that we expect something in return for our “sacrifice.”

The tithe is worship, and when we are so overwhelmed with debt and materialism we are not able to tithe, we rob God.

The God of Angels and Ice Machines

2005-06-09T16:29:00.000-04:00

Every morning at work, a group of my co-workers and I meet for prayer and devotions. At the end of our time together, we take prayer requests for the various activities or concerns we have for that day. During my time as a Christian, I can look back on my life and see how different my prayers were as a child, than the prayers I have prayed as an adult.

When a child prays, they pray for everything that is on their mind. From their teddy bear and toys, to their mommy and daddy. Yet how many times do we as adults only think to bring the “big” things to God in prayer. Do we think that He does not want to be bothered by the minutiae of our day? Does God even care that my ice machine doesn’t work?

Let us take a step back and look at the big picture. What is the primary reason that we have for existing? We are made to glorify God. Everything that He created exists to glorify Him. So, how many times do we give Him glory, and credit, for the blessings that He provides for us each day, even the small things? Are we arrogant enough to believe we can handle all the small things and then leave the big events for God? We know that we cannot control certain things, such as the weather, or unforeseen tragedies, but do we think that we have enough power to control whether or not our car runs? When the car breaks and we fix it, do we give the credit/glory to ourselves and not to God? Imagine if we gave the glory to God for EVERYTING, even the seemingly insignificant blessings, such as a parking spot, or a double coupon day at Kroger.

What would happen if we started acknowledging all the small blessings that God provides? How many larger blessings would God heap upon us if He knew that doing so would bring Him glory, because we would make sure that all the credit and glory went to Him, every time? How easily we forget that we serve the God of angels and ice machines.

Discipleship

2005-02-03T08:50:00.000-05:00

We are a part of a small group in our church. This small group has been wonderful. We are so blessed by the couples who share two hours of their lives with us every Sunday night. It was at this small group that myself and a couple of the men in the group began to discuss the church, not specifically our Church, but the American church. There were three of us in the discussion, all of us either having obtained, or are almost complete with, seminary degrees so we have spent many hours with future church leaders. As we began to lament over the various shortcomings of the churches in America (two of us have traveled extensively to various churches all over the east coast, so we have a very broad sampling to base our findings upon) we noticed that they all had something in common, lack of discipleship. If you think about it, how many churches have "revivals" where they try to witness to everyone in town, which is a good thing, but if someone comes to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ at one of these revivals what happens next? Does the pastor just put another "knotch in his belt" so that he can discuss the conversions at his next pastoral luncheon? What happens to these brand new Christians after their initial decision to follow Christ? Are they just given a Bible and a pat on the back, a heartfelt "good luck with all that" from a deacon?

Here is a relevant analogy. When a woman is pregnant, she is very conscious about herself and how every decision that she makes might have an affect on the baby. Well what happens when the baby is born? Does she leave it to take care of itself? Does she throw it some cheerios and a couple of diapers, a heartfelt "good luck with all that". Of course not, she spends time nurturing, feeding, teaching, protecting that newborn until it is old enough to function on it's own. What would happen if a church looked after their new born Christians like that? Can you imagine if we took the time to teach, train, and protect these impressionable and vulnerable believers from attack from the Evil One? Why don't we do this? What is holding us back?

I submit that the reason is because the vast majority of church members are they themselves spiritual babes. Babies cannot train or nurture other babies. There are FAR too many in our churches who are still sucking on a bottle, when they should be cutting, grilling, and eating their own steaks. We need to hold our church members to a higher standard of growth. The Bible is not silent on what a mature believer looks like, nor is it silent on the need to call everyone who claims the name of Christ to spiritual growth. This comes through discipleship, and it starts with pastors. The need is great for these leaders to point to a Biblical standard and say, "Look, this is what the Bible says we are going to do, and so this is what we are going to do, and if you have a problem with that standard, take it up with the author". That might (gulp) offend people, and they might leave the church? Well, what are we here for, are we here to make everyone happy, or to be obedient. I would hope that obedience is our singular focus, but are we ready for what that obedience will cost us? Find out what your flesh thinks, then do the opposite.

Conner

2004-11-15T08:30:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I have been unable to get away from the Scott Peterson trial. Why the media decided to pick this particular murder case to spend all of their air time on is beyond me. There are thousands of murder cases all over the country, but for whatever reason this one seemed different to the media. Maybe it was the fact that Laci was a cute girl, and Scott was having an affair that made it more dramatic, but the story is nothing new.

