The Mind of David Krider

<h3>Introduction (or, Corpus Collosum)</h3> Some time around 2006, I was completely fed up with my job, and started looking around for something else. I got a hot lead on what seemed to be a good match. I talked to their HR rep on the phone. She seemed very interested. And then, all of the sudden, the lead got cold. She wouldn't return calls or emails for several days. I finally got a terse email stating something to the effect of "we're just not interested." Given how well it had been going, I was left to wonder what it might have meant. I realized that I had written some things here that I was pretty sure would have offended the HR rep personally, and I'm about the easiest guy in the world to Google, so I settled on the conclusion that they had searched for me online and hadn't liked what they had seen. Since I was still looking around, I didn't want this to happen again, so I immediately deleted all my content except the front page, and edited this space to say something really generic about what happened. I'm still not being completely transparent about the incident, but that's the way it's going to be on this site now. After a year or so, I started to get frustrated with not having my web site up and running. Along with needing to go back and filter all the content, I decided to rewrite the programming. At the time, it was a "half-blown" PHP application. Though it was all served out of a database, I still had to edit the content manually, and then upload it. During the rewrite, I moved to using the Smarty template system over top of my application, and had made it possible to edit pages in place on the server. While there were some advantages, I hit a brick wall with the security model. Since there's just one user to authenticate, I didn't want to write a real authentication system. I just wanted to continue using HTTP auth methods. However, I just couldn't make protecting my admin pages in a subdirectory (with a custom .htaccess file) work with Smarty (and my way of including common headers and footers), so I gave up, and the site sat untouched for another two years. Now I have had a new job for about a year, at the time of this writing, and two things have happened during this time. The first is that the new people in my life have gotten to know me, and therefore have at least some context about what I may say here. While I have taken down the material I suspect got me in trouble before, I still have potentially controversial things posted up here. It is my hope that those around me will understand that I'm not as harsh as I can sometimes come acress in this format. (Even when I go back and read what I've written here, I sometimes cringe and think, wow, that's harsh.) But I'm not the same person I was back when I wrote a lot of these things. Some of this content is 10 or 12 years old! I'm going through and rewriting what's here, but this will take time. The other thing that happened is that I learned Ruby on Rails. As was suggested to me, this has indeed increased my productivity with writing web applications. In fact, adapting all the data in the database to be Rails "friendly," rewriting all of the programming, and getting a new hosting provider and setting everything up, probably only took about 22 hours. That may or may not seem like a small amount of time to some people, but I contrast that to the fact that I had taken weeks to rewrite this thing in Smarty before I got stuck. I just got a wild hair, based on some success I had had on a project at work, and cranked this out over a busy weekend. As I've continued to pick away at the details of the formatting and presentation, I'm more and more impressed with the framework. So, as before, this is where I get to talk about the things I want to talk about, but now I'll be "speaking" in more measured tones. While it's certainly true that I'm not as critical as I was before, I guess I've also learned how to use some tiny measure of tact along the way. I thought about limiting myself to only what I would say to a total stranger, but that may be too restrictive to be interesting. I'll be targeting my comments here for the imaginary person who might only have known me for a week or two. I guess I'll see how this works out for me...

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Stuff to think about home.html false 1

2009-05-25T20:21:05-07:00

<img style="float: left" src="../../images/right_hemi_small.gif" alt="Technology" /> I really need to rename this section "Computers." When I finally dust off The Gimp for some graphics work, I will. These graphics are left over from something like '97 when I was using "Image Editor" or whatever it was that shipped with FrontPage back then. People my age, that is, born around the late 60's, are unique in that we are the first generation to grow up with computers. A by-product of this fact is that is that it seems to be much more common to find people who truly understand computers among my age bracket. Any older, and computers just weren't very common. If someone older than me is into computers, they probably get it on an even deeper level than I do, because they were closer to the circuits. Any younger than me, and it's very likely that they just view computers as a tool, and not as a hobby in and of themselves. Even someone just 10 years younger than me probably cut their teeth on Windows 95, and maybe never had to think about something like making peripherals stay on their own, separate interrupts. I had to understand how to do things like "bootstrap" the computer. Most of the interaction with an Atari or Commodore required a basic understanding of BASIC and how computers actually worked. Now, everyone expects to just turn on the computer and have their email magically appear in their mail program. While that may be nice, without a fundamental understanding of all the steps it took to get there, if it breaks, you can't fix it. Computers have become so ubiquitous now that they are nearly everywhere and a part of everything. In the dustbin, I have a Timex DataLink watch. It could be programmed to remember phone numbers, to-do lists, and appointments from flashes of the computer's screen. That was pure science fiction in the 50's. It has the same amount of memory the Commodore 64 had 15 years before it. My first real PC had 40 times the power of the computer that launched the first manned space vehicles. My cell phone has about 20 times the memory of my first PC, and it's only holding half what it can handle. It's not just incredible what computers are achieving in terms of progress and capability; it's incredible that they are still accelerating in complexity and power. <table class="toc" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td><a href="../../computers.html"><img src="../../images/computers_button.gif" alt="My Computers" /></a></td> <td>My Computers A run-down of all the hardware and software I use, with some reasoning as to why.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="../../future.html"><img src="../../images/future_button.gif" alt="The Future" /></a></td> <td>New Technology I used to try to keep up talking about the in's and out's of new technologies. Anymore, this is just a collection of screenshots from various OS's I have run on my computers.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="../../topics.html"><img src="../../images/topics_button.gif" alt="Topics" /></a></td> <td>Topics I have opinions. Oh, you noticed. Okay. Well, go here to see what I think about technological issues.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="../../programming.html"><img src="../../images/programming_button.gif" alt="Programming" /></a></td> <td>Programming So far, a script I have pieced together, but I am hoping to do some more real programming (for myself, not my job), and I am the type that would share it for free on the net.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="../../tips.html"><img src="../../images/tips_button.gif" alt="Tips" /></a></td> <td>Tips Here's my chance to give something back to the Linux community when it comes to configuration issues.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

technology.html false 2

1 Technology

2010-01-16T06:32:16-08:00

<img style="float: left" src="../../images/left_hemi_small.gif" alt="Religion" width="133" height="127" />Everyone is religious. Everyone. Whether they understand this or not is beside the point. Everyone has a belief in the hereafter that influences what they consider important in life. Even if that belief is "nothing," it pre-supposes dramatic differences of choices for the believer that other people do not share. Whether someone is said to be religious, a-religious, or anti-religious, they are forming a belief system that compels them, but is still a belief system, and therefore religion. For the Christian and the non-Christian alike, religion is what gives everything else in life context and meaning. So much of the world's problems are, as some like to say, about religion, but what most people saying that are missing is that they are just as religious as the next person. Whether they believe in Buddha or Gaia or just that "it's turtles all the way down," those beliefs are driving the way they feel, they way the spend their money, and the way they vote. Today, it's become vogue to say that evolution has answered all of mankind's cosmological questions, but that's simply not true. Where did the material for the "Big Bang" come from? "Science" has not disproven the existence of God, and people who think it has are being selective in what they read. There's plenty of controversy about it, even within scientific circles. Those that proclaim that the controversy is over are pushing a religious agenda, and they are as dangerous to society as those who try to force their stereotypical religious tenants on others, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Satanist, or whatever. This group of pages isn't for everyone. It's for people who can be totally honest with themselves and with God. I don't mean to - and don't want to - offend. If you find that you are becoming upset by viewing these pages, remember that by staying and reading, you asked. And since you did, I'm Apostolic Pentecostal. Through these pages, I would like to describe to you what that means and why I think that everyone else ought to be as well. Being Apostolic Pentecostal is about having a real, live, one-on-one relationship with the Lord God Almighty. If you have never experienced the power of God moving upon you, these pages are for you. If you want to know God in the fullest way possible, these pages are for you. Singing jubilantly, sobbing cathartically, and shouting victoriously: these are all expected expressions of an encounter with the Spirit. In a church service, during worship or the preaching of the Word, just by yourself in a personal time of prayer to God, or driving down the road thinking about the goodness of God. God is everywhere. God is awesome. There's no limit on when and where you're "allowed" to be with God, or what He's capable of doing in your life. There are many questions and topics here, but there's no way to cover it all. Any telelogical belief system must be comprehensive, or it is of little value in proscribing action. Christianity, in particular, must explain itself within the context of the Bible, history, archeology, and personal experience. Give me time and I'll explain how Apostolic Pentecostalism is the only belief system -- "religious" or otherwise -- that I can find that can make sense out of all of this, all together at once. <table class="toc" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td><a href="../../testimony.html"><img src="../../images/testimony_button.gif" alt="My Testimony" /></a></td> <td>My Testimony From my first steps toward God to the present.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="../../doctrine.html"><img src="../../images/doctrine_button.gif" alt="Doctrine" /></a></td> <td>Doctrine An entire sub-web devoted to an explanation of how and why I believe the way I do.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="../../church.html"><img src="../../images/church_button.gif" alt="My Church" /></a></td> <td>My Church Someday, I'll put up a real page about my church and Pastor.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="../../questions.html"><img src="../../images/questions_button.gif" alt="Questions" /></a></td> <td>I Don't Get It This is where I ask questions about what other religions believe and pose - based on what I believe - why I just don't understand them.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="../../answers.html"><img src="../../images/answers_button.gif" alt="Answers" /></a></td> <td>What About? A page given to explain how I think the tricky questions fit into the framework of Apostolic Pentecostalism.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="../../hmm.html"><img src="../../images/hmm_button.gif" alt="Hmm..." /></a></td> <td>Hmm... Things that make you - okay, maybe just me - go, "Hmm."</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Looking at the world through the lens of religion, which is the only way to understand it. religion.html false 3

2 Religion

2009-03-23T19:03:54-07:00

While my <a href="testimony.html">testimony</a> provides the story of my internal motivations, this page is more a look at my external influences. This is the story behind the story. I have found that most people just shouldn't put their picture on the web, if you take my meaning, and I probably shouldn't either, but here it is. After a long time of not having it here, I decided that I liked seeing pictures of other people on their web sites so much that I brought it back. <a href="/images/me_at_old_computer.jpg"><img src="../../images/me_at_old_computer_small.jpg" alt="Me at my old computer (which is now my development server)" width="200" height="131" /></a> My weight has always been a source of irritation with me. I had always thought I was "fat" because of genetics until one day when my pastor's wife asked me if anything of significance had happened when I remembered getting that way. It was then that it struck me that I started overeating in 5th grade, right after my grandfather had passed away. He meant more to me than anything. When I graduated from Jennings County High School, I weighed in at 255 pounds. For being about 6', that's just too much. In college, I roomed for a time with a workout-aholic in college named Mike, from just outside Boston. He was definitely one of the most fun and most interesting guys I ever knew. Well, enough of him must have rubbed off on me that I got motivated to do something about it. I eventually got down to 173 pounds the summer after I graduated college, mostly through aerobics, but due also to swimming, racquetball (I was really quite good), and the tortuous Stairmaster. Of course I had some definite moral support from my two best friends at the time, Tom (Capt. Kirk) and Ed (Spock, or "Wheels"), both from "the Region" (i.e. around Chicago) and both burgeoning body builders. (Yeah, I was the comedic relief, Bones, which was funny because Wheels and I should have been reversed. All three of us agreed that Star Trek II, The Wrath of Kahn was the best movie ever made. I still did up until <a href="matrix.html">The Matrix</a>.) <a href="../../images/purdue_graduation.jpg"><img src="/images/purdue_graduation_small.jpg" alt="Purdue graduation" width="200" height="144" /></a> I graduated in the spring of 1991 from Purdue University in Lafayette, IN with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. It was a watershed day; my father did the same thing in '67. I thought about going back for a Computer Science degree because I already had all the math, science, and humanities electives filled, but the financing didn't come through, and I found work as a production MIG welder at Toyota (fork trucks, not cars) for about a year and a half. See, I wanted to design jet aircraft engines in California for the defense industry when I got out of school. However, George Bush decided to start trimming back the defense spending we as a country had committed to under Reagan, and literally thousands of engineers who were doing exactly what I wanted to do had been put out of a job. Little did I know at the time that God had something to teach me through working at Toyota. <a href="/images/misunderstood_genius.jpg"><img src="/images/misunderstood_genius_small.jpg" border="0" alt="The story of my life" /></a> When I finally got over my pride in thinking that I was "above" working in that job, I felt in the Spirit that I was leaving. Two weeks later, I had a new job for almost twice the money at Arvin as a test technician. I got to learn how to overhaul an engine, which, interestingly enough, along with welding, I always wanted to learn, even back in high school, but was unable to because I was taking all the "college prep" courses. Understand I had worked at Arvin for two summers while going to school. Thankfully, there's a lot of nepotism there, because my dad has been an engineer there for over 30 years now. Thanks to the Lord, after only 7 months, I finally got my first engineering job at GrimmerSchmidt Compressors. The company had just been sold when I went onboard, and there was a contractual obligation not to let anyone go for one year after the sale. Well, that year came and went, and so did a bunch of us. But I have no regrets; it was really a good experience. Lucky for me, God was already opening a door for me to go back to work at Arvin, for the fourth time. I got on as a mechanical engineer in the Ford Business Group. I did Finite Element Analysis and computer programming and administration. I passed up an opportunity for twice the money in Detroit and another for a lot more here in Columbus because I didn't think there was a better place to work on the planet. Next, I took a job as a Unix network administrator for the Advanced Engineering Group. I reorganized their loose confederation of a few UNIX machines into a real NIS domain, centralized all the management and software, installed a WinFrame server, and doubled the size of their network. Then I was promoted to be the Product Data Management Administrator. I designed and installed the structure of Arvin's PDM system, which was based on Metaphase. The tough part of the job was the administration of the application which was a nightmare. On the other hand, I got to do both Unix and Oracle administration, which was a blast, and which, should something happen to Arvin, can get me a job almost anywhere. The job was most cool because I had total control over all the technical aspects of the project. However, this part of the story has a somewhat bittersweet ending. <a href="../../images/roberts_keyboard.jpg"><img src="/images/roberts_keyboard_small.jpg" alt="Robert's hairy keyboard (290 KB)" width="200" height="133" /></a> <a href="../../images/roberts_food.jpg"><img src="/images/roberts_food_small.jpg" alt="Robert's hairy food (370 KB)" width="200" height="133" /></a> Just before we were to "go live," after lots of requisite delays, Arvin merged with Meritor, a spin-off of Rockwell. Meritor had their own PDM system based on a product called MatrixOne. Early on in the merger activities, it was apparent that no where would the effects of the merger be felt more than in our mutual information technologies departments. So, our CIO made some decisions up front about what technologies would be used where. It was decided that the "Arvin" ways of using NT as the file-and-print platform and Exchange as the messaging platform (as opposed to Novell and Lotus Notes) would be used. However, the "Meritor" way of using Oracle Financials for business systems and MatrixOne for PDM were to be used as well (as opposed to IBM's JDE and Metaphase). <a href="/images/me_and_emily_smiling.jpg"><img src="/images/me_and_emily_smiling_small.jpg" alt="Emily and I" width="200" height="142" /></a> So, the PDM group was basically broken up and sold off for parts. My former boss was put in charge of "Graphics Systems, Exhaust, North America." My coworker found a place in the B2B group. Another good friend basically took over what would have been my job had I stayed. I took a position with the corporate IT group as a Unix administrator. I set up a rather large environment at the old Arvin datacenter. Even though I was responsible for E10K's and EMC disk arrays, there was a lot about the job I didn't care for, so, after several months, I jumped back to working with my old group in engineering. After I went back to engineering, I'll be frank: I "wandered in the wilderness." I wrote some cool software to support product development and IT operations, but what little of it that was actually used by end users was forcibly scrapped by poor management decisions. I got pulled back into PDM support, where I did some good low-level data-handling code, but, basically, I was just a pawn in a very aggressive corporate power struggle. Having a good PDM system was an afterthought compared to getting it stuffed into as many different businesses and as quickly as possible so that users would be subjugated by it. <a href="/images/managerial_ignorance.jpg"><img src="/images/managerial_ignorance_small.jpg" border="0" alt="Luddites." /></a> I have had a wonderful, exciting life so far, and with the Lord, should He tarry, I look forward to even more fulfilling experiences. <a href="/images/work_office_all_lights.jpg"><img src="/images/work_office_all_lights_small.jpg" alt="All the Lights" width="200" height="133" /></a> <a href="/images/work_office_xmas_lights_only.jpg"><img src="/images/work_office_xmas_lights_only_small.jpg" alt="Just the Christmas Lights" width="200" height="133" /></a> <a href="/images/aaron_asleep_on_the_bed.jpg"><img src="/images/aaron_asleep_on_the_bed_small.jpg" alt="Baby Aaron James" width="200" height="133" /></a> <a href="/images/me_at_computer_new.jpg"><img src="/images/me_at_computer_new_small.jpg" alt="In the office" width="200" height="133" /></a> Here are some resources that I don't know where else to place: <ul> <li>The <a href="culture.html">culture</a> of my youth, which, of course, has, in large part, made me who I am today.</li> <li>A page about why I took out the <a href="krider.html">davidkrider.com</a> domain, which makes for what I think is interesting reading.</li> <li>A collection of <a href="proverbs_32.html">wisdom</a>, some of which I actually came up with, but then only when beaten about the head and shoulders with the insight.</li> <li><a href="colophon.html">Colophon</a>, or, how this site is made.</li> </ul>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

The site's `About' page. about.html false 4

3 About

2009-08-22T05:02:37-07:00

First of all, don't get me wrong from the intro on the previous page, I support the active search for extraterrestrials. Indeed, I think finding life "out there" would be the greatest unifying force this planet has ever experienced. I think it would bring us all together under the idea that "we" are one people, all nations, colors, religions, and social standing. (This is something I want to come back to at the end.) It would be the greatest thing to ever happen to us, just from that perspective, let alone the potential exchange of ideas and technology. The possibilities are tantalizing. Some very good science fiction has been produced along these lines, ala Contact, and, of course, Star Trek. Maybe the truth is actually as sinister as some science fiction, ala War of the Worlds, Mars Attacks, or Independence Day, with aliens bent on destroying the earth and enslaving its peoples. Maybe, just maybe, the truth is as realistic as still other fictional accounts, ala Men in Black. And the abounding stories of alien sightings seem to entice many to conclude that it's a very real possibility. Indeed we have people that say they have seen the crafts, met the aliens, and been investigated by them. It would seem only a matter of public record that alien interest in our world is fact. But somehow, the credibility of such accounts has yet to be established by other credible sources. Now I find it curious that the idealists of the believers will propose that there must be many intelligent life forms in the universe, due to its sheer vastness and its tendency to create worlds that sustain life (c.v. <a href= "creation.html">Evolution</a>), just waiting to contact and be contacted by us, but ignore the fact that almost literally all of the accounts of contact on record are with the same goofy looking creatures. If there are so many different types of alien races, why do they all look basically the same? Then there are accounts that report to have hard evidence, but none but the insiders, of course, have ever seen it. The classic case is, you guessed it: Roswell. (I'll leave it to the reader to research the copious material concerning that "incident" on the web.) Let's face it, all one would need to do to validate this account is get one piece of that "alien" wreckage to the press, who would then watchfully turn it over to some lab, who would documentarily dissect where it came from. It would make national live television! We could take care of the proof of intelligent extraterrestrial life very easily. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying here, but the point is that one tiny bit of hard proof of alien activity would immediately make the top story of every news organization around the globe. But the people who support the notion that an alien craft crash landed at Roswell will tell me that the military is suppressing the evidence. And that gets back to the heart of what I think is really going on with all these stories of semi-credible contact, like air traffic controllers seeing something amiss. I do think that the military is working on all sorts of extremely advanced kinds of aircraft and weapons. I think these tests generate the bulk of the reports. Someone sees "something," but can't verify what it was. Indeed, "something" crashed at Roswell. But we can no longer be sure of what it was. I think the military is hiding something. I think they are hiding their own mistake. I think some of our people, people probably without family, died in an experiment staged by the military. An experiment with a new type of aircraft. Maybe I am the one who is completely wrong here. Maybe it really was a weather balloon, and the reports were just staged or got inflated. Maybe some of the stories about weird bodies in an operating room are real. (There are so many reasons that prove the Alien Autopsy movie is faked; don't go there.) But maybe the military was also experimenting with altering the human physique for interstellar travel. Remember that the timing of the incident is just before the "space race." Maybe the military did screw up, cover it up, and secretly fueled the controversy in order to cover their tracks and avoid the embarrassment. If there are real aliens, they seem to be a pretty elusive lot. Why? Don't they share our feelings of interest and openness? Have they traveled all this way just to study us? Are we too primitive for them? Do we have life forms here that would instantly kill them, forcing them to stay far away? Do they actually have such technology as to allow them to travel interstellar distances, and yet not have the ability to learn all about us from the incredible deluge of information being broadcast into space by electromagnetic waves? Do you see where I'm going here? If there were a race so advanced that they could even come here, I cannot believe that they would need to do anything but simply plant their craft on the ground and announce their arrival, as they would already know the political and social climate of our community. (Hmm... That said, maybe they do just float around looking at sunbathers through binoculars. Maybe we should concentrate our efforts to locate alien craft above nude beaches. Heh. My point is that if I had a chance to live somewhere else where there were no wars or pollution or crime, I'd stay away from Earth too.) Actually, I think that the real answer to these questions is as simple and as old as our race. If you have gotten here, you surely have at least read that this is an attempt to explain the phenomenon in terms of Apostolic Pentecostalism. And it has taken me a long time to swallow the answer I'm about to give, but it's the only one in which I have any reason to believe. See, a long time ago, we thought nothing about gods and spirits that inhabited the earth. We thought them responsible for the good things and the bad that happened in our lives. The rains and harvests, marriages and births, wars and disease, supernatural beings were behind it all. Now, "science" has explained "everything." The Big Bang, Evolution, the supposition that there must be at least the strong possibility of extraterrestrial life, it has created a reality devoid of spirituality. Yes "religion" has at times been wrong, and indeed responsible for what can only be described as atrocities. The most pertinent example would be how the Roman Catholic Church, as per the Pope, decried Copernicus a heretic, and forced him to recant, for claiming that the sun was the center of the solar system, not the earth, when, in fact, he was absolutely correct. This example is a good one of a two-edged sword. On the one hand, the leaders of the church were trying to protect the notion that religion was the center of reality, not science. An admirable desire considering all that has transpired now that we have shifted our focus from religion to science. The despiritualization of reality has led to a notion that there are no eternal consequences for one's actions. That has led to a society that is increasingly bereft of basic morals: virtue, respect, courage, honesty, and the like. That has led to the idea that you can do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want. And you can see where this is leading us. At the same time that crime is spiraling out of control, we have lost our sense of duty to call a crime a crime and punish it due to increasingly liberal politics, on both sides of the fence. And that will cause us to cave in on ourselves in anarchy given enough time. "As in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah..." On the other hand, we have a classic example of religion delving into areas that it should not concern itself with. Really, what if the earth really were the center of the universe? Maybe the earth does revolve around the sun, but what if the universe really does revolve with the earth at its center? Who cares? Does it change the fact that God made it? That God is still the Lord of it all? That He wants to have a personal relationship with everyone on it? Does it change the fact that its still wrong to kill someone or to commit adultery? That it would still be foolishness to legalize drugs, no matter how much effort and money we are spending combating the problem? The point is that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Each have their territory to cover; each has their lessons to teach. When they do seemingly overlap, it falls to your faith which one to believe, as in the case of evolution. Okay. Enough about that. Back to the aliens. Science has yet to prove anything about alien existence. Religion, though discounted, still speaks to influences that do weird things to people. They are called spirits. Devils. Demons. Whatever the name, they have been abusing people for a long time. If you read the Gospels, you see Jesus casting unclean spirits out of people all the time. It was a very common occurrence. Sometimes there were more than one in a person, indicating a particularly bad problem. Sometimes they are seen making the person physically abuse themselves. Everyone back then "knew" that this happened, and happened frequently. Have these spirits gotten bored with us? Have they died? No, they're still around, up to their same game, but with some new twists. Now we have people "remembering" abuses when they were children, giving them an excuse for the erratic and sinful behaviors they are committing. (Don't get me wrong, I have the deepest sympathies for those that have been abused, physically or sexually. The Bible claims that it will have been better to have never lived than to have been a child abuser, and I agree.) Now we have people who "remember" being abducted by aliens. The stories seem to always be the same. And they usually come under the same circumstances: hypnotism. Funny how hypnotism plays a big part in Satanism, isn't it? Look, to me, it's really simple. Hypnotism, as in Holy Ghost-filled worship, empties a person to be sensitive to the spirit realm. Whether you make yourself sensitive to evil or good spirits is your choice. And when people get so distressed in life that they go to someone who uses hypnotism, they are putting themselves under the influence of evil spirits, spirits that will plague the mind and the body. Now the next thing to deal with is proof. Hey, I'm claiming it's ridiculous to believe in aliens because we have no proof. What about proof of spirits of either kind, good or bad? Well I would submit that it's their very nature to avoid such proof. I know that's kind of convenient, but I suppose that my proof lies in the Bible. It talks of spirits nonchalantly as an everyday phenomenon. That's enough for me. Indeed, when you get filled with the Holy Spirit, there's not much else to say on the subject. You know the spirit realm is real, and you understand it's very sharply divided into two camps. And when you study the Bible, you find out that only one side is going to win in the end. There will be an initial return of Jesus Christ, followed by 1000 years of peace and prosperity, the final battle between good and evil, and then the "Great White Throne Judgement." And this is what I alluded to at the very first. As we scan the skies for a new race, we will find the Spirit in terms of the "second coming" of Christ, and when we do, seeing Him face to face, without the need for faith of any kind, there will be a unifying force like no other. We will understand that "we" are not separate from "them," and we will all work together for the good of all. It will be an end to war, famine, and disease. And that will be heaven on Earth. Literally. I realize that my conclusion effectively renounces the possibility that there are other races in the universe. Some think that's such an incredible waste of space as to practically force the fact there must be life "out there." However, I think it makes what we have here all the more special in the understanding. Think about it.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

This is probably the fuzziest topic on my site. aliens.html false 8

3 Aliens

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

<img style="float: left" src="../../images/answers_button.gif" border="0" alt="Answers" width="100" height="100" /> This & is where I will attempt to explain how I see the tricky questions fit into the framework of my Apostolic Pentecostal beliefs. This may be the most interesting page in my web. Obviously some of these answers could be expanded into entire books, but I don't want to go that far. Again, as I stated on my front page, this isn't about debate. This is just about my views. If you want to adopt my way of thinking about something, feel free. These issues, as opposed to what I think about my doctrinal beliefs, are all grey areas. ;-) They aren't black-and-white, cut-and-dried. If you aren't interested in changing your mind, just interested in exploring a new idea, then this page is for you. <ul> <li><a href="dandd.html">Is Dungeons and Dragons evil? </a>Funny you should ask... I am particularly well-suited to reply to this.</li> <li><a href="creation.html">How did the universe (and human beings) come into being? </a>Isn't it curious how many human ancestral remains have been found? As a matter of evolutionary time scale, humans are supposed to be the youngest of all species, yet we supposedly have more proof of their evolution than any other creature. Sounds suspicious to me...</li> <li><a href="aliens.html">Are we alone in this universe? </a>There are so many stories of aliens floating around these days. The X-Files have popularized this once fringe fascination. So many people seem to be coming forward with "recalled" stories of alien capture (and worse.) All this interest, and not one single shred of tangible proof. What's going on here? There are many ardent believers in intelligent extraterrestrial life. Some even command hefty research grants. And yet, without a physical reason to "believe," this is, by definition, a religion.</li> <li><a href="lost.html">What about those poor people who never hear the Gospel; are they going to Hell? </a>Simple question, but simple answer? I think so.</li> <li>Are ghosts and psychics for real? Yup. Given that God and angels and spirit-filled people are real, you have to believe that their counterparts: Satan, devils, and psychics are real. And some of the same power that the Spirit of God can bestow for serving Him: healing, vision, and wisdom, can be had from the Devil in exchange for serving him. The question is, to paraphrase Microsoft's pitch: Where do you want to go tomorrow?</li> <li><a href="clinton.html">Should Bill Clinton resign or be impeached? </a>I'll take either. He's wrong. He's not sorry. He's unfit for service. He's unfit for leadership. He's broken the law. There's no one else in the country who could get away with lying to a grand jury. Why should he be above the laws he swore to uphold and faithfully execute?</li> <li><a href="miracles.html">Miracles as proof of Truth </a>There are many people who claim that they are a representative of God because miracles are performed at their hands. Can it really be that simple?</li> <li><a href="fisking.html">Fisking a Christian "Joke"</a> I don't guess that this goes here, but it's as close as I can get to the place it ought to be merged into the tree. If you're familiar with the "blogosphere," you'll understand immediately what this is about. If not, you'll need to do a little research to "git it."</li> </ul>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

My answers to the tricky questions we pose of religion. answers.html false 9

5 Answers

2009-03-23T19:20:26-07:00

<ul> <li>God is omnipotent.</li> <li>God is good.</li> <li>There is suffering.</li> </ul> I think these three statements sum up the main reason that people choose to believe atheistically, meaning that they think that there is no god or higher power outside of ourselves whatsoever. Why indeed would an all-powerful, wholly-good God - the stereotypical Judeo-Christian God - allow suffering to occur in the world? If He created it, why would he leave it to disease and disaster? Why create man and subject him to loss and hurt, strife, war, and death? This is a valid question for all of us to contemplate, and it could understandably lead one to reject the idea that such a God exists, that the notion of the proposed Judeo-Christian God is contradictory. However, it is important to remember that this line of reasoning only applies to the rejection of the "good" god of religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The argument that "suffering exists" cannot be used to dismiss the idea of a neutral "god" or a balancing force, as in the eastern belief systems such as Hinduism, Taoism, or Buddhism, because a neutral god wouldn't care anyway, and it wouldn't be a contradiction of his nature. If indeed the atheist chooses to not believe in God because of this alleged contradiction, it implies a rejection of God, not a god. That's a subtle difference that I hope gets across. I think a lot of atheists are atheists because they are rejecting the notion of God as opposed to accepting the idea that there is no god, of any kind. But I want to show that belief in God is the more logical choice than not believing. (The choice of how to believe is left to other dissertations.) The problem with alleging that there is a problem with suffering is that it ignores one of the underpinnings of the concept of the Judeo-Christian God: that He created people with a "free will." This free will allows people to do whatever they would like to do, believe or not believe, do good or do evil. It cannot be helped that people have made poor choices which have resulted in the suffering that we see today. We reap what we sow. That's a simple fact of this existence prevalent in everything, not just naturally, not just spiritually. The most obvious example of the bad decisions people have made are the wars that have been fought over religion. Surely a bad thing right? If there is only one God, and one way to believe, you'd think out of everything else, that would be clear, right? Wrong. To prove - beyond any shadow of doubt - that God was God, or God was Jesus, or God was Jehovah, or God was Buddha, or God was The Great Spirit would take the freedom of choice away. If there were only one way to believe, then there wouldn't be belief; it would simply be fact. My favorite scripture, found in Acts 17, makes the whole concept of the God of the Bible very clear. In it, the apostle Paul says to the philosophers of Athens, "That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being." Here is the entire excerpt: Acts 17:16-34, "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing) Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them." And so it is that the very idea of God as a benevolent entity must be founded on the assertion that He doesn't force His will upon us, as that would be evil. Further, since God cannot contradict His nature, we are left to our own will, and we cannot blame Him for our poor choices. Finally, since the "evil" that we see is thus a product of ourselves, we cannot dismiss the concept of the Judeo-Christian God as contradictory. The alleged contradiction is fundamentally flawed. It misstates the nature of God. Yes, He is good. But He is not selectively good. He is no respecter of person; He is fair. He doesn't force anyone to do anything, or take away their choice to do so. When you read the entire Bible, what you find is that He already had angels to keep Him company. What He wanted was something more, a companion that would choose to be His friend. This whole creation would be for nothing if it didn't allow people to "feel after Him" and seek the real truth. That's the power of it; that's the beauty of it. The biggest flaw with atheism, though, despite it usually being founded on a erroneous assumption, is that it is inconsistent with nature. If there is no God, then we evolved, plain and simple. There can be no other explanation, no matter how ludicrous the chances are. (See <a href="creation.html">my study</a> on that topic as well.) But the problem is that evolution cannot explain morals or, more specifically, virtue. Virtue is universally held in high esteem throughout culture and time. Courage, chivalry, honor, loyalty. These are all powerful, cherished, and desired attributes. Evolution cannot account for them. Indeed, perhaps the highest of all ideals, living for something besides one's self, i.e. religion, is completely inexplicable in the framework of evolution. If we really evolved, then the point of our existence would be to further our selves while hindering others. Survival of the fittest, right? We would be nothing more than animals. There would be no concept of fraternity or sorority. No helping one another. If one of us were sick, we would leave them. If one of us had something the other wanted, we would kill them and take it. (Well, that used to be a lot more foreign concept. Seems like we're going backwards not forwards. Again, evolution can't explain that, but the Bible predicted it would happen 2000 years ago.) If one of us were being shot, we would watch from a distance, like gazelles gazing at their fallen brothers at the hands of lions. Yes, most of us would run away from a gunman, but we all would admire the guy who would die trying to stop it. Evolution is at a loss to explain why that is. We must therefore conclude that we were created - or at the least evolved with a consciously-good influence from an outside force - in order to have the ideals we do. There are many other things I could talk about here, but they pertain more to why to believe like I do rather than why not to believe atheistically, and will someday take their own page. However, I think my point is clear: atheism is inconsistent, both with its grounding, and with its context. Consider the following: Ecclesiastes 1:13, "And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith."

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

It seems to me that atheism is a diversion from what's really being discussed. atheism.html false 10

1 Atheism

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

I believe that water baptism by immersion under the name of Jesus is an essential step in salvation. It is my hope that the Bible could speak for itself on this issue, as I think it's fairly straightforward. Again, like my studies on <a href= "spirit.html">Spirit Baptism</a> and the <a href= "godhead.html">Godhead</a>, I encourage the reader to get out a Bible and follow along. 1 Peter 3:20-21, "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" Notice the phrase "saved by water." In a "like figure," baptism now saves us. Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." "And is baptized" Here we see that baptism is essential. There are indeed many steps of salvation. One can hardly simply be baptized and be saved without believing, as this scripture also states. Indeed, it takes <a href= "http://www.campusfire.net/7steps/7steps.htm">a lot of other steps</a> to complete the salvation process, including enduring till the end. Acts 10:47-48, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Here we see that the Apostles "commanded baptism," which again indicates its importance to the salvation process. Matthew 3:13-16, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:" "Fulfill all righteousness." Once again we see baptism as a step of salvation, and this time we see the manner in which people were baptized: by immersion. In fact, the word baptize comes from an Anglicization of the Greek "baptizo" which literally means "immersed." Baptism by sprinkling simply isn't scriptural. Every time people are baptized in the Bible, it's by immersion in water, a practice was maintained through the first couple hundred years of Christianity until the Catholic Church became the church of state and changed not only the practice, but the "formula" as well. We will deal with the latter, later. Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." "For the remission of sins." Yet again baptism is stated as a step of salvation. In this case, the apostles command baptism in the name of Jesus, which is indeed done throughout the book of Acts, as in the following example: Acts 19:1-7, "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve." Apparently, Paul thought baptism in the name of the Lord was important enough that he re-baptized these believers. As it says, John's baptism was one of repentance, or being remorseful for one's sins. Baptism in the name of Jesus was for the remission of these sins, the actual shedding and forgetting of them. Jesus himself commanded the apostles to baptize everyone: Matthew 28:19-20, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen." Now this last point leads to some confusion on the "formula" for baptism, that is whether one should be baptized by saying in the name of "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," as in this scripture or "Jesus," as in Acts 2:38. If there is a question in your mind about this apparent contradiction in the scriptures, understand that the apostles were not confused. Every time someone is baptised in the scriptures, it's in the name of Jesus. I think we can all agree that what the apostles did in the Bible is the right way of doing things. If they got baptism wrong, how can we trust anything they wrote in the epistles? Why then do people baptise in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?" In fact why would someone supposedly baptise in the name of someone, and then not mention a name, but rather titles? It's simply unscriptural. All the Bible must be taken as true. Therfore, when Matthew records the commandment to baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but the apostles apply it as Jesus, what does this say about the Godhead? It says that these two statements must be equal. That Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. If you are still confused by this, please refer to my study on the nature of the <a href= "godhead.html">Godhead</a>. At its heart, it is almost wholly devoted to speaking to this point.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

On the doctrine of water baptism. baptism.html false 11

2 Water Baptism

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

2 Peter 1:21, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The Holy Bible describes itself as the words of an infinitely powerful being who created and controls everything. A God, with a capital G, if you will. In fact, from this scripture: John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." We can see that these words and this God are essentially the same. The bible claims this God never lies in any way. It just so happens that this book also describes a vast amount of history which may be cross referenced to fact. If these references are error, we can dismiss its description of this God claim without further consideration. The Bible has been passed throughout the centuries in various written forms. It also claims that its God never changes. If we can find that the Bible has been substantially changed in this course, we can dismiss its claim without further study. The Bible talks more about morality than anything else. It claims that this God is absolutely pure and holy, completely without sin. If we can find that the Bible contradicts basic human decency, we can dismiss its God without further contemplation. What one will find, however, on close scrutiny of the bible, is that one cannot readily prove that there are problems with its facts and subject matter. Therefore, one cannot readily dismiss its claim that there is One all-powerful entity that created and controls everything, seen and unseen. The bible simply doesn't give us a reason to doubt what it says from a historical, archeological, or contextual basis. If there is then no basis on which the bible can be dismissed, then, because it makes the claim that it is Truth, one is forced into a decision about what to do about this God. What I present, in this part of my web, are the reasons that you cannot simply dismiss the Bible. The facts are in place, it's basically what the people who wrote it penned originally, and it is coherent in its approach. These pages are the result of much personal study. I taught a little seminar at my church based my research and notes. When the class was over, I summarized it in these articles. I have tried to break it up into readable chunks. Remember, you were warned on the front page about my depth. Also, more than any other part of my site, I want to say that this matrial is copyrighted by myself, and I reserve all rights to it. Use the child links below (or this one) to <a href= "disclaimer.html">start</a>.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

The Bible and why you can trust it. bible.html false 14

1 Bible

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

Acroyd, P. R. and C. F. Evans. The Cambridge History of the Bible. Cambridge: University Printing House, 1970. Blaiklock, E. M. The Archaeology of the New Testament. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984. Encarta '95. Microsoft® Corporation, 1994. Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1991. Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Jerusalem Ltd., 1972. Ewert, David. A General Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. Grant, Robert M., and David Noel Freedman. The Secret Sayings of Jesus. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1960. Harmon, Nolar B. et. al. eds. The Interpreter's Bible. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952. Kelly, J. N. D. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Komroff, Manuel ed. The Authorized Version of the Apocrypha. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1936. Meyer, Marvin W. The Secret Teachings of Jesus. New York: Random House, 1984. The New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. [ <a href="canonicity.html">BACK</a> ] [ <a href= "bible.html">UP</a> ] [ <a href="glossary.html">NEXT</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

The bibliography that came out of this study. bibliography.html false 15

5 Bibliography

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

The basic belief of Christians about the Bible is that it is the inspired Word of God as written -- and copied and translated -- by men. We have seen the main road the Bible has taken to get to us, but what of its difficult journey? How do we know we have the ideals, the theology, and the actual facts that the writers originally intended? Since we know that we do not have access to any of these writings in their original forms, what can we say of their copies and translations? We also know that the church of the first and second centuries was mercilessly persecuted by the Roman Caesar and the church of the middle ages was similarly repressed by the Roman Pope. The scriptures were therefore anything but numerous. Combine this with the time and difficulty then involved with traveling and permitting correlation between groups of Christians, and you can see that, until the introduction of the printing press, the accurate transmission of the New Testament text was sometimes a tricky thing to accomplish. So how can we know that we have the Bible as God intended us to have it? First a review of the "acknowledgment" of the canon. I use the word acknowledgment because our acceptation of the scriptures that make up the canon is really what is at question. The scriptures that have been genuinely inspired by the Holy Ghost are canonical, those that weren't are not. Our judgment of their "canonicity" really has no relation to their actual status. The burden is upon us to realize their authority. There are some generally accepted rules that allow us to investigate a book of scripture to determine its status based on its conformity to these criteria. These are: <ul> <li>Apostolicity = Was the author an apostle or some other close source to the events or ideas written about?</li> <li>Content = Was the subject matter and the treatment given it of the caliber normally associated with scripture?</li> <li>Universality = Was the content applicable to any and every Christian, or did the work seem to favor a particular viewpoint?</li> <li>Divine Inspiration = Did the Holy Ghost endorse it? Did it agree with other scripture?</li> </ul> Several of the books of our New Testament were questioned early in church history. They were Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, James, and Jude. The authorship of these works were questioned more than any other factor. Most start by saying that they have been written by a "servant" of Jesus, not an apostle, as Paul does in his letters. It is not insignificant to note that even if an author says he IS an apostle, he might not be. Furthermore, the book of James is addressed to Jewish Christians, making it questionable on another point. The book of Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, an obviously well-known book, but one that is not included in the Old Testament canon. In any case, the writers themselves knew what they were doing, and it is in part because of this, that the New Testament scriptures have come to be recognized as canonical. The writer of 2nd Peter claims inspiration for Paul's letters in 3:15,16. Paul quotes in 1st Timothy 5:18 that "The laborer is worthy of his hire," an expression that only occurs in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7. Paul personally claimed divine inspiration several times (c.f. 1st Corinthians 2:7-13, 14:37; 1st Thessalonians 2:13), as did John in The Revelation. Paul intended his letters to be read in the churches (c.f. Colossians 4:16; 1st Thessalonians 5:27; 2nd Thessalonians 2:15). Peter wrote that his teachings should last (c.f. 2nd Peter 1:15, 3:1,2). In the case of all of these questioned books, though, the witness of their inspiration became evident over time and they all came to be accepted as scripture. In the West, this general consensus happened around 400 A.D., helped in part by the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397, which declared our present 27 books of scripture as the canon of the New Testament. Consensus congealed in the East around 500 A.D. With the question of which books to include in the Bible settled, it still remains to obtain the best reading of the various manuscripts in existence. Now understand that of any ancient literary work, the Bible is the most well attested, most cross referenced and verified, and most supported by archeology. Though the original works are no longer available, we have copies that sometimes date back to the second century: perhaps copies of copies of the originals. Considering the amount of credence which is given to works by Homer and Shakespeare, whose works were transmitted orally for decades before being written down, biblical scholarship should have more respect. But in all honesty, though many express just such an opinion, the truth is that no other work but the Bible needs the closest scrutiny we can apply, because no other work matters as much. Modern discoveries have provided over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament books. Most are fractional, given to corruption by time and elements, but many are very nearly complete and in good condition, even for a written document that is centuries old. The problem is that, while there is good agreement with these various copies, they were copied by men: men who make mistakes. It is an inescapable fact of life. And so these copies do express differences. Many people stop there and declare that it thus proven that we cannot rely on the Bible as the guide to life that it purports to be. But when the smoke screen of rhetoric is cleared away, one can see that the difficulties presented by the differing of the manuscripts are not insurmountable. <h4>Sources of error in the extant manuscripts</h4> <ol> <li>Singularities: Some sources simply have unique readings that cannot be cross referenced. These are usually insignificant modifications.</li> <li>Scribal</li> <li style="list-style: none"> <ol> <li>Intentional</li> <li style="list-style: none"> <ol> <li>Harmonization: Making similar passages identical. The copyist would think to improve the work adjusting a scripture that was almost the same as another. Most common in the synoptic gospels. Compare Matthew 12:13 and Mark 3:5. The earlier versions of the scripture in mark stop at "restored."</li> <li>Removal of heresy: Carefully guarding word order or word choice so that no reproach could be made against the doctrines of the Bible. See Luke 23:32. The comma makes it clear that only the 2 others are criminals, whereas one early reading says, "Also other criminals, two, were led away to be put to death with him," making it appear as though Jesus is also a criminal.</li> <li>Clarification: Where an explanatory note has crept into the text. See John 5:4. The better texts don't have this verse. It was inserted later for explanation.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Unintentional</li> <li style="list-style: none"> <ol> <li>Spelling and Skipped Lines: Sometimes lines can be skipped if they start or end the same. <ol> <li>Mark 10:46 has: "...to give his life a ransom for many. And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho ..."</li> <li>John 17:15 has: "I do not pray that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one."</li> </ol> </li> <li>Familiarization: Giving a passage the same reading as another without thinking. Completing the thought echoed somewhere else and not catching it.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> </li> <li>Editorial: Blending or otherwise modifying in order to preserve the thought, though it may change the reading. See Mark 9:49. Some texts have "For every one shall be salted with fire;" some have "For every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." The KJV is a combination of them both.</li> <li>Translation: Ambiguity brought out by translation that needs to be resolved can change, if but slightly, the meaning. See Matthew 26:27. "Drink of it all of you," or "All of you drink of it?" Which is correct? How much does it matter?</li> <li>Standardization: More of a vehicle to propagate the variant readings. Once the changes have been made, the "standard" version would circulate to the exclusion of other copies. This had the effect of making what might have been a clearer rendering more rare.</li> </ol> <h4>Guidelines for choosing the best text</h4> <ol> <li>Old Methods</li> <li style="list-style: none"> <ol> <li>Custom: Simply following what was already in practice. Say, choosing a KJV rendering when a slightly better one might be had in the NIV, but doing so in order to maintain uniformity.</li> <li>Majority opinion: Just because everyone says that a particular reading is the best does not make it the best. Nor would the fact (as witnessed by point 5 above) that a particular reading had the largest number of copies made of it be grounds for acceptance as the best.</li> <li>Date: Just because a manuscript is old does not necessarily mean it is closer to the original. The early copy may have been made from a poor, though earlier, copy. Conversely, an older text may have been copied from a very accurate copy.</li> <li>Quality: Biblical experts classify the manuscripts into "genealogical" trees. It would seem that particular families of texts could be trusted more than others, but this is not the case. By following the texts very closely, the original complete texts can be seen to be an agglutination of families that may or may not have been copied well. Thus many MS are to hodgepodge in their attempt at conformity to the original to classify as "good" or "bad."</li> <li>Genealogy: The problem described above manifests itself as an obstruction to tracing the roots of particular MS, again stifling the efforts at finding the best text. Just because the MS reads like another doesn't mean it won't be a poorer copy later in the text.</li> <li>Quotation: Many times the New Testament has been cross-referenced by the way the early church "fathers" quoted it in their writings. It is now known that they frequently cited the same passages differently than other writers and even sometimes differently in their own writings at a different time. Because they were closer to the time of the writings, it was assumed that they had better texts, copies of which agreed with one another well. Modern scholarship has shown that this may not have been the case.</li> <li>Geography: Again, the "family tree" of the copy cannot be judged by where it was found. Just because a manuscript was unearthed at Jerusalem doesn't mean it came straight down from a close source or that it was copied from a good manuscript.</li> </ol> </li> <li>New Methods</li> <li style="list-style: none"> <ol> <li>External Evidence: Comparing copies with others in the "tree;" though the assumptions that have long been held in practicing this procedure are now seen as not necessarily true.</li> <li>Internal Evidence: Hort of the Hort & Wescott standard Greek New Testament has 2 rules he follows in putting together the best reading from all of the available manuscripts:</li> <li style="list-style: none"> <ol> <li>Intrinsic Probability = The reading is to be preferred which best suits the context. Thus, for a confusing reading, what -- in the vein of the discourse - is expected? This guiding principle requires the complete understanding of the author of the book as well as its intended audience and purpose. It also requires a perfect grasp of the idiom, or the grammatical, syntactical, and stylistic considerations of the language at hand.</li> <li>Transcriptural Probability = The reading is to be preferred which explains the origin of all of the others. Again, for several varied readings, what one reading might have caused this variation? This guiding idea requires full knowledge of the historical setting - the time and the place - in which the work was produced - both originally and the from the setting of the copy - in order to understand why a variant reading might have been produced.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Conjectural Emendation: "Best guess fixing." When the biblical scholar has exhausted the suggestions the first 2 rules might have provided, it is time to use his best judgment. To use unqualified judgments is as bad as to never use them at all. Given the state of the manuscripts, such situations will occur. However, in the light of today's discoveries, such need has dwindled to an appreciable low. Earnest C. Colwell, President of the University of Chicago, says, "... it is seldom that a modern edition of the New Testament will contain more than 2 or 3 conjectures. For in the wealth of the manuscript evidence, it is probable that the original reading has survived."</li> </ol> </li> </ol> As an example of these modern methods, we will review the text from 1st Corinthians 15:51. Codex Vaticanus has, "We shall not all sleep, but shall all be changed." Codex Sinaiticus reads, "We shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed." Codex Bezae: "We shall all be raised, but we shall not all be changed." The Beatty Papyrus has, "We shall not all sleep, and we shall not all be changed." Because Vaticanus has the more challenging theological implications, and because one can find a way to explain the others by it, and because it is the most well known and widely attested, it is the reading to be preferred. The King James settles on, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." [ <a href="dss.html">BACK</a> ] [ <a href= "bible.html">UP</a> ] [ <a href="bibliography.html">NEXT</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Canonicity and what it means. canonicity.html false 16

4 Canonicity

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

The other week, some friends and I gathered at another friend's place of work to play video games. There were about 5 of us gathered together in one room, and one other person within earshot in another office. While we waited for the server to get everything set up between levels, we would type things on the screen back and forth. (We were playing Rogue Spear.) Sometimes witty, sometimes stupid, we just typed away. After about 3 occasions of this, I asked the simple question, "Why are we typing to each other when we're all sitting in the same room?" Everyone made a chagrined laugh. Indeed, I wondered if it weren't some sort of testament to how technology has changed our approach to interaction, dehumanizing it in a non-repairable way. There have been rare occasions when I have wanted to try my hand at real chatting, so I jumped on EFNet, and tried out some obvious rooms like #quake, #linux, #windowsnt, or #beos. But the one thing that never ceases to amaze me about chatting is the surprising lack of anything worthwhile actually happening there. There are exceptions, of course, but I can count them on a few fingers, not even a whole hand. What is that saying? What does that mean? Why do I find such a disturbing lack of intelligence - or even basic humanness - in chat rooms? Let's take #linux, for example. If it isn't set to invite only, the main reason I would want to get on is to ask a question. I figure someone out of the roughly 150 people on that channel on a normal night is going to know the answer to a question that I, a knowledgeable, but not expert, user would have. But, do you know how useful this has proven? I think I've gotten a straight and simple answer to a question once or maybe twice out of the dozen times I've tried. I've just given up. The response I usually get is nothing. I take that to mean that no one knows the answer. And, given some of the general questions I've asked, I can extrapolate what's really happening. Nobody on #linux knows anything beyond what's in the FAQ's and the HOWTO's, and even that knowledge is sparse. I say that for two reasons. The first is that Linux is extensively documented. It takes an exceptional person to have accumulated more knowledge and experience than that which is represented in the documents that come with the system. Therefore, if you have a problem that the docs don't cover, then you have a Good Question™. And that leads to the second reason: the only people who can answer a question like that are actually doing something with Linux, not sitting around in a chat room talking about doing something with it. There's also another issue factoring into this equation. Like some sort of fraternity hazing, those that can get Linux installed and usable for more than just Netscape browsing have paid a price, joined a club, are in a secret society. There's a powerful psychological force involved here. Any time a person pays a high price to get "into" something, after they have completed it, they will promulgate the thing despite any contrary reasoning. It applies to operating systems and religious cults the same. (See my <a href="religion.html">religion</a> section for a lot more on this.) It perfectly explains the religious zeal of the Linux people in IRC rooms devoted to it, but it goes a step further. I'll come back to this in a second. But that's not all. It gets worse. See, IRC has this thing called a channel operator. Operators are supposed to "police" the channel. You know, keep the conversation on topic. Exclude racial slurs. Douse flame wars. That sort of thing. Most channels have several. In fact, a channel like #linux or #quake might have more ops than regular users. And this leads to a certain amount of anarchy, instead of bringing the harmony for which it was designed. There are always a core of people (through means outside the scope of this rant) that "own" the channel, and will always be ops. Then there are others - their "friends" - that get given the power temporarily. "And they tell two friends, and so on, and so on." Then, with so many people given full control over the channel, they feel they have to differentiate themselves somehow. On any popular channel, you're going to have rules about what is allowed and what isn't. That's fine. As long as there's a place to get an FAQ so that you can avoid things that are taboo. Just such an FAQ exists for #linux. One of the rules of the channel is that you cannot post colored text. This is because it can really screw up the text-mode IRC clients that some people use on that channel. Okay. We can debate why anyone would want a text-mode IRC client when it's simple enough to get a windowed GUI going on even the lowliest Linux box, but whatever. I can respect this. But because some immature person wants to experience the "power" of having ops on a channel, they start making up ludicrous rules, and acting like these rules are set in stone, just so that they can feel justified when they kick someone for breaking them. I've been banned (kicked so that you can't come back, usually for a day, maybe a week) for changing my nick to include "away," which is a standard practice to show that you are away from the keyboard. Now how stupid is that? What kind of human being sits around banning people for changing their nick? Exactly. Want to talk about Quake and it's derivatives? Don't go to #quake. That's an exclusive club of people that will ban someone in a heartbeat for talking about anything other than what they want to talk about, which is usually just a bunch of vulgar nonsense. All discussion of the video game Quake and its derivatives has been abandoned long ago. Um, what's the point of holding a perfectly good channel name hostage? It's like getting the first .com address about some trademark name that should have a real web presence, only to put pornography on it. Remember that point about people paying a high price for something, how that they become "proselytized" by the experience? It doesn't just apply to OS zealotry. It also applies to channel ops in general. In this case, you have to learn about channel bots and fserves, modes, aliases, and scripts. And, most of all, network "terrorism," i.e. exploits based on well-known Windows bugs that can crash people's machines and defenses against them. After you've learned all of that, it makes you want to show that you know just so much more than the next guy, and that leads to channel abuse. The whole business of chatting is enticing because it's a new medium of expression and experience, and I'll talk more about that in a minute too. However, it's also showing itself to be a place where the anonymity of the chatter brings out the worst in people. I've met a die-hard chatter. He spent all day, every day in a channel devoted to pirated software, for both the PC and the Playstation. He had hundreds of CD's of illegal software, and he used the channel for trading it and for human interaction. He wasn't an operator, and it seemed that it was his life's goal to attain that privilege. He begged people to let him be an op. He promised people things. He went so far as to try to turn his own company's computers into a public storage place for this stolen software, just so that the ops would let him become one of them. However, he was let go before he could get this done because he wasn't doing his job; he was spending all of his time on IRC! And I think that this sort of attitude, mindset, and level of responsibility is typical in the people that hang out on these channels. When you go to a new channel over the course of a couple weeks, notice the nicks that are always there. And I mean always. That's literally the way it works. In order to keep people from "taking over a channel," operators must always be online (for reasons that, again, are outside of my scope). And not just that, but they usually aren't far away from their keyboards either. I've checked on #quake. I've gotten on at work, at home, in the middle of the night, and in the wee hours of the morning just to check this, and the same people are always there, talking about nothing. If you try to talk about something, you're usually ignored. If you try to take part in their banter, you're usually ignored. The people who are always there, that's their life. That's who they are and what they do. And there's no chance at becoming part of that unless you too are willing to devote all your time to being online. It's really sad. Instead of a place where people of similar interest can get together to talk about something, IRC has become a place for people to spend their entire lives, and that prevents others from using channels the way it ought to be used. I think the entire trend will continue. I see that the next Big Thing™ in gaming is online competition. But it's not just with Quake and games like it. There's a quiet evolution going on with games like Diablo and Everquest. They are an extension of the MUD's and MUSH's of years ago. All these things are coming together to form an actual simulated experience. There will come a time when we will all have headsets and maybe gloves for getting online, and it will be a 3D, real-time, audio-visual experience instead of the text-mode or gaming things we have now. The virtual community concept that AOL has been working on so hard for so many years will achieve "maturation" in this setting. Instead of text chat, you can go to rooms that represent places, like cities or nightclubs or parks, as well as interests. You'll see and hear people instead of typing. It could be a truly cool thing. I suppose the end of this evolution would be a "jack" into which goes a plug that connects you to this virtual network, just like in <a href="matrix.html">The Matrix</a>. Unfortunately, unless something happens to change the way people understand and interact with these kinds of things, the problems with them will only exacerbate.  The extrapolations should be clear. For instance, take "cybersex" to this level. Ugh. I get sick just thinking about it. And as people become less and less experienced dealing with each other in a truly social way, they will become less and less responsible in the digital realm. In real life, when you make someone mad enough with your ignorance or stupidity, you get socked in the nose, and maybe rightfully so. In IRC, you can get away with any amount of nonsense as long as you are a channel op. So people don't have any fear. And some fear, about losing a job, or getting hit, or doing something that would offend one of your other friends, is a healthy thing. It keeps people polite. When that fear is gone, gone too are the social standards that keep people from doing stupid things. IRC isn't going away. Neither are other forms of online interaction. In fact, they are going to continue to expand until they are our primary form of entertainment. But aside from this antiquated notion of "netiquette" that no one cares about any more, what's to be done to keep things civil? That's simple. It still all boils down to the golden rule. Just treat people online like you would want to be treated. Don't say or write anything that you wouldn't want read back to you in a court of law. And just be nice. Unfortunately, these ideals are becoming more and more scarce. As an aside, I don't know which came first - as a matter of history in the industrial age - the apathy or the technology. I don't guess it matters now. It seems to be a self-feeding cycle. I suppose it'll be like it is now, only to the next power. Some 100,000 channels of entertainment, and nothing worth watching. So we'll dial in the exact thing that we are interested in, and be so exclusive in our hedonism that we'll forget how to interact with others, and we'll all become like that chick in The Net. /quit Disgusted.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

The wasteland that is IRC. chatting.html false 17

5 Chatting

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

<img style="float: left" src="../../images/church_button.gif" border="0" alt="My Church" width="100" height="100" /> I attend The World of Pentecost, pastored by Reverend Dan C. Mitchell, in Columbus, Indiana. We have a weekly worship service at 2:00 on Sunday afternoons. If that sounds odd, consider how much effort it is to make Sunday a day of rest when you have to be at church by 9:00 a.m. Pastor Mitchell considers time with the family to be of utmost importance, and this schedule allows us to wake up pleasantly and have breakfast, worship God with a clear head and energetic heart, and then spend the evening in fellowship with friends and family over a relaxing dinner. The bible says that "wisdom is justified of her children" (Luke 7:35) and this has certainly proven the case. It's a joy to go to church at The World of Pentecost. Pastor Mitchell teaches a "balanced fervency" about living for God. There's a ditch on both sides of the road, as he says. Too lenient, and you'll lose your soul and miss out on your mission. Too harsh, and you'll burn out trying to live what no one can, and you'll force people away from God. It's all about Spirit and Truth, both together at the same time. The bible says "let your moderation be known unto all men" (Phillipians 4:5), but it also says that you should be "stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:58). Pastor Mitchell's wisdom and compassion are simply too large to be spoken of here. I have never met a bigger man. Many people fault the Pentecostal movement as cultish because we tend to place our spiritual leaders on a pedestal, but I'll say this: I can find no fault in the person of Pastor Mitchell. I have never - in almost 18 years of attending this church - and being around him a lot personally besides this - ever seen him make a rash decision, lose his temper, or belittle someone, even when everything else would say that he had a "right" to. He recently has spoken on the scripture in Proverbs 16:32 (much to my conviction), and I can promise that I have never met anyone more qualified to teach the subject. <img src="../../images/wop_logo.gif" border="0" alt="The World of Pentecost Logo" />

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

A brief introduction to my church. church.html false 18

3 My Church

2009-03-23T17:56:21-07:00

Well, you'd just about have to have lived under a rock not to know what happened with the Presidential scandal over Miss Lewisnki. And, you'd probably have to be about brain dead not to have an opinion. I want to know how anyone can think that this is acceptable behavior. If we ignore all the rest of the scandals that have dogged the Clintons... If we ignore the fact that they have obviously lied their way around them... If we ignore the fact that we knew Clinton was a womanizer before we elected him... Even if we ignore all of these things, how can we accept what happened in the Oval Office? It's wrong. And it's wrong either way you look at it. <ol> <li>Morally, the indictments themselves: What CEO in America wouldn't be out of a job in 2 minutes if even half of the things the President is accused of were even half substantiated by circumstantial evidence? That the nation's top officer had any kind of sexual relationship with any employee is reprehensible. That it was this or that kind of sex is absolutely immaterial. That it was a young intern - something like this man's daughter's age - only worsens this situation. We as a nation ought to oust Bill Clinton for this alone.</li> <li>Legally, the cover-up: How many parents would be proud of a child that lied to them for months, and admitted to it only when proven to have lied? How many parents would be satisfied with the kind of admission we received, which contained no real apology, and, further, told us that it was none of our business? That this man used every resource in his control - other employees, friends in the press, political allies, the Secret Service - to try to keep this secret only worsens this situation. We as a nation ought to oust Bill Clinton for this alone.</li> </ol> Our forefathers are turning in their graves. If the Founding Fathers were to come back today, they wouldn't recognize this America. This is not what they had in mind. This is not what they gave their lives to found and foster. The fact that America's figurehead not only lies, but stands on lying like it was a principle, bewilders me. How can anyone base their life on lying? Then we as a nation make that one bewildering person our leader? I can't follow that. I am numb to that decision. It goes against everything that our nation was built on. One nation, under God, who still considers a "lying tongue" and a "false witness" to be abominable in his sight (Prov 6:16,17,19.) And who still considers sex outside of marriage fornication, and promises that all who do it will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Co 6:9,10.) Get this straight: I don't care if other people are doing or have done it. The fact that it's not public should not make it any less of a shame. God punishes sins, known or unknown. He will ultimately balance the scales with everyone, and He will deal with Bill's indiscretions as well as mine. But we as a nation must deal with his crimes. We cannot punish crimes of which that we have no knowledge. And if we are to maintain an ordered society, truth must be paramount. Lying - in the form of perjury - must be tried and punished, else how will we judge anything? If people can lie to the Court, how can we find justice in any proceeding, be it murder, rape, or theft? We know that Bill Clinton has lied to the Court. By law, it simply must be punished. <img border="0" src="/images/separator.gif" width="300" height="10"> However, let me respond to the most obvious problem with my discourse. I must say that I find it ironic that the man who first stepped up to to call for Clinton's resignation was Dan Burton (R, IN.) A man who had an affair himself many years ago, and further, had a child from it. That is a shame just the same. But Mr. Burton has done what he could to make it right. He has protected the name of the mother and child, and paid child support all these years. And he didn't lie to the Court about it. We also now know that the man who leads the House Judiciary Committee, which drafted the Articles of Impeachment, one Henry Hyde, also had an affair, this time with a married woman. The five-and-a-half year affair destroyed a marriage and a family of three children. That is also a shame. I don't know how it ended, so I can't comment on how Mr. Hyde handled the mistake. But he didn't lie to the court about it. What is really interesting about all three of these cases (including Clinton) is that all three lied to their wives, hence they lied to me as a part of the public they swore to serve. I still maintain that most people don't have affairs (they just get divorces and remarry), and I expect people in office to be a cut above the norm, not a cut below. In politics, a divorce is a heavy burden, so, I guess, legislators just stay married and have affairs. That makes them liars. When they got married, they promised to be faithful (at least, every set of vows I have ever heard include that sentiment), and they broke that promise, not just to their spouse, but probably to God as well. I understand people make mistakes, and I can forgive them. But there is the matter of reaping what you sow, and our laws our clear. Who knows what skeletons other legislators have in their closets? I certainly have done things that I have regretted. But now I want desperately to live a life that God can be proud of. One thing I will do is admit when I am wrong and make every effort to right that wrong. Another is that I will not lie to the Court about it. But ultimately, there remains a decision to be made on what to do with these Republicans who have admitted their own indiscretions. And I can't say that I am swayed. I still think that the Republican party, overall, is the lesser of two evils. But this raises an interesting point. If I am willing to say that it's alright that these men have done these things by voting for them, am I not saying that all that matters is how they do their job, which - I hope - is in line with their party? But then, isn't that the same thing that I am finding so repugnant in the polls? That we as a nation could still approve of the job that the President is doing? So the bottom line for me is that we would all wear ourselves out fighting the moral battle with politicians. Who knows who is dirty? Most probably are in some way or another. At least, that's what the trend would suggest. But we can fight what we know, and when someone has broken the law, it's our moral obligation to try to bring that to justice. It doesn't matter that anyone or everyone else is doing it. It doesn't matter that the person involved might be the President. That's how our society was built. Anything less leads to anarchy. <img border="0" src="/images/separator.gif" width="300" height="10"> So while I find "the matter" reprehensible, and for many good reasons, I find myself in a tenuous position. One in which I could support a politician who has had an affair. That makes me a hypocrite, doesn't it? Well, before I concede that, let's take this discussion one step further. See I can forgive and forget on one condition, namely that the person who made the mistake admits it and repents. (For those unfamiliar with the term, to repent means to turn away from the wrong with a firm decision not to do it again.) God places the same restriction on forgiveness. To be forgiven, you must repent. That's what makes God "sit up and take notice" of your situation: a change of heart. I think I see a change of heart in Mr. Burton and Mr. Hyde, but I see no change in Bill Clinton. Nothing in anything he said to the public in all the time this was developing, and nothing he said after he had been caught, lead me to believe that he is truly sorry for what he has done or that he will not return to that lifestyle once this "matter" concludes. In fact, Linda Tripp told Larry King on his show that his philandering behavior continues to this day. (A point he dismissed as fast as it was raised. Time will tell.) I'm sorry, but no one can forgive Bill if he doesn't think he's done anything wrong. Some would say that his family will correct him... that now that they know, now that he has been discovered, they will compel him to lead a life above reproach. I can't buy that. We have to assume that rumors are true. We have to assume that Clinton has led this kind of life for many many years. That he has lied about it for the same length of time. And that might have worked for a liberal press who wouldn't follow up the matter, but it would not have worked - for all these years - on a family who lived with him. You just can't be that good of a liar. They knew. Hilary and Chelsea knew. That's a simple fact that everyone must see. So I don't think there's any compulsion to change coming from his family, unless it's just to be a better concealer of his indiscretions. What I'm saying is that I could vote for Mr. Hyde or Mr. Burton, being Republicans, as they have shown a repentance for their actions. That's forgiveness. If they came forward and said, "You know, I'm caught. I did it, but it's none of your business. And you know, the people who found me out are evil too," I wouldn't vote for them, because those aren't the words of someone who is sorry for what they've done. If I were a Democrat, and Bill had been truly apologetic, I would still want to vote for him. But I think a vote for him now is a vote for immorality and shame. Where there's no culpability, there's no change of action. Expect more deceitful behavior and more lies to cover it up.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

On Bill Clinton, and lying, adulterous politicians in general. clinton.html false 19

5 Bill Clinton

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

<img style="float: left;" src="../../images/computers_button.gif" border="0" alt="My Computers" width="100" height="100" />I like computers. All kinds. I constantly catch myself noticing computers in TV shows, advertisements, and movies. If I walk into someone's office, the first thing I notice is their computer. If I go to someone's personal web site, one of the first things I always want to know is what kind of hardware and software they use to make it. If I see someone with a computer in public, and even though I'm a card-carrying introvert, I might ask them about it. This page is where I talk about the computer hardware and software I use. <img style="float: left" src="../../images/gods_computer.gif" alt="The button says "Smite"" width="225" height="272" /> God at His Computer I prefer using Free Software of some kind. This winds up being "Linux" and related software, but I'm in favor of any sort of non-proprietary product unless otherwise demanded. I find that it usually works in ways that make more sense and is more robust. That being said, I'm a pragmatist. I was an "NT" zealot before I was a Linux "zealot," so I know how to use "Windows" to solve business problems, if need be, though those occasions are rare. Many of my friends and coworkers are using Macs these days, and that's great too. Anything that lessens Microsoft's grip on the computer world, and pushes the market back to a more level playing field is good, in my opinion. I wouldn't have a problem with Microsoft if they would only separate all the junk they bundle with Windows. Make IE a download. Sell their anti-malware product. Things like this would make it fair. Competitors would be allowed better access into the space, and Microsoft's quality would have to improve. It's a win-win for consumers. Of course, this won't happen, and if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't let it happen either. I'm not opposed to people actually liking Windows, but what irks me, in the broad hierarchy of computer nerdom, are the folks who see Linux and free software in a bad light when they haven't even tried it. They only know anything about it from badly-written, Microsoft-subsidized "technical writers" in the trade magazines. Oh, sure, maybe they installed it once, and then they couldn't figure out how to actually use it for anything because it didn't run Office -- not a document or a spreadsheet, mind you -- just not Office, and that was the end of that. At a company I worked at, I saw an internal Oracle DBA get passed over for a SQL Server job opening because the people he would have worked with didn't want him possibly making waves by suggesting that they use something other than a Microsoft product. Talk about being insecure! Sure, Microsoft gets used in a lot of companies, but I suspect it's usually because it's already entrenched by people who don't know about and can't use anything else. I maintain a CentOS-based Linux server at my <a href="church.html">church</a> which acts as a domain controller and file server for a large handful of PC's and Macs. We've run the gamut on the email and calendaring thing. We've started out with plain old imap and smtp for email. Then we did <a href="http://opengroupware.org">OpenGroupware</a> with its plugin for Outlook, <a href="http://www.skyrix.de/en/produkte/ZideLook/Zidelook.html">ZideLook</a>. Then we went to the free version of <a href="http://www.scalix.com/">Scalix</a>. Now we've moved on to a loose confederation of calendars on <a href="http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html">Google Apps</a>. Since I'm done needing to support a particular product on the server, I suppose I can move it to Ubuntu LTS when it's time to upgrade. Unfortunately, now I'm thinking about setting up a virtual machine on one of my servers to host an instance of <a href="http://www.zimbra.com">Zimbra</a>. For many years, I ran <a href="http://www.vmware.com/">VMware</a> for the infrequent need to run something under Windows. Mostly, this is just because of working with other people who need some troubleshooting for their Windows problems. Now I'm using <a href="http://www.virtualbox.org/">VirtualBox</a>. Since they've come out with their virtualized network driver, and you can run your VM's directly on the network without a bunch of bridging nonsense (just like VMware), it's become the better solution. It runs faster, and it's Free Software. I note here that I've finally had good success recently running a "business critical" app under <a href="http://www.winehq.org/">Wine</a>, which has basically eliminated my need for any sort of virtulizer anyway. I've recently begun using <a href="http://www.linux-kvm.org/">KVM</a> for virtualizing servers. If your processor supports it, this is a great way to run VM's on a server. (If your processor doesn't support the virtualizing extensions, you can still use vanilla Qemu, but be sure to use the kernel module.) I understand that you can use VirtualBox as a headless solution, but I've not tried it, and I know that VMware server (the free product) was designed for this. I still use a Windows partition on my home computer for playing games. For many years, I tried countless incarnations of <a href="http://www.codeweavers.com/">Crossover</a> and <a href="http://www.transgaming.com/">Cedega</a> to play my games. Despite all the great reviews and all the promises from the respective companies, I never had any luck. Crossover, in particular, has been great at running various pieces of Windows software for me, but the gaming thing just hasn't worked. For example, the best experience I had was Battlefield 2. It even ran noticeably faster under Cedega than Windows. Unfortunately, it was only after I got it all running that I figured out that Cedega didn't support PunkBuster, and likely never will, meaning that online multiplayer was out of the question.   <table class="info" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <th width="10%"> Computer</th><th width="40%"> Hardware</th> <th width="40%"> Software</th> </tr> <tr> <td>Computer 1 (enterprise)</td> <td>Asus Striker II Formula Motherboard Intel Core 2 Duo E8400, Tuniq Tower cooling fan, 2x Asus 8800GT 512 MB video card, 4x Corsair Dominator PC2 8500 2GB, 2x Maxtor Raptor 75GB 10K RPM SATA HDD (striped), Sony Optiarc SATA DVD±R, Sony Optiarc SATA DVD-ROM, onboard Intel High-Def audio, onboard nForce NIC, Cooler Master RS-850 power supply, Cooler Master RC-690 case, HP M900 19" monitor, Logitech G15 keyboard, Logitech MX Revolution mouse, Altec Lansing 200W speakers & subwoofer, APC Back-UPS 650</td> <td><a href="http://ubuntu.com">Ubuntu Linux 9.10</a> (amd64) Normal desktop with the notable addition of VirtualBox. Windows 7 Ultimate <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/"></a>Games. At the time of this update: Fallout 3, BioShock 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, Borderlands, et. al.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Computer 2 (reliant)</td> <td>Gateway G6-366c Celeron 366 MHz, 384 MB RAM, 7.6 GB HDD, CD-ROM, floppy, Intel EtherExpress Pro100 NIC, 3Com 3c905B NIC, Via VT86C100A (Rhine) NIC, 3DLabs Oxygen VX1 video card </td> <td>Ubuntu Linux 9.10 (x86) This is my firewall, DNS server, DHCP server, filtering proxy, etc. </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Computer 3 (excelsior)</td> <td>Tyan S2469  Dual Athlon Motherboard 2x Athlon 2800+ MP, 1 GB RAM, 3ware 7506-4LP RAID controller, 4x 40 GB parallel IDE drive, integrated ATI Rage XL video card, integrated Intel EtherExpress Pro100 NIC, <a href="http://www.digium.com/index.php?menu=product_detail&category=hardware&product=TDM400P">Digium TDM400P</a> telephony card, HP LaserJet 6L printer</td> <td>Ubuntu Linux 9.10 (x86) This is my file server, Windows domain controller, and internal webapp server. It was an Asterisk PBX until lightning blew a port in my telephony card, and I just haven't gotten it fixed. </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Computer 4 (exeter)</td> <td>Asus CUV4X-DLS Dual PIII Motherboard 2x Intel PIII (Coppermine), 768 MB RAM, 18 GB HDD, Matrox Millenium video card, integrated Intel EtherExpress Pro 100 NIC, CD-ROM, floppy</td> <td>Ubuntu Linux 8.04 (x86) This is my email server, running <a href="http://www.zimbra.com/">Zimbra Collaboration Suite</a> FOSS. </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Computer 5 (voyager)</td> <td>Acer Aspire AMD Sempron 3300+, 768 MB RAM, nVidia GeForce 6200 video card, onboard Realtek 8139 NIC, 10 GB HDD, 150 GB HDD, DVD-ROM/CD-RW, multi-format memory card reader, IR serial cable, generic programmable remote, Logitech wireless keyboard </td> <td><a href="http://www.mythbuntu.org/">Mythbuntu</a> (x86) This is a homebrew PVR running <a href="http://www.mythtv.org/">MythTV</a>. I got this computer (and a printer) for about $300 after a TON of rebates, and I was worried that the wife and kids wouldn't see the value. Turns out that MythTV has been the single biggest hit of all the "computer" stuff I've done for the family. It is seriously cool. </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Computer 6 (intrepid)</td> <td>Intel D915GAG Motherboard Intel Celeron D 2.8 GHz, 1.75 GB RAM, Radeon X1600 video card, 75 GB HDD, integrated Intel Pro/100 NIC, Antec case, Sony G-200 17" Trinitron monitor, Logitech gamepad, Saitek game pad, Epson CX3810 scanner/printer </td> <td>Windows XP Pro, SP3 This is my wife and kids' computer for "balancing the checkbook" and playing games. This has the usual stuff I put on Windows, plus emulators for NES, SNES, and MAME, and a few other games besides, like <a href="http://www.teeworlds.com/">TeeWorlds</a>. </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Computer 7 (adelphi)</td> <td>Abit KW-7 Motherboard AMD Sempron 3000+, 1.5 GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 6600 GT video card, 20 GB HDD, DVD-ROM, Antec 830 case, Digium TD400 telephony card </td> <td>Mythbuntu (x86) Providing another "head" for MythTV. </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Computer 8 (yamato)</td> <td>HP Vectra Intel PIII 1 GHz, 512 MB RAM, etc., and a National Instruments <a href="http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/1041">PCI-6070E</a> (linked here because I keep wanting to reference things about it)</td> <td>Windows XP Pro / CentOS 5 This is an ancient piece of cast off equipment, but it's all I need for a very special, top-secret, custom-built signal analysis project...</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Gaming Console (valiant)</td> <td>Stock Wii 2x remote and nunchuck combo, steering wheel, balance board</td> <td>Latest Update SW Clone Wars Light Saber Battles, SW Lego Complete Saga, Mario Kart, and other games that my daughter plays ;-) </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Netbook (discovery)</td> <td>Asus Eee 1000 Logitech bluetooth wireless mouse, Targus 10" portable DVD player car bag (which fits perfectly!)</td> <td>Ubuntu Netbook Remix 9.10 This is a computer just for the basics on the rare occasions that I'm away from either of my main machines at home or at work. Surprisingly, it can do anything a normal laptop can do, but it comes in especially handy for getting serial terminals on networking equipment. Even handles a secondary monitor as a dual head on the VGA port! </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Computer 9 </td> <td>Tyan Tomcat II Motherboard 2x Pentium 200, 128 MB RAM, 40X CD-ROM, 2x 4GB IDE HD, floppy, 3Com 3c509B 10 Mbps NIC, Matrox Mystique 8 MB video adapter, Yamaha OPL3 sound card, Canopus Pure3D Voodoo2 video card (Oh man, do I have a lot of hours on that V2 card. It's easily the best $300 I ever spent on a computer.) </td> <td width="40%" valign="top">Windows NT 4.0, SP6 I rebuilt this box for the fun of it, and it's now buried deep in a closet for posterity. I wanted to see how well it ran Windows NT 4.0 and Quake II after all this time. Pretty fair for the former; not as good as I remember for the latter. I guess my expectations have been permanently raised. </td> </tr> <tr> <td>"Computers" 10 & 11</td> <td>2x Commodore 64 2x 1541 floppy drive (one of which works), 1571 monitor, The Boss joystick (the only one I couldn't break), dot matrix printer, and lots of other things I don't want to dig out to catalog at the moment. One of these was mine from "back in the day;" the other I got third-hand from a buddy who didn't want it any more. </td> <td>Commodore 64 Basic V2 These things aren't worth a nickel on Ebay, even with all of their crap together and working, but it was fun to go through some old games and to pull off the stuff I had written all those years ago. </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Wireless Router (defiant)</td> <td>Linksys WRT54GL</td> <td><a href="http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index">DD-WRT</a> Just providing wireless with WPA2-Personal encryption. I still may make this my router/firewall eventually.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Personal Digital Assistant</td> <td>Treo 755p 2GB MB MiniSD Card (and USB card programmer)</td> <td>Palm OS 5 <a href="http://www.olivetree.com/">Olive Tree Bible Reader</a>, <a href="http://www.codejedi.com/">ShadowPlan</a> (with the GTK app that runs on Linux!), <a href="http://www.tussh.com/">TuSSH</a>.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <a href="../../images/home_computers.jpg"><img src="../../images/home_computers_small.jpg" border="0" alt="The home computers" /></a>