However, there was one very important aspect to this trial that none of the lawyers and ex-judges mentioned (at least none that I saw). Scott Peterson was found guilty of TWO murders. Now, why is this important? Well, Conner (the name they gave the "fetus" Laci was carrying) was not yet born, he was still in utero. I cannot be the only one that sees the GLARING contradictions between this murder charge for Scott, but not for a woman or a doctor who does the SAME THING in an abortion clinic. If it's not a human, it's not murder! If the baby is regarded as excess tissue, akin to a tumor, then if someone is killed who has cancer is the killer charged with the murder of the person AND the tumor? The answer is obviously no, but how has our legislative system, and more importantly our culture, not seen the double standard! It's obvious, it could not be more evident, not even a little bit. The only difference between Connor's death and the thousands of deaths that occur from abortion is the will of the mother. If the mother wanted to keep the baby, then it is considered human, but if the woman did not want to keep the baby, then it is excess tissue. That is a pathetic way to determine life or humanity. What if a family decides that they do not want one of their children who is about 10 years old? Does he stop being a human? Is he then allowed to have his life taken? If it is all about the will of the mother, when does it stop?

Nothing in the DNA of a baby changes once they take their first breath. They are just as much a human inside of the womb as they are outside, and they deserve to have their life protected just like all of the other former fetus' walking around on the outside.

4 More Years

2004-11-12T16:13:00.000-05:00

Well, George W. Bush pulled out a convincing win this week over his Democratic opponent John Kerry. I must admit, I did not think that the victory would be so lopsided. When I came home after work and the initial exit polls were coming in, the future looked bleak. However, as the night wore on the actual results proved that the American people wanted to have four more years of George Bush's leadership. The interesting thing about this election was what happened afterwards. The Democratic party was reeling from numerous Senate defeats, including the Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle. They were completely dumbfounded by the results, and what was their reaction? "The Republicans did a much better job of mobilizing their base". What? I'm not sure which planet they have been on the past few months, but it surely isn't earth. They refuse to come to grips with the fact that they are out of the mainstream conscience of America, specifically with regards to the morals to which Americans hold. When your party candidate is supported by the groups of atheists, homosexuals, and extreme environmentalists, you are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

The Democrats have no idea why their message of inclusion and multi-culturalism is not making them the dominant party. How could people be against a party that wants to give them everything they ask for? Why won't these people vote for a party who longs to give them coveted answer of "Whatever you want" to every question of morals they may ask? The answer is that there are people in this country (an apparent majority) who understand that a culture cannot function if everything is permissible. If marriage is not between a man and a woman it isn't anything, a fact that the 11 states who passed defense of marriage acts did not overlook.

The majority of the comments I hear from the Democratic leadership is that they need to do a better job of mobilizing their base and letting the people know that "they are a party of morals too". I do not think that they realize that if you claim to have morals, you have to decide whose morals you will support. That will require choosing a specific set of standards, which would (gasp) require telling people that someone else's standards are wrong! I highly doubt that the Democratic party is willing to go that far.

Dance Monkey

2004-10-25T12:20:00.000-04:00

I was driving back from a wedding this weekend and I started thinking about the election and what would happen if George Bush won, and by some strange twist of fate I was interviewed in one of those "man on the street" spots. If they asked me if I had an opinion on the outcome, I think that I would have to say "Maybe now Michael Moore will move out of the country!" I know, it's childish and rude, but I have absolutely lost the last shred of patience that I had for these absolute idiots who continue to act as if I had one single ounce of concern for anything they have to say. Linda Rondstadt, Bruce Springsteen, Susan Sarandon, Janeane Garafalo(sp?), every one of these people who have not even taken the time to read a book in 10 years, have the AUDACITY to try to lecture me on the nuances of foreign policy and economic theory. This is some kind of twisted world that we live in, where individuals like Jon Bon Jovi (apparently the marajuana has given him insight into the best way to bring peace to the Middle East) have a platform to speak their "mind" on how a government should best operate. They somehow equate being able to memorize lines and act like someone else, as being on the same level as actually studying economics or having experience in the area of foreign policy. They must actually think that they are smarter then Dick Cheney, I mean "all he has is a masters in political science, he can't know all that much more then I can, I mean come on I wrote Born to Run". Well you know what, I have had it. It is physically impossible for me to have any less concern for what these "celebrities" have to say on anything important. They should stick to doing what they are good at...entertaining me. I want to give my 7 dollars, watch a movie, and be entertained, not lectured. If you want someone to listen to you opine on the merits of affirmative action, talk to your little actor buddies, not me! I don't care! I know this is a shot to your fragile ego, but I don't care! I couldn't be more serious, I don't care! Really, I don't care!

Now, go learn a script, or write another song, and dance for me monkey!

Dubya All The Way

2004-10-22T16:24:00.000-04:00

Well, after much thought and deliberation I have decided that George W. Bush will be my man this November. I was struggling with whether or not to vote for the Constitution party candidate, but decided against it on the following basis:

I am in complete disagreement with the method that the Constitution party is employing to try to bring about change in the laws that govern our nation. The most effective method for change comes from a grass roots movement at the local level that eventually spreads to the state and national level. The Constitution party and it's candidate are basically trying to change the laws of this country from the top down. In reality, the laws did not originate from the top down and they will not be ultimately changed from the top down. All of the money that they are spending on a candidate who has absolutely no shot as winning, could be spent on a few candidates at the local level who would be able to have a better shot at winning and making a difference by actually holding an office. Many small victories will eventually pave the way for a national candidate with a real chance of winning. So the bottom line is, I do not want to reward this misguided appropriation of money and energy with my vote this November.

Third Party

2004-09-30T11:44:00.000-04:00

Okay, I am really struggling with this election. I know that sounds a little odd, but the battle isn't for Kerry or Bush, it is between Bush and this third party candidate Michael Peroutka, he is the nominee for the Constitution Party. Now before you throw your hands up and say "Kevin has lost his mind...he is thinking of throwing his vote away on some guy I have never heard of, and if this country ends up in the hands of John Effing Kerry I am holding him personally responsible", hear me out. I'm not saying I'm going to vote for Peroutka, but I would like to explain why I am struggling with this. The platform of the Constitution Party actually most closely resembles what a Christian view of government should be. Their stances include, a very strong pro-life policy (which the Republicans have been shying away from lately), the government staying out of the business of welfare, social security, and education. These are thing that the Republican party espouses to be for, but have done very little to enact. Now, here is the real issue, if I feel that the Constitution Party more closely resembles a Biblical view of the governments role, do I vote for them, even if they have no chance whatsoever of winning? This is not just a political question, this is a question of faith. Do I obey God's commands and trust that He will take care of the outcome, even if I don't see how it can possible work out? Or do I take the outcome into consideration when making a decsion of whether or not to be obedient?
One problem with this situation is that I believe the Constitution Party is going about this the wrong way. They should be much more concerned about influencing government from a "bottom up" approach, focusing resources on local elections and building a strong base, from which one day they will be able to have a presidential candidate with widespread grassroots support. However, the fact remains that there is an individual who is running for office who has more of a Biblical view of government than any of the other candidates, and I can't ignore that. Is it my fault that he has no chance of winning? The most important question is does God care that he has "no chance of winning"? Did David have a "chance" of becoming king? Did Gideon have a "chance" of leading an army? What does the chance of something happening have to do with obedience? Okay, so now you are seeing why I am torn. I still haven't made up my mind yet, but I will keep you posted.

What's Important

2004-09-22T11:05:00.000-04:00

When it comes to presidential elections it is somewhat interesting to look back and think about what things were like under former members of the executive branch. Things are never quite as bad or as wonderful as we thought they would be when our candidate of choice, or "the other guy", makes his way into office. However, with this election there is one aspect that the polls and many of the pundits are neglecting to discuss...The judges! Unfortunately, the judicial system in our country is becoming disproportionately powerful in relation to the executive and legislative branches. In the news we see example after example where judges all across the nation are handing down rulings that are completely circumventing the laws so that they can place their own bias into how a culture should be shaped (yes, I'm talking to you 9th circuit in California). With this in mind the presidential race takes on a new found sense of urgency. If Bush is re-elected we have a much better chance of judges that will seek to have their rulings obey the laws of our nation, and hopefully have those laws represent the law of God (see, Judge Roy Moore in Alabama). The supreme court has more than a couple of judges who are looking to retire, and the judges who replace them will be in a position to shape our culture for the next 20 years. The American Church needs to wake up and decide whether we care more about "getting ours"(yes, I'm talking to you, all you churches who support the Democratic left because they promise you money and programs. I don't care if you are white or black....you're selfish!) and start seeking to turn our culture back to God, for this generation and the next. In the election, it DOES matter who you vote for, and the moral direction of our nation will be affected by it.
Let me qualify my statements with a quick note saying that I do not think that our country will return to Christ because we have culturally conservative judges. The moral direction of our nation is a direct result of the involvement of the body of Christ in our culture (see Under God posting below). However, we can either have the laws of the land working with us in this battle, or it can work against us. My hope is for the former.