2008-10-26T23:30:06-07:00

All the computers and software that I use on a regular basis. computers.html false 20

1 My Computers

2010-03-07T06:37:00-08:00

<h4>Evolution</h4> <h3>Leading to the Theory of Evolution</h3> Most great men of science "stand on the shoulders" of those who have gone before them. Charles Darwin was no different than Isaac Newton (the man who said he stood on the shoulders of giants) in this regard. Many ideas were already in place concerning the mechanism of evolution, as Darwin would formulate it, before he ever took up the study. The reigning view of science in Darwin's day of the mid 1800's was that of Catastrophism. This theory held that changes in our world's biology and order were caused by major upheavals like the Flood and the Ice Age which interrupted long periods of relative stability. Long before Darwin ever started on his persual of biology, a man named Chevalier de Lamark had forwarded the idea that speciazation (the creation of a new species), instead of being caused by Catasptrophism, was instead caused by small changes introduced by habitual use. His most famous example was the giraffe. He proposed that the giraffe had developed its long neck because it constantly tried to reach the leaves higher on the tree, having eaten all the ones below them. His work has been debunked by modern understanding of genetics, but it gave science a start towards understanding the gradually-changing processes of the Earth. At this time in history, some original work was being done in the field of geology by a man named Charles Lyell. He suggested that older rocks lay below the surface, that small changes over time had shifted them into their positions, and that, by following these rock strata, we could develop the picture of what had transpired on the Earth. This idea introduced the concept of an Earth that had existed for eons. Similar ground-breaking progress was being done in the field of taxonomy (the grouping of plants and animals by their similarities) by a man named Carolus Linnaeus, who single-handedly inspected and classed over 18,000 species. This work raised the question of why the species were so closely related, and yet undeniably equipped to deal with their own individual environment. In yet another field, curiously enough population and demographics, we see the final thought that tied it all together. A man named Thomas Malthus put forth the idea that, in a population that is being pressured by food shortages, the people that are advantageously equipped - monetarily or physically - will be the ones who survive to pass on their genes. Darwin saw stunning confirmation of Lyell's geological suppositions in the African continent, islands, and reefs. He tested for deposits and marked where things tended to rise over time and where they settled. He found that volcanoes existed in the areas that rose, and did not exist in the areas that settled. This idea of volcanoes pushing up ground and earthquakes causing mountains and such is accepted as fact all over the world. Darwin went on to study the varying characteristics of species he witnessed in the areas he traveled. The most famous of all these examples, and the one he cites as giving him the idea, is the finches of the Galapagos Islands. These finches, fourteen separate species in all, each had a different beak. Each beak was appropriate to a certain food supply. Some beaks were good at getting bugs out of holes in trees and the ground, some were good for eating fish, some were good at cracking open nuts. This specialization spoke to Darwin of untold ages of adaptation that could explain the similarities in species and be in harmony with the concept that the Earth was older than the Bible implies that it is. His idea was evolution - not by use, but by chance mutation - spread by the mechanism of natural selection - was responsible for bringing about the diversity of life on the Earth. Only later did he claim that this process could be responsible for making mankind out of a single-celled organism. Soon after Darwin published his theory of Evolution, there came a chance to test it. In England, there exists a moth called the Peppered Moth. Its markings come in two styles: light and dark. Both of the moth colorations have existed and continue to exist to this day. The lighter-colored moth blends in with the coloration of the bark of the trees in lives around. This has the effect of rendering the lighter-colored moths harder for predators to see. Thus lighter-colored moths are more numerous in the total population of the moths. However, during the Industrial Revolution, when air pollution was new and as yet unaddressed, the bark of the trees in England were darkened by coal soot. The trees became the color of the darker-colored moths. This, of course, made them harder for predators to see, and, at the same time, made the lighter-colored moths easier to see. Thus the bulk of the moth population shifted to predominately dark-colored moths. The situation has reversed since that time, and the moth population now again favors lighter-colored moths. This is a strong point of evidence for the Evolutionist. It happened in nature without our (direct) influence and right before our eyes. <h3>Scientific Method</h3> The scientific method is a small loop of repetition. A good idea gives rise to a theory. That theory must agree with the evidence that gave the idea and make predictions about what will come of similar situations, testable predictions. This is crucial. If a theory does not make specific predictions, it, 1) cannot be tested to be true and, 2) is good for nothing anyway. Theories of electromagnetism and nuclear fission have given rise to microwaves, satellite TV, nuclear power, and nuclear waste. These theories have given us the ability to calculate how long it will take to defrost your 2.2 pounds of hamburger (my microwave can do this) and just how much carcinogenic material we will have to bury under a mile of concrete to get supposedly super-efficient energy from the atom. After testing the predictions the theory has made, one can either validate the theory, scrap the theory, or revise the theory according to the results obtained and try again. The golden rule in science is this: if the facts do not fit the theory, you should change the theory and try again. <ul> <li>Good Question</li> <li>Possible Answer</li> <li>Testable Prediction</li> <li>Logical Test</li> <li>Comparison Of The Results To The Prediction</li> <li>Modification Of The Theory</li> <li>Repeat</li> </ul> <h3>Mutation and Natural Selection</h3> It is not enough to say that species evolve. We must endeavor to understand how evolution occurred. The foremost idea presented by evolutionists today is that it happened by the processes of mutation and natural selection. The idea is basically this: A mutation is a deviation from the biological norm of a species. Most mutations will cause death early, if not immediately. Some mutations are not crippling, though neither do they confer an advantage. A few mutations actually give the inheritor an advantage over their competitors. Because of the advantage in surviving and/or mating, slight advantage is then passed on to future generations. Given enough time, mutations will be selected based on their advantageousness, and cause the species to develop into a better adapted kind of life, a new species. The implication is that Darwin's theory has a predictive element, as any theory must. The greatest opposition Darwin ever faced was from his scientific contemporaries. The geologists and paleontologists of his day were the loudest objectors to Darwin's theories. They maintained that species were immutable. Darwin himself admitted that his theory implied that "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." This was the qualitative prediction that the methods of science could test. If Darwin was right, we should have seen countless transitional forms in the fossil record. And so, against the opposition of many in the field at the time, Darwin's supporters turned their attention to finding the proof that surely must be there. <h3>Fossil Evidence for Evolution</h3> <ul> <li>Archaeopteryx: Still referenced today, this find was a major victory for Evolutionists. The fossilized remains of this animal are viewed as a cross between birds and reptiles. It was dated and found to have lived 150 million years ago. It showed how reptiles had developed bones suited for flight. Also, the feathers were found on this creature to be shorter, as if they were transforming into the longer feathers that birds possess today. Probably the most famous find of all paleontology, this specimen is hailed as a transitional form between reptiles and birds.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Horses: According to paleontologists, the transitions from a small dog-like animal to the tall, powerful creature we have today is well established in the fossil record. The original animal from which the horse sprang had 4 toes. The modern horse now has only 1. The transitions, they say, are present as well as several dead ends that apparently did not adapt as well as the ones that led to our modern version. Those have died out, showing natural selection at work.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Human Ancestors: Of all the creatures that we can observe transforming in the fossil record, mankind is, of course, the most interesting, pertinent, and well researched. Through many finds since Darwin put forth his theory, we have found evidence of man's evolution from the primates. Most everyone is probably familiar with the names of many of our ancestors. Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, Homo Erectus, etc. The finds have yielded archeological information as well, allowing us to accurately describe the societal conditions that existed back then. However, science is still looking for the "missing link," that one common ancestor from which the primates and man have branched...</li> </ul> <h3>Logic and Tautology</h3> First of all, let us correctly understand exactly what Darwin has supposed. When he said that the fittest survive, we must ask what he meant by "fittest." Who are the fittest? Those that are the best adapted for breeding the next generation of their species. Who survives? Those that are the best adapted for breeding the next generation of their species. Thus the fittest and those who survive are by definition the same. We have no new information in saying that those who are best able to survive and breed will be the ones who survive and breed. This is circular reasoning. It is often referred to as a "tautology." It is as obvious to Evolutionists as it is to anyone else. There are other ways to state the principles of evolution, but the point is that "survival of the fittest" really has no meaning. <h3>Mutations and Artificial Selection</h3> A species is defined as a group of creatures that cannot breed with another. For years, scientists have used the fruit fly in the laboratory to simulate evolution. The fly has a very short life span, but can produce many offspring rapidly. The entire population can turn over in a matter of days. Scientists use artificial selection to approximate natural selection. The idea is that they (the scientists) should be able to shave millions of years off the evolutionary time cycle through intelligent breeding. Thus, if evolution is a fact of the natural laws of this universe, we should be able to cause it to happen by giving nature the intelligence to push it in the right direction. However, this has not been found to be the case. Although scientists may indeed change many of the features of the flies: wing size (down to flightless forms, no kidding!), coloration, etc., they have never produced a new species. That is, they have never produced a new kind of fly that neither can breed with others like it, nor the parent population that brought it about. Thus, even though Evolution should be a demonstrable fact, actually generating a new species has never been accomplished. <h3>Problems in the Fossil Record</h3> When we go looking for Darwin's required transitional forms, we find that there exists two particularly huge gaps in the fossil record. Innumerable fossils of single-celled organisms, bacteria, and algae may be found in the Ediacaran, or Pre-Cambrian, Period. <a href="/images/timescale.gif"><img src= "/images/timescale_small.gif" alt= "Geological Period Timeline (54 Kb)" border="2" width="100" height= "74"></a> Similarly, countless fossils of complex invertebrates (sponges, snails, clams, jellyfish, etc.) can be found in the adjoining rock layer from the Cambrian Period. However, to this day, we can find no fossils that show the intermediate forms that the simple creatures must surely have progressed through to get to the complexity found in the adjacent rock layer. This gap is extremely detrimental to the theory of Evolution. A similar problem exists at the boundary between the Cambrian and Ordocavian Periods. There, the fossils show a sudden leap in complexity from the invertebrates mentioned above to the vertebrate fishes. And, in both of these cases, the forms that we see existed millions of years ago are present in our day with very little change. These creatures from the early history of our Earth, appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain unchanged throughout the fossil history. <h3>Macromutations and "Punctuated Equilibrium"</h3> In the face of the evidence discussed above, Evolutionists, like all good scientists, have revised their theory and revisited the facts. Many leading figures in the Evolutionary Community have modified Darwin's Theory to take all the evidence into account. The new formulation of the theory now proposes that evolution has occurred, but that it was brought about by different reasons than Darwin supposed. The new mechanisms of evolution put forward by science today are "macromutations" and "punctuated equilibrium." Scientists now feel, based on the fossil record, that natural selection, rather than being the agent of transferring advantages, provided a species with a stabilizing force. The actual mechanism of change is now thought to be macromutations: extreme leaps forward in genetic patterns. The idea has been dubbed by critics as the "hopeful monster" theory. The paraphrased idea is basically this: that the first bird hatched out of a reptilian egg. The changes that the theory is referring to are so great, that they could effect the birth of a new species in relatively few generations. Natural selection is now thought to give the species a chance to stabilize while this new advantageous form is spread around its ecological niche. Thus the phrase "punctuated equilibrium." Under the new theory, species would continue in their normal ways for many millions of years, as an equilibrium (or changeless) condition. Suddenly, there would be a jumble in the breeding that would, almost miraculously, produce a new variant of the species. Thus the equilibrium would be punctuated by a sudden leap in complexity, only to return this newly introduced species to a period of equilibrium while it propagated and spread, until such time as genetics got lucky again. Note that this is almost a return to the idea of Catastrophism. This new theory also makes some definite predictions as to the evidence we should find to support it. Ironically enough, the evidence that would prove that evolution occurred by macromutations is exactly opposite the evidence that would prove evolution occurred by slight mutations. To prove Darwin correct, we need to find many transitionals in the fossil record. To prove the Neo-Darwinist Theory correct, we need to find that creatures made huge leaps in the history of their progression, leaving huge gaps in the fossil record. Their changes, according to the theory, would have happened so fast, that there would have been no chance for the fossil record to capture it (conditions to fossilize remains being pretty rare...). And certainly this idea fits the fossil evidence we have. However, it is exactly opposite of the theory that gave it birth. The net result of the new theory is that experts can now say that we evolved in a nice progressive way, except when we didn't, and then we progressed very suddenly. Thus the new theory is useless as a predictive tool. It predicts very gradual change and very abrupt change, but does not predict which case is appropriate between the two. <h3>Thermodynamics</h3> Thermodynamics is the study of energy balancing mechanisms. The two main ideas of thermodynamics are, one, total energy is constant and, two, that nothing is free. The first law says that, in an ideal situation, energy is neither created or destroyed. We all know that not every drop of gas that goes into your car is converted to useable horsepower to drive the car. Some of the energy produced by the engine remains in the exhaust and goes out the tail pipe. Some of it goes into the cooling system of the car and is dissipated in the radiator with the help of the fan. If you could add up all of these energies, you would find that they would equal the energy of the gas you used to run the car. The second law says that during the course of the gasoline's energy being converted into horsepower, heat in the radiator, and heat in the exhaust, some of the energy will be lost in such a way that you can never get it back. So it is with any process in the universe. If the second law could be broken, and we could devise the perfect engine, which would run forever. This degradation of energy from what you put into a system compared with what you get out of it causes a loss of energy and an increase in disorder, or entropy. So the laws of thermodynamics tell us that everything in the universe tends towards disorder. The very idea that evolution brought about our universe defies this simple, everyday principle that every one of us instinctively understands. The theory of evolution effectively says that the natural tendency of our existence here is toward order rather than disorder. Even the simplest one-celled organism is extremely complex at the atomic level. For the atoms around this planet to come together in such specific patterns, so complex that they could generate new patterns, that is, recreate themselves (also known as life), is an imagination-staggering jump in order. Ever the more staggering idea is that this happened during a time when the Earth was forming, and we had no atmosphere to protect these chemicals and resulting microorganisms from the blazing ultaviolet radiation of the sun. The everyday laws that govern this universe predict this could not have happened. The idea of the big bang naturalistic beginning of our universe defies these concepts. To say that a uniform ball of subatomic particles and energy exploded and created this universe of complexity we see before us flies in the face of everything we know about that same universe. Evolutionists say that there is no problem; that an increase in order in any "system" is possible with an addition of energy. And this, in the form of the third law of thermodynamics, which can actually compute the exchange of disorder between a system and its surroundings, is true. However, the order you bring about in a system will be canceled by an even greater amount of disorder outside of that system. For instance, at a macroscopic level, you could build an engine from the parts that make it up and thus increase the order of that system, but you would cause the planet much more disorder from keeping you warm, producing your food, and processing the waste from that food than the order you produced. To apply it to the subatomic level, according to evolutionists, the order of a small system of chemicals could be increased to the point of creating a living cell at the expense of the creation of even more disorder in the surrounding environment. And, again, this is certainly true in so far as the exchange of entropy is concerned. But what the second law implies, in addition to what it states, is that not only does this increase in complexity require an input of energy, it also requires an intelligent use and direction of that energy. Indeed, complexity - or order - can be increased, but at a price, and that price is more than just the cost of that energy! Many evolutionary scientists will say that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. They would say that the Earth is a open system that receives energy input from the sun, and can reject excess energy to space, and thus is not affected by the laws of thermodynamics. This is simply not true. The laws of thermodynamics are applicable to any system, any process, any where, any time. To argue about what constitutes our system of study misses the point. The second law allows an increase in complexity with the addition of energy, but requires that it be used intelligently. As a thought experiment, I liken the process of evolution to the reassembly of a dissasembled mechanical pocketwatch. Let's suppose that we have a pocketwatch, one with the springs and gears like in the "old days," taken apart to its indivudual pieces. These pieces will represent our collection of "chemicals" with which we will form our first living organism. Next, we put all of those pieces in a nice felt bag, one that won't damage our pieces in any way. This will be our "system." Now an evolutionist will say that all we need to do to combine our "chemicals" is add energy to our "system." Okay, let's shake the bag. Now I propose that no matter how many million years you want to shake that bag, you'll never have a working pocketwatch that keeps good time again. Certainly we can reassemble that watch with time and energy, but that time and energy must be applied with intelligence, or we will simply have a more jumbled mess of badly scratched parts. Nature is stupid. Natural processes do not produce order, they produce disorder. And this has been interpreted by some as an indication of the universe's evolution by the intelligence and guidance of God. <h3>Statistics</h3> Another way of looking at the increase in complexity required by evolution is to study the natural chances, the odds, of it happening. Every living thing (including single-celled creatures) has a genetic code in each of its cells called DNA. The sheer concept that DNA (or some other chemical complex enough to generate itself) might randomly have been built by chance chemical reactions is ludicrous. Many kinds of specialized molecules must come together in the right way to make the four building blocks of DNA. Then over 200 of them must combine in the right way to build the very intricate pattern on the molecule itself. The odds in the best case scenario are still worse than 1 in 1.6 billion that a DNA molecule, having all the right blocks to build with, would come together in the right way so as to produce a molecule that would replicate itself. Note we aren't even talking about making a cell that eats, generates waste, and reproduces. Note again that we aren't even talking about a creature with a nervous system, let alone a brain! The odds that we arose from a "primordial soup" are essentially zero. <h4>Creation</h4> <h3>Essential Concepts</h3> There's no such thing as "creation science;" creation must be believed; it does not have to be understood. Hebrews 11:1-3,6, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. ... But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." The most important thing to keep in mind in the following discussion is that we are discussing a belief, not a scientifically provable fact. The conflicting theories of the Creation ("young" and "old" Earths) and the Big Bang cosmologies really only differ in one respect. The problem with the comparison is that there could be no greater difference. On the one hand, we have a loving, personal, all-powerful God. On the other hand, we have at least blind "chance" (which is given an almost creative power in itself by the scientific community) or at most an uncaring, unfeeling, and uninvolved God that got the universe going and now watches it from afar. The essential point in all of this discussion is that we understand that God created this reality. 2 Corinthians 5:7, "(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)" There is no inconsistency between science and the Bible. 1 Peter 1:25a, "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." Whatever we believe about the age of the Earth, it is important to understand that there should be no discrepancies between the Bible and science. Provable scientific fact and the teachings of the Bible cannot be at odds. Both the Bible and factual science deal with fundamental reality and truth. We would expect the natural workings of this world to fulfill every expectation that follows by what the Bible says. What happens if this is not the case? Do we dismiss the relevant parts of the Bible due to an assumed ignorance on the part of the ancient writers? Have we proven that the Bible is an unreliable source? No! Whatever the case or controversy, facts that can be correlated with things in the Bible, do not prove the Bible. If a scientific or archeological possibility is borne out and "confirmed" by the Bible, it proves that we have correctly interpreted that idea. If science seems to say something contrary to the Bible, something that no interpretation can smooth out, then we must re-evaluate the path that has led us to that "scientific" conclusion. Psalm 119:89, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." <h3>Proving God by science? I don't think so.</h3> Therefore, let us take a look at the supposed age of the Earth. Science at present tells us that through radiometric dating, the Earth can be dated at over 3 billion years old. This is a difficult "fact" to correlate with the Bible. But allow me to ask you to turn the situation around. What if we dated the Earth and found it to be about 6000 years old? What would that say to the people of the world? We would pretty much have proven the existence of God as He appears in the Bible. How much easier would it be to be a Christian if we could prove that God created the Earth in just 6 days? It is at this point we start running the risk of becoming Pharisees. If such things could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, these proofs would take the place of faith, and the choice of having faith in God is what this whole creation is about anyway. Acts 17:27-28, "That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." <h3>It's OK to disagree!</h3> Science has only recently come up with their answers to the questions of our origins. If it is was essential for people to understand how creation could have happened so that they could go to Heaven, then salvation would have been possible only recently. Since few people believe this, it is a logical extension to say that this question is not central to doctrinal truth. The point is: the question we are discussing is not whether or not God created this reality or not, but if He did it in a short amount of time or a long amount of time. All by Himself. With no help. How He did it is a gray area that cannot be directly proven from the scriptures. Once we agree on that point, we are free to discuss our opinions about the origin of the Earth, ourselves, and the universe at large. <h3>Days and Nights</h3> The word days always mean 24 hours elsewhere in the bible. Psalm 90:4, "For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night." 2 Peter 3:8, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Though these scriptures clearly indicate that God's concept of time is different than ours, their meaning seems to stop there. It is difficult to conclude that either scripture's context is trying to define some sort of formula to convert God's years to ours. Elsewhere in the Bible, a day is a day. No big deal. The creation story uses the same Hebrew for the word "day" as the rest of the Old Testament. Out of 1250 references, the word is never applied to a time period other than 24 hours. Why would the days of creation be any different than the others? Why would its days need a special interpretation? Real events lead to symbolism and typology: Exodus 20:11, "For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 31:15, "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." All the way throughout the Bible, God puts meaning behind real events. The tabernacle plan, the snakes and bronze serpent on a pole in the wilderness, Jesus' death on the cross. Typology abounds in the Bible. Every Sunday, pastors the world over take a story about real events in the Bible and pull modern day truths and lessons from them. The common denominator with the Bible is that it is down to Earth, so to speak. The whole concept of the Sabbath Day and its observance was set up by the creation story. It is not difficult to imagine that God created this universe in billions of years and then made this "week" concept from His wisdom to set a standard for us to follow. However, it is simply easier to believe that God did it in 6 days, rested on the seventh, and set that as our example. This interpretation fits the Bible's usual (but not invariable, of course) direct relationship between fact and symbolism. Especially considering the following: <h3>If He could do it either way...</h3> Most of us that believe in the "Christian" God will agree that God, being God, could have created this universe and ourselves in 15 billion years, 6 days, or an instant. If He could do it either way, and the Bible plainly tells the story in one of the two, why not just believe what the Bible says? <h3>What about the apparent age of the Earth?</h3> Scientists date the rock layers and fossils of the Earth by determining how much radioactive material has yet to decay in it. We all know what exposure, even slight exposure, to radiation can do to people. What if this material looked, from a radioactive standpoint, to have been "new" very recently? (Comparatively speaking, of course.) The radiation levels produced by all of our ground and its contents might be too high for us to tolerate. Even if it wouldn't be that severe, it still might destroy bacteria and insects that compost the soil. Whatever the case, we know that the Earth's ecology can be severely imbalanced locally by the ignorance of man. What would the radiation do if it was as strong as is predicted by a literal interpretation of the Bible? What if the very thing we are using to date the Earth is something God designed to protect us with? I believe that God created the earth with a history, so to speak. According to the Bible, He created man fully formed from the Earth, not as a baby He raised to adulthood. It just seems to be the way He does things. <h3>On a personal note: Dinosaurs</h3> I know I will be asked: "What about the dinosaurs?" so I may as well go ahead and give what I think about them. I believe that the dinosaurs were created along with everything else. In the modern world, many species of creatures have been driven to extinction, some by hunting, some by ignorance. They have been exterminated basically because we have increased in population, enlarging our boundaries and shrinking theirs. The same thing might hold true for the dinosaurs. We may have pushed them out of the way as we were fruitful and multiplied. If we had done so, the Flood could conceivably have produced the pressure on their remains, speeding the processes that give us "fossil" fuels today. Yes we know that they lived. Science further supposes some dates for their rise and fall. Based on the preceeding discussion, who has the onus of proof? And does this really matter anyway? We have seen how much the theories of evolutionists (who are, after all, the ones dating the fossils for the most part) hold up. Am I going to cast doubt on the Bible because of some theories that, so far, have not been proven? No way.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

The notes from a lecture series I did. Good enough - I think - for the start of a college paper. creation.html false 21

2 Creation & Evolution

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

A continual work in progress as the mood strikes me... As I look back over my 30 years, I have to admit something: I am a child of the 80's. There are a few web sites out there devoted to the 80's, but this isn't just about the 80's, even though that's going to be a big part of it. On this page I want to list the things in my life that have had cultural significance, and maybe even why. Please note that these things are not necessarily important to me now. (As you may read on <a href= "dandd.html">other parts</a> of this site, at least one of these things I am whole-heartedly against.) However, they were certainly important at the time. Also note that this isn't about relationships (yet - maybe I'll make a separate page about that), just about things. This is the collection of "stuff" that has "made me who I am" and that have, I guess, in a way, led to the creation of this site. <h5>Video Games</h5> <ul> <li>Bard's Tale I, II, & III.</li> <li>Wasteland.</li> <li>M.U.L.E.</li> <li>Hard Hat Mack.</li> <li>Archon.</li> <li>Defender, Dig Dug.</li> </ul> <h5>Movies:</h5> <ul> <li>Star Wars series.</li> <li>Star Trek I, II, & III.</li> <li>Dreamscape, Brainstorm.</li> <li>Trading Places. You know, I still think about that one when I think about investing, and my brother-in-law, an investment broker, says that it's part of the course work in getting a financial degree to watch that movie.</li> <li>Bachelor Party. Those of us that have seen it know why. "Are you crazy?! Look at these ...!" Or something like that.</li> </ul> <h5>TV Shows:</h5> <ul> <li>Different Strokes, The Facts of Life.</li> <li>Buck Rogers. Now that I recall, I had a crush on all kinds of female TV stars. The girl on Strokes, Dana Plato, is, well, a wreck. Blair on Facts turned out to be a staunch Christian. And Erin Gray, the female lead in Buck Rogers, whatever happened to her?</li> <li>We watched Little House on the Prairie every week because my sister was so in love with the show. I always complained, but I secretly enjoyed it too.</li> <li>Brady Bunch reruns.</li> <li>The Bionic Man! Was it just me, or did that show have the worst fizzle of any show ever? I mean, teaming up with Sasquatch to save the Earth from aliens with time-stopping devices? Sheesh. Maybe it's my faulty memory. It couldn't have been that bad, could it?</li> <li>Three's Company reruns. You know, it suddenly strikes me that I watched a lot of television while growing up.</li> <li>Knight Rider! Do you have any idea how cheesy that show is to watch now? Yeesh!</li> <li>SNL, but more importantly, Fridays, which was a much funnier show, IMO. You know Kramer? That's where he started.</li> </ul> <h5>Cartoons: Oh yeah, baby!</h5> <ul> <li>Laf-A-Lympics.</li> <li>Scooby-Doo.</li> <li>Road Runner, Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck.</li> <li>Space Ghost.</li> <li>Justice League. That wasn't what it was called, but it had all the DC Comics characters in it, with the special addition of ... The Wonder Twins! Woohoo!</li> </ul> <h5>Music: This is a really big one for me.</h5> <ul> <li>Duran Duran.</li> <li>Rush.</li> <li>Led Zeppelin.</li> <li>Pink Floyd.</li> <li>John Cougar Mellencamp (or Johnny Hoosier Melanoma, as Mike used to call him.)</li> <li>UTFO.</li> <li>The Beastie Boys.</li> <li>RunDMC.</li> <li>Sheena E. or was it Sheila E.? As I write this, Glamorous Life is playing in my head, and it's what made me think of updating this page.</li> <li>While I'm on that kick, what about Cameo (Word Up) or Shaka Kahn, a couple of real stickers with no follow-ons?</li> <li>The Thompson Twins.</li> <li>The The. (sic)</li> </ul> <h5>Comics:</h5> <ul> <li>X-Men and its derivatives.</li> <li>Fantastic Four</li> <li>Iron Man.</li> <li>Calvin and Hobbes. These are some of my favorite strips. I know this is illegal, but now that Bill Watterson has retired, it seems more palatable.</li> <li style="list-style: none"> <a href="/images/calvin's_business.jpg"><img src= "/images/calvin's_business_small.jpg" border="2" alt= "Calvin the Big-Business Man" width="100" height="71"></a> </li> </ul> <h5>Computers: I should leave this for another page.</h5> <ul> <li>Commodore Vic-20 and C-64. It's not the first computer of importance in my life, but certainly the most influential. I had the Vic with a cassette drive until I made a program big enough to fill up it's 4.5 KB of usable memory. Then Dad upgraded us to a C-64 with a floppy disk drive! I could go on for a few days about this. Applications? What applications? Yeah, there was a spreadsheet. Yeah, there was a word processor. There was even a GUI desktop at the end (GEOS), but man was it slow! No, what was significant here was programming and games. I wrote lots of small programs. The one that overran the Vic was a Dungeons and Dragons character generator. I never finished it, because there are only so many IF-THEN's a person can put into one program before he's not going to work on it anymore. But that's still the only way to program a table lookup in BASIC, and - at least at the time - you had to typically do about a million big table lookups to get your character completed. Then there was the D&D character sheet, the simplicity and usefulness of which could not be duplicated in any official product.</li> <li>A Tandy TRS-80. My later best friend, Darren, brought his dad's to school in 6th grade to show a program he had written. All it did was have a stick figure walk across the screen, but it was cool.</li> <li>The Atari 400, which the junior high library had. I had to take turns at lunch with a half-dozen other people, but since dad had bought the C-64 by then, I could stand not to get on it every day.</li> <li>My best friend David's Texas Instuments TI-77. It was yet another classic computer from that era (there were a lot of stinkers too, but I was fortunate to only deal with winners.) We played a lot of games on it, but never did any programming with it. I don't think it had BASIC built in, and David's dad never bought the CART or something.</li> </ul>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

(Part of) Why I am the way I am. culture.html false 22

1 Culture

2009-03-14T18:51:31-07:00

Someone left me a note in my (now-long-gone) guest book about not having said something about Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Obviously, this person knows me very well. Indeed it is curious how I could have written so much about myself on this site, and yet not once have mentioned the subject. As anyone connected with me between my 6th grade and senior year of high school can attest, I was a true devotee of the game. Okay, I was obsessed. If you want a truly good story, sit back nice and easy in your chair, and get ready to read. I'm not going to describe the game. That's not the point of this story. I don't have any links to game materials, info, or resources, for reasons that will soon be apparent. There's much more to it than that. See, it's a spiritual thing. Ah, but I am jumping ahead... The story starts with my cousin, Stacy. I have lost track of her in the intervening years, but she started me thinking about it. She was several years older than myself, and she lived on the east coast, but the death of my grandfather had brought us together. She got to telling me about the game and how it was so cool. Well, it just so happened that, while I was in Elkhart visiting my grandmother, another friend down the street told me that he played. So I went and played with him and his friend. I had enough fun that I asked for a boxed copy of the Basic edition of Dungeons and Dragons. I took that to my best friend back home, and we played and played and played. Then I met a quiet guy on the junior high bus that had the Advanced books. I started looking through those and quickly wanted nothing more to do with the Basic and Intermediate sets. I talked Dad into picking up the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual for me in the big town of Columbus. (Remember I was growing up in North Vernon.) I read and read and read. I studied those books so much that I can almost still see the pictures and tables and feel their weight in my hands. I didn't do anything but play with AD&D (and build things with Legos.) In 7th grade, we had some kind of hobby day where, once a week, we would go to another room for an hour and listen to someone talk about fishing or sewing or something. It was designed to broaden our perspective. Not a bad idea I guess. In 8th grade, a friend and I got together and petitioned the Vice Principal to let us have a "D&D" class in addition to the rest of the "clubs." We had a blow-out. There must have been 3 times as many kids in our group as any other, probably over a hundred. I'll never forget the day. Everyone crowded around a table in the library as I DM'ed a small group of players (including the librarian and teacher of my Telecom class, who played my alter ego, Dunkirk the paladin) through attacking an old, orc-infested castle. The class eventually split into two good sized groups, many others just did their own thing, having given it a good look, but having no further interest, and we had a lot of fun. But it was actually the start of something sinister. High school approached and we continued to play. Then "Eric" came along. See, Eric was from Chicago, which was supposed to be impressive to us backwater hicks, I guess. He told everyone that his dad and Gary Gygax were buddies back in Nam. That's right, the then-late 50-ish creator of the game supposedly served in Nam. (That would have put him in his late 30's while "in country," and I knew he wasn't a career military man.) But, being the incredibly gullible person I had always been, I let it slide. I had doubts, but... He introduced us to a radically different way to play. One where all the old rules didn't apply. The way Gary played. And, being as D&D is nothing but a game where everyone plays by the same rules, it worked. Our group swallowed the things he was dishing out, and we all played by the same book. The only problem was that the "book" was that anything went. He was just making it up as he went along. And his girlfriend was in on the joke. I can still see her smirking as I took notes while he made up his rules on the fly. Eric's rules made our characters as powerful as gods in the game. Since none of the other things in the game posed any more challenge, being as our characters were so powerful, we did the next best thing: we turned on each other. I don't know if that had been Eric's intent from the start, but I'm sure he was pleased with the results. Every day, someone would come to school, announce that we'd killed someone else forever and ever, and the next day, they'd come back, say that according to this or that rule, or one of Gary's friends, he was back from the dead and that he had killed the killer, again beyond any hope of resurrection. It was like some sort of insane version of survivor. Oh yeah, and we -- a bunch of redneck kids from North Vernon -- supposedly held about 35% of the land mass of Greyhawk, according to Gary's "official" campaign. All this infighting and backstabbing came at a time when the game was getting truly popular and, therefore, getting press. There were a lot of reports that the game was detrimental to kids, with all of it's hack and slash violence and occult-like overtones. I was the first person in my high school to come to thegame's defense. I wrote a term paper entitled "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Benevolent or Benign?" not even realizing the self-delusional irony of the statement. <a href="testimony2.html#Being%20fairly%20religious...">Being fairly religious at the time</a>, I asked God what He thought about the game. To get my answer, I just flipped open the Bible beside my bed, which I was making an effort to read at the time. I found the following: Matthew 15:11, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." I took this to mean that D&D couldn't bring out of a person anything that wasn't already there, but I was wrong. That scripture is talking about physical things, food and water, not spiritual things like attitudes and personal relationships. Those don't go in via a person's mouth, and they do, indeed, pollute what's inside. Despite inventing an interpretation that ignored the very answer I had sought, I began to see the effects of the game in my friends. I used to have some comments here about some bizarre and depressing things I saw going on in the lives of my friends, things I attribute to effects of D&D. Now, this article has been up on my web site for almost as long as I've had a web site. It was one of the first things I wrote, because it was one of the biggest things I needed to process and get past as I made the transition from living for myself to living for God. Yet, after almost 7 years of being available online, one of the people I commented about contacted me through an attorney to ask me to "refrain from any and all use of" this person's name "in any future articles that (I) may feel compelled to write." I suppose that if I wanted to get technical, I could point out that I hadn't, actually, been asked to remove anything that had been currently on my site, but I got the idea, and it was a perfectly fair request. I went past pure fact and had inferred some things here that could indeed have been construed as libelous. I had just never thought about it in that light. So I removed those comments, not just about the one person who complained, but about all of them. In fact, I'm removing all the last names from my site anyway. After all, not even "Eric" needs to have this stuff tied to his name after 20 years. Personal attacks were never the point. In fact, my point has been made for me. I commented on what I saw, and it cast someone in a light bad enough to think it legally actionable. The bottom line is that it was some distressing stuff. You may say the game had nothing to do with any of this. But the culture, the atmosphere, the spirit of it bred the pain that I saw. And I had seen enough. So I started making calls. I called another old friend, Keith, who had left our high school after 9th grade to go to Culver Academy. He put me in touch with a guy who put me in touch with another guy who was friends with a guy who was friends with Gygax. Or something. I was a step away from getting this whole thing straightened out. I was going to get to Gary, the source, tell him about it, and get his reaction. By this time, I knew Eric was lying, and I just wanted to confront him about it conclusively. Well, before I could actually make the call, my best friend, Kevin, told one of the others in the group what I was up to, and guess what? Gary Gygax suddenly "told" someone else (that only one of us "knew") that we couldn't play by his rules anymore. Hmm, imagine that. After that, Eric left us alone, and things settled down. Kevin and I still played, but it was mostly bitter between members of the larger group. Parenthetically, Kevin and I went to a tiny D&D convention in Elkhart not long after, and the last guy I tried to reach on my way to Gygax was actually our DM! Small world, huh? By that time, the dust had settled, and we were starting to move past the whole mess, so I didn't use the opportunity to follow through on my quest. "They" say that D&D leads to the occult, that it's a doorway to larger and more ominous things. "They" are right. Let me ask those of you familiar with the game and it's players: they have friends that are involved in the occult, don't they? It always happens that way. I have never seen an otherwise clean-nosed group play the game. They are always on the fringe of the occult. I was too. You get friends in it. Soon, you find yourself investigating it. D&D does teach you about it. I, myself, have played with Tarot cards and have actually read some of the Necromonicon and the Satanic bible. That ain't kid stuff, folks. That's full-fledged satanism. The game steps you through a lot of the ground work. Not intentionally. Of course not. You can't convince me that Mr. Gygax's intent was to create a training class for witchcraft. He started out making it a rules-based metal miniatures game for Civil War-era battles. But a training ground it is. There's a <a href="http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp">bible tract</a> by Chick Publishing that details how a real witch used the game to cull promising witches from the untalented. At the time, I scoffed loudly at the tract. I have seen it cast in derision around the net. I have seen a lengthy article by Weiss (or was it Hickman) of Dragonlance fame decry the very thought, but I've seen it myself. And so have they, even if they ignore it. And so has anyone else who has known someone who played the game more than once. Deut 18:10-12, "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee." In case you are still unclear, my Webster's dictionary defines "abomination" as "extreme dislike or abhorrence." Lev 20:27, "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; the blood shall be upond them." Not only does God hate witchcraft, but the penalty for it was death. These are but two of many, many scriptures in the Bible that deal with how God feels about witchcraft. Feel free to read more if you are still unsure of His opinion of it. 1 Thes 5:22, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Most people understand that God is a god of mercy. That's true. But they misunderstand what happened with Christ. God was merciful to those who repented in the times before Christ... if they managed to do so and pay the sacrifice for their sin before being caught. Since Christ, immediate penalty for sin has been put off until the "white throne judgement" seen in the Revelation. Don't confuse delaying the judgement of sin with acceptance. God still hates witchcraft. It's just that Christ paid the price for such sins, and gave us time to get our lives lined up to God's Word. But in addition to the leniency we're now given, we're expected to live to a higher standard. "Whoseover looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Now, in addition to not practicing witchcraft, we're expected to not play like we're practicing it. Yes, you can play D&D and live. You can even play and prosper. But I don't think that anyone that plays has their senses finely-tuned enough to make it to heaven. I don't think I can state it any clearer than that. It's a tool of the devil, and no Christian ought to have anything to do with it. And that includes me. I use to look at the new stuff that they are making now, just for curiosity's sake. I tried to play D&D-like video games such as the Bard's Tale, but I got convicted about it. And, no matter how much everyone in the world thinks of the Lord of the Rings movies or Harry Potter, I'm just not going to "go there." Hebrews 11:15, "And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned." But no story of my involvement with the game would be complete without telling you about how I was delivered from it. It was not long after I started going to <a href="church.html">The World of Pentecost</a>, after a good Wednesday night service. We were having such awesome revival with Brother Copple, that you couldn't tell our Wednesday services from our Sunday services, and they both were always blowouts. After one particular Wednesday, a bunch of us young singles went to Taco Bell on 25th street. We talked and laughed for an hour or more, and the younger ones had to go home. (I maintain that no one knows how to have a good time more than Apostolic Pentecostals.) We older types, myself, Donnie, and Dana, stayed and talked some more. I went on and on about how I had been so involved in Zen Buddhism in college, and how I had been writing a book about the integration of Zen and Christianity, and how I was going to have to drop all of that now, I guessed. That's when Donnie, full of the Holy Ghost, looked me square in the eyes and said, "You're still in it." I got mad and growled, "No I'm not! What do you think I'm doing?! I'm trying to get out!" And he said, real quietly, "Dave, that's not the Holy Ghost right there." And he was right; I could feel myself getting pretty upset. He said something else I don't recall, because at that moment, the power of God came over me, convicting me and showing me that I was indeed still "in it." I started crying, right there in Taco Bell. It was awesome, if awkward. God delivered me from the spirits that I had entertained for years from being involved in D&D. That night I resolved to set the score straight. After I got home from work the next day, I took the following scripture to heart: Acts 19:19, "Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver." I dragged all of my D&D stuff, indeed all of my role-playing stuff, as well as all the books and notes about religion that I had been working with - probably over $600 worth of materials - and burned them on the garbage heap in my parent's back yard. I count that day as one of the most free in my life. I can't tell you the weight that was lifted from my shoulders in doing that. A friend asked why I burned it all, instead of making some money from it, but I just figured that, if it was bad for me, it was bad for everyone else too. I also have to say something about my pastor in relation to all of this. It was only a couple weeks after I started going to the World of Pentecost that he suggested I set up a meeting with him. He seemed nice enough, and I certainly had questions at the time, so I did. Among the things we talked about was D&D. I knew that he would have reservations about the whole business, but when I brought it up, he merely asked, "Oh, what's that?" As I sat there explaining the premise of the game, I obviously had to make a lot of excuses. I volunteered that there was a controversy over the game, but that there really shouldn't be, since, after all, I wasn't really casting magic spells, now was I? It all sounded so hollow to me, even then, but Pastor Mitchell never said anything about it. We simply moved on to other things. After I had been delivered from it and had burned my books, I talked with him again about it. I noted how remarkable it was that although he surely knew how evil the game was, he didn't ram that knowledge down my throat. It was a shining example of how a man can "pastor" in the purest definition of the term. He knew that if I were serious about living for God that I would eventually draw close enough to Him that He could reveal it. I asked him what he would have done if the Spirit hadn't delivered me, and he said that eventually, if things had not straightened themselves out, he would have tried to talk to me about it. However, if I hadn't been serious, it wouldn't have mattered if Pastor Mitchell had told me; I would have kept right on being involved with it. Some things can be taught, but some things can only be revealed. For me, this was one of those things. There. I talked about Dungeons & Dragons.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Is Dungeons & Dragons evil? Well I ought to know. dandd.html false 23

1 Dungeons & Dragons

2009-07-07T18:22:00-07:00

When Quake II was first released, it had several bugs; not true show stoppers, but serious bugs nonetheless. (There was some small controversy about whether id released the game about a month before Christmas just to cash in on sales even though it wasn't quite ready for release, and they basically admitted that, but that's hardly my point. I for one was glad to finally get the game into my hands.) Well, since I had Windows NT, and knew that I would be in the minority, I wrote John Carmack, the main programmer of Quake II, about a problem I was experiencing. I thought I would be helpful in reporting a bug that only showed itself in a small segment of their supported user base. After all, one the things I think is the most cool about Quake II (besides the fact that it's a great game to play), was that it fully supported Windows NT (and Linux, and eventually SGI's, Sun's, etc.), and I figured that he would want to know about it. Here's my letter: From: David Krider [dunkirk@sprynet.com] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 1997 6:45 PM To: 'johnc@idsoftware.com'; 'bhook@idsoftware.com'; 'xian@idsoftware.com' Subject: I know you get hundreds, but would you please answer this quick one? I know you guys get hundreds on emails a day, but I want to ask a quick question. I really need an answer; I am going insane wondering about it. I am having serious trouble with Quake 2 getting connected to a server. I have written several times, but I never get an answer, not even a "Yes" or "No" or "Leave us alone." I have tried the Activision tech support, but that was a bloody waste of time. That guy was giving me 95 advice on NT. Specifically, I can connect to a server, IF I first switch to 640. If I leave it at 320, I never connect, and will eventually crash Quake 2, which will make me have to reboot NT. (That ain't right.) So, okay, I created a video-mode-toggling macro. However, when it goes to switch levels, even though I switch back to "hi" res, it won't reconnect. This is all over a modem, usually a 21 kbps connection. At work, over the T1, I have NO PROBLEMS. That's my dilemma. If I pull the twisted pair and call my ISP with my work machine -- the one with no problems -- I get the same behavior as at home over the modem. I have gotten errors to fill the screen if I wait long enough. They say WSAEsomethingNOBUF. I have had "Dr. Watson"'s. I've had BSOD's. Am I crazy? Is this a confirmed bug? Is there a proper workaround? Will it be fixed? Please, please, please tell me what's going on. I know you're busy, but if this is actually a bug, something needs done. If it's a problem on my end, please help me, because Activision came up woefully short. I love this game. Single player is AWESOME, but I really bought to FRAG SOMEBODY ONLINE. And I don't want to have to go to work every time I want to do that. I know that NT users are probably in the vast minority, but I don't think that they're supposed to be hamstrung with only being able to use fast connections like I'm seeing. I must have something screwed up. Please? Thanks for listening, dk David Krider -> dunkirk@sprynet.com Acts 17:28 For in Him we live, and move, and have our being. To which I got this response: From: John Carmack [johnc@idsoftware.com] Sent: December 28, 1997 6:47 PM To: David Krider Subject: RE: I know you get hundreds, but would you please answer this quick one? Get the 3.08 patch and see if that helps. I countered with: From: David Krider [dunkirk@sprynet.com] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 1997 6:58 PM To: 'John Carmack' Subject: RE: I know you get hundreds, but would you please answer this quick one? Oh CRAP! I forgot to mention that that is what I have been running. And thanks, dk Followed quickly by: From: David Krider [dunkirk@sprynet.com] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 1997 7:08 PM To: 'John Carmack' Subject: RE: I know you get hundreds, but would you please answer this quick one? I am so nervous about getting an actual discussion going on this topic that I shot off a quick message, hoping that you would read it. I apologize for not taking the proper time the first time and making this longer than it needs to be. My second email can't be left alone. I need to explain that I got the 3.06 update and tested it. Found the same problems. Waited for the next. Went straight to 3.08, tried connecting only to 3.08 servers, and still have had the same problems. And thanks again, dk To which Mr. Carmack said these fateful words: From: John Carmack [johnc@idsoftware.com] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 1997 7:10 PM To: David Krider Subject: RE: I know you get hundreds, but would you please answer this quick one? If you have some time to spare now, I could try and debug the problem you are having. Lots of modem players are having it, so it is fairly important. I would probably need to send you a couple experimental executables, and have you connect to a server running on my development machine. Give me a call at [CENSORED] if you want to give it a try. [CENSORED (Machine IP Address)] John Carmack So I called him. And made a gushing fool out of myself. It was pathetic. But, the good news is that he gave me an experimental quake2.exe to try out on his development server. From: John Carmack [johnc@idsoftware.com] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 1997 7:37 PM To: David Krider Subject: try this exe This has a cou0ple changes for the packet flooding: <<Attachment>> So I did. But that one didn't fix the problem. So he compiled a new one and sent that to me. That did the trick. John himself got curious about whether or not it had: From: John Carmack [johnc@idsoftware.com] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 1997 8:51 PM To: David Krider Subject: RE: I know you get hundreds, but would you please answer this quick one? Have you tried playing through a couple levels on a public server with the new client yet? I think that the problems people had with level changes are the same problems as getting connected, but I'm not positive. John Carmack And I replied: From: David Krider [dunkirk@sprynet.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 1997 1:02 AM To: 'John Carmack' Subject: RE: I know you get hundreds, but would you please answer this quick one? Have I tried? That's all I've done since you sent it. <bg> Sorry, I should have realized that you would have liked some more immediate feedback. I only had one hitch, and I think the server just plain quit or got taken off-line. I obviously don't know the particulars like you do, but I do think that connecting and switching were the same problem in that they both exhibited the same kinds of hangs. However, switching and joining seem to be completely repaired with the debug you sent me. I probably connected 3 or 4 times and switched levels 15 or 20. I was usually the first to third person that got dumped onto the level. (That's a big advantage, you know? Hmm. Anyway.) Which seemed kind of odd since my ping hung around the mid-200's over the modem. But I don't know if that's good or bad, because this is the first time I've gotten a non-T1 connection with it. (Or any other multiplayer game.) Thank you very much for taking the time to help me. It was very cool to be included in the process. (I guess my 15 minutes of fame just came and went.) Sorry for being so awestruck on the phone. It's just that I know only about enough C and assembly to be dangerous, and I am understandably impressed by your incredible depth of knowledge and skill. I also want to thank you for a very impressive game which, agreeing with Mr. Hook, has incredible replay value. I do pretty well on the public servers, but I guess I gotta learn how to rocket jump now. It's just that it seems so counterintuitive. Why'd you reduce the damage from your own explosions? They shouldn't care. I figured it was just a by-product of the way Quake was set up, but was it intentional to allow you to do a "rocket jump" per se? dk But I never got an answer to my last question. On another occasion, I was having trouble with my sound, so I wrote Activision support. They gave me advice for Windows 95. I lost my temper and copied John on the response, deriding the poor support person, who probably gets a hundred Windows 95 questions a day, and made his assumption understandably. In addition, my question was a stupid one (there are stupid questions, aren't there?), and I showed my rear as someone who supposedly knows something about NT. But John, again, took the time to write me back, and calmly and gently reminded me that my assumptions were wrong, and that the problem could not have been the one I suspected. Now that was cool. As someone who probably is one of the most talented and prestigious programmers in the world, he didn't respond to my arrogance with anything but professionalism. I wish that I could embody such a treatment of others. <script></script>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

A phone call to John Carmack. My 15 minutes of geek fame have already come and gone. debugging.html false 24

1 Debugging QII

2009-07-07T18:31:21-07:00

I encourage particular discrimination in choosing a bible translation to use. The scriptures quoted here are all King James Version. I am not a biblical scholar, so these comments may be out of place, but just try reading Job 35:14 in a KJV and a New International Version. If you ask me, the NIV makes sense from one point of view, but the majesty of the thought in the KJV is completely lost. To wit: that no matter the situation, judgment is still in God's hands so that you can always trust Him. Maybe the NIV is indeed a better translation, but try Psalms 100:3. Again, the NIV changes the entire emphasis of that scripture from that of the KJV. Note what I am not saying. I am not saying that you should abandon all translations but the KJV. Indeed, I use a parallel bible whenever I need clarification, but I use the other three versions (NIV, Living, and RSV) to help me understand the KJV, not to get a different idea about it. The KJV has stood for almost 400 years now, and it still the most popular translation. There must be something to it. These scriptures were taken from a computerized version of the bible. The brackets are used to set off the words that would be in italics in a printed KJV. These words do not appear in the original language of the scriptures, but are required for the translation to make sense in English. [ <a href="bible.html">UP</a> ] [ <a href= "history.html">NEXT</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

What I think about available biblical translations. disclaimer.html false 25

1 Disclaimer

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

<img src="/images/doctrine_button.gif" alt="Doctrine" border="0" style="float: left" width="100" height="100"> Any discussion of the way I believe must begin with a discussion of the Bible. What is it externally? What it is internally? What does one do with it? Going further, is it true? Is it Truth? These two last questions are not necessarily the same. If we find that the Bible is indeed true historically, then because the Bible declares itself to be Truth, and we have nothing factual with which to deny it, it forces a decision on whether or not it is Truth. And, as a matter of fact, I have done a bit of study on the bible, and this is why I think you can trust it. <a href="bible.html">A Short History of the Bible</a> These next few studies are also ones that I have put together through my own Bible study. These ideas are the core of Apostolic Pentecostalism. I don't claim that these presentations are the best; I don't claim that everyone who reads them will be immediately converted to my way of thinking. However, though these represent my opinion and interpretation thereof, at least these issues are argued from a biblical perspective. I do hope that you will find these discussions thorough, if not persuasive. In my experience, any points of view contrary to the conclusions found here usually resort to undermining the Bible, and I'm hoping that my History will reject that. <a href="baptism.html">The Necessity and Form of Water Baptism</a> <a href="spirit.html">The Baptism of the Holy Ghost and its Evidence</a> <a href="godhead.html">The Nature of God (or The Godhead)</a> Furthermore, an observant read through the Bible will reveal that there is a single, large story being told throughout its obvious length. That story may not be clear on the first read. It only begins to take shape after you see how the smaller stories connect. My first study on this page showed how the Bible was externally consistent. This next study shows how the Bible is consistent internally. It shows how the plan of salvation is really the same in concept throughout all time, from the fall of Adam until now. <a href="whole.html">The Whole Story</a> Note: All scriptural references are from the King James Version.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

These are my personal, thoroughly-researched studies on the differentiating things that I believe about God. doctrine.html false 26

2 Doctrine

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been news since their discovery in 1947. They were found by a Bedouin who happened to throw a stone into a small cave and heard the resulting crash as it broke a pottery jar. Through a long series of escapades in changing hands, including being advertised for sale in the classifieds of the Wall Street Journal, they have come to rest safely in the hands of Museums and Universities. Work continues to salvage, reassemble, translate, and interpret the Scrolls and their meaning. The actual location of the find is rather unique in its yield of ancient artifacts. The scrolls were found in the desert wilderness just to the northwest of the Dead Sea and just south of Jericho at a place called Quamran. It is one of 5 sites in the area that have yielded documents dating from the time of Jesus. However, it is the only site to have yielded Biblical manuscripts. These scrolls were found wrapped in linen and inserted into large pottery jars which were then covered with leather and subsequently hidden in the caves of the region. The people who copied and kept these manuscripts lived just a little closer to the Dead Sea in a commune. They lived sparsely, even ascetically. They were very strict. They wrote a scroll on the rules and strictures of their lifestyle; scholars refer to it as the "Manual of Discipline". It is conjectured that John the Baptist may have been involved with the movement, but not necessarily with the Quamran group. Many people have tried to place the figure of Jesus into another of their works that has been dubbed the "War Between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness." In it, reference is continually made to a "Teacher of Righteousness." Because some of the ideals presented in the work, such as the dualism of good and evil, are also found in the words of Jesus, some have claimed that Jesus himself was one of these people and that the whole fabric of Christianity was another layer fabricated and placed on top of the real story. Needless to say, these posturings require significant guesswork and supposition. To make such claims, based on these discoveries, that Jesus was married or even - and I have seen it in print - a homosexual is to, as seriously as possible, belittle the intelligence of a literate person who has read the Bible. The scrolls themselves reliably date from 200 B.C. to 70 A.D. The area of the Quamran community shows archeological evidence of being inhabited for two periods: 150-37 B.C. and 4 B.C. to 68 A.D. when the place was finally sacked and burned by Roman soldiers on their way to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. An interesting footnote is that a partial scroll of their writings appeared in the remains at Masada, the last outpost of Jewish rebels. It appears that some of the Essenes made their way their to take their last stand. The significance of the scrolls cannot be overstated. Previously, the earliest Old Testament text available to scholars was dated 895 A.D. The Isaiah Scroll, found complete and intact at the Quamran site, is datable to 100 B.C., thus pushing back the date of a reliable manuscript an entire millennium! Other books were also found, but the Isaiah scroll is by far the best example of the lot. The implication of the find is evidence by comparing these two earliest copies of Isaiah. Their differences can be summed up in the following table. <ul> <li>20:1 The proper name Tartan should be read as commander-in-chief</li> <li>21:8 "A lion" can be better translated as "he who saw," making the passage more clear: "And he who saw cried out..."</li> <li>49:12 Sinim (a name for China) should read Yeb, a name for Upper Egypt.</li> <li>53:11 The scroll here follows the reading of the Septuagint, showing that, although it is at variance with the Masoritic (standard) Jewish OT, it is nonetheless faithful to the text from which it was copied.</li> <li>There is no break in the scroll between chapters 39 & 40, destroying a modern view that the book of Isaiah is a collection of 3 smaller works with different authors.</li> </ul> Again and again it is said that the Essenes (if that's who really lived at Quamran) had an impact on the thought and presentation of early church doctrine. I rather think that was the common ancestry of Judaism that made their rhetoric similar. Nothing referred to in the Essene writings that finds expression in the NT is uncommon to their mutual parent faith. Concepts such as the dualism of light and darkness, righteousness and perversity, "mysteries" (Romans 16:25), "lot" (Colossians 1:12,13), angels (1st Corinthians 11:10), and uprightness as a gift to God are common to all of these religions. For modern critics to assume that because the Quamran group appeared on the scene before Jesus that they must have had some great impact on his teaching is mere conjecture, given that only a few of His sayings are echoed in the DSS. [ <a href="history.html">BACK</a> ] [ <a href= "bible.html">UP</a> ] [ <a href="canonicity.html">NEXT</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

The signifigance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. dss.html false 27

3 The Dead Sea Scrolls

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

<img src="/images/future_button.gif" alt="The Future" border="0" style="float: left" width="100" height="100">I used to think I could keep up with this topic, but it's just impossible. I'm going to retire from making comments about technology trends. There are too many people making a living at it for me to fool around with that. I will continue to keep my eyes peeled for emerging trends every day as part of my morning routine, but I will stop writing about them. This is now just going to be a place to keep track of my screenshots. I love screenshots. I always look at people's screenshots if they have them posted. I don't know if anyone ever looks at mine, but I figure someday, somebody will get the same enjoyment I do out of them. Who knows? Plus, I even enjoy looking at them and remembering where I was at and what I was doing with each setup. <h4>Windows</h4> <a href="/images/win2k_main.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/win2k_main_small.jpg" alt="Win2K Pro Screenshot" width= "100" height="75"></a> <a href= "/images/winxp_dual.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/winxp_dual_small.jpg" alt="WinXP Beta Screenshot" width= "202" height="75"></a> <h4>GNU/Linux</h4> <a href="/images/linux_main.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/linux_main_small.jpg" alt= "RedHat GNU/Linux 7.1 Screenshot" width="100" height="75"></a> <a href="/images/linux_dual.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/linux_dual_small.jpg" alt="Dual-head Linux Screenshot" width="202" height="75"></a> <a href= "/images/gnome_gorilla.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/gnome_gorilla_small.jpg" alt= "New Ximian Gnome `Gorilla' Theme" width="100" height="75"></a> <a href="/images/sensors.png"><img border="2" src= "/images/sensors_small.png" alt= "Temp and Fan Sensors within Gkrellm!" width="100" height="75"></a> <a href="/images/linux_kde.png"><img border="2" src= "/images/linux_kde_small.png" alt="Finally switched to KDE" width= "100" height="75"></a> <a href= "/images/ximian_desktop2.png"><img border="2" src= "/images/ximian_desktop2_small.png" alt= "Ximian Desktop 2. Finally!" width="100" height="75"></a> <a href= "/images/gentoo_bluecurve.png"><img border="2" src= "/images/gentoo_bluecurve_small.png" alt= "Gentoo! Fourth time's the charm!" width="100" height="75"></a> <h4>BeOS</h4> <a href="/images/beos_main.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/beos_main_small.jpg" width="100" height="75"></a> <a href= "/images/beos_multimedia.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/beos_multimedia_small.jpg" alt="BeOS Multimedia" width= "100" height="75"></a> <a href= "/images/beos_800x600.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/beos_800x600_small.jpg" alt="BeOS Low-Res" width="100" height="75"></a> <a href= "/images/beos_opera_loading.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/beos_opera_loading_small.jpg" alt="BeOS Opera Loading" width="100" height="75"></a> <a href= "/images/beos_opera_finished.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/beos_opera_finished_small.jpg" alt="BeOS Opera Finished" width="100" height="75"></a> <a href= "/images/beos_email.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/beos_email_small.jpg" alt="BeOS Email" width="100" height= "75"></a> <h4>Misc</h4> <a href="/images/solaris_dual.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/solaris_dual_small.jpg" alt="Solaris 2.8 for x86" width= "200" height="75"></a> This is a shot of a Gateway dual PIII 866 I had for a stint at work. I had it ordered with two 17" monitors and a Matrox G400 dual-head card. Linux had some trouble going on it, so I got my boss to spring for a copy of Solaris x86. (Boy was that like pulling teeth. And for a measly $80 or so, too...) Once I got it all working, and discovered the "extras" disk, I just had to enable Xinerama. I had to recompile X to do it, and it was short-lived (everything you want to run already does so under Linux), but I took a shot because I knew I wouldn't be back. <a href= "/images/screenshots_within_screenshots.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/screenshots_within_screenshots_small.jpg" alt= "Linux to VMware to Win2K to PCAnywhere to WinNT" width="100" height="75"></a> This is a shot of my home computer in the middle of trying to fix a problem at work when I was taking a day off. I'm running VMware Workstation 3.2 under RedHat 7.3 to run Windows 2000 so that I can run my company's VPN client software (which has a Linux client that doesn't do group passwords). After invoking the VPN connection, I used Terminal Services client to get a desktop on my secondary work computer which was running Windows 2000 Server with administrative mode terminal services. After connecting to that, I fired up PCAnywhere, which I used to connect to the "server" that was giving people a problem. After I got all this connected, I called into work to the person that had complained to me on voice mail, and he informed me that it was no big deal and I could just fix it the next day. Which was still a relief because by that time the screen messages were coming a little too slowly for my tastes. <a href="/images/screens_within_screens_2.png"><img border="2" src="/images/screens_within_screens_2_small.png" alt= "Linux to VMware to to PCAnywhere to WinNT" width="100" height= "75"></a> Another shot about working from home. Here, I am using my home computer running RedHat 7.3 to run VMware Workstation 3.2 to run Windows 2000 to run my company's VPN client, just like last time. However, this time, I connected to my primary work computer using PuTTY and started a VNC server. Then I used a VNC client connection to run VMWare on my workcomputer, so that I could see something that was going on with the Windows world at work. I forget what it was, exactly, that I was doing. I just thought another shot would be cool. I suppose that this is significant for a rather odd reason. As you can see, it's the first time I've changed my desktop background in something like 5 years... <a href="/images/use_for_wine.png"><img border="2" src= "/images/use_for_wine_small.png" alt="Finally a use for WINE!" width="100" height="75"></a> I finally found a use for WINE!.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Screenshots. I really should rename this page... future.html false 29

2 Future

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

Apocrypha = A group of literature written from about 200 B.C. to 100 A.D. that is sometimes included as scripture in bibles. The Hebrews and the Protestants agree that these books are not canonical. However, the Catholic Church still includes them in their canon and use them for determining doctrine. Aramaic = A spoken variant of Hebrew and the language of the Northern Kingdom Jews since the time of the return from Babylonian Captivity. It was spoken along with Greek during the time of Jesus. canon = A group of scriptural books that are commonly held to have authority and authenticity as works of inspiration of the Holy Ghost. A book is considered "canonical" that is in the "canon," and "non-canonical" if not. Ketubim (Kethuvim in Hebrew transliteration) = The Hebrew word for the scriptures of the Hebrew Old Testament that are called "the Writings" and contain what we now consider the books of poetry and wisdom. Nebiim (Neviim in Hebrew transliteration) = The Hebrew word for the scriptures of the Hebrew Old Testament that are called "the Prophets" and contain the writings of many of the OT prophets. It does not directly correspond book for book with the present day Bible's prophets. Note that the modern Bible has all of the books that are in the Hebrew version, but they simply are not in the same order. Pentateuch = A Hebrew word for the first five books of the modern-day Bible. This is also known as "the Law" and the Torah. Septuagint = A Greek translation of the Bible originally made about 200 A.D. Initially praised by the Jews in Jerusalem, it was eventually rejected in favor of a standardized and canonized Hebrew Bible made about 100 A.D. Tanak = The Hebrew word for their Bible. While it does not have the same order of books, it does have the same content as the modern-day Old Testament. Targums = Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew scriptures. They were used to teach the scriptures in synagogues where the congregation had fallen away from using Hebrew. Torah = The Hebrew word for the first five books of the modern-day Bible. These are also known as "the Law" and the Pentateuch. Transubstantiation = A doctrine of the Catholic Church that teaches that the bread and wine of Communion actually becomes the body and blood of Jesus. Vulgate = A Latin translation of the Old and New Testament made around 400 A.D. by Jerome. The word comes from the Latin word "vulgar" which -- at the time -- meant "common." [ <a href="../../bibliography.html">BACK</a> ] [ <a href="bible.html">UP</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

A short glossary of the important concepts. glossary.html false 30

6 Glossary

2009-03-23T19:15:54-07:00

The term Godhead is a term taken from the Bible that basically means "the nature of God." In this study, I present an idea to be found within the scripture following. This is the reverse of my process in my study on <a href="spirit.html">Spirit Baptism</a>. However, you are still encouraged to get out your Bible and read the entire section I quote to see for yourself that my ideas are in line with the scripture's context. This study is divided into three sections: <a href="#One%20God">One God</a>, <a href= "#A%20Mixing%20of%20References">A Mixture of Reference</a>, and a bit of <a href="#Explanation">Explanation</a>. <h4><a name="One God">One God</a></h4> Israel's whole religion was based upon the idea that there is but one God. It was the defining thing that made their faith different than anyone else's on the earth. It is something that God underscored with every law He made that caused Israel to be "different" or "separate" from their polytheistic neighbors. Deuteronomy 6:4-5, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Jesus Himself reiterated the point that this was the greatest idea in the Hebrew faith. Mark 12:29-30, "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment." Paul pointed out the difference between "little gods" and the God. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." Admittedly, the last sentence can lead to confusion, being as it seems to indicate two "people," God and Jesus, when my point is that there is but one God. This, in fact, is the very thing that confuses people about the issue. Rest assured, I will resolve this seeming discrepancy later. The apostle James ties it up. James 2:19, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." If God were actually three people that discuss and agree, why does the bible refer to Him in the singular case? A committee would be referred to as "they" and God would then take a plural form of verb. <h4><a name="A Mixing of References">A Mixing of References</a></h4> There are many times that the Bible refers to God in terms normally thought to apply to the Son, and many other places where the opposite occurs. For instance, "God the Savior:" Hosea 13:4, "Yet I [am] the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for [there is] no saviour beside me." Old Testament reference, you say? Makes this inapplicable? Read on... Titus 1:3, "But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;" Titus 3:4a, "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared," 1 Timothy 4:10, "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." Acts 20:28, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Whose blood? God's. Matthew 16:18, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Whose church? Jesus'. Zechariah 12:10, "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn." Who is the speaker? God. So who is the "me" that is "pierced?" God. But surely this would actually mean Jesus, wouldn't it? Now take Jesus as the creator. Colossians 1:13-18, "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence." How about Jesus as God Himself? Hebrews 1:8, "But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom." Exodus 3:14, "And God'said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." But who is the I AM? God. John 8:56-58, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." Now who is the I AM? Jesus. That means they must be one in the same. Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Who is this talking about? We know this is talking about Jesus; passages in the Gospels clearly proclaim that this was speaking of the Christ. So who is the Father? Who is God? Just what does Emanuel mean, anyway? (Matthew 1:23) It means - literally - God with us. Galatians 3:20, "Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one." 1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." If the bible had meant that they "agreed together" to act as "one god," it certainly could have said so. (See verse 8.) Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." <h4><a name="Explanation" id="Explanation">Explanation</a></h4> What does it mean to be "the Son of God?" The people to whom the New Testament was written expressly understood that to be someone's "son" was to be heir and owner of everything his father had (if he was the only son). Jesus, being God's only son, was implying that he had access to all the power of God, making himself the same as God. The Jews certainly understood. Jesus, by saying He was God's son, made himself to be the One True God of Israel. That's the important point to understand. Revelation 22:1-5, "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." In Heaven there will be one throne, one face, one name, and one people worship one God. If the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate people, where are they going to sit? With all the talk that trinitarians like to make about how "sitting at the right hand of God" is a literal expression, when we finally get a glimpse into Heaven, we certainly don't see what we should expect to see if this were true, proving that that phrase is purely symbolic. It's important to understand that "the right hand of God" is not a literal location, it's a reference to authority and power in relation to God. It's a Jewish idiom. That's just what it meant to them. <h5>This is a matter of historical record, the central point of Jesus' life and death, that the Jews nailed Him to the cross for saying He was the Son of God.</h5> <h5>And either Jesus lied, or He was right.</h5> John 5:18, "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." John 10:30-33, "I and [my] Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." John 20:28, "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." Thomas finally sees. Blessed are they that do which have not. So how does this thing work? 1 Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." God Himself was manifest in the flesh, which is exactly what "Emanuel" literally means. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, "And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 1 Timothy 2:3-6, "For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." Now for the clarification for such scriptures as referenced above in "But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." When you read scriptures as in the beginning of Paul's letters, you see that he greets people in the same fashion, from God the Father and Jesus Christ His Son. What does this mean? Christ means anointed; it's Greek for the Hebrew word Messiah, a title, which refers to the flesh and blood of Jesus, as distinct from His Spirit. (Acts 2:36) If these kinds of scriptures were meant to point out the "triune nature" of the Godhead, why don't they refer in some fashion to the Holy Ghost? Rather, it means that Paul is stating His frame of reference to the churches, that he is fully behind the idea that Jesus was the Savior, the Anointed, the Christ, sent from God to redeem lost man. Now to further explore the dual nature of this man, Jesus Christ. Romans 1:3-4, "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:" Hebrews 2:14-18, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." He was fully God and fully man. He suffered everything that we suffer. Every limitation. Yet was still able to call on His own power. He willingly laid it aside to go through all the things we go through and die for us. (Hebrews 4:15) Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." God is an omnipresent spirit. If He were light, it would fill everything, but it would still come from a particular source, a "bulb," the man: Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." Hebrews 1:3, "Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" Thus the glorified flesh of Jesus, the image of God, is what we saw as the Lamb in Revelation, sitting on the throne of God and the Lamb. Acts 9:5, "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Who is speaking to Paul, the one-god believing Jew? Who is Jesus? What then is God's name? Acts 4:10-12, "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Philippians 2:9-10, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;" Is there a name above God's? What then is God's name? Matthew 28:19-20, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen." Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Either the apostles were wrong on their doctrine of baptism (Acts 19:3-5; 10:48) and everything they wrote in the bible must then be suspect, or Jesus is the name (note the singularity) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. God didn't send someone else to do His job. He came and redeemed His own creation. It is only a misunderstanding of the terminology used back then that prevents us from seeing this today. Once this is understood, the true beauty of the plan of redemption becomes clear.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