New Fun Thing

2004-08-26T09:43:00.000-04:00

So I joined the millions around the world who have become slaves to the master known as Fantasy Football, and I just have one thing to say...WOW! It is such a blast, no wonder there are so many people taking part in this seemingly pointless excuse to watch every football game possible. There are so many little things that you have going on, you have the handle the pressure of draft night, praying for a high number, then you have to worry about who you start and who you bench, who might be hurt, who has the potential to go to jail and jack up your whole season (not to mention any names, but you know who you are JAMAL LEWIS). I just made a trade that I hope will help me. I can't stop looking up stats and projected starters...I can hardly get any work done! I will let you know how the Cobra Kai (my team name) are doing as the season progresses, hopefully my rookie venture will be fruitful.

In Defense of Truth

2004-08-09T16:01:00.000-04:00

I believe that one of the greatest casualties to have befallen the American Church has been the minds of our young people. The greatest perpetrator of this attack has been the public educational system that is in place in our country. Many years ago the American Church decided that it would be a good idea to allow the state to take the reigns in the education of our children. At the time this wasn’t such a bad idea on the surface, the state still recognized the importance of God in education and the Godly principles were still a vital part of the curriculum. However, since that time our culture, and therefore our municipal government (see the “under God?” posting below), have sought to keep God out of our educational system. This is not a matter of prayer in schools or an issue of whether or not the Bible is used as a curriculum; it is much bigger than that. This is a matter of truth!
There are only two options that we have to choose from when deciding on the source of truth (and beauty). The first option is that God is the source and ultimate authority for truth. The second option is that man is the source and ultimate authority for truth. Any type of educational system that is seeking to teach truth will choose one of these sources. Every subject that is taught, every lesson that is developed, every curriculum that is approved, will flow from one of these two foundations.
However, we as Christians are commanded to acknowledge God as the only source and ultimate authority for truth. When we send our children off to learn about the world at school, and then send them to learn about God at church, we are basically telling them that God is not relevant to anything outside of the church. What other conclusion can they draw? Or even worse, we are placing them under an educational system that does not see God as the source of truth, and isn’t this the very definition of the kind of false teaching that we are commanded to avoid, especially when our children are involved?
I will, however, acknowledge that teaching in the public school system is a very real and important ministry for Christians. Those teachers can influence those children to know the God of the subjects they are teaching. Shouldn’t that make us stop and think, what kind of worldview the person who is teaching our children has? Don’t they want to influence the children with their views and morals as well? There is a difference between being a teacher in a public school and having our children educated in them.
Should we then be surprised when we have an entire generation of young people, and adults for that matter, that live one way on Sunday and a different life during the week in their respective environments? After all, what does God have to do with their business? He didn’t seem to matter when we were learning about how business works, why should now be any different? If the American Church thinks that we will be able to produce committed Christ followers who have relationships with God that permeate every aspect of their lives and then leave Him out of our educational systems, we are kidding ourselves. God is not the “seasoning” to our lives; we don’t sprinkle Him lightly on our ideas of life, and values, as if we were collective patrons at the restaurant of truth. He either is the be all, end all, or He is nothing! A principle that the education of our children should reflect.

In the image

2004-08-02T09:25:00.000-04:00

In the Genesis account of creation the image of God was given solely to mankind, no other created being was granted this honor. There are many different theories as to what exactly the image of God is in us, but we can conclude that whatever these particular attributes are, they are going to be characteristics that originate with God. God is love, so therefore whenever we love we are attempting to display a particular aspect of the image of God. God is the ultimate expression of forgiveness, and when we forgive, we are seeking to display the image of God.

However, our love, and our forgiveness are vastly inferior to the love and forgiveness of God. This is due to the fact that A) we are not God, and B) our sin nature infects, to some degree or another, every attempt to display the TRUE image of God. What we must be watchful for is when we seek to make God in our image. For example, if someone wrongs us and then asks for our forgiveness, as a Christian we are mandated to accept that forgiveness, and forget that it ever even happened. Nevertheless, in the back of our mind, we may feel that particular person is somehow indebted to us, and must work their way back into our good graces, because after all they are the ones who screwed up! Our tendency is to think that God forgives the same way. If we disobey God, and then confess and seek forgiveness, in the back of our minds, we may feel that we must somehow “make it up” to God, by doing some great deed, hoping that with this particular act we will “even the score”. Are we really arrogant enough to think that we can somehow work our way back into God’s favor, that we can repay God for His forgiveness? If we think that we can somehow earn back a right-standing with God, we are living an illusion created by pride. If that is our understanding of how God forgives, is it any wonder that we forgive people the same way? We need to seek to have God’s perfect image manifested in us, not our fallen image placed on God.