The nature, or person, of God explained. godhead.html false 31

4 The Godhead

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

I am learning an awful lot about computer security awfully fast. I hadn't wanted to "go there," but circumstances have dictated it. I always kept my ears open on that front, but now I have to learn the holes of networking, NT, and UNIX, and learn to plug them. Learning to use the tools to document and analyze these holes is a mind-numbing experience. See, it's like viruses. Ever notice how viruses are such a flying waste of time? It's a waste of time for people to write them. It's a waste of time for those people to disseminate them to flunkie 12 year olds with internet access. It's a waste of time for these kids to go around spreading them. It's a waste of time for companies to make virus cleaners. It's a waste of time for me to install them and run them and keep them up to date. It's a waste of time because NOTHING productive is happening anywhere in all of that activity. I think it's the same with the security racket. Look, people who call themselves hackers are just wasting everyone's time. They claim that they are helping expose the weaknesses that some "unethical" hackers would exploit so that administrators can fix the problems before they cause damage. Excuse me? If a company doesn't take steps to protect itself, it means one thing: they have established a trade-off in how much security they have against how much security they need. That's important kids; read it again if you didn't catch it. If a company like the one I work for is so "un-sexy" as to not warrant a lot of security, why waste our time preventing an attack? Nevertheless, people who truly know what they are doing tell everyone else how to do it, like a teenager who finally has sex for the first time, so that they can finally make a claim to fame. Then all the 12 year olds get on Dad's new PC and launch attacks at indiscriminate sites for fun. There's nothing productive going on here either, folks. And it's hypocrisy to say that there is. Take a lesson, "hackers," go work on Linux. Develop KOffice. Make a freeware game like Quake. Do something - anything - but do something productive.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

'Hackers.' Gimme a break. hackerz.html false 32

2 H4ck3rz

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

Jesus said that we are to live by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God. But we know that God did not manifest Himself with a mouth until the Incarnation, so what mouth did God use? From the above scriptures, we that God has spoken to us through human vessels from the very beginning. God wrote the very first scripture on tables of clay and used Moses as the first of these human "mouthpieces" to teach and expound His Law to His People. But what has transpired since then? When was the rest of the Bible written? Where was it written and copied? Who decided what should be in it and how it should read? And why is it important for us to know these things? These are the questions I hope to answer through this paper. First I want to present a graph displaying the timeline of the scriptures to get a feel for the whole picture at once. <a href="/images/timeline.gif"><img src= "/images/timeline_small.gif" alt="Timeline of the Bible (360 Kb)" width="100" height="74"></a> Ever since Adam, God has spoken to His people. Since the time of Moses, various men have written down the Word of God that they had received for later generations to read. Some copied what others were inspired to say. In time, these works began to be collected by God's people, now known (after their slavery in Egypt) as the Israelites, Hebrews, or Jews. The scriptures were divided in three sections: the Torah, the Nebiim, and the Ketubim, or the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Their "Bible" was known as the Tanak, sort of an acronym made up of each of the first letters of its three parts. The Torah corresponds to the first five books of our present day Bible. These books are also known as the Pentateuch. The Jews also came to have another book called the Mishnah, which was a collection of explanations of the Law. Then they came to have yet another book called the Gemara which was a collection of explanations of the Mishnah. Together these two became known as the Talmud. However it was understood that the scriptures were the scriptures, and the commentaries were the commentaries. These various books were written in Hebrew. They were written on parchment (dried and scraped animal skin) scrolls sometimes 30 feet long. At the time of their writing, the Hebrew written language had no vowels and used no spaces between words. Similarly, the language had no punctuation marks and thus no way of marking sentences, paragraphs, or emphasis. Repetition and oral teaching kept the understanding of the scriptures alive. Consider the following sentence: NTHBGNNNGGDCRTDTHHVNSNDTHRTH Or even the following: THMNSGD How many different sentences could one get from that combination of letters? How many different meanings might be interpreted? Thus when the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of the Israelites fell to the Babylonians, the understanding of the scripture grew dim. As the Jews were kept in captivity, their language began to change. When they finally returned to their homeland some 50 or so years later, between their apostasy and the influence of another culture, their language had substantially changed. They had made an unconscious shift in their speech until it would become known as a Hebrew variant called Aramaic. Under the restoration efforts of Nehemiah, Ezra, the chief priest at the time of the return, directed the hearts and minds of the Hebrews back to the scriptures. However, the ordinary person had very little access to the scriptures due to the scarcity of scrolls (they were very difficult and time-intensive to make) and an unfamiliarity with the Hebrew language. Hebrew was maintained as the language of holy writings, and as time went on, the Jewish people became increasingly dependent on the Scribes and Pharisees to teach them the Law. The Scribes and Pharisees took their job of copying the scriptures very seriously. They had a great many rules for guiding their efforts. Some of these were: <ul> <li>Only skins from ceremonially clean animals were used to make the parchment.</li> <li>Columns could only be from 48 to 60 lines long.</li> <li>They had to use lines to keep the text straight.</li> <li>They used a special mixture for the ink.</li> <li>They could not use memory: each word was pronounced aloud and copied separately.</li> <li>They had to wipe the pen before writing God's name.</li> <li>After finishing, they waited 30 days and gave the scroll a proofreading; if more than 3 errors were found, the scroll was destroyed.</li> <li>Every word and letter was counted as a secondary check.</li> </ul> During this "reformation" of Israel's religious heritage after the captivity, several other books were written in what is known as the Intertestamental Period (the time between the date of the last book of the Old Testament and the first book of the New). These books became known as the Apocrypha. They are mainly apocalyptic, but some are poetic and historical as well. The books that formed the "canon" of the Hebrew Bible were really never questioned until these books began to circulate. Then, caught in the move to establish good copies of the Word of God, they became thought of as good books (though not considered on the level of the Holy Scriptures), and what the Jews had already considered their Bible became even more solidly fixed in their doctrine. They made their position regarding these works official at a meeting called the Council of Jamnia in AD 90. Some of the questions raised about books that are still accepted as canonical are these: <ul> <li>Jonah: How could the God of Israel (before Jesus Christ) care so much about a heathen nation that He would send one of their sons to them that they might repent and receive His mercy?</li> <li>Ester: The feast of Purim? It was never mentioned in the Book of the Law.</li> <li>Ecclesiastes: Surely the world isn't that bad. It just seemed too pessimistic.</li> <li>Song of Songs: Simply too explicit!</li> </ul> As witnessed on the day on Pentecost in the second chapter of Acts, the Jews had dispersed to many different nations by the time of Jesus. There were many Jews living and making a living in northern Africa, and they came to speak the language of the natives there. Because of their departure from Hebrew (or even Aramaic) in daily life, a group of Pharisees got together around 100 B.C. and made the first actual translation of the Holy Writings into another language: Greek. This translation is called the Septuagint, which stands for 70. Greek was commonly spoken in New Testament times and it opened the door for the scriptures to go into many different backgrounds and levels of society. Because of the inadequacy of Greek to express the nuances of Hebrew, the Greek language itself was slightly altered (by reason of use and repetition) so that the phrases and words used to translate the Hebrew ideas began to take on slightly new meanings. Even to this day, the English language, as with the rest of the romance languages like French and Spanish that are descendants of Greek, still bears the stamp in its words and expressions of Hebrew. It has been conjectured that there has been no more influential translation of the scriptures because of this reason. At first, the Septuagint was highly praised as being inspired by God from all corners of the Hebrew world. However, by about 100 A.D., the Hebrews in Jerusalem had completed work on a standardized text and this was now viewed as the only Bible permissible for a Jew to read. The Septuagint was now publicly decried and called a work of Satan. However, the literary accomplishment of the Septuagint was solid, and it accomplished the important job of giving the new "Christian" church the old scriptures in a language that they understood. In the fourth century, a man named Jerome distinguished himself in studying the Latin and Greek classics from a young age. He came to the attention of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church whereupon they asked him to make a revision of the Bible for them. As he worked, he began to see that a mere revision was less than what he was capable of. He took it as his calling to translate the scriptures from the original Greek and Hebrew into the language of the Catholic Church: Latin. Jerome made a very skillful translation. In addition, because of his education, he made it read very eloquently. As academia moved to Latin for teaching and writing, it filled a definite need of getting the scriptures into the language of learned men of the time. The book was called the Vulgate which comes from the Latin word for common: vulgar. The Catholic Church was very pleased with the result and well they should have been. However, in keeping with their stranglehold on the politics, family life, and finances of the entire European Continent during the Dark (500-800 A.D.) and Middle Ages (800-1500), they allowed no other translations to be used or made. No studies of other translations or even of new discoveries of ancient texts were tolerated. Any suggestion of changing the Vulgate brought on charges of heresy and -- if not recanted of -- subsequent persecution. Started in 1233, the Inquisition would keep people from princes to paupers under control of the Roman Catholic Church for some 600 years. Their philosophy was simple really: control the people by controlling their education -- by only allowing "safe" people to become learned -- and control the education system by controlling its medium -- by not permitting anyone who had become learned to use anything but Latin for transmission of their ideas. It is important to understand the atmosphere that came to cloud the Continent by the time of the Reformation. The Catholic Church had come to dominate every aspect of living through the appeal that all of carnal life was subservient to spiritual life. By the time of the Reformation, the ideal had become reality. Rome, through the person of the Pope, basically ruled Europe by ruling its spirituality. Understand that there was only one church at this time: the Catholic Church. There were no other Christian denominations, at least not overtly. If one was not Catholic, one was basically branded an infidel and subject to punishment if Rome so pleased. If your views did not align with the Pope's, you could be excommunicated and summarily executed. Certainly, most people who decided not to be Catholic simply lived their lives quietly, unnoticed by Rome. However, there were those few men who dared not only to oppose the theology of the Catholic Church, but to make their opposition known to its leaders and the general public. In time, these men would cause what is now come to be known as the Reformation. Though what they did was and is still today viewed as heresy and division to the Catholic Church, their struggle for independence from Rome has brought about the religious freedom we have in our country today. These grand ideas of liberty had their roots in the fertile soil of the mind of one man who wanted a simple thing: to have the common man be familiar with the Holy Bible in his own language. The man we are referring to was named John Wycliffe. He was born in 1324. He got his education at Oxford, where he eventually became Professor of the Bible and President of Balloon College of Divinity there. He was well versed in theology, law, philosophy, and logic. He was well respected by Anne of Bohemia, the wife of King Richard, and John of Gaunt, Prince of Wales, monarch in absentia while Richard was away at the Crusades. His dream was that everyone could have the scriptures, so they could read about God's love directly, and not need anyone (including a priest) to read it for them. His "back to the basics" messages at Oxford eventually got him expelled from the University, though he was so popular with the monarchy that he avoided persecution. He retired to a small parish in Lutterworth in 1375, though he still occasionally taught at Oxford for the rest of his life. At first, he merely translated portions of the new testament. These he would copy and send with traveling preachers so they could spread the Word of God in English. He made a complete translation (into the late middle English tongue) of the New Testament in 1381. However, hand copying was a painfully slow and tedious process for making the general public knowledgeable about the Word. He kept on trying through the rest of his life, and died of natural causes in 1384. However, his dream lived on and inspired these young preachers of his to begin the movement of the "Lollards." They were so called by the Catholic Church after a group of monks in the Netherlands who began teaching some unorthodox things about monastic life in the 14th century; it was a derogatory term. They opposed the Catholic Church on four main points: <ul> <li>Pilgrimages</li> <li>Adoration of the Saints</li> <li>No allowance for scripture in English</li> <li>The doctrine of transubstantiation</li> </ul> They outlined several more points in an official dissension to the English Parliament in 1395. It was basically ignored. In 1399, Henry IV officially allowed the condemnation of heretics, and, in 1401, passed a decree allowing them to be persecuted. The preferred method of said persecution was burning at the stake. In 1408, the Church made an official proclamation condemning the translation of the scriptures into any other language. In essence they maintained that the language of the scriptures was to be Latin. In 1414, a Lollard by the name of Sir John Oldcastle started an uprising in western England against the King and his support of the church. It was quickly and bloodily put down. This did not stop the spread of Lollardism, rather, it merely drove it underground. They formed a group known as the Secret Society that became a backbone of support for the safe passage of other Reformers seeking escape from persecution, and which became the eyes and ears of the Reformation in England. For nearly a hundred years, the movement to reform the church quieted down. However, it was during this time that the reformist's greatest weapon came to light. In 1455, a man named Johannes Gutenberg tested a new invention fully for the first time. Many years he had spent, secretly perfecting all of the individual tasks required to perform a small miracle. Many innovations had to be connived: new inks, new papers, new metal for the dies. Many techniques were invented: multiple color capability, combining pictures and text. The miracle was, of course, the printing press. And what was the very first work printed by this new wonder of wonders? That's right: the Bible. Gutenberg printed the "42-line" Bible in Latin in three volumes at Mainz, Germany. Perhaps no more important invention has ever been made. In the mind of a reformer, it certainly could not have come at any better a time. The invention of the printing press led to the printing of ideas. Ideas of men like Tyndale and Luther, who we will discuss later, now had a cheap and quick method of transportation to the minds of literate men every where. Indeed, this invention did more than anything else to promote the Reformation and start the Renaissance. Fired by the revelation of the thoughts of the Word speaking to them in their native tongue, the people of England and Northern Europe became major proponents of the new learning which led to the Age of Enlightenment. The method by which people could obtain cheap Bibles and thereby learn the Word of God for themselves -- apart from what someone -- anyone -- else might think -- was now in place. It remained for someone to champion that cause. Back again at Oxford, a teacher named Colet served as the inspiration for another important figure in the Reformation: Erasmus. Erasmus was a good scholar of Greek and Latin. He too was expelled -- in 1514 -- for his heretical beliefs. He then traveled to Basil, Switzerland where he met a man named Froben. Using Froben and his knowledge of the new technology of printing, Erasmus produced a compilation of the Greek New Testament along with his own translation into Latin. This was the first translation into Latin since the Vulgate. Although a cardinal in the Catholic Church was working on a Greek New Testament, Erasmus got his to the press about 2 years sooner. It was a good translation, but not without flaws. Since he did not have the complete NT (some parts of The Revelation and the pastoral letters were missing), he translated the Vulgate back into Greek to make up for it. Surprisingly however, the translation stood up to critique, and Erasmus' work, through much diplomacy and just plain boot-licking, was approved by Pope Leo X who said, "We are greatly pleased." Now although Erasmus decided not to use his credibility to lead in the Reformation, his work went on to undergird the most important English contribution to it.  William Tyndale was born in 1494 in Gloucesttershire, England. He too attended Oxford, obtaining his Bachelor's Degree in 1505 (notice at the age of 11) and his Master's in 1515. He was one of the most gifted linguists to have lived. He was proficient in: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, French, and German. It was said of him that he could speak any of them as a native. The year was now 1517. The place was Little Park in Coventry, England. Five men and two women were tried for teaching their children the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments in English. They were convicted of heresy and burned at the stake in the town square. Such was the state of ecclesiastical affairs in England. Tyndale was becoming increasingly interested in the scriptures, and, eager to study without the influence of his clerical teachers, he moved on to Cambridge University. There he hooked up with the White Horse Inn, an establishment known to be frequented by members of the Secret Society. The year became 1521 and things were even more tricky at the University. It became difficult to know who one's friends were. As a result, Tyndale left and went back to his hometown, where he became employed by a noblemen named Sir John Walsh to be a tutor to his two children and chaplain of the house. Many clergymen, including priests and bishops, were common guests of the manor. Lady Walsh considered herself knowledgeable about things ecclesiastic and regarded the clergy very highly. Tyndale butted heads with them many times, challenging their knowledge and understanding of the Bible, and she asked how Tyndale could presume to know more about the scriptures than they did. Tyndale understood her position, but instead of quieting down, he began preaching throughout the surrounding towns. He made the clergy of the area more than a little nervous, and was called in to answer questions. His powerful connection to Sir Walsh and his own defense kept him from being persecuted. Through he started cautiously, it became obvious that the institution of the church was not going to allow him to cause the changes he wanted to see. In one fateful confrontation with an unnamed priest, his true course was set. According to legend, the priest declared, "We were better to be without God's laws than the Pope's." To which Tyndale replied, "I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the Scriptures than you." He had made up his mind. Perhaps the argument simply caused him to see what he really wanted. He carried with him a letter of recommendation from John Walsh and a sample of a translation of a classical Greek work to London, hoping to find work as a biblical translator for Cardinal Wolsey. However, Wolsey and King Henry VIII were caught up in politics at the time. He became disillusioned with what he was attempting to do. He realized that Wolsey would not -- indeed could not -- support such work, and in 1524, he set sail for the more tolerant conditions of Germany, never to set foot in England again. Things in Germany were going much better for the Reformation than in England. Prince Philip II had given his support to the Reformation, headed by the former Augustinian monk Martin Luther. Martin Luther was central in the outcry against the Catholic Church. Without him, there may have been no "Reformation." He attended school in Wittenberg, Germany. Wittenberg was a walled city complete with a castle, church, and moat. It was also well guarded. The entrance to the church and school was through one large door. It was on this door that announcements and news was posted. Wittenberg was a very popular spot for pilgrims, the majority of which would come for All Saint's Day, November 1. Now, as a monk, Luther was troubled about many things in the doctrine of the church. One day, while studying the book of Romans, he read of Paul's discourse on justification by faith alone. He had a great personal experience with God over the revelation that faith alone justified a man - not a priest --, which caused many of his own fears and questions to subside. This experience might have stayed personal except for Pope Leo X's idea that he would finance the new St. Peter's Basilica through indulgences. An indulgence, simply put, is a purchased forgiveness for a premeditated sin. Germany as a whole was not very tolerant of indulgences, so there was a lot of money to be made there by selling them, if only the papacy could somehow get German priests to go along with the idea. In 1514, the bishopric of Mainz (which included Wittenburg) became vacant. A man named Albrecht of Brandenburg, already archbishop of Magdeberg and bishop of Halberstadt, put in for the position. However, he was not able to come up with the money required for an "installation" tax, nor the money required for a tax for holding multiple sees. The total money involved would have been about $47,800 today. He found a bank that would loan him the money if Albrecht would split the proceeds from the indulgences with the bank and Rome 50/50. Pope Leo X, wanting badly the extra cash flow into his depleted coffers, agreed to the arrangement. He sent Dominican John Tetzel into Germany, under Albrecht's jurisdiction, to preach indulgences in the see of Mainz. In response to this teaching, Martin Luther wrote the infamous "95" thesis, and on October 31, 1517, he went public by nailing it to the Wittenberg church door, just in time for the influx of pilgrims to read it on All Saint's Day. As his thoughts spearheaded the Reformation, he kept writing. In 1520, he wrote three more papers: <ul> <li>An Appeal to the Nobility of the German Nation Three things to reform: that the civil government had no rights over the church, the "superiority" of papal decrees over scripture, & superiority of the pope over councils.</li> <li>On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church This treatise condemned transubstantiation.</li> <li>On Christian Liberty Taught primacy of scripture, priesthood of the laity, & justification by faith.</li> </ul> Luther went on to produce a German translation of the Bible for which he is duly appreciated, but these were the works that were to inspire William Tyndale and support his efforts to reform the English church. In 1524, Tyndale reached Cologne, Germany where he translated the New Testament into English from Erasmus' Greek compilation. His work was the beginning of the period of the modern English idiom. The way he would word his phrases of the Bible would imprint English speaking people's manner of speech to this very day. He was discovered by the church and was tipped off to their coming to take him away. He fled to Worms where he finished his printing. In 1526, the first English New Testaments that he had printed began sneaking their way into England, smuggled inside sacks of flour and bales of cloth. Tunstal, Bishop of London, actively preached against this Bible and publicly burned any copies he could get hold of. His contention was that Tyndale had changed the doctrine by substituting words like: elder for priest, church for congregation, and repentance for penance when in fact he was translating correctly. Tunstal's publicity simply fueled interest in the book. In a classic case of irony, Tunstal made an attempt at stopping the printing of Tyndale's Bible. He got hold of Augustine Packington, an Antwerp trader and secret friend of Tyndale's. Augustine agreed to buy up all the copies of Tyndale's Bible he could find for Tunstal, knowing full well his only intention was to burn them. However, he got such a good price for them, that the money paid to Tyndale financed a second edition and its printing. Later when Sir Thomas More, King Henry's lawyer, tried a friend of Tyndale's for heresy, he asked him how it was that so many copies of the Bible had made it into England. In short, he wanted to know who was supporting the printing of these Bibles. The friend honestly answered that it was their very own Bishop Tunstal, the Bible burner! Tyndale's New Testament did nothing to engender favor from the Catholic Church. His marginal notes were sometimes caustic. For example, in Exodus 32, where the Israelites are worshipping the golden calf in the desert, Tyndale's sidebar comment is that, "The Pope's bull slayeth more than Aaron's calf." (A bull is a proclamation, typically excommunicating someone from the church.) Similarly, on the passage which tells that the Israelites had to be restrained from giving any more to the building of the tabernacle, he says, "When will the Pope say 'Hoo!' and forbid an offering for the building of St. Peter's church? ... Never until they have it all." Tyndale went on to translate the Pentateuch and other portions of the Old Testament. He had completed this work in 1528, but on the sailing voyage to the printer, he was caught in a storm which destroyed the ship. With the aid of two scribes, he re-translated and published this abbreviated OT in 1530. Between keeping one step ahead of his enemies and keeping a hand in theological disputes of his day, he never had the time to finish his OT. However, he did keep revising his New Testament. Spurred on by the wedge being driven between the church and King Henry and wanting to drive it deeper, as well as by the desire to clarify his work from impostors of the time, he very carefully edited and printed a revised version in 1534 with a forward which rebuked those who would change his work and leave his name on it. This is held to be his crowning life's achievement. It is estimated that 9/10's of this work would go on to be used in the creation of the Authorized -- or King James - Version, to be discussed later. Back home in England, the general populace of England was definitely being stirred up against the church, due in no small way to some other works that Tyndale had authored. He made a translation of Luther's thesis and titled it The Parable of Wicked Mammon. He wrote two other famous works: The Practice of Prelates and The Obedience of the Christian Man. It was probably the influence of the latter that gave Henry the opening he was looking for. Even though he needed them to shake the church's hold on England, Henry didn't hold with Luther and Tyndale's ideas. As a matter of fact, in response to Luther's 95 thesis, he wrote a defense of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. For this, Pope Leo X awarded him the title "Defender of the Faith." In the end, though, Henry wanted a divorce from his first wife more than he wanted to be devoutly Catholic. In the theocratic-political turmoil of the day, caused in large part by men he didn't like, aided by the new Archbishop of England, Thomas Cranmer, Henry made his move. Cranmer officially moved all church-owned monastic land over to Henry's ownership and declared him to be the head of the new Church of England in 1533. This then gave him the right to declare his first marriage unlawful (for some reason or another), divorce his first wife, and marry another. Henry always fancied himself quite a leader, and although he may have lacked some of the requisite ability, he made up for it with personality. He was comfortable with the new position, and gave himself to deep thinking on theological issues. He finally settled on a compromised agglutination of doctrine that included transubstantiation and the worldly authority of the church along with the idea that one doesn't need the clergy to be saved. Tyndale had taken up residence in the merchant city of Antwerp, where, as long as you stayed in your home, you were free from the law. However, in 1534, he was betrayed by a "friend" who talked him into doing a favor and led him into a trap. He was captured and imprisoned for over a year and a half. He was allowed his writing materials and books so that he could continue to study, but it did little more than keep him occupied. He was finally brought forth on charges of heresy. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death on October 6, 1536 in Flanders, Netherlands. His final words before strangulation and burning at the stake were, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." Unbeknownst to Tyndale, God had indeed done just that. Henry allowed the distribution of English Bibles in England. The Bible that was finally legal to circulate was known as Coverdale's Bible, named for its translator Miles Coverdale, and published in 1535. The ironic twist to the story is that Coverdale was not a scholar. The work was based entirely on Tyndale's English Bible and Luther's German Bible! Since the time the monk Augustine landed in "Angleland" in 597, until the first English Bible made by Wycliffe in 1381, England had gone almost 800 years without the scriptures in her native tongue. Now that it had been approved by the Church of England, some 150 years later, many different versions started coming forth. After Coverdale came John Rogers, a friend, student, and scribe of Tyndale's. Under the pen name of Thomas Matthew, he finished Tyndale's Old Testament and published the whole Bible - known as Matthew's Bible -- in 1537. In 1539, a man named Taverner produced an edited version of Matthew's Bible, but this event was completely eclipsed by the publication of the Great Bible, also in 1539. Up until this time, the Coverdale and Matthew's Bibles were allowed to be distributed and read, but not allowed to be read in the worship services of the churches. The Great Bible changed all of that. It was called Great not to glorify itself, rather is was simply very large. It measured 16½" by 11". This was the first fully authoritative English version to be allowed in the church and, as such, a copy of it was distributed to every parish. It was also the first Bible to have the books ordered as we have them now, as well as the first to implement italics to indicate words implied rather than translated. (A technique we will discuss later.) This version too was based on Matthew's Bible which in turn was basically Tyndale's Bible. Because a copy was on display in each local church, the poor person - but obviously one who could also read -- now had access to the scriptures in English. Public reading of this Bible while the church was having its services became so much of an annoyance that Henry passed a decree prohibiting it. Seven years later, Henry changed his mind about allowing the common man access to the Bible, and in 1546, he again made it a crime to own one. However, in 1547, a new king, King Edward VI, took the throne and made it legal once again. During his reign, he promoted the English Bible and thousands were printed under him. His reign ended in 1553 when Queen Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII and his first wife, ascended the throne. She would later become known as "Bloody Mary." It was her dream to restore her wayward England to the Catholic Church. One of her first moves was to again make it a punishable offense to own a Bible. During her 5 year reign, she killed such notables as John Rogers, of Matthew's Bible fame, and Thomas Cranmer, former Archbishop of England and patron of English versions of the Bible. All told, she sent over 300 people to die at the stake. She died in 1558, childless and grief-stricken over a political marriage to Philip of Spain her country never accepted. The next monarch of England, Queen Elizabeth (reigned 1558 - 1604), was Catholic as well, though not strictly so and not intolerant of others. It was during her reign that the Church of England took on its present day title and doctrine. The Anglican Church - with its Common Book of Prayer and 39 Articles of Faith - was born. (Throughout her long rule, the Catholic Church trained missionary priests for the re-evangelization of England. They were revolutionary in their teachings and dealings, wishing to take back what was once theirs. Elizabeth, not wanting 2 state churches and especially desiring to avoid the conflict it would cause, was "forced" to resort to persecute these evangelizing priests to keep the peace. She killed more than 200.) About the time Elizabeth began to rule, refugees from the reign of Mary gathered at Geneva, Switzerland, published another Bible - the Geneva Bible - in 1560. It was the most popular Bible for Puritans, and many of them came over to America with them. Of course, this version was not looked on favorably by the church. In 1568, they published the Bishop's Bible, so named because 8 of the 15 translators were bishops. This version never caught the public's fancy. In 1582, just 24 years after Queen Mary and hopes of re-establishing its dominance in England, after nearly a century of making it a capital offense to own the scriptures in the native tongue, the Catholic Church made a formal translation of the Bible into English. It was called the Douai-Rhiems Bible, and was named for the two colleges at which the translators worked. They based it almost entirely on the Latin Vulgate; they did not make much use of the original languages. Though the Vulgate was a good translation, it still makes this Bible a translation of a translation. It is expectedly Catholic in its renderings, going back to using priest for elder, church for congregation, and penance for repentance for example. In 1604, under the rule of King James I of Great Britain, work was begun on a new translation. The men petitioned to do the work on behalf of the king were given free room and board, but did their work for free. Despite this, the project attracted some of the most educated and talented men of the day. Some 47 scholars from 3 English Universities formed 6 translation committees. Three panels worked on the OT (Genesis to 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes, and Isaiah to Malachi), two on the NT (Gospels, Acts, and The Revelation, and the Epistles), and one on the Apocrypha. Two teams worked at Oxford, 2 at Cambridge, and 2 at Westminster. These committees were in turn were governed by 12-member panels made up of two people from each team. These panels were then overseen by bishops and leading churchmen. The guidelines for performing the translation were laid down by James himself. The Bishop's Bible was to be the starting point, but the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available were also consulted. Other versions were also used as references: English, German, Italian, Spanish, and Latin. The translators used different English words to translate the same original word to give the reading some vibrancy. For example, in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, the Greek word katargeo is translated as "fail," "vanish away," "done away," and "put away." The effort kept the tradition started with the Great Bible in using italics to add words that are necessary for English grammar style. The spelling of Hebrew names was to follow the common use, not the direct transliteration for the words. Older ecclesiastical words were to be retained however, and they used "church" for ekklesia instead of Tyndale's "congregation" and the Latin-based "charity" instead of his "love" for agape. They finished the work and dedicated it to James in 1611. James was involved in the translating as well. At first he was looked on as a nuisance, but he came to impress the theologians with his theological learning. Several errors were introduced by the printing process during its first few runs through the press. One edition dropped the "not" in the seventh commandment, thereby exhorting to commit adultery. A later edition suggested that the children should first be "killed" rather than "filled." In 1701, the marginal dates were added by an Archbishop by the name of Ussher. Official printings came in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. The last is basically the bible we have today. It came under some fairly severe criticism at first, but the loudest voice against it was from one that might have been invited to participate in the translation, but was bitter because he wasn't. All in all, the Authorized Version won out over all other English versions for three basic reasons. Firstly, it was translated by panels and committees and not by one man, which made it free from any minority viewpoints. And besides, it was a very skillful translation. Secondly, it built on much more advanced Hebrew and Greek scholarship than that available during the translation of the Bishop's Bible. Thirdly, it avoided sectarian biases in the notes and (for the most part) in the chapter headings. Although no official proclamation ordering its use in churches and or homes can be found, it quickly became the favorite of everyone except the Puritans, who thought it smacked of the divine right of kings. But eventually, even those that came to America came to use the AV. [ <a href="disclaimer.html">BACK</a> ] [ <a href= "bible.html">UP</a> ] [ <a href="dss.html">NEXT</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

A whirlwind tour of how we came to have an English translation of the Bible, and why it's a good one. history.html false 33

2 A Short History

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

<img style="float: left;" src="../../images/hmm_button.gif" border="0" alt="Hmm..." width="100" height="100" /> I didn't know where this page should actually go, but here it is nonetheless. As the 80's rap song of the same name, this page is about things that make you go, "Hmm." <h4>Randomly-reinforced behavior</h4> In college, I learned that randomly-reinforced behavior is the hardest to extinguish. The best example I know of randomly-reinforced activity is fishing. You never know if you're going to catch a big one, and it's that possibility that drives you to try. That helped me to understand why my dad is so nuts for the sport. Sometimes it's like that with me when it comes to computer games. It's a question of whether I can jump on the internet and win on a public server. (It didn't use to be much of a question, but I just don't play that much anymore.) But then it stuck me the other day, does this apply to the Spirit as well? We all understand that God doesn't move in the same way twice. I never really put it together before, but an 18-year old kid explained it to me the other day. He said that, of course, God didn't react the same way to our same behaviors – that it was different each time – because when we do the exact same things in prayer or worship, it's not as fresh or lively (1 Peter 2:5) because we've done it before. We're used to it. And so is God. And so interacting with God might be considered randomly-reinforced behavior. However, don't be fooled. Random reinforcement is reinforced – as applies to my psychological phenomenon under question – externally. It's not entirely up to us whether we catch a fish. Sometimes, fish just don't want to eat. The question of whether God is going to move in a powerful way in our lives is dependent on whether we are doing something moving to God. Thus, prayer and worship are internally dependent. These behaviors, enacted in faith, love, and exuberance always get a reaction from God. <h4>The map is not the terrain</h4> As another memory from college, I learned that the map is not the terrain. Meaning that even though you might have a map, it may be wrong, it may describe something you're not interested in, or it may simply be for another location than for which you thought you were going. The metaphysical ramifications should be obvious. It's that the map can be a help, but it isn't the whole story. It is only a representation. It's taken me about 8 years, but it occurred to me that the Bible is such a "map." It certainly is accurate, but it isn't comprehensive, and by that, I mean it won't answer every question you throw at it. What it does do, however, is fully describe how to establish a relationship with the Almighty, out of which can flow all the understanding you can tolerate. The Bible itself says that the Holy Spirit will lead and guide into all Truth. (John 16:13) Does that mean we don't need the Bible? Hardly. But just like I had a map and still got lost looking for the physics building during my first semester at Purdue, only finding out that I was right in front of the building when I asked a passerby, the Holy Ghost (and pastors and others) are there to explain the map such that we understand the terrain it represents. <h4>English phrases</h4> English phrases that have their origin in the Bible: <ul> <li>"Put out to pasture." – Daniel 5:33</li> <li>"The handwriting on the wall." – Daniel 5:5</li> <li>"Now a days." – 1 Sam 25:10</li> <li>"Am I my brother's keeper?" – Gen 4:9</li> <li>"The blind leading the blind." – Matt 15:14</li> <li>"Serving two masters." – Matt 6:24</li> <li>"Beside himself." – Acts 26:24</li> <li>"Eat, drink, and be merry." – Ecc 8:15</li> <li>"Half–baked." – Hos 7:8</li> <li>"Give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves." – Est 7:9</li> <li>"The right hand doesn't know what the left is doing." – Matt 6:3</li> </ul> <h4>Pentecostalisms</h4> I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but Apostolic Pentecostals, just like any other group that has ever had a common interest, have a lingo. These are some that I have noticed along with their "interpretation." And please understand that this is merely in jest. <ul> <li>"Got in church." – Received the gift of the Holy Ghost.</li> <li>"Praise the Lord, brother!" – Hi.</li> <li>"The devil didn't give it to me and the devil can't take it away!" – I'm not going to backslide (q.v.)</li> <li>"Backslide" – Turn away from God. (Though every Pentecostal seems to be confused about how to conjugate this verb, it is found in the Bible.)</li> <li>"I can't see the difference between <insert some sin> and <insert a gray area>." – I know I shouldn't do it, but I'm going to do it anyway.</li> <li>"Amen!", "Preach it!", and "Come on!" – Various ways of saying that one approves or agrees with what is being preached.</li> <li>"Hm well!" – Amen. (q.v.) Predominant in churches of "character."</li> <li>"I covet your prayers." – Pray for me. (We're not supposed to covet, are we?)</li> </ul> <h4>Quotes</h4> Quotes that struck me as memorable from the people around me. <ul> <li>"I am going to a meeting shortly about the test lab. I told them up front it would not happen. But they thought I was being How do I say it, difficult. Now they are starting to understand that dificultly is getting something that maybe a good Idea." – Eddie D.</li> <li>"Bands like Dokken are proof that, if intelligent life exists elsewhere, they are practicing their version of the Prime Directive." – me</li> <li>"That's not funny. This place is scaring me." – Eddie D.</li> <li>"So what do you mean by planning?" – Mahua R.</li> </ul>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Stuff to think about. hmm.html false 34

6 Hmm

2009-06-07T13:34:31-07:00

Here is the JavaScript that found on the internet (and modified to taste) that provides for highlighting when the user passes the mouse over an image. First, put this in your page someplace: <blockquote> <script language="JavaScript"></script> </blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> Then in your image tags, put these additional tags: <blockquote> onmouseover="mouse_on_image('image1')" onmouseout="mouse_off_image('image1')" </blockquote> and: <blockquote> name="image1" </blockquote> I found that the last part is indeed important. It names the object being instantiated by the image. The example would be: <blockquote> <a href="doctrine.htm" onmouseover="mouse_on_image('image1')" onmouseout="mouse_off_image('image1')"> <img src="/images/buttons/doctrine_button.gif" alt="Doctrine" name="image1" border="0" width="100" height="100"></a> </blockquote> The trick is that for more than one image, you need to repeat the block of 4 lines at the top for each image, and name them appropriately through the document. Try below for one last remaining highlite button in my site: <a href="doctrine.html"><img id="image1" onmouseover="mouse_on_image('image1')" onmouseout="mouse_off_image('image1')" src="../../images/doctrine_button.gif" border="0" alt="Doctrine" width="100" height="100" /></a>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

A good Javascript for mouseover image highlighting (even though I stopped using it). javascript.html false 36

2 Javascript

2009-07-07T18:26:46-07:00

The Jehovah's Witnesses, as opposed to the rest of the Christian world (as far as I know), believe that Jesus was not God in any way shape or form. They believe He was simply the first-created angel, and the head of their organization. As amazing as this idea is, you have to understand what the Witnesses stand for, what makes them unique. That is that they are all about Jehovah, the God of the old testament, and His glorification. There is only one "God" to them. What is so ironic about this belief is how close to the <a href= "godhead.html">Truth</a> they really are. The Witnesses start out by saying that the King James Translation is a good one, but then go on to use their own translation. In their translation, the New World Translation (NWT), they substitute Jehovah for every reference to God in the Old Testament, and for Jesus -when referenced in his role in salvation - in the New. Now one can argue about whether or not to substitute Jehovah in for LORD, but substitution in the NT for Jesus is simply wrong. No credible Bible scholar supports this view. But that's not all. See, the Bible makes many, many references to the deity of Christ. None of them say "Jesus was God" per se, so we are forced to collect the references and examine them as a whole. This is actually very fortunate. If God chose to say in only one place in the Bible that Jesus was God, that reference could have been lost or changed, and we would not understand this truth. Instead, we have many scriptural passages like: John 1:1-15, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth." Which clearly deify Jesus. Another example is: Matthew 26:62-65, "And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Which shows Jesus claiming that He was the Son of God. Now then, what did it mean to be "the Son of God?" It meant something very specific to the Jews. See my <a href= "godhead.html#Explanation">explanation</a> in my study on the Godhead. Eliminating the word Jesus from the New Testament is only part of the battle when the war is being fought over the divinity of the Christ. You also have to remove complicated references as above which simply work from the assumption that Jesus was God and continue from there. The NWT doesn't stop with name substitution, it goes on to horribly mangle the passage in John chapter 1 in a way that has drawn criticism from every credible critic. In fact, the men responsible for the NWT didn't even know Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. They just thought that they knew how it should have been translated, I guess. Why would the Witnesses trouble themselves so much with the name of God, when the Bible (KJV) clearly indicates the importance of the name of Jesus? Allow me now to digress and explain what the whole idea of the "name of God" is all about. Perhaps a clear understanding of who God really is will follow. Acts 4:11-12, "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Philippians 2:5-12, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." The first passage says that salvation is through the name of Jesus, not Jehovah. It might be significant here to understand that Jehovah is the "basic" name of God. He had many appendages. Jehovah-jireh means "the Lord my provider." Jehovah-shalom means "the Lord my peace." Jehovah-nissi means "the Lord my banner." Jehovah-jehoshua, or Jehovah-joshua, is the Jewish which was transformed in the Greek to Jesus, and it means, beautifully "the Lord my Savior." It is in this last incarnation that the revelation of the Lord has matured for this age. See, God didn't even have a name when he created Adam and Eve, at least not that is recorded. It was during the time of the end of Genesis chapter four that "men began to call upon the name of the LORD." Here is the first time that the name tetramagon was used. In the Hebrew writing fashion, there were no vowels, only consonants. Therefore the name of God was written JHWH. But the name was so holy that no one would speak it. So much reverence was given the name of God that exactly how to pronounce it became lost. No one really knows if it should be Yahweh or Jehovah, and I am not about to start a discussion on which one is correct. When God called Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, he asked who he should say sent him. In Exodus 3:14-15, God replied the "I AM." In John 8:58, Jesus makes the claim that He, too, is the "I AM." A mistake? A lie? A misinterpretation? No. As the OT unfolds, we see that God is revealing parts of Himself to us through the ages. The current "dispensation" that we are in know God in the fullest as Jesus, the Lord our Savior. After the resurrection, God will have a new name. Surprised? Read about it: Revelation 3:12, "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." God is continually revealing Himself, not just through the ages, but in each of our lives. Whether or not we choose to follow the increasing understanding that God is trying to teach us, or cling to our own prideful way of thinking, based upon only what we can grasp or prove, is our choice. When it's more important to be "right" that to please God and take scripture at face value on faith, there can be no more growth, no more understanding. And then... Romans 1:17-25, "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Emphasis mine, of course.) <script language="php"> </script>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Was Jesus God... or was he a liar? jesus.html false 37

2 The Deity of Jesus

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

I must confess to some trepidation on taking out the domain name of davidkrider.com. I realize that I'm not the only one in the world with that name and that particular spelling. I also realize I'm not the only David Krider who's found his way onto the web. So I want to explain why I registered it. First and most important, there were many problems with my old ISP, which was Sprynet, which became Mindspring. Since the acquisition, their quality of service went from perfect to intolerable. Specifically: <ul> <li>I could no longer send email unless I dialed into Sprynet's POP. That's annoying, since I was frequently dialed into my computer at work so that I could 1) access files from home and 2) use both lines to get 52.8 Kbps.</li> <li>Further, I could no longer send mail to more than 10 people at once. That's a fine idea considering all the spam out there these days, but I was trying to run a small mailing list of about 100 people, and was even more annoying to take those messages over to my work's email server and fool with the fallout from that account.</li> <li>I could no longer use the Microsoft Web Publishing wizard to push my web files to Sprynet's web server, which was proprietary anyway. I could only use FTP. Oh, and by the way, if there are any problems with that, you were forced to use WS_FTP, a non-free program, or you couldn't receive technical support. (And there are lots of problems.)</li> <li>Third, they switched me to a new POP. Which, after resolving numerous glitches in getting connected, I found just plain stunk. The modem bank was slow and prone to dropping connections.</li> <li>And don't even get me started about their "technical support." It was terrible. Every time I tried to use it, I was treated like someone who has never seen a computer. In fact, one guy even tried to get me to dump my entire networking setup and reinstall it.</li> </ul> So, if I am going to move, as someone who does a lot of "work" through my personal account, I wasn't going to have to make everyone change their addresses more than once. Now I will always be able to be reached at this domain, and even if I change providers again, I will not have to make a broadcast to everyone I know that I have moved. Third, I imagine that the whole system will someday be revamped so that everyone has a single domain through which all communications take place, like a universal phone number, that will function for voice, video, data, etc., etc. So, seen in this light, and given the rapid evolution and expansion of the net, I don't think this action will even be relevant in a couple years. These things said, I have indeed taken notice of those other people and this page is devoted to those other David Krider's that I have found. If you came to this domain looking for someone else, let me point you to the ones I know about thus far. <ul> <li>First there's <a href="http://www.maxpreps.com/FanPages/writers.mxp/author-krider">my uncle</a>, the sportswriter. He has achieved Hall of Fame status for his years and years of work in the high school basketball scene. At one time, he was the person responsible for putting together the yearly USA Today McDonald's high-school basketball special. He's also into several other sports; so many, in fact, that I can't keep up with them all. Though you'll see his name referenced all over the net in discussions about high-school basketball, he has no net home to reference.</li> <li>Here's an <a href="http://www.visual-technologies.net/management.html">entrepreneur</a> who had, at one time, received some net fame through his crazy email and his targets' even crazier responses, though I guess he decided not to share them on his web site any longer. (They've been gone for years.) He was the first David Krider I found on the net, but he never responded to an introductory email that I sent. I think that he thought it was a crackpot email designed to spoof his gimmick.</li> <li>Lastly, here's a <a href="http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/07/former_irondale_mayor_david_kr.html">mayor</a>. (But don't get too excited yet!)</li> </ul>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

An explanation as to why I took out the domain davidkrider.com. krider.html false 38

4 Krider

2009-04-17T16:11:51-07:00

No, I don't think people who have never heard the Gospel are necessarily going to Hell. But it's weird that people ask. Because it's usually confrontational. In the vein of, "How can a loving God create someone and leave them to go to Hell?" If they really cared to know, they could find out, just like any other question they might have, by reading the Bible. (But what if the Bible doesn't talk about a subject, you ask? Then that, my friend, is a Good Question™.) John 12:48, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." In the passage above, we see that the Word will reject those that reject it. Rejecting the Word is a conscious choice. If someone never has a chance to make that choice, then how can he be judged at all? Check this out: Romans 2:11-16, "For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Here we see that God will judge those that aren't "under the law" by the "law" of conscience. Everyone has a conscience, even if they've never heard the Gospel. Hebrews 8:8-10, "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:" So it is that God will judge us by our heart, and require more of us depending on how much truth we knew. Luke 12:48, "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." And in any case, this really isn't a topic we should concern ourselves with. Life is not fair. The fact that one is able to contemplate the question means that they should be pursuing how best to answer it in their own lives. Romans 9:15-24, "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God." And perhaps, being so concerned, ought to take this next passage to heart: Romans 10:14-18, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." And fulfill this: Mark 16:15, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." So that as many people as possible have the chance to hear the Gospel. Perhaps someone struggling with this question can take heart in this: Matthew 24:3-6,14, "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. ... And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." <script language="php"> </script>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

What's going to happen to those that don't ever hear the Gospel? lost.html false 39

4 The Jungle Tribes

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

Well, if you're reading this page, you're almost certain to have already seen the movie, and I won't rehash it here. What I want to talk about is the movie's analogies to spiritual truths. I did a search to see if this topic had already been analyzed and found that it was and it wasn't. It turns out that there are a lot of similarities between Neo and the figure of Christ that I had not even considered. However, my viewpoint is broader than those kinds of historical or literary similarities. I guess the reason that these other pages I read missed the larger point is that most people haven't seen the true spiritual nature of this life, and therefore can't see the truths of this existence played out in the movie. The main issue is this: we all are caught up in living our lives, not realizing that what we are experiencing is a sort of shared hallucination, a pseudo-real life that merely echoes the real existence going on just outside of our perceptions. In the movie, what people experienced as life was actually a computer-generated reality that was directly input into their minds. It hid the real world from their perceptions. In what you and I call the "real world," our perceptions are similarly limited from sensing the truth of this existence. And it's an irony that I'm not sure was lost on the makers of the movie. See, what we call real, isn't. The real real is the spiritual, not the physical. What we feel, see, taste, hear, and smell are very real to us, but they aren't the definition of this life. Though we are caught up with these senses every day, they aren't the important thing about our existence. There is another world, a spiritual world, that lies just outside of our everyday senses. It can be seen, felt, and heard, but only by our spirit, and then only after it's been trained to be sensitive to these things by prayer, fasting, reading the bible, and being around others that have also become sensitized to it. We breathe, eat, sleep, and use the restroom every day. In our quest to satisfy these needs, it becomes easy to confuse them with our desires. This leads to being "in the flesh," (2 Co 10:3) as opposed to being in the Spirit. And being in the flesh causes your spiritual senses to become dulled. It also causes your spiritual judgment to become impaired. In fact, by living your life purely for your own satisfaction, and not for God's, your conscience itself can become "seared" (1 Tim 4:2) to the point of no longer being functional.  The truth of this life is all around us. Just like those that escaped the clutches of the sentient machines in <a href= "http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/">The Matrix</a>, so too do people that have been filled with the Holy Ghost realize this. We have taken the "red pill" and awakened to the reality outside of our natural senses. In not quite so serious a way, and yet still analogously, we walk among those that don't know God in the fullest way, or even at all, and realize also that "the devil" - i.e. forces against us - could be in anyone of them, much like the sentinels from the movie. And, like the end of the movie, where Neo is surmising the hapless plight of those around him, we stand looking around at those we are among and wonder, how do we get them to wake up too? How will they react when they do? Will they reject it and go back, like the traitor Cypher wanted to do? Or will they carry on the war against the machine - the reality that confounds the Truth - and fight to help save others from its grasp? Take the <a href="spirit.html">"red pill"</a> before it's too late. <script language="php"> </script>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

'The Matrix' in a way you've never thought about it before. matrix.html false 40

6 The Matrix

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

What's the deal with Microsoft and the DOJ? The deal is that it's practices are anti-competitive, and there are laws against that. It's not that people don't want the new features of IE 4.0, it's that people ought to have choice. And when Microsoft throws its egregious pockets behind a new technology that mirrors that of another company's, then gives that technology away, it hurts the market, and, thus, consumer choice. I instigated these thoughts in response to something in <a href= "http://www.win2000mag.com">Windows NT Magazine</a>. I sent it in, it got accepted, and it's archived <a href= "reader2_2.html">here</a>. I have expanded on those thoughts below. It's true that Microsoft is a corporate predator. Whether it's buying competing technologies, or it's using its dominance of the desktop to shove aside the first-to-market, it's the shrewdest company on the planet. What can you say against that? It is most definitely monopolistic in its practices. But at what - exactly - can you point the finger? Is it just well-managed, or is it actually illegally anti-competitive? Some people say that they get a good OS and application suite for a reasonable price? Huh? Yeah, I've kept up, and I've been keeping score. Have you? I've got... let's see... $120 for 95, $185 for NT 4.0, $130 (with rebate) for Windows 2000, $400 for Office 97 Pro, $400 (with rebate) for Office 2000 Premium... Um. Uh huh. If you're buying your software legally, and been in it for any length of time, you've easily got over $1000 in Microsoft software. (Then there's Visual Studio, but that's a whole 'nother - expensive - ball of wax!) You call this acceptable? You think these prices don't reflect predatory monopolistic practices? You're dreaming. This is the very heart of the matter: Microsoft feels no incentive to lower their price for a copy of Windows. In fact, it's gone up steadily in the face of ever-decreasing hardware prices. They say it's because they include more stuff. Well I want to shell out money for the OS and then go buy my add-ons somewhere else, thank you very much. But if I've already spent the money on one copy, why go buy another? I don't know what should be done, but something is definitely called for. Breaking up the company? Well, alright, but what about another step further? If you want Microsoft to be held to competitive standards, don't let them bundle *anything* significant with their products. Break out the defragger and the fax software (along with the browser) from Windows 2000. Then these things could be held up to competition, and we'd really see how well Microsoft has done their job. How many people (I'm one) aren't paying for the full version of Diskeeper because Microsoft has bundled an un-schedulable version with the OS? (Anyone that thinks they're getting this free is on drugs.) If I had to buy the stripped down version outside of the OS, I'd opt to pay a little more for the full version. Maybe someone else would skip it entirely and buy Norton Speedisk. The same holds true for fax software. If Microsoft would fairly price and sell their fax software that they've included with Windows 2000, how many people would opt to buy WinFax? That's competition. That's the kind of thing that needs to be fostered and guaranteed with whatever is finally done with Microsoft as a company. One thing is certain, I have personally spent my last dime with Microsoft. I counted it up, and I've spent over $1100 for their software. That's enough. I've tried the Windows XP beta version, and the only thing to note about it is that Microsoft is yet again rewriting and bundling software that other companies currently sell. Windows XP is poised to kill Easy CD Creator, WinZip, and Rollback. Good grief. Didn't we learn anything from the trial? Something needs to be done, and as a good friend just suggested to me, perhaps the best thing we could do to hamper Microsoft's predatory practices and stimulate competition is to have the federal government stop using Microsoft software. I'm voting with what dollars I have.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

The deal with Microsoft. microsoft.html false 42

1 Microsoft

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

Many people down through time have suggested that they were representatives of God because miracles have been perceived to have come from them. Others expect that these miracles will convince others that what they say about spiritual matters must be Truth. For instance, there is a small group of people here in the Ohio valley that promulgate the teachings of one William Branham. He allegedly wrought innumerable miracles of healing, and this is supposed to be taken as proof that he taught the Truth. "Witnesses" claim that he was pointed at by an apparition of God Himself and announced to be, sort of like John the Baptist, the "forerunner of the second coming" when he was baptized. He is now dead, and Jesus hasn't come again, so the analogy doesn't seem to hold; make of that what you will. I've not studied the historical facts. However, I did run into a couple once that gave me a stack of "Branhamite" literature. It didn't take long to find something disturbing. Mr. Branham claimed that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was actually a walking, talking creature, not just the snake-in-the-grass we think of today. That we can debate; after all, being cursed to crawl on the ground isn't much of a curse if that's already your primary mode of travel. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to me that the bible makes a big enough deal about this point for it to be a foundational point of my doctrine. Anyway, Branham went on to claim that the serpent was actually the father of Cain, and that's why he turned out to be a "bad apple," pun intended. Well, my trusty King James tells me how Adam knew his wife, and she bare Cain. It's very clear on this point. And the people that gave me the material told me all about how I could trust these kinds of teachings because Branham had performed lots of miracles. At first you might be tempted to simply dismiss the whole thing out of hand, but didn't Jesus himself say that the miracles He performed were proof that He was sent by God? John 10:36-39, "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." So when someone else comes along performing miracles and says that they are a sign of God's endorsement of what they are saying, what are we supposed to think? First, let's talk about the obvious. No amount of miracles in the world are going to cover up or excuse teaching something that is contrary to God's Word. The Bible has been settled since the "foundation of the world," and it's easier for "heaven and earth to pass" than for one jot or tittle of the law. I had a gentleman from Germany trade many respectful and sincere emails with me about this "serpent's seed" doctrine. He patiently laid out what the Branhamites see as the scriptural support for the idea. I won't go into it here because this isn't my point on this page. Furthermore, I doubt I can do it justice, since I'm so critical of it. The bottom line is that this doctrine requires that the plain meaning of the Word that has been understood for roughly 4000 years to mean one thing must now be contorted to infer something completely different. When Branham says that the serpent was the father of Cain, he is simply wrong. However, this realization only begs more questions. <ol> <li>What does that mean about the miracles that might have indeed been performed through him?</li> <li>What does that mean for the other things he claims as Truth?</li> </ol> On the first issue, we must be very, very cautious. The Bible says that there is but one sin that cannot be forgiven: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Matthew 12:31, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." It took me a long time to understand what this meant, but the meaning is clear in the context of the story. In this passage, the Jews are claiming that Jesus is casting out devils because He is empowered by the devil. Jesus explains that "a house divided against itself" must fall. The implication is that the devil isn't going to cast demons out of people. Why undo what he must have worked hard to accomplish? The broader implication is that the devil isn't going to do anything "good," because that would be contrary to what he is all about. The devil doesn't heal or deliver. The bible says "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy." (John 10:10) Therefore, when something spiritually "good" happens, it must be of God, because the devil isn't in that business. So when we see that something "good" happens at the hands of someone of questionable character or uncertain doctrine, we must not dismiss it as evil. It is still God working. I know that seems weird, but, again, the devil certainly isn't the one doing it, and that only leaves one other person. And to say that the "good" miracle that has been performed is of the devil is to "blaspheme the Holy Ghost." So always be careful to separate observations about the person from the things that he does. Take Benny Hinn, for instance. I don't know where his doctrine lies, except that is doesn't include being <a href= "spirit.html">filled with the Holy Ghost</a> like the apostles thought it did, and that's enough for me. He apparently has said some other strange things, which I just discovered when looking for reference material on William Branham for this page. (Not as wacky as some of the other topics I cover on this part of my site, but strange just as well.) But the bottom line is that I have seen him do miracles on TV. One of the first ones was the healing of a blind woman. I won't bother with the details, but the woman's reactions were just too real to have been faked. And besides, I felt a witness of the Holy Ghost - that excited, goosebumpy feeling that's like nothing else in this world - that made me realize I had just seen a real miracle. Does that mean that Hinn is speaking for God? Not necessarily, but not not necessarily, either. The bible also says this: Mark 16:17-18, "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Notice that "these signs shall follow them that believe," not them that "have the Truth." The presence of miracles isn't proof positive that someone knows and is teaching the Truth, although that person could certainly be saying truthful things. It just means that they have the faith to believe for these things. But that's not the end of the story, either, because, remember, God still must be the author of "good" miracles. Therefore, He is around what's happening, even if Truth isn't being promulgated. I know that won't make sense to a lot of people. The best way I can explain it is through this scripture: Luke 9:49-50, "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." See, God takes all the good press He can get, even if there is some garbage involved. The important concept here is that God is permissive. It's like security on an operating system. Some systems install such that no one can do anything unless specifically permitted. Others are set up to allow everyone to do everything unless specifically denied. God is more like the latter. He is open with His gifts. In my opinion, this is in effort to fulfill this scripture: 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God is less restrictive such that people have a chance to figure out the whole Truth. As I may have mentioned on other parts of this site, God's judgment - through the gift of Jesus' sacrifice - has been put off until the "White Throne Judgment." We are living in a time of mercy and grace, and God is extending these virtues to us in order that we might find Him in the fullness of "Spirit and Truth." (John 4:23) You may think that I've boxed myself into a corner, because this theology actually allows for someone who is completely at odds with God to work miracles. And you know what? You're exactly right, though it almost certainly didn't start out that way. Paul talked about the fact that God's favor was still with the Jews after the coming of Jesus, despite the fact that Israel, as a nation, had not received Jesus as the Messiah. Why? Romans 11:29, "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Huh? That's right. God gives His gifts and calling to certain people, and whether they follow Him in Truth or not, He honors those things. How else could it work otherwise? Really. Think about it. No one is perfect. If God didn't permit gifts of the Spirit to operate in someone's life unless they were without fault, there simply wouldn't be miracles. And think what you will about them, but I've seen plenty. So, in answer to question 1 above, we see that miracles are miracles, and they always come from God. And I hope I have answered why. In answer to question 2 above, we see that miracles aren't a witness to Truth; rather they are a testimony of faith. This, in turn, must lead to the conclusion that miracles don't prove anything, except that God is "around." And, really, I think that's what Jesus was saying. To refresh: John 10:38-39, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." See, Jesus is saying that even if you don't believe me, in what I'm saying about Myself, that I am the Son of God, believe that these miracles are from God, and stick around and hear me out on the rest of what I have to say. If you are tempted to read more into this, then remember the part where Jesus talks about how some powerful people are going to miss being saved! Matthew 7:21-24, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Jesus Himself shows here that miracles aren't proof. The bottom line is that miracles are a sign of something good, and that "something good" is worth looking into further. But there are things in that goodness that can still, in the end, be "bad." 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." And so it is we must "try the spirits." Miracles aren't indicators of Truth, just belief.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Miracles as proof of Truth? Yes and no. Read on. miracles.html false 43

6 Miracles Proving Truth

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

As you probably already know, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka the Mormons) claim that the Book of Mormon is a divinely-inspired book, on equal footing with the Bible. Why? Because of this verse, which they claim proves that will be other "testaments" of Jesus Christ, of which the Book of Mormon is apparently the singular example. John 10:16, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." However, when you look at the New Testament as a whole, what you find is that there are 2 basic types of people, Jews and Gentiles. Jesus came to minister to the Jews, not the Gentiles. At one point in his ministry, he is harsh toward a Gentile lady needing help: Matthew 15:22-28, "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." But He gives in because of her faith. Instead, Paul the Apostle, was given the Gentile ministry. Romans 11:13, "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them." In fact, Paul spends a lot of time on distinguishing the two peoples in the book of Romans, and underscoring the point that although they had been on "opposite sides of the track," the sacrifice of Jesus has made salvation - previously available only to the Jews - now open to the Gentiles as well. 1 Corinthians 12:13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." And so it is that Jesus did have "other sheep" that were "not of this fold." And they have "heard His voice," and are now one "flock." In fact the very process of opening up salvation to the Gentile is actually part of the plan for Israel's redemption. Romans 11:14, "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them." So we see that Jesus' comment here about "other sheep," when read along with the rest of the New Testament, is almost expected. It's simply a statement of how things are now and how they will be in the future. It's a little glimpse into what will happen with Paul's ministry. However, if, for the sake of argument, we dismiss this explanation for Jesus' words, and accept the Mormon idea that He is prophesying of another "bible" of sorts, then let us compare these two works. But let us not, at least at first, focus on spiritual matters. Rather let us review their historical credibility. For, you see, the Bible is most investigated literary work on the planet. No book has received as much critical, literary, historical, archeological, or spiritual study. Many people reject the Bible because they do not trust that it was translated correctly. (I have written more on this site than about any other subject, and I think you can <a href="bible.html">trust</a> that the original meanings have not been lost.) But even laying aside all deeper meanings, the people, places, and things that the Bible describes are all readily traceable to their historical context. When the Bible talks about the kings that ruled Israel and Samaria, other records from other peoples corroborate these facts. When the Bible talks about dates, say for the exile of the Jews in Babylon, these dates can be verified by other sources that have no vested interest in proving the Bible as accurate. It really is very simple. When the Bible talks about a city, we know where that city stood in that day because we know where it stands to this day. We know where the cities of Jerusalem, Jericho, Babylon, Nazareth, and others are. We can go visit them today. We can excavate the ground underneath them and prove that their inhabitants lived like the Bible says they did. Every time someone uncovers more about the history of the middle east, it underscores the Bible's reliability as a historically accurate record. Why is this important? Because Truth can only come from truth. Here - in the Bible - we have a book that makes some statements about what has happened in the past. They can be proven to have happened. That establishes it as truth. Then we note that the book makes predictions about things that should happen within the time frame that it covers. What we find is that these predictions have come true, showing that not only is the book accurate, but also it has been inspired by a force more powerful than mankind. That indicates that it is Truth as well. Further, we note that the Bible also makes predictions about what will happen in our future, as well as making statements about how we ought to live. After showing that the Bible is truth and Truth, we ought to take heed about the things it says to us for today. The Book of Mormon claims to be the history of an offshoot of the Jewish people who traveled across the Atlantic ocean in an ark to the Americas around 800 BC, settled and civilized the land, building great cities and temples, and finally wiped themselves out in a great battle around present day New York around 400 AD. Is this true? The Mormons will ask that you simply pray about the Book of Mormon and ask God if it's true. They say that a person will feel a "sign" that the book is true that they describe as a "burning in the bosom." The problem I have with such an approach is that the Bible itself delcares how to measure its Truthfulness, and this isn't the way. 2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." See, the Bible doesn't ask you to pray about it to see if it is Truth, it asks you to study it to see if it is Truth. Remember what Paul is really telling Timothy. Jesus had come and said that He was the fulfillment of the prophesies concerning the Christ. Were we to take that on blind faith? No. Were we to simply pray and ask God if it were true? No. Jesus and Paul both spent a lot of time showing how the man, Jesus, fit all the prophesies concerning his first coming. That's what Paul was advising Timothy to do. Study the scriptures and see if what you're being told is Truth. And so what does a study of the facts of the Book of Mormon reveal? Well, let me ask this leading question. How many of us, in our schooling, learned of a Jewish-type people that lived on this continent for the 1200 years from 800 BC to 400 AD? None of us. How can a people that - according to the Book of Mormon - numbered in the millions - who built fortified cities and temples - whose history stretched another 4 centuries later than anything recorded in the Bible - have left no mark on our historical and archeological records? I have had some limited discussions with Mormons about this, and their answer is always dismissive (which was why the discussions were limited). They claim that the central Americans and native north Americans are the descendants of these people, and that their records have been lost and their ruins built over. Compare this to archeological evidence that supports the Bible. Jericho has not just been excavated, but the Jericho of Joshua's time was seven layers under the present-day ruins. Each layer can be identified and dated, even though the middle eastern lands were in a continual flux of wars and peoples, and even though the ruins have been flattened by these wars and the elements, each time to provide a foundation for the next building. Jericho is not unique. Many, many such digs have gone on around Israel. The cities, having been destroyed and rebuilt so many times, actually stand higher than the rest of the land. This does not make it hard to verify the remains archeologically. Rather, it preserves the important facts for later discovery. And each one underscores the veracity of the Bible. On the other hand, the archeological evidence for the book of Mormon is non-existent. Though several books on Mormon "archeology" have been written, they are all, of course, written by Mormons. One of the most frequently-cited works on the subject, Kon Tiki by Thor Heyerdahl, only claims to prove that a white-skinned race lived on this continent during the time under investigation. It does not concern itself with finding any of the places or fixing any of the times referenced in the Book of Mormon. The bottom line is that Mormons themselves are at a loss to locate even one of the scores of cities mentioned in their own book. In fact, the situation is so bad, some Mormons have put forth the idea that the lands of the Book of Mormon (an hourglass-shaped land mass with oceans on both sides), instead of referring to the entire Americas (as most people have assumed), might actually refer to one small section of central America. However, this theory introduces another problem. See, the last survivor of the last battle that wiped out the Mormon people, Moroni, allegedly buried the original, huge golden tablets from which the Book of Mormon was "translated" in a little hill just a short way from the battleground. Since Joseph Smith says he dug up and translated the plates around New York, it would mean either that the hordes of people who fought the last great war had to have traveled the thousands of miles to present-day New York from Central America just to do so, or Moroni carried the hundreds (if not thousands) of pounds of plates all those thousands of miles to bury them there. Mormons have a history tour here in America, which retraces the path of Joseph Smith from his start in New York to his establishment in Utah. One of the big places of interest along the way is a city in Illinois where one of the first (maybe it's the first, I'm not sure) Mormon temples was built. A friend of mine went there. Took pictures. Was very proud of the experience. And I can understand this. If I could walk the paths of, say, the Apostle Peter, or especially the Apostle Paul, I would love to do that. Oh. Wait. I can. There are a million tours to take of the Holy Land in Israel. Most of the cities of the Bible are located right where they were 2,000 years ago. Many of the cities reference in the Old Testament have been located. You can walk around all of this history. We know the paths that the Apostles took as they started their churches. Why? Because it's all there. Why in the world can't we have a tour of the "Mormon Holy Lands?" Why don't they have a thriving tourism office in Salt Lake providing guided tours of the cities referenced in the Book of Mormon? This would be an enormous boon to the faith, and an incredible blessing to its adherents. But it doesn't exist. It's more than a little curious, isn't it? Why would God ask us to believe in a book that can't even be shown to be historically accurate? Most of the entire world, with the obvious exceptions, understands that the Bible - even if they don't agree with its spiritual viewpoints - it is still a verifiable historical record. Mormons will brush this question aside and tell you that if you would open your heart and ask God sincerely, He would show you that it's true. But should a person pray about the Book of Mormon? In contrast to the Bible, it just doesn't seem to bear that much attention. Asking if it is Truth before establishing its credibility as truth is backwards. After all, how can it possibly be Truth if it can't even be shown to be true? <img border="0" src="/images/separator.gif" width="300" height="10"> After having examined the "natural" argument as to the veracity of the Book of Mormon, I want to turn my attention to the "spiritual." The Mormons frequently refer to a passage in Deuteronomy for proof of Joseph Smith's divine calling as a prophet, and I want to include it here for my purposes as well. This is central to the Mormon belief system because when you elevate someone to the status of a prophet, it implies that they speak for God. Deuteronomy 18:20-22, "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." To get into a discussion about Joseph Smith's standing as a prophet here would be to deal with such a huge topic so shallowly (and ignorantly) that I can't begin to go into it. There are hundreds of books and web sites about such things. I'll just stick to the Book of Mormon, what it does or doesn't teach, and leave it at that. Importantly, there is more to this subject of prophets to be found in the Bible, and any study of a subject in the Bible must be done in light of all the scripture that speaks on that subject. Deuteronomy 13:1-5, "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee." This one is even more damning. This passage says that even though a prophet offer "a sign or a wonder," if he doesn't speak in line with what we already know as Truth, he is not a prophet of the Lord, regardless if that "sign or wonder" comes to pass. The New Testament backs this up. Galatians 1:6-9, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." So, in light of all the testifying as to how Joseph Smith is a prophet with a divine calling to restore the "true" gospel of Jesus Christ, I would like to ask why the Mormon church is not teaching what the Apostles taught. The Mormons like to establish their authority by claiming that Jesus laid hands on the apostles who laid hands on others who laid hands on others who eventually laid hands on Joseph Smith who laid hands on... You get the idea. And yet, they don't focus on the Apostles' teachings. What was the very first Apostolic sermon about? Repentance, <a href="baptism.html">baptism in the name of Jesus</a>, and <a href="spirit.html">being filled with the Holy Ghost</a> (as evidenced by speaking in tongues). Acts 2:38-39, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Notice that it says right there that the promise is for everyone for all time. That means it still happens today the way it happened then. Also, the Apostles understood that the Lord our <a href= "godhead.html">God is One LORD</a>. Deuteronomy 6:4-5, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." But the Mormon church teaches that God is a "trinity." In fact, the "revelation" that Mr. Smith allegedly experiences concerning the Book of Mormon shows all three "people" of the "trinity" standing side by side by side. The attentive reader will notice that this never happens in the Bible, because it can't. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Unbelievably, in his later teachings to his followers, he describes how God Himself was actually conceived sexually, was a human being - like us - who achieved godhood, and is one of many, many gods that make up the spiritual realm. Further, later church leaders taught that Adam was actually the incarnation of God that populated the earth. I can't even begin to go into the specifics of quoted references and refutations here. There is so much controversy about who said what that it becomes tedious. The bottom line is that -- despite the back pedaling today -- people heard the church leaders teaching these things, or these controversies wouldn't exist. Again, there are hundreds of pages about that on the internet. Suffice to say that the Bible is very explicit in many places that there one and only one all-powerful God who is from everlasting to everlasting. Don't get me wrong, the Mormon church stands for a lot of good, wholesome, and moral things. Family is of utmost importance. Baptism in the name of Jesus is necessary and the right way to perform baptism at all. But then they also teach that saved Mormons will all have their own worlds to populate - one for each wife - and rule over in the afterlife, and there's just simply nothing, at all, that you can even misconstrue in the Bible that would lead to such thinking. And so it is that the Mormon church isn't teaching what the Apostles taught about salvation, nor are they teaching correct doctrine about the nature of God. According to Deut 13:1-5, no matter how good a person is or what signs and wonders they might work, if they aren't teaching proper doctrine - if they are leading people away from the Truth that's already been established by the Bible - then they are in the wrong, and there shouldn't be any more question about their status as a prophet or the status of their works as Truth.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

I simply can't see how anyone could believe in The Book of Mormon as truth, let alone Truth. mormonism.html false 44

3 Mormonism

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

My <a href="church.html">pastor</a> is a very wise man. The wisest I've ever seen. And if I'd ever had had reason to doubt that, all doubt was banished this week. About 5 or 6 years ago, Pastor Mitchell bought his family a new computer, a Leading Edge 486DX 33. As I was setting it up for them, he said something at the time that I dismissed as naive. He told me that it wouldn't surprise him if there were things inside the computer that allowed the government and the makers of the software to track us and what we did with the computer. I dismissed him out of hand on the basis that, with so many people using this hardware and software that we were sure - no, absolutely sure - to find any "hidden" things floating around inside the chips or the code. Well, then Intel went and announced that they were putting a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_III#Controversy_about_privacy_issues">unique identification number</a> in their Pentium III cores. Some large web sites jumped on this and promised better customer service through it's use, but we knew better. It would be used against you, both commercially, and possibly criminally. The reaction was a large public outcry denouncing such a move. The argument went back and forth, and lo and behold... it quietly slipped out that Intel had already been doing it! Well, that took the wind out of everyone's sails. We had already been had. What was the point of fighting it now? So Intel stayed their course, and are putting the id numbers in the chip. In the great spirit of American capitalism, motherboard manufacturers started putting options in the BIOS to turn off the CPU ID feature, and all I've come across from that time have it disabled by default. I ate some crow, and told my pastor about it. He was unsurprised. Then came the allegation that there are <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/03/windows.nsa.02/">two back doors</a> in the cryptography routines in every copy of Windows. One for Microsoft, and one for the government, specifically the National Security Agency. This is so far out there, that you'd think there would be serious backlash. You'd think that this would call for some whistleblowing, like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy">nation-wide wiretapping</a> at all of the big routers for the internet and the phone company. But what are you going to do about it? Fight Microsoft? Fight the Feds? You're going to switch to Free Software. That's what you're going to do. And I'm eating crow. Again. What does this mean to you? I don't know, but I know what it means to me. It makes me really glad that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimmermann">Philip Zimmerman</a> has basically devoted his life to putting strong public-key cryptography in the hands of everyone. Given the government's distress over the dissementation of his software, I'm pretty sure he was on to something. Further, it makes me really glad that I use Free Software. Why? Because you cannot hide backdoors for the government or the world's largest corporations in software that's open source. This implies something: legislation. When organizations as large as the US goverment or Microsoft (or IBM or whoever) want something bad enough, they will eventually give people in Washington enough money to get their way. Remember the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip">clipper chip</a>? How about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag">broadcast flag</a>? These aren't just random attempts at monitoring how information flows through society for control or profit in the name of "safety" or "convenience;" these are very real moves against the rights the Constitution is supposed to protect: the rights to free speech, a free press, and free assembly. All I know is that, despite however this settles out, we're really on our own for taking care of security. There's no one else going to do it for us. There are too many agendas out there, known and unknown. If you have any concern whatsoever for your privacy, use <a href="http://www.gnupg.org/related_software/frontends.en.html">encryption</a>.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