Unbelievable

2004-07-16T08:11:00.000-04:00

As a side note, I can't believe that the Lakers traded away the most dominant player in the game, and kept that drama queen Kobe. Shaq will make them pay this next season, you watch...they will pay.

Embracing the arts

2004-07-15T16:14:00.000-04:00

I have been thinking recently on the Body of Christ and it’s response to the creative arts. I must confess that my thinking has been challenged and has shifted tremendously from my former notions of arts place in the church. I grew up in a few different churches of differing denominations, predominately Baptist, where the arts were not necessarily talked about, with the exception of the occasional denouncement of the National Endowment for the Arts for some highly offensive piece they touted as “progressive”. Many Christian educational institutions have not had much to do with the creative arts either, choosing to focus their resources on the traditional three R’s (not sure how the words “’rithmetic”, or “’riting” passed the Reading section but that is another ‘scussion altogether).
The creative arts began as a way for man to reflect the truth, beauty, and goodness of God back to Him. Since God is the origin of truth and beauty, art is a means of worship. God is the very definition of creativity, and He expressed Himself through His creation. During the Renaissance the standard for truth and beauty shifted from God to man. As a result, art ceased to be about the Ultimate beauty and truth, and instead sought to display a man-centered view, a poor and deficient substitute to say the least. Art has spiraled downward into a meaningless venture with no value, other than for the artist to shock the viewer. As a result the church has allowed the world to set the ground rules for a Biblical view of art. The church fears the creative arts because they are not exactly sure how to keep it contained and God honoring. What the church fails to realize is that you judge art based on the same thing you judge the spoken or written word, the standard set forth in the Bible. Does it convey a message that is consistent with the Bible? There….how hard was that?
The Bible does not condemn art or creative artists. Especially since the God of the Bible is the primary artist! Tragically, the Christian who is gifted in painting or poetry has had no place in the church, whereas a musician or a gifted speaker always has a place of ministry. How many blessings of God honoring truth and beauty has the modern American church missed out on because we have allowed the world to steal the creative arts? It is a travesty of the highest order.

Under God?

2004-07-13T12:24:00.000-04:00

With the recent Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the phrase “...under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, it would seem that another victory can be chalked up for conservatives. However, we must ask ourselves how long the name of God will be able to withstand the constant barrage of attacks from our culture bent on making His name less and less prominent in the “town square”? Are we to be the defenders of God? Does God require us to take up arms to make sure that He is not forgotten? If we are basing our discussion (which we are) on the God of the Bible, then the answer is no. God is going to be glorified somewhere, by someone, no matter what we do. Even if every human on the planet stays silent, the rocks will cry out (Luke 19:40). So the question remains: do we really need to continue to fight these battles? Are they really worth it? In order to answer that question we must first ask ourselves, what it is that we are fighting for? Are we fighting to keep the name of God on public display for His sake or ours? If we are to continue to ask God to bless our nation, then we must fight to make Him the center of our hearts and minds. That does not necessarily mean that He is the center of our physical buildings, but that is the natural progression when He is at the center of our lives. If we are truly seeking to have God honored in our public places, He must first be honored in our hearts. To have a government that honors God exist in a nation where the hearts and minds of the people reject Him is an exercise in futility. The evidence that the founding fathers made decisions concerning our country based on a Judeo-Christian worldview is overwhelming. When our current culture seeks to remove the influence of God from our municipal landscape, it is because we removed Him from our personal landscape long ago.

Here we go!!

2004-07-13T12:13:00.000-04:00

Alright everyone, this is the inaugural posting of the Thoughtland blog. I look forward to ranting and raving (hopefully with something resembling logic) on everything from music to politics and religion!!! I will only post original material, if I am using someone else's stuff I will cite accordingly. Hopefully, this will be a good outlet for some of the random (but very useful ;) thoughts that come into my mind every day. I will try to update the blog about twice a week, probably every Tuesday and Thursday. Thanks for stopping by.