The NSA and Microsoft in bed together. I still believe it. nsa.html false 45

3 NSA

2009-04-13T22:30:30-07:00

I originally wrote this while working as an engineer in the Ford Business Group at Arvin Exhaust. I had taken up being a finite element analyst, but I wasn't allowed to pick what platform upon which I would do my analysis. A coworker was given that task. I would have chosen some Unix-based workstation setup. He selected Windows NT. He assembled the first real "workstation" in our group, a dual Pentium 100. It was to be his computer, but he had pity on me, since I was wandering aimlessly on the job at the time, and let me have it. It was on this computer I started trying out various bits of software. I tried COSMOS, Pro/E, and NASTRAN for Windows. I wanted to buy the real NASTRAN, and use Pro/E as a front end, but Ford Motor Company was working a huge multi-million dollar deal with SDRC at the time, and our boss's boss decided that we should follow suit, so IDEAS was selected. They had a passable linear solver, but, then, everyone else did too. On the other hand, they did indeed have a great modeler. Because Windows was such a wannabe up-and-comer at the time, I  benchmarked my rig against some Unix workstations in our Advanced Engineering department, where they also had a seat of IDEAS. I even went so far as to get a demo Indigo II from SGI on site with which to experiment. The dual Pentium wasn't even close. So we upgraded, this time to a dual Pentium Pro 150 with 144 MB RAM. Now we were talking! With the much better SPECfp scores of the Pro series chips, I thought I could close the performance gap. However, my buddy in Advanced got a new UltraSPARC along the way too, so the comparison needed rerun. Better, but still a long way off. From: "David Krider" <dunkirk@slip.net> To: "ICCON Misc Group" <iccon-misc@kosh.sdrc.com> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:13:16 -0000 The results are finally in. I have looked for a long time, and this is as close to an apples to apples test as I have yet seen. I used Master Series 3.0 running on Windows NT 4.0 and SunOS 2.5. I simply used the p-element analysis example problem in the Exploring I-DEAS Simulation book, Volume 1. The solution times were 308 seconds on the PC versus 195 seconds on the Sun, a 60% faster score. The price of the Sun, however, is 400% percent more. (If you read nothing else, check my final statement about what this is letter is all about.) The PC is an HP brand dual 150 MHz Pentium Pro with 144 MB RAM, 4 GB disk space (on a SCSI bus), 4 MB Matrox Millenium video card, 4X CDROM and a 17" monitor. This goes for about $5,000. Add another $2500 for one of the new AccelPro 3D accelerators, and the total comes to $7,500. (I have an AG500, which -- according to Accel -- runs a little faster and has a couple more features than the AccelPro, but it cost me $3400, and is no longer being made. The AG500 is net yet running under NT 4.0; AccelGraphics says end of October for the new drivers.) The Sun is an UltraSPARC 170E with 196 MB RAM, 4 GB disk space, and Creator 3D graphics. Adding a floppy drive and not taking into account maintenance, this one runs $30,000 (with discount for previous sales.) Please note in this review that I have rounded off the prices. I don't claim accuracy to 3 decimal places. Also note that I am not discussing graphics. While I have no complaints about the 3D performance of my machine, I realize that the Sun blows mine away. I know UNIX hardware will perform much better in this arena. But hey, you're paying for it. I have found that after 100,000 DOF's in a simulation model, you don't want to run it on either platform tested here. You tend to look for ways to simplify the model. And my computer can handle the graphics of such a model nicely. So I don't see this as a big deal in regards to FEA. Building assemblies and drafting them is another issue. When we first went with dual PC's, the guy who spec'd them was convinced staying on an Intel platform running Windows NT was the way to go. His reasoning was that the performance benefit of running on a UNIX box was negated by the difficulty in running the operating system and the lack of "everyday" applications for it (read: Office 95.) Now someone will gripe that UNIX isn't that bad and that you can run a Windows emulator on it. Well, tell that to two of the three MSME's here doing FEA that don't know squat about UNIX (and don't _want_ to know squat about it) and all of whom have a PC sitting on their desks. Mind you this is being written by someone who wanted a UNIX box to start out with. I do know a bit about UNIX, but I have grown to think that NT is way ahead of it in many respects. (Flames on this point please direct to everyone@has.their.own.com.) What has really surprised me is that SDRC really is showing an attitude of platform independance. They really do -- as a company -- think of Wintel as a viable solution. I confess that I expected a different story when I went to the HQ for training. While I am unimpressed with their overall knowledge of the OS, I am quite impressed with their commitment to making a good solution to run on it. (I have on many occasions solved questions regarding I-DEAS interaction with the OS myself when support didn't have an answer. And don't even get me started about the new 3.0 install program on NT...) I wrote this in order to show the UNIX zealots of the world and the prospective corporate specifier that SDRC on NT/PPro is a good solution for running SDRC. There is nothing to be intimidated about when running linear static and dynamic structural analyses on Wintel. I'm _not_ saying that it is the empirical best solution. I _am_ saying that it is better solution bang for buck. Regards, dk David Krider Product Engineer, Arvin North American Automotive dunkirk@slip.net or 102227.2300@compuserve.com For in Him we live, and move, and have our being. (Acts 17:28) So that was my summary of the situation. As an epilog, I didn't get much response, but then I had taken so much time preparing and writing it that it didn't leave much room for argument. Not long after this, my coworker talked the big boss into a fantasy that all engineers in our group could do FEA at their desks, if they only had the computer with which to do it. You know, because it was so easy; just point and click! So we bought dual Pentium Pro's for everyone, and I used some parts from the next shipment to get to a dual Pro 200 with 384 MB RAM. Again, better, but no match in terms of raw performance. However, the price per performance ratio was still heavily in my favor. <h3>Unix Rules </h3> Parenthetically, another guy was hired in the Chrysler Business Group to do FEA during this time. He bought a high-end SGI workstation (a short-lived R8000-based model with stratospheric SPECfp scores) upon which he ran the non-linear FEA package MARC. (I still strongly disagreed with that direction for Arvin's needs, but that whole business is long gone now. After he left, his computer got transferred to Advanced where I traded it in on a new HP workstation.) Anyway, this being a time before our T1 to the internet, he hired a local ISP to come in and wire up his workstation with an always-on modem connection. When the consultant came in, I started a conversation with him about the whole NT versus Unix thing. I was "into" NT, to be sure. It was the "new hotness" at the time. He was into Unix, and felt the pressure from Microsoft. We had a lively debate about the merits of each. He told me how NT was so slow, and so lame, and so insecure. He said he was so good with computers that he could hack our network just by using some listening devices from outside the building and recording every keystroke we made. Yeah, whatever. After about a half hour of fiddling, trying to get this R8000 connected over the modem, I asked him what the hold up was. I told him that it took me all of five minutes to configure my NT box to dial up Sprynet. He told me that there were over 200 options he could set in the UNIX dialer program, and that he was just setting everything for optimum performance. And after this, he said, "Unix rules." Well, an hour later, he left to go back to his office and configure some things on his side. A week later, and he finally had it working, but every time the modem got connected, it would crash the entire workstation. It was some months later that they finally got a motherboard firmware update that resolved the problem. Now you might be thinking that that should be enough for me to have a good laugh at this jerk's expense and move on, but that's not the end of it. See, a couple months after they got it working, and after we got our permanent connection to the internet (which made this whole exercise moot), we found yet another problem with the way this "expert" had configured that poor machine. It would advertise itself to our internal network as a route to the internet. The real routers would pick up this advertisement and tell the PC's on the LAN that they could get through the workstation to the internet. Since the workstation was on the local network segment, it would be selected over the real internet connection, which was a couple more hops away. Besides the severe difference in bandwidth between a modem and a T1, the real problem was that when the engineer would shut off his modem, every computer that had the workstation as their default route would fail to get to the internet, leading to some very weird support calls to the help desk. Choosing to advertise your dial-up connections to the rest of the network was a simple check box in Windows NT 4.0... As the use of NT for doing this sort of thing was still basically new, there was a lot of debate on the IDEAS users' email list about it. Many people were against it for various reasons, all of which were subjective and relative. So I took the side for NT as an analysis platform, almost to play the devil's advocate, even though I still would have liked to have been using a real workstation. <h3>The market now</h3> I originally wrote the email back in 1996, and wrote the article not terribly long after that. The entire landscape has changed dramatically since then. Given what I was seeing, I predicted this, but I would have expected it to take much less time. As of 2009, the world of CAD/CAM and FEA is basically all Windows. SDRC is going to go away; CATIA is taking over the world, and their platform of choice is Windows. I think it's safe to extrapolate that if this juggernaut has finally thrown in the towel on Unix, everyone else -- if they haven't already -- will soon follow suit. The solver side is another matter, for a lot of this was going to Linux. Around 2004, I submitted a proposal around for buying a "compute farm" of Xeon boxes running Linux. Almost every one of the solvers we used had a Linux version, though few had front ends. I suspect that situation has changed now too.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

A dissertation (email) about the pros and cons of NT as of 1996. nt_vs_unix.html false 46

4 NT vs. Unix

2009-03-21T09:31:23-07:00

<img style="float: left" src="../../images/programming_button.gif" border="0" alt="Programming" width="100" height="100" />They say that "writers write." Meaning that, if you're a writer, it's not something you have to work at; it's just something you'll find yourself doing. It's what comes naturally. I think it's the same for programming. Programmers program. You know you're a programmer because that's what you find yourself doing. I've had several people over the years ask me how to learn to program. I always tell them the same thing. Find a need you have that can be solved with software, and just do it. You cannot learn to program without a goal in mind. There are just too many ways different paths to follow. You must keep driving towards a particular function in order to stay on track, and force you to learn the deeper ideas involved with programmer. For instance, did I need to "program" this web site in order to put my picture on the internet? Of course not. Anyone with a web browser can make a web site. Just jump on Facebook or MySpace. But I coded this up because this is my hobby. It's what I do for fun. Along the way, I've learned to program in PHP and Rails, learned to use Apache, MySQL, and PostreSQL, learned HTML (something, at one point, I said I'd never do) and CSS, and even learned about DOM and some Javascript. So this is where I want to throw up some hacks I've made over the years, just for the fun of it, and in the hopes that someone will stumble across them and find them useful.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

"It's software. You can do anything!" programming.html false 47

4 Programming

2009-07-07T18:23:30-07:00

<h4>Proverbs Chapter 32</h4> <div> <table style="width: 90%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center"> <tbody> <tr class="scripture"> <td class="scripture" width="45%" align="left" valign="top">1 It takes courage to be yourself. 2 A mother can comfort, but only time can heal a wound. 3 A conditional gift makes no one happy. 4 Sometimes, believe it or not, it has nothing to do with you. 5 Stop, drop, and pray to extinguish the fiery darts of the evil one. 6 Remember, you are the Church! 7 Do what you can, with what you've got, where you're at. 8 Whether moving closer to or further away from, you do not ever stand still in relation to God. 9 To get, you must give; the way up is down. 10 What pushes you toward God is conviction, and what pushes you away is condemnation. 11 The best way to save face is to prove that you have no face to save. 12 He who toots his own horn has no audience. 13 Not taking action is actually an action; sometimes it's even the right thing to do, but use it only when you need to. 14 Jesus didn't question our understanding, only our faith. 15 Lazarus still had to remove the grave clothes. 16 Don't just get a drink from God, fill your vessel for the road. 17 That which is obtained is more valuable than that which is received. 18 Don't just switch your worry from what a man is doing to what God is doing: just don't worry. 19 All behavior is learned, and can therefore be unlearned. 20 Never give the devil credit, even if he's right. 21 How would you pray if you knew your pastor was standing right beside you? Pray that way all the time. </td> <td class="scripture" width="10%" align="left" valign="top"> </td> <td class="scripture" width="45%" align="left" valign="top">22 Life teaches that sometimes you always go back for your bag and sometimes you never do, but has not taught to differentiate between those times. 23 You may be further along on "the road," but it's still as narrow as ever and it's still just as easy to have an accident. 24 We are supposed to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. 25 Prayer is the grease that keeps the devil from gaining a handhold on our lives. 26 Life isn't about being perfect, it's about how you handle things when (not if) you make a mistake. 27 Mercy without truth will deceive; truth without mercy will hurt. 28 Judgmentalism despises the very thing that has kept you alive long enough to do it. 29 The kingdom of God is in analogy. 30 The bible is not only Y2K compliant, it's eternally compliant. 31 Prayer is like a rusty, air-filled spigot. You run the water until it's clear, then drink. 32 Sometimes pencil and paper is still best. Why do we feel we need a 4-color, typeset solution to every little problem? 33 God didn't deliver David from his enemies to bless David, He did it to further His cause of establishing a kingdom unto His Name. David was into that purpose, and therefore shared in the blessings of that mission. Get into God's purposes. </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <h4>The Piano Lesson</h4> Wishing to encourage her young son's progress on the piano, a mother took the small boy to a Paderewski concert. After they were seated, the mother spotted a friend in the audience and walked down the aisle to greet her. Seizing the opportunity to explore the wonders of the concert hall, the little boy rose and eventually explored his way through a door marked "NO ADMITTANCE." When the house lights dimmed and the concert was about to begin, the mother returned to her seat and discovered that her son was missing. Suddenly, the curtains parted and spotlights focused on the impressive Steinway on stage. In horror, the mother saw her little boy sitting at the keyboard, innocently picking out "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star." At that moment, the great piano master made his entrance, quickly moved to the piano, and whispered in the boy's ear, "Don't quit. Keep playing." Then leaning over, Paderewski reached down with his left hand and began filling in a bass part. Soon his right arm reached around to the other side of the child and he added a running obbligato. Together, the old master and the young novice transformed a frightening situation into a wonderful creative experience. The audience was mesmerized. That's the way it is with God. What we can accomplish on our own is hardly noteworthy. We try our best, but the results aren't exactly graceful flowing music. But with the hand of the Master, our life's work truly can be beautiful. Next time you set out to accomplish great feats, listen carefully. You can hear the voice of the Master, whispering in your ear, "Don't quit. Keep playing." Feel His loving arms around you. Know that His strong hands are playing the concerto of your life. Remember, God doesn't call the equipped; He equips the called. And He'll always be there to love and guide you on to great things. - Author Unknown <h4>Three Trees</h4> Once there were three trees on a hill in the woods. They were discussing their hopes and dreams when the first tree said, "Someday I hope to be a treasure chest. I could be filled with gold, silver and precious gems. I could be decorated with intricate carving and everyone would see the beauty." Then the second tree said, "Someday I will be a mighty ship. I will take kings and queens across the waters and sail to the corners of the world. Everyone will feel safe in me because of the strength of my hull." Finally the third tree said, "I want to grow to be the tallest and straightest tree in the forest. People will see me on top of the hill and look up to my branches, and think of the heavens and God and how close to them I am reaching. I will be the greatest tree of all time and people will always remember me." After a few years of praying that their dreams would come true, a group of woodsmen came upon the trees. When one came to the first tree he said, "This looks like a strong tree, I think I should be able to sell the wood to a carpenter," and he began cutting it down. The tree was happy, because he knew that the carpenter would make him into a treasure chest. At the second tree a woodsman said, "This looks like a strong tree, I should be able to sell it to the shipyard." The second tree was happy because he knew he was on his way to becoming a mighty ship. When the woodsmen came upon the third tree, the tree was frightened because he knew that if they cut him down his dreams would not come true. One of the woodsmen said, "I don't need anything special from my tree so I'll take this one," and he cut it down. When the first tree arrived at the carpenters, he was made into a feed box for animals. He was then placed in a barn and filled with hay. This was not at all what he had prayed for. The second tree was cut and made into a small fishing boat. His dreams of being a mighty ship and carrying kings had come to an end. The third tree was cut into large pieces and left alone in the dark. The years went by, and the trees forgot about their dreams. Then one day, a man and woman came to the barn. She gave birth and they placed the baby in the hay in the feed box that was made from the first tree. The man wished that he could have made a crib for the baby, but this manger would have to do. The tree could feel the importance of this event and knew that it had held the greatest treasure of all time. Years later, a group of men got in the fishing boat made from the second tree. One of them was tired and went to sleep. While they were out on the water, a great storm arose and the tree didn't think it was strong enough to keep the men safe. The men woke the sleeping man, and he stood and said "Peace," and the storm stopped. At this time, the tree knew that it had carried the King of Kings in its boat. Finally, someone came and got the third tree. It was carried through the streets as the people mocked the man who was carrying it. When they came to a stop, the man was nailed to the tree and raised in the air to die at the top of a hill. When Sunday came, the tree came to realize that it was strong enough to stand at the top of the hill and be as close to God as was possible, because Jesus had been crucified on it. The moral of this story is that when things don't seem to be going your way, always know that God has a plan for you. If you place your trust in Him, He will give you great gifts. Each of the trees got what they wanted, just not in the way they had imagined. We don't always know what God's plans are for us. We just know that His ways are not our ways, but His ways are always best. - Author Unknown

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Bits of wisdom I have collected and experienced. proverbs_32.html false 48

5 Proverbs 32

2009-07-07T16:16:19-07:00

<img src="/images/questions_button.gif" alt="Questions" border= "0" style="float: left" width="100" height="100"> There are a tremendous number of religions in the world. Major ones include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism, but minor variations, specifically of Christianity, abound. Here is where I want to present ideas found in some of these other religions and show why I think that these ideas are inconsistent with themselves, let alone Truth. I just don't "get" them, and I welcome people to <a href="mailto:david@davidkrider.com">help me</a> understand them. The ideas and questions I present here are not unique. I have come across these ideas in many places and from many people. The most important thing to remember in these discussions is that Truth is truth is Truth. If someone professes to know the Truth, then that Truth will stand no matter what is said about it. A person who claims to know something about Truth should be able to read or talk about most anything that also claims to be Truth without fear that they will lose the Truth they have, else how will they come to know more? Also, Truth must be understood as Truth within truth. Meaning something can't possibly be Truth in a spiritual sense if the assumptions that must support it are not true in a natural sense. When it comes to doctrinal issues, if we are to say that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then we must endeavor to understand how it all works together. If the Bible seems to say two different things in two different places, we must work to find a third that puts the other two in context. Barring that, we must look outside of the Bible to sources that the Bible supports, i.e. the Holy Spirit, but only after we have completely studied and explained every reference within. The Holy Ghost will never contradict what the Bible says, because that in itself would be unscriptural. <ul> <li><a href="atheism.html">Atheism. </a>What I see as the main reason people become atheists, and why that reason isn't really a very good one.</li> <li><a href="jesus.html">Jesus was just the highest angel.</a> (Jehovah's Witnesses) This idea is contrary to just about every other Christian denomination I can think of, and the Witnesses have grossly mistranslated the Bible to try to support their view. Why? What is the benefit of denying the Deity of Jesus?</li> <li><a href="mormonism.html">Mormonism.</a> (<a name= "Latter Day Saints">Latter Day Saints</a>) I need help here especially. As opposed to the wealth of material that underpins the Bible, I can't find a single archeological discovery that supports the Book of Mormon. I am left with the conclusion that it's fiction. How can Truth come from something that can't even be shown to be truth? I have scoured the net to try to put together a study on this, but I honestly can't find any independent arguments for their belief in this work.</li> <li>Islam's Belief in the Bible. (Islam) Muslims claim that their god is the same God of the Bible, and - as I understand - believe the Bible itself. Yet, there is no greater contention on the face of the planet than who actually "owns" the Temple Mount. It seems to me that if they really believed the Bible, they would support the rebuilding of the Temple as much as the Jews.</li> <li><a href="zen.html">Zen.</a> (Zen Buddhism) The point of a lot of eastern religions is that there is no point. What's the point?</li> <li><a name="masonry" id="masonry">Masonry as a unique repository of Truth</a>. (The Masonic Lodge) I actually had a Mason tell me I couldn't understand all Truth without becoming a Mason. I hope this disturbs you as much as it did me. Even more troubling is how much in the Mormon temple rituals duplicate what the Masons do. (And Joseph Smith, <a href= "mormonism.html">q.v.</a>, as a matter of historical record, only started implementing temple rituals after he became a Mason...)</li> <li><a href="sabbath.html">The Sabbath.</a> (Seventh Day Adventists) Technically, the "Sabbath" is on Saturday. Why doesn't Christendom (Seventh Day Adventists excepted, of course) revere that day instead of Sunday? This is actually a really good question. God was very serious about it's observation. Shouldn't we be too?</li> <li><a href="saints.html">Saint worship.</a> (Catholics) The Catholics love their "saints." So much so in fact, that the "virgin Mary" has actually attained membership in the Godhead in some church leaders' minds. What's going on here? Should we really give that much credence to such people?</li> <li><a href="tongues.html">"Tongues" aren't for today.</a> (Protestants generally) I've had a lot of people give me reasons why Apostolic Pentecostals must be wrong about their doctrine of speaking in tongues as the evidence of being filled with the Holy Ghost, but so far, none of these reasons have held up to scrutiny. I'll at least try to be objective on this one, seeing as how <a href="spirit.html">this treatment</a> shows all the evidence for it.</li> <li><a href="science.html">Science</a> (as cosmolgy) It's long been clear to me that it takes just as much faith to believe that science can explain our origins as it does to believe that religion does. I just didn't have an angle to make that fact clear to other people. Now I do, but I must, unfortunately, leave it at just explaning the hook.</li> </ul>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

These are things I just don't 'get' about other religions, but offer how I view them from my own. questions.html false 49

4 Questions

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

I once interviewed with a local tech company for the position of system administrator. The company used all Microsoft products, which was fine, since I was in my Windows NT fanboy stage at the time. During the interview, they told me that they were having a problem getting their backups to finish, because people were leaving files hanging open. I figured there was a way to fix this, so I did a little fooling around when I got home, worked up a hack to fix the problem, and sent that to them gratis. Of course I got offered the job, but I turned it down because I already had a good thing going, and they couldn't really offer more. Turns out that the guy they wound up hiring came to work at my company about a year later because the company folded, so I think that was the right move... Anyway, I sent in my hack to <a href="http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=3550&pg=1">Windows Magazine</a>, and it got printed. Even though I'm "all Linux all the time" now, I'm putting it here for historical reasons. (My original submission was heavily edited, and I think it wound up sounding a bit silly in a couple spots.) <h4>Reader to Reader - December 1997</h4> Being a Windows NT enthusiast, I enjoy getting as much mileage out of native commands and utilities as I can, especially at the command line. I hate hearing that I can't carry out a command that the UNIX world considers stock-in-trade. This passion came in handy recently. An administrator was making rounds at midnight to reboot machines so that a backup could catch files that were still open. I was helping close files after hours, and I came up with an idea: A scheduled batch file could automatically close open files. Much to the administrator's surprise (this person had a UNIX background), I put the following command in a batch file: for /f "skip=4 eol=T" %%i in ('net file') do net file %%i /close The /f option parses output, and for this example, passes the first white-spaced token on to the rest of the line. (Other tokens can pass.) The eol=T keeps the command from generating an annoying message when fed an empty line. You need the double percent signs for shell variables inside batch files. You can then use an at command to schedule when the batch file will run: at 01:00 /every:m,t,w,th,f d:\users\davidk\kill_open_files.bat An alternative way to perform this process is through Control Panel, Server, but you can't schedule the process if you use this method. So try a "for /?" sometime and get familiar with its options. It's a useful, robust command. —David Krider dunkirk@sprynet.com <h4>Going Further </h4> Did you know that Winzip can be called from the command line as well? (Or, at least, it could be, back in the 6.0 days...) winzip32 -u -r -p d:\allfiles.zip @d:\filelist.txt ntbackup backup d:\ /a /r /l c:\windows\backup.log I liked using WinZip because the tape backup unit I had (an el cheapo Travan 1000) couldn't do hardware compression, and `ntbackup' couldn't do software compression. Thus WinZip greatly sped up the process. I found, though, that because the tape drive was a floppy device, a parallel-port Zip drive would get 5 times the throughput, and that's what I started using instead.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

An email I wrote to Windows NT Magazine that made me $100. reader2.html false 50

3 Reader 2 Reader

2009-03-21T10:15:51-07:00

This is from <a href="http://www.planetnt.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=5138&pg=3">Planet NT</a>. I don't remember getting $100 for this like I did <a href="../../reader2_1.html">here</a>, and it got a bit of editing too. <h4>Reader to Reader - May 1999</h4> RE: The US Government vs. Microsoft I want to commend Don Jones for getting to the heart of the matter in "The US Government vs. Microsoft" (Reader to Reader, December 1998). However, I think he got the point exactly backward. He says, "If the government wins the IE battle, you might need to give up native vector fonts, memory management, network protocols, and file management." As Don pointed out, other companies already offer these technologies. And Microsoft can continue to make the products even if the company loses the Internet Explorer (IE) battle. I believe the real problem is that Microsoft needs to divorce its additional software from the OS and sell it separately. Bundling applications discourages competition: For example, why should a consumer buy Chameleon's TCP/IP stack if Windows NT already includes one? If we force Microsoft to sell NT and its related utilities and add-on software separately, we'll introduce fair market competition. The company will have to produce quality products at reasonable prices. Microsoft will have to abide by good programming practices, using properly documented and controlled APIs and giving third-party companies the same environment in which to write their versions of software. Only then will we have true competition, and only then can we determine whose software is best. You might argue that this scenario results in consumers paying for software that is currently free. However, the software and utilities that Microsoft provides with NT aren't free—the licensing fees and upgrades are expensive. We're paying for software that Microsoft includes. I'd rather have the opportunity to purchase NT as a standalone product and add only the components I want. Microsoft could still offer bundles of products, such as Option Packs or Plus! Packs. Although I'd probably buy Microsoft's all-in-one product (for the installation convenience if nothing else), I think consumers need a choice. If the Department of Justice wins, we all win. (For another opinion about Microsoft's bundling practices, see Mark Smith, "Everybody's Doin' It," November 1998.) —David Krider david_krider@arvin.com

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

A copy of a letter about Microsoft that got printed in Windows NT Magazine. reader2_2.html false 51

1 Reader 2 Reader 2

2009-03-23T19:13:45-07:00

At the giving of the law, God formalized to the Jews a concept that had been around since the beginning of creation, the observance of a day of rest: the Sabbath. Anyone found desecrating the Sabbath by working on that day was to be put to death! God was very clear that we had 6 days in order to get our work done, and the last day of the week was to be one of rest. One man in the Bible was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath, and reported to Aaron. Moses consulted the Lord, and the Lord said that he had to be stoned! Obviously, God did not take the Sabbath lightly! (There are a lot of specific actions described as right and wrong in the law of Moses. According to the Bible, one action prevented on the Sabbath was building a fire. According to Jewish customary law, there are many, many more. The customary law was an interpretation of the Law by the leaders of Israel. It went on to specify further what things ought to be allowed and not allowed based on the philosophy behind the law. For instance, exactly when is the Sabbath? Yes, we know it's the seventh day of the week, but when? According to the thinking of the time, days started in the evening, not the morning, as we consider it now. Thus, the Sabbath actually starts Friday evening. Aha! But when is it evening? If we're going to be so specific about what we can do and what we cannot, we must be specific about when we can and cannot do it. The custom is that when you can see the first three stars, it has become twilight, and thus the day has ended. Such was the exact nature of the customary law. It was the onerous weight of the customary law for which Jesus derided the Jews so much.) Perhaps it is this exacting nature of the Law and the Prophets which causes the Seventh Day Adventists to be so adamant about observing the Sabbath on Saturday. Perhaps they think that since God intended it that way, we should take Him literally. Indeed, I find myself in that category, as I try to take God literally whenever I can. Why change what God established at the very beginning? As Christians, we observe a semblance of a day of rest on Sunday. Why? Why not Saturday, as was originally intended? In fact, it's a little odd that pastors themselves seem to work harder on Sundays than any other day of the week. Other people in the church also work hard on Sundays to make a service happen. Is this what was intended? Jews have their worship and teaching on the Friday evening before the Sabbath commences. Now I know that historically, the early Christians gathered together to worship the Savior on Sundays, because that's when Jesus rose from the dead. It then became a tradition to have church on that day. But, there's nothing written in the New Testament (of which I am aware) that describes the apostles' view on the subject of when to have worship except this: Romans 14:5-6, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Now understand this is given in the context of the great meat-sacrificed-to-idols discussion. There are many, many things that are very plain in the scriptures, and, where there is scripture concerning a topic, you don't have a choice but to adopt God's point of view about it. I think Paul is laying down a policy here that - for what isn't covered in the Bible - we are left to our conscious about it. In it Paul points out that there are some things that we have to figure out for ourselves. Some things are left to our conscious. Don't get me wrong. I don't think there are a lot of areas like this, but this is clearly one of them. As far as legalism of what can be done on the Sabbath, consider this: Mark 2:23-28, "And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." Note that last part, "the sabbath was made for man." See, we are indeed supposed to honor the Sabbath - a day of rest - but not if it isn't to our health and well-being. In this example, Jesus would rather that we eat on the Sabbath than fast and not glean from the field. In that vein, consider the following: Luke 13:10-17, "And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him." Again we see that there is yet a higher law than that of the observance of the Sabbath, and that is that the day is supposed to be not just for rest, but also for our edification. There's a bigger concept than just not doing something. It's that we should allow ourselves to do things that will strengthen us mentally, spiritually, and physically, and refrain from things that would tax us and leave us - for the sum of the effort - weaker. So I don't find any conflict with the law of the Sabbath, and the way we are doing things in the church today, as long as on the day we worship, we leave that day for worship, and not use it for working. I finish with this scripture, which seems to nullify debate in the issue: Colossians 2:16-17, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Why is it important to observe the Sabbath? sabbath.html false 52

6 The Sabbath

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

The Catholic church venerates many people as "saints." We must first be clear what this means. They don't use the term like the bible does. If you look up the word "saints" in a concordance, you will find that the term is used to refer to the Church or a collection of God's people. It is used in both the Old and the New Testaments in talking about the camp or a church, or something similar. One exception is that Aaron the High Priest is once referred to as the "saint of the Lord," but the overarching use of the word denotes an every-day person who is living in accordance with God's principles. When the Catholics use the word "saint," they are imbuing the person referred to with a holy aura. Those that have attained sainthood in the eyes of the Catholic church are revered and considered to be quite apart from the rest of the masses that make up their congregation. They also typically have some sort of legend attached to them, like perhaps healing some great person or providing protection for some innocent. But of all the saints in their lineup, no stands out so clearly as Mary, the mother of Jesus. As I indicated on the link to this page, many of the church's leaders are giving so much importance to Mary that they consider her to be a fourth member of their godhead! (Please <a href="godhead.html">review my discussion</a> to see that there aren't just three, but only one "person" in the Godhead anyway.) They think that it would be impossible for someone to go to Heaven without actually worshipping her. And that's what "Hail Mary's" are all about: worshipping her. Does this sort of worship have any precedent in the Bible? I certainly can't find it. The main passage to which I like to refer shows exactly what Jesus thought about how important Mary was in the plan of salvation. Matthew 12:47-50, "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Jesus was saying that anyone who would live according to godly principles was worthy of the same respect as his mother or his brothers! How does that contrast with what the Catholic church does, and how does that fit in with the Bible's overall use of the term, saint? And if Mary doesn't deserve any more honor than Jesus seems to be indicating here, what's the point of honoring the endless list of other people in the lineup? Even though I think I have covered sainthood, the issue begs another question. What did Jesus say about his "brethren?" Huh? Did you catch that? That's right, Jesus had brothers and sisters. (Matt 13:55-56) And yet the Catholics maintain that Mary is still a virgin. Are they not reading the same bible I am? Well, of course, they aren't, but that's another story. They're reading one that reads much the same except for the added books, and the commentary. In this Douay-Rheims translation, right after this passage, it claims that these brothers are actually sons of the "other" Mary that always followed Jesus around. However, her sons are referred to as James and Joses (Matt 27:56), not the four listed here. And, in any case, the context of the passage is completely clear. The people are commenting on the fact that Jesus is just one of them, pointing out that all of his family lives right here in town with them. Thus, another pillar of the Catholic faith can be shown to be completely unscriptural. But let's not stop there. This topic begs yet one more. Isn't true that all priests must be chaste? That the pope himself must be celibate? Why is it, then, that Paul declares that bishops in the church should be married? 1 Timothy 3:1-2, "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" The bible says basically the same thing about elders (also called bishops.) (Titus 1:5-9) So why should the leaders of the Catholic church be forbidden to marry? Paul said "it is better to marry than to burn [with lust,]" and that "marriage is honorable in all." But this scriptural problem for their church doesn't stop there. The bible also records that Peter - the apostle they claim was the first Pope - was also married! Now how do they justify that their ministers should be prevented from marrying? Matthew 8:14, "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." I could spend page upon page talking about the crazy things going on in the Catholic church, but, one, you can find tons of it on the net yourself, and, two, my other pages on doctrine explain my views such that I don't need to spend time on the major tenets like <a href="spirit.html">salvation</a> and the <a href= "godhead.html">nature of God</a>.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

What are saints, and how is this significant? saints.html false 53

7 Saint Worship

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

Don't sell yourself short on your experience with God; the baptism of the Holy Ghost is just as real today as it was in the bible. In this study, there will be a scripture referenced and then some comments about it. These comments are intended to be leading, but it is left to the reader to determine if they make sense. You are encouraged to get out your <a href="disclaimer.html">Bible</a>, read the surrounding scriptures, and see for yourself if my comments are appropriate. Matthew 3:11, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:" John's baptism was a baptism of water. Jesus’ baptism is a baptism of the Holy Ghost (and fire!) John 14:16-18, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." Jesus was going to send the Comforter (the Spirit of Truth) after he was risen, which would be the guide for further understanding. Romans 14:17, "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." The Holy Ghost is what the kingdom of God is all about. Galatians 5:16-25, "[This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." A person’s lifestyle will be changed by the Spirit. Titus 3:4-7, "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Ephesians 1:10-14, "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." This Holy Ghost is the "earnest of our inheritance." It's the down payment. If we have this, we know that when Jesus comes again for the "redemption" of His "purchased possession" (purchased by His blood) we will be taken back with Him. John 7:38-39, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" Luke 24:49, "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Jesus told the apostles not to go straight out and start preaching, but rather wait for the promise, the promise of the Holy Ghost, which was the power to do what they were going to do: evangelize the whole world. This is vitally important. They weren't ready. They weren't equipped to begin preaching without it. Jesus had to die, rise from the dead, and send the Holy Ghost before any work could be done. Romans 8:2,9, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. ... But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." These scriptures and the others around them in Romans let us know that the Holy Ghost is not optional. If you don’t have it, you aren’t one of His. John 3:1-8, "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." So a person must be born again to enter into the Kingdom. What does that mean? Jesus explains that being born again consists of a being born of water and of Spirit. What does that mean? We will see how the Apostles interpreted these two things in later scriptures. Look carefully at the reference to the wind blowing where it will. The analogy that Jesus was using is that you cannot see the Spirit coming and going, but there will be a sound associated with it. What is that sound? Again, we will see in later scriptures. 1 Corinthians 15:45-50, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." This is a little deeper explanation as to what being born again really means. The first Adam was flesh. The second Adam (Jesus) was spiritual. In the same way, our redemption must proceed along the same lines. First we are born, then we must be born again. The first birth is carnal, the second birth is spiritual. Now we must take a different tack for a moment. Ephesians 2:19-20, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];" Point: Jesus is the head of everything about the Church, the Bible, etc. Matthew 16:17-19, "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Point: Jesus appointed Peter as the chief of this new movement, this infant church. Acts 2:1-13, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." Here then is the first record of what it is like to be baptized by the Spirit. This was the big event that Jesus had told them was coming, the big event that they had been waiting and praying for. Did you notice the sound associated with it? What did the others hear from outside? They heard them speaking in tongues. Indeed, how did the Apostles themselves know that the waiting Jesus had told them to do was over, that the "promise of the Father" had been given, and that Holy Ghost had indeed been poured out? Because they spoke in tongues when they were filled. Not as though they did it themselves, but "as the Spirit gave them utterance." They were not just sitting together in a room when all of the sudden someone had enough faith to say, "Hey I’ve been filled with the spirit. I’ve been born again. See? Look at the fruit of the Spirit I have in my life." And that is the same reason that it happens this way today. So that a person can know for sure that he has been baptized by the Spirit. Acts 2:14-21, "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all [ye] that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is [but] the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Peter goes on to preach about who Jesus really was and why He came. The people became convicted in their hearts when they learned that they had crucified their Savior. They responded to this message by asking what to do with this knowledge. Acts 2:37-39, "Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call." Notice that this is the very first sermon that is ever preached under the new testament of Jesus’ sacrifice. Notice who preached it: Peter, the man that Jesus chose to lead this new church. The man that was one of the first disciples called. One of the three men who was with Jesus at every important event in His ministry. Note that these two previous scriptures were given in direct response to the question: "What shall we do?" Peter simply says repent, be baptized in Jesus’ name, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Notice that this is the fulfillment of the two steps of being born again of water and Spirit. Notice also that this wasn’t just for this time period because he specifically states in the next verse that this experience is for all generations. Acts 8:9-20, "But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." Notice here that baptism by water in the name of Jesus is a completely separate thing from being baptized by the Spirit. The Apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to these new disciples that they would receive the Holy Ghost after they had been baptized by Philip. It must have taken at least a few days for word to travel back and even more days for the other apostles to come and pray for them. So there was a definite time period between these two events. Notice also that, though it doesn’t say that they spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost, there was some kind of outward showing of what happened on the inside because Simon the sorcerer noticed that something had happened and offered money in order to have the ability to cause it to happen to other people. Acts 10:34-48, "Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, [I say], ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, [even] to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." There is a lot of background that needs to be given to fully understand this passage of scripture. Peter had a vision in which God informed him that the Levitical dietary laws have been lifted. The point of the vision was that God was opening this new salvation through spiritual rebirth to all people, including the Gentiles. God then tells Peter to go with a man to a stranger's house. It turns out that this stranger is a Roman centurion (a gentile) named Cornelius, a righteous man that had a definite relationship with God. That’s why He sent Peter to him. However, there was more for Cornelius to experience in God besides giving alms and praying. That experience was the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Notice that - again - we see that this experience is marked by speaking in tongues. Ask yourself this question: if this sign did not accompany the experience, how would the Apostles have known that this experience - the exact same one they had on the day of Pentecost - had been given to the Gentiles as well as the Jews? Acts 19:1-7, "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve." Again, speaking in tongues is the common denominator of the new spiritual birth. (Here we see that they also "prophesied." The Bible uses the phrase "to prophesy" to mean worship and praise as well as to actually give a prophetic utterance about future events.) Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." This new birth experience was God's plan all along: to allow all peoples access to the spiritual "Holy of Holies." This is the significant thing. Under the law, only the high priest of Israel could enter into the presence of God in the tabernacle or the temple. God's holiness prevented just anyone from approaching Him. Now, praise God, He Himself has paid the price of our atonement, allowing us to be presented as though we were holy so that that anyone might enter into His presence in order to have a personal relationship with Him. One that is fully realized only when we are filled by His Spirit. Luke 11:13, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" The baptism of the Spirit is freely available to all who ask.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

On the doctrine of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. spirit.html false 55

3 Spirit Baptism

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

<img src="/images/testimony_button.gif" alt="My Testimony" border= "0" style="float: left" width="100" height="100"> John 6:44, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." This is my testimony, or how I came to the conclusions I have about God, His nature, and my relationship to these truths. I've broken the story up, as it is getting to be quite long. I'm trying to make it as readable as possible, and still yet make it short enough to hold your attention. I can't help it if there is so much that is pertinent to the telling. So sit back in the chair and get comfortable, cause it's quite a tale... [ <a href="testimony1.html">Part I, Childhood through Faith</a> ] [ <a href="testimony2.html">Part II, Mary through Apostasy</a> ] [ <a href="testimony3.html">Part III, Spirit Baptism through Confusion</a> ] [ <a href="testimony4.html">Part IV, Commitment through Victory</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

testimony.html false 56

1 My Testimony

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

My story actually starts back with my maternal grandfather, Earl, or "Pucka," as I called him, though nobody ever knew why. I can remember him staying up late on Saturday nights preparing the Sunday School lesson for the "seniors" class. I can remember him rattling the change in his pockets as he greeted people at Castle United Methodist Church of Elkhart, Indiana. Though the church is gone now and has merged with another church, the building is still there, and I can still almost smell the musty air of the ground floor. Anyway, it was in this church that my parents met. (Isn't a church the only place to meet your spouse?) I suppose it was this quiet respect that first began to teach me about God. From there my story moves to Scipio Presbyterian Church in -- where else -- Scipio, Indiana. Scipio is still a very small church, typically running 30 on Sunday, but it was here that I formed some stabilizing friendships and found my first love, Sherri. (She never quite returned the favor, though we were good friends for years.) I'll never get over the goodness of God in providing such a small church with so many young people for me to be friends with: the Rose's, the Kinnear's, the Bennett's. My mother got intensely involved with the church summer bible school that was a joint effort between our church and the local Methodist church. It was through this involvement that I developed a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. See, my mother would buy bible school supplies from Nelson's Bible Bookstore in Columbus. I would go with her, and, while she was doing her thing, I would peruse Chick bible tracts. Now these are crudely drawn tracts that cover a variety of ways that one can live apart from God, but they always end the same way: someone is "deep in sin" and is witnessed to by a "Christian." This Christian then has the sinner repeat the "sinner's prayer" that basically says that you are a sinner, that you want to stop sinning, and that you want Jesus to "come into your heart." It is at this point -- according to these tracts -- that you are saved, or "born again." Well, one day, I prayed that prayer and... I felt nothing. But the point is that it started me talking to God, and, believe me, that's exactly what this whole thing is about. This whole existence. I started praying for people, and meaning it. And I started reading bits and pieces of the bible. I didn't understand it, but God was there and working through it. Around this time, I struck a friendship with Mr. Moir, one of the five strongest influences in my life. He was a contractor who had, with his two brothers, built the subdivision that I lived in. (He also had built and attended the aforementioned Methodist church in Scipio.) He continued to build houses in the area, and, when I was about 14, he built a house two doors down from me. Now, being the engineer that I would become, I would go and watch him after school and on Saturdays. After a time, he began to talk with me, being a gregarious type of guy, and we found that we had a common interest: playing the harmonica. My sister happened to be with me one day, and somehow the subject came up, and Mr. Moir asked if I would play for him. Laura, my sister, encouraged me to go get my harp. So I went and got it and my song book and played "When the Saints go Marchin' In." Then Mr. Moir stood there with a smile on his face. I caught the look, noticed that he had a harmonica too, and he told me to play again. Tentatively, I started, and he did too. After the first few notes, I was hooked. He was amazing. One of the all-time best non-blues harp players to have ever lived. We would sit on his back porch, with the crickets and bullfrogs as backup, as we played harps for hours. He used to play with his two brothers, but they had moved away. I became a sort of surrogate grandchild to him. He of course never said anything like that, but I know that's how he felt. And, in a way, he became a sort of grandfather figure to me as well, having lost my Pucka when I was in fifth grade. Anyway, Mr. Moir talked to me one night about faith healing. He told me that his wife had been diagnosed with cancer, and that they had prayed for healing and, instead of continuing to pray about it, had thanked God every day for 30 days afterwards. After that time, she went back to the doctor and he couldn't find a trace of cancer! Now I had heard about healing in the bible, but this was the first time that I had ever heard about it in modern day. I have to explain here that in my youth I was extremely allergic to poison ivy. I could catch it in the air. I would break out 3 or 4 times a year. Once a year, it usually got bad enough that I had blisters between my fingers that would get to be as big as my fingers themselves. I began to break out not long after Mr. Moir had witnessed to me. Right then I prayed that God would heal me, and I began to thank Him for that healing. Well, I didn't develop blisters. Ever. Since that day, I have never broken out. Many people say that they believe that people were healed by Jesus in the bible, then say that they believe the same thing could happen today. But then, in the next sentence, they will find a way to dismiss healing when it is presented to them. I have just as hard a time of keeping faith in my heart as the next guy, but there comes a time when you have to realize that according to God's rules, sometimes things have to be believed to be seen. Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Needless to say, God started becoming real to me around this time. I can remember going to my church and listening to the sermons. I would sit and feel a power moving on me that I had never felt before. I would want to cry. I would get teary eyed. I would wonder if everyone else felt what I was feeling. I would want to release my feelings. I would want to cry out to God. What was going on here? The minister of that church had good messages, but he wasn't a tremendous speaker. The music, though performed with heart and feeling, wasn't professional. It wasn't even amplified! (Imagine...) But there I would sit and wonder: what was I feeling? It wasn't all that long after that that my father developed kidney stones. I can still remember the morning we got up early to take him to Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis. As I was getting dressed, while Dad was across the hall in the bathroom... God spoke to me. As Mr. Moir had witnessed to me about the laying on of hands that had healed a friend of his, so God told me to lay hands on my father. It was just as plain as reading the words on this page. I knew that if I would just go into the bathroom, lay hands on my dad, and pronounce that in the name of Jesus he was healed, he would be. I still have no doubt that it would have happened if I had done it, but I argued it away. I thought that since my dad didn't believe in that, it wouldn't work. (The bible tells different stories though...) It took a long time for me to forgive myself for not doing it, but it did finally bring together the feeling of the Spirit and the Word of God. I then understood how God speaks to people. Just like in the bible. Still today. Now I became really fervent about God. I would turn every conversation I could into a discussion about the Lord. I remember witnessing a lot on the school bus. I am amazed today at how many receptive ears I had at that young age. The majority of grown-ups think that they have it all figured out, but young people are open, not having "heard it all before." No wonder Jesus said: Matthew 18:3, "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." About this time, I began to develop an very close friendship with a girl named Mary. It would be the best of times, and the worst of times... [ <a href="testimony.html">UP</a> ] [ <a href="testimony2.html">NEXT</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

testimony1.html false 57

1 Part 1

2009-07-07T17:39:04-07:00

When I entered high school, I re-met a girl with which I had gone through grade school and junior high. Her name was Mary. She was a very kind and gentle girl, very pretty, and very smart. We sat next to each other in German class. We would talk and talk and talk. That next summer after freshman year, we used to talk on the phone for hours. Now, mind you, she had a serious boyfriend, and had had this boyfriend since seventh grade. Plus, I was a "fat kid." So all of this was purely innocent. Come next year, tenth grade, we had all the same classes except one. We sat next to each other in every class we could, but after the seating charts were assigned, it left us only with Drafting II. Not long into the year, she broke up with her long-time boyfriend. She moved into my locker. And one day I woke up to realize that I loved her intensely. I felt so comfortable with her that I just called her and told her. She really didn't know what to say, but I like to think that she had some minute feelings for me as well. I'll never know because I shoved her out of my life in the most perverse way possible: with religion. <a name="Being fairly religious...">Along this time</a> that I was feeling so overpowered by the Lord in church, witnessing to anyone who would listen, and having had an experience with healing, I felt that it was time for Mary to move into the next level spiritually. I kept inviting her to church (she lived in Scipio, after all), but she wouldn't come. Finally, after a couple months of trying, I got frustrated and told her that if she wouldn't come to church, we couldn't be friends. We argued to the point of getting separated by the teacher of the class (yeah, right in front of everyone), and the next day, when I went to sit by her again, our teacher thought that I should just stay at the other desk. For Mary's sake, in retrospect, he was right. She moved out of my locker and quit talking to me. And who could blame her. I sure don't. It was probably sophomore year of college before I finally got over the loss. It broke my heart in the worst way. It shook me to my roots. Though I didn't "lose" my faith, I just didn't think about it much anymore. I didn't notice it at first. I guess I was in shock about the whole thing until I woke up an realized that I just wasn't "into God" anymore. Junior year of high school is lost in some of the most rank stupidity I have ever committed. Senior year was a turning point. I found alcohol. I dumped my best friend. (There's a couple of pages in-and-of itself.) I hung with the "in" crowd. The details here aren't all that relevant to my testimony except to say that God was getting further and further from my everyday thoughts. Freshman year at Purdue University as a Freshman Engineer: I had made it! I worked in the kitchen staff at Harrison Hall; it was my first job. It immediately gave me a clique of friends -- and upperclassmen friends at that. I was partying by the second weekend of my career. I wound up barfing drunk every weekend of freshman year (well... except a couple.) I was drunk both Friday and Saturday nights of the weekend. Sophomore year, I added marijuana. I really liked dope, and it liked me. Something about my body's chemistry allowed me to get high for eight hours a stretch. Once, I smoked an entire eighth of an ounce and was high for three days straight, I kid you not. I was fuzzy for the next two, and for the next three, I got buzzed again after eating supper. I got scared enough by that experience that I flushed the rest and swore off buying anymore, knowing that it would've been my education down the toilet if I didn't. But that didn't stop me from smoking at parties when someone else offered. Junior year was the height of my despair. I had finally learned how to handle my alcohol. I usually prepped for an evening of drinking by taking 10 or 12 NoDoze tablets just before supper. Needless to say, I would just pick at my food. Afterwards, I would have the requisite... ahem... movement (hey, you've probably had too much coffee; think about it) and shower. Then I'd whip out the 100 proof Dark Eyes vodka. I pour about half a pint in a cup, take a big breath, drink it in one long gulp, and immediately chase it with a Coke. (Don't breathe...) I'd time it so that, just as I was coming down off the caffeine, I would go all the way down on the alcohol. Then I'd turn on my CD player full blast, listening to Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, and flip channels on my muted TV while my body came along for the ride. There would always be an adjustment period as I went from sober to dead drunk in about 20 minutes. When it was time, I'd get together with the "gang" and head to a party where I'd nurse a beer and dance myself silly. This "living" was slowly eating away my morals and conscious. It was destroying my friendships and my self esteem. I didn't realize how badly until Spring Break of Junior Year. Four of my friends decided to go to Daytona for the break. I wasn't told directly. That was a clue I was too stupid to notice. It really should have told me something. But, nevertheless, I pushed my way along, and, to make a long story short, had the worst week of my life. It was my fault, I must confess. It was a time in my life that I needed strong friends. And by the time that I realized that I needed strong friends, my friendships had deteriorated well past the point of being able to count on them for support. It would have been a lot of work to be my friend at that time; I was a mess emotionally and mentally. I had become a real jerk. I was abusive and belligerent. I was foul. I needed help. The bible says: Proverbs 17:17, "A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity." And I found I didn't have any. More than that, I found that: Proverbs 18:24, "A man [that hath] friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend [that] sticketh closer than a brother." Meaning that to have friends, you must be the kind of person people want to be friends with. I wasn't. That's a pretty crummy feeling. That next summer proved pivotal in my life. As much as I started a downspin in senior year of high school, I started an upspin in senior year of college. I started on "the Slim Fast Plan" and doing aerobics to lose weight. I lost thirty-five pounds in four months. I got a haircut and a shave. I bought a new wardrobe. I was a new person... almost. Let's back up a second. Just before my rebellious junior year, I went to a tiny home mission church that was held in a two car garage with a long-time friend named Greg, who I had known since seventh grade. He had gotten into a kind of church that I had never heard of before: Pentecostal. His best friend had gotten him into it. I'll never forget that evening we went. They had a piano, electric guitar, a set of drums, some amplifiers and all the pews and people all crammed into that garage, but from the first few notes of worship music, I knew that I had walked into the presence of God. I began to cry. I began to weep. I knew how far I was from God, and yet, the very person of God seemed to be comforting me, letting me know that it was going to be alright. All those times that I had felt His presence in the Presbyterian church had prepared me. When it came again, amidst all the noise of Pentecostal worship, I let it fly. I cried out to God. I don't remember what was said. I don't remember the preaching. I do remember the hands that people laid on me as they prayed for me, and I remember feeling loved by them. And you know what? I was. But it was a completely foreign kind of love. Something that went past having to earn it. It was unconditional. It was this demonstration that would lead me back to a Pentecostal church. I left that place thinking that if Jesus was alive today, that would be the kind of church He would attend. I worked at Arvin during the summer between junior and senior year. A guy there invited me with him to a Pentecostal church in Brownstown. I went off and on, but it never stuck. However, what still amazes me to this day is the feeling I would get in worship. Though I was still mired deep in sin, when I'd go to church, the power of God would grip me. God never let go of me. Never stopped loving me. Never stopped showing it. He continued to draw near to me when I would draw near to Him. Back to campus senior year. I had one of those "moments" that, though it's probably a sin to enjoy for the sake of one's pride, you do anyway. In the first week back, I rounded the corner of the Humanities library coming from the Undergrad Library heading to the Union. Decked out in my new look, I ran smack dab into an old girlfriend and her new boyfriend. The look she gave me made every drop of sweat worthwhile. Her jaw hit the ground. I never missed a beat. I just said "Hey," and kept walking. Comments from my old friends also helped soothe the old wounds. I was in rare form. And it was in this state that Greg invited me to a revival service at Brother Parnell's church in Lafayette. It was September 29, 1990. I don't remember the preacher's name, but I remember he preached on being baptized with the Holy Ghost. After the message, Greg asked me if I wanted to go to the altar to get the Holy Ghost. I said okay, not really understanding what was happening. I went to the altar, knelt down, and opened up my heart... [ <a href="testimony1.html">BACK</a> ] [ <a href="testimony.html">UP</a> ] [ <a href="testimony3.html">NEXT</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

testimony2.html false 58

2 Part 2

2009-11-08T16:10:37-08:00

As I began to pray, I felt God open Himself to me. The Spirit gave me freedom from guilt and worthlessness. I worshipped Him with my own words. They came straight from my heart. I poured myself out to Him. Very quickly, my mouth wanted to do something that my brain wasn't telling it to do. My lips began to quiver. What was this? What was wrong with me. Yeah, I was excited. Yeah, I was pumped. God's Spirit and mine were communicating, but all of the sudden, I couldn't "talk right." The evangelist noticed what was happening and told me that it was the Holy Ghost and that I should let it happen. What happen? That I would speak in tongues, if I gave God control of my mouth, that I wouldn't know what I was saying, that the whole process was perfectly natural. Okay. More prayer. Nope. It's not working. Keep trying, he says. Okay. Oh, you know what? God's trying to do something to me. Open up... Let Him... And then I did. God filled me with the Holy Ghost and I spoke in tongues as the Holy Ghost gave evidence of the baptism. Oh the Joy that flooded my soul! After rejoicing and responding to God in a heavenly language for awhile, I got up and jumped into Greg's arms. That's what the experience was like. I felt completely different. Like I had power over sin; not to do it if I didn't want to. I wish I could say, as many do, that I never went back to my old life, but about a week later, I did sin. I did it on purpose to see what would happen. A sin with which I knew I had a problem. The power that I had felt that night left, and I went right back to my old life. At Christmas break, I was feeling bad about straying from what I had experienced, and I wanted to go back to church. I wanted to get "refilled" with the power I had felt before. So I invited Greg to go to church with me in Brownstown, and we went. It turned out that they had a special speaker that night. I got so fired up in the Spirit that I didn't even notice what was happening, but I left there filled with the Spirit once again. When I got up the next morning, I felt the way I felt when I was first baptized with the Spirit. I had power over the decision to sin again. This time, as I returned to school, I was determined to be more cautious about what I did, where I went, and the people I hung out with. I started studying the bible for scriptural basis of spirit baptism, water baptism, and faith healing, among other things. I'm sort of ashamed to admit that all these topics were right there in front of me, black letters on white paper, all along. But there's a scripture that speaks to this not being able to see the truth even though you look directly on it: 1 Corinthians 2:9-14, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned." And so it was in this tender, embryonic, soul-searching state I entered second semester of my senior year. I had taken the communications course that Purdue requires everyone to take during the summer before freshman year, while I was still in high school. So I had a 3-credit "credit" that I had been saving for this semester. I only had 12 hours, and only one of my classes required any real work. One of the courses I took was The History of Science and Technology in the West since Newton. The course was taught by one of the most interesting people I have ever met. For the course requirements, in order to have a chance at making an A, you have to do a semester project. Because of the size of the class, all projects had to be approved so that no one was working on the same thing. (I'll try to spare you the details here and get on with it. I could spend hours talking about this part, it was so fascinating.) Now understand that God has spoken to me many times since the incident with my father, and sometimes it's through the strangest people and circumstances. It was in this class one day that my professor spoke words that the Lord quickened to my heart. God told me that my poor college performance was alright, when viewed alongside how much I had learned about life and living in the process. And I felt the power of God coming over me -- again -- and I almost started crying right there in class. This prompted me to see him about my project. When I went to see him, we started talking about what I could do, and I gave him my idea. It was weak, and he probed me to see what really interested me. I told him about my experience in class. From that discussion, he gave me a list of books to review. I scanned and read them, we met again, and he gave me another list of books to read based on what I liked about the first set. This went on for weeks. (Turns out he read 3 or 4 books a week, and he had all the subjects, titles, and authors memorized for recall.) It was through this process that I became deeply involved in Zen Buddhism. That's right <a name="Zen" id="Zen">Zen</a>. I'm not talking about popular Zen. I mean the real thing. As "luck" would have it, a Tibetan monk was coming on campus to talk about Buddhism. A friend-girl and I went to go see him. To open his short talk, he suggested we all meditate for about 5 minutes. I didn't know a thing about meditation, but he stepped us through it. In just a couple of minutes, I had what some Buddhists seek their whole life for: an out-of body experience. It wasn't that my eyes were closed, it was that my vision was disconnected. It wasn't that the room was very quiet, my hearing stopped working. It wasn't that I was comfortable in my chair, I was floating in space. But that was just the start. Now the professor always spoke to me while reclining in his chair. Distant. Reserved. But one day, I related this story: I had been playing racquetball with a good friend, Tom. I was pretty good, but he beat me. I got mad and smacked the wall with my new $100 racket. It was the only time in the semester that I had lost my typically bad temper, and it cracked my poor boron and graphite racket. That made me more upset. So, while Tom was out of the room getting a drink, I bowed to the wall in apology for smacking it, following some advice from some of the philosophy I had been reading, and, surprisingly, all the tension in my gut drained away. When I told my professor that, he leaned up, reached over, shook my hand, and said, "So few people in the West get that far." This was evidence that I wasn't just fooling around. I was really getting deep. (See <a href="zen.html">Zen</a> for the story behind this part of the story.) At this point, my bible study was absent. My prayer life was dead. And I had started drinking again. And besides all that, I was having trouble reconciling Zen and Christianity. Much of Zen boils down to Christian principles; you know, the Golden Rule. But at the end of Zen is "The Nothing," whereas the end of Christianity is something else entirely. It was at this point that I told my professor that I was going back to Christianity. He, being the proper teacher that he was, only respected my decision, and he took my 110 pages of hand-written notes from studying Zen and philosophy as my semester project for his class. He never pushed me in any direction. After all, his attitude was that all roads lead to the same place anyway. (The bible tells very differently.) And so it was, searching, and still empty, I returned home, graduated and jobless. Well, after being filled with the Holy Ghost and losing that power very quickly, and after being revitalized and losing it again very slowly, I was determined to get re-baptized with the Spirit and never again let it go. [ <a href="testimony2.html">BACK</a> ] [ <a href= "testimony.html">UP</a> ] [ <a href="testimony4.html">NEXT</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

testimony3.html false 59

3 Part 3

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

I briefly considered going back to school for a computer science degree, but a Residence Hall Counselor's position -- and its generous benefits -- didn't come through, so I had to find work. I was doing aerobics at the time, and as I was driving into town one night to go to the gym, I prayed that God would give me a job and a church home. After aerobics, I put on a Purdue sweatshirt and went to Wal-Mart. There, a guy came up to me and asked me if I had gone to Purdue. I said yes. He explained that he was an Industrial Engineer from Purdue himself. He asked where I was working. I told him I needed a job. He told me about a position at his place of work. (I later blew the opportunity, but it was nonetheless an answer to one half of my prayer.) He asked me, these being tough times (spring of '91 was indeed tough for graduating engineers; I continue to hear about it from others who graduated about that time), if I had God on my side. I told him that I liked to think that I did, but that I needed to find a church home. He told me about The World of Pentecost, an Apostolic Pentecostal church right there in Columbus. I told him I'd try it. Hey, it started at 2:00 in the afternoon; I wouldn't even have to get up early! This church was alive, I'm telling you. I went a couple Sundays and met some young people that seemed nice, but I was skipping the Wednesday service. Reggie, the guy from Wal-Mart, told me that the pastor's father was going to be preaching on the next Wednesday, so I thought it would be nice to hear him speak and showed up for that service. That night, I heard one of the simplest and yet most provocative things I have even heard: "If church isn't your favorite place to be, what are you going to do in Heaven?" With that one statement, I was convinced. I would start going to all the services I could, every time the door was open. And so it was that I began to "commit my way unto the Lord." I talked to the pastor one afternoon after service, and he suggested that I come talk to him and really meet him. So I did. In that meeting, I explained to him where I was had been doing, and where I had problems with my faith. I was stuck one simple point. (The subject is not worth going into here.) Other preachers were quick to lay down the law about the matter, but Brother Mitchell suggested a different approach. As one who promotes two things above all else, that "prayer is where the action is," and "God's house is a house of prayer," he allows folks to have prayer meetings in the church at any given time. He told me that sometime after getting really close to God in prayer (or "prayed through" as we Pentecostals put it), just ask Him what He thought about my concern. So one night, after feeling the awesome presence of God to the point of weeping because I felt so small in comparison (which still happens from time to time today, by the way; it's not a one-time experience), I did exactly what pastor Mitchell suggested and asked God what His opinion was. And He told me. As surely as you are reading these words. What did He say? I'll tell you the same thing Pastor Mitchell told me. Pray through and ask Him yourself. I've no doubt that we'll have the same answer. This was the missing key! The real life! This is what I had been searching for: A real one-on-one relationship with my Creator, my Father, my Lord! You have to understand that being filled with the Holy Ghost and living a dedicated life is only the beginning. When I "came to God," it wasn't clean and innocent like some kids who are filled at age 5 or something. I had a lot of baggage, and will forever carry some of it around in my head. However, God has brought me out of darkness and into His marvellous light by degrees. Another significant chapter of my story is intertwined with my involvement with <a href="dandd.html">Dungeons and Dragons</a>. It also takes a lot of good people and prayer to come out of all the levels of darkness I was buried under, and I have been blessed with many strong friends who have prayed earnestly for me, as well as one of the best pastors in the world. Not only does being delivered by God take being filled with the Holy Ghost and living a separated life, it also takes a church; a group of people that you can help and be helped by, led by a person who is fair, balanced, and above all, striving for the good of the people he's leading. The body of Christ is literally that: God's presence in this world since He went back up to Heaven, and it will be so until He comes again. If you want to be saved, you're going to have to find a church to attend, a Holy Ghost-filled church that teaches the same thing that the apostles taught. For more on my church in particular, see <a href="church.html">The World of Pentecost</a>. It took many years of searching - no, fumbling is a better word - but He worked it out. He has never left me alone since that very first prayer. He's waiting to draw close to you, too, but you have to ask. But asking for God to come close isn't the whole story. There are other things that you will want to do, if you are to draw close to God in return. God hates sin. And really, deep down inside, if your life is full of sin, you hate it too. There are a lot of excuses for not living the life you know you can, a life of victory over sin and the pain and the bitterness and especially the loneliness of living apart from God, but they all sound hollow -- even to yourself -- don't they? When I got back to college after that Christmas-break "rebirth," and started studying the scriptures to prove to myself what they contained, I wrote down the things I found and my thoughts about them. I edited and expanded these bible studies and have reproduced them on my <a href="doctrine.html">Doctrine</a> pages. If you'd like to read more about the truth and about God's plan for salvation, read through these. I think you'll find, as I have, that they're not hard to read or difficult to understand. You don't have to be a "bible scholar" to be saved. In fact, God's Truth is really straightforward. But don't take my word for it. Get out your bible (everyone has at least one), and study along with them. Prove it for yourself too. That's the only way it will truly "stick" anyway. [ <a href="testimony3.html">BACK</a> ] [ <a href="testimony.html">UP</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

testimony4.html false 60

4 Part 4

2009-11-08T16:09:47-08:00

"They" say that Apostolic Pentecostals are wrong. "They" say that they Holy Ghost infilling isn't for today, that it was only for the Apostles. "They" say that tongues are gone, that they're not needed or used any more. "They" are the ones who are wrong. But don't just take my word for it. (I doubt you would anyway.) I want to tell the arguments I've heard against the sign of tongues as the evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost, and show why they are wrong. <h4>Tongues have "ceased."</h4> I heard this one from an older gentleman who had a dotted line to me back at GrimmerSchmidt. He had pledged a couple bucks to me for a church bike-a-thon, then balked when he found out that my church was Pentecostal. That led to a series of discussions about religion. And he was an expert. After all, he had started his own church, in a little garage, just across the road. He even had booklets made up, one of which he grudgingly gave me after I promised to actually read it. (I did.) His whole case rested on the following scripture: 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." He claimed that the finishing of the writing of the New Testament was the "perfect" that was to come, and that, since the "perfect" is here, tongues have been retired. The problem with this interpretation is that verse 12 goes on to talk about seeing "face to face." To me, it's clear that the passage is talking about the second coming of Christ as that which is perfect. How can you talk about the finishing of the bible as being "face to face?" If this really referred to the close of the cannon, which is already complete, we would also have an end to prophecies, and that can't be right because we still have unfulfilled prophecies. Prophecies were given to chart the course of church until the end times. When Jesus comes, there won't be a need for them because we'll have the embodiment of all knowledge dwelling among us. Only at the establishment of God's kingdom on Earth will we no longer have need of any of these things. Until then, we need prophecy to give us direction. And if we must have the one, then the other two are necessary too... <h4>Tongues were only given to the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Samaritans, and to each only once, in order to prove that God had opened salvation unto all peoples.</h4> I heard this one from the minister of one of the biggest churches in Columbus. He was Susan's minister while she was growing up, and she arranged for us to give a bible study to him and his wife. I was obviously a little intimidated. After all, I had just "gotten in church;" he was an extremely well-respected minister of a large congregation who had a theology degree and had spent years studying these things, no matter what side of the issue he favored. I don't know if that threw me off, but I missed an obvious one here. As we studied, we looked at Acts 2, which shows the baptism of the Holy Ghost given to the Jews, Acts 8, which shows it being given to Samaritans, and Acts 10, which shows it being given to Gentiles. Now even way back then, I understood that the bible basically had three types of peoples: Jews, God's people, Gentiles, the unwashed heathens, and Samaritans, which are a mix of both. So when he said that, it made some sense from a certain point of view. The problem with his interpretation is that in Acts 19, the Holy Ghost is being poured out again on the Gentiles, this time in far-flung Corinth. The fact that the infilling of the Holy Ghost happens 4 times in the book of Acts ruins his theory. And, when you think about it, why would God stop with just 3 incidents, one for each "type" of people in the bible? Didn't Acts 2:39 promise that this gift was "unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call?" <h4>Tongues are a gift, and not every one will be given that gift.</h4> I personally think that this is the single most difficult topic in the entire Bible. I fully understand the confusion that arises here. Luckily, I didn't encounter this until after I had been filled with the Spirit, and, according to what I believe about the Spirit leading and guiding into all Truth, it quickly resolved itself. As stated in my <a href="spirit.html">study</a> on the baptism of the Spirit, speaking in tongues was a sign associated with 3 of the 4 incidences of people being filled therewith. (And there was some kind of external evidence in the fourth.) But this initial evidence is different than the gift of speaking in tongues. I have heard people take some of the scriptures in 1 Corinthians 14 out of context and say that tongues are useless, even as a gift. But doesn't Paul say that a person who speaks in tongues edifies his own spirit, whether or not it edifies anyone else? Indeed he thanks God Himself that he speaks in tongues more than anyone else. So let's settle this: speaking in tongues is a good thing. <h4>All you need to do is believe and you'll be saved; there's nothing to this whole "tongues" thing anyway.</h4> Instead of quoting scriptures to that effect right off, let's start at a different place and work through those references. Please consider the following. Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." If you just take this one scripture about what will send a person to Hell, you might say that a complete drunkard could make it to Heaven. But we know that’s not true. How? Galatians 5:19-21, "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Here again is a list of things that will keep a person out of Heaven. Notice that drunkenness is a sin listed here. If we would have stopped at the previous scripture, we wouldn’t have seen the whole picture. We need every scripture in the bible. They all apply to give complete Truth. Romans 10:9-11, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." There is no argument that this step of confession is part of salvation. However, the apostles did not stop there. Other scriptures in the bible talk only about baptism. 1 Peter 3:20-21, "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" Or about believing and baptism and not confession. Mark 16:15-18, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." An in-depth study of God’s Word would show that all of these things are needed for salvation: God’s grace, our faith, confession, repentance, <a href="baptism.html">water baptism in the name of Jesus</a>, <a href="spirit.html">spiritual baptism by the Holy Ghost</a>, and steadfastness to the faith. (See <a href="http://www.pentecostalstudents.org/7steps/7steps.htm">The 7 Points of Salvation</a>.)

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

All the reasons you shouldn't be speaking in togues... and why they don't hold any water. tongues.html false 61

8 Tongues

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

<img src="/images/topics_button.gif" alt="Topics" border="0" style="float: left" width="100" height="100"> Much like the <a href="answers.html">Answers</a> page in the <a href= "religion.html">Religion</a> section of the site, this is a place to respond to things that are going on in the world of Technology. My job requires me to stay on top of the shifting sands of technology, and so I feel qualified to talk about these topics. I would love to hear opposing points of view; just hit the link in the footer. <ul> <li><a href="microsoft.html">Microsoft, Malevolent or Malign</a> What's the deal with Microsoft and the DOJ? Who's in the right? Here's my take.</li> <li><a href="hackerz.html">"Hackers" </a>Right. Most people who call themselves hackers have no clue what it's really about. If you thought the movie, "Hackers," was in any way representative of reality, don't bother reading this, just go away and play on your Nintendo. People who can't write a device driver for Linux need not apply. (Don't get me wrong; I can't either. I'm a hack, not a hacker.)</li> <li><a href="nsa.html">NSA, MS, OSS, (and the DOJ) </a>What do all of these have in common? Some startling revelations are underscoring the fact that if you give someone enough rope, they'll eventually hang themselves.</li> <li><a href="nt_vs_unix.html">NT vs. UNIX</a> It's now an "age-old" question: Which is "better?" That answer depends on the application, and I delve into one tiny market segment and discuss (somewhat datedly, I know) the relative strengths of each.</li> <li><a href="chatting.html">The Lure of Chatting</a> Every once in awhile, I'll jump on IRC, the reasons for which I want to show by example here. But in addition to understanding the process of getting there, I also want to show the ludicrousness of the end result.</li> <li><a href="matrix.html">The Matrix</a> The movie, The Matrix, is an instant classic with timeless appeal. It easily ranks in my best-10 list. But have you really thought about it? There are a lot of spiritual implications in the movie. I've seen read some analyses on the net, but I think they miss the main point.</li> <li><a href="violence.html">Violence in Computer Games</a> I wrote this as a submission to Blue's News some time ago and it surfaced on a search of my name on AltaVista. I wanted to expand it with some more thoughts. There are some conflicting points in the broader discussion that can't be resolved without some analysis. I don't think there's an easy answer.</li> <li><a href="censorship.html">Censorship</a> All the comments I've read about using filtering software on internet-connected computers at local libraries is wrong. This is NOT a FREE SPEECH issue. This is a personal-accountability-and-resposibility issue. Unfortunately, that's a VERY unpopular notion these days.</li> <li><a href="gtd.html">Getting Things Done</a> I've read David Allen's Getting Things Done, and it's changed my life. It's not life or death, but it represents a fairly significant -- dare I say it -- paradigm shift. For me, anyway.</li> </ul>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

The 'left brain,' the technical and mostly computer-related. topics.html false 62

3 Topics

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

In the email below, the issue to which I was speaking was violence in computer gaming, specifically in "first-person shooters" of which I had been such a fan. When the Columbine high-school shootings occurred, many fingers were pointed at the gaming industry, with id software's Doom being the scapegoat. In a way that I found strikingly similar to the defense I made of <a href="dandd.html">Dungeons and Dragons</a> all those years ago, the "gaming community" raged at the press for inferring that their harmless pastime could be in any way related to what happened. And then we have video clips where the killers made overt references to how their bombing and shooting spree was going to be "just like <censored> Doom!" Oops. Time for some more mature analysis than to just say "No way," and point a finger at the killers' parents. <a href= "/images/the_right_question.jpg"><img src="/images/the_right_question_small.jpg" alt="Asking the right question" border="0"></a> So I tried to make some points about how the games cannot be held harmless, but that it was incumbent upon all of us who might like to play them to determine for ourselves, critically and honestly, if they were "good" for us. Because, let's face it, they are not for children. Someone had written into Blue's saying that they were initially disturbed at the groanings that the tortured Marines made in Quake II. He then went on to say that that reaction was basically foolish, and that we should all get over it. Well, it bothered me too, and my wife was so bothered by it that I would wear headphones lest she hear it. It was sick. Plain and simple. I maintain that there's no arguing against the fact that that sort of thing does affect people who play the game, and that that effect is negative. That said, I also say that adults who choose to play the game are free to do so. I turn off the horrible gore. That's my prerogative. I like to have fun with my friends over the LAN, and it is fun. I get to decide that the fun I have with my friends outweighs the violence in the game. But even as I write this, I wonder: will that always be the case? I don't know. Hasbro has released an Unreal Tournament total conversion called Nerf Arena. Instead of blowing people to bits, you hit them with Nerf darts. That seems pretty cool, actually... <h4>On a school bus with a shotgun?!?! From: David Krider</h4> No way. I won't forget it. This is extremely relevant. I had the same experience with Quake II (in reaction to the Marines being tortured.) Furthermore, my wife didn't even want me to play the game anymore as it disturbed her so much. Admittedly, she is extremely sensitive to torture in "entertainment." We watched the first part of some popular video release not long ago and shut it off after a couple minutes because there was graphic torture in the scene. Mind you this movie was rated PG-13, and this guy is being drugged and dunked in water (somehow Captain Picard springs to mind though I can't remember the title.) [Ed. note: Conspiracy Theory.] We thought about it a minute, then turned it back on, fast-forwarded the section (satisfied to skip that part's dubious additions to the plot) and watched the rest of the movie. It was a stupid movie. The rest of it was commensurately violent and useless. Whatever happened to entertainment that wasn't grotesque, grisly, or vulgar? Star Wars is a great example of good entertainment which relies on a story, not violence, though action is certainly a (central) part of the film. Why must the trend be towards graphic realism in the case of killing? There was an incredible amount of time given to making Quake II's deaths messy. Was that really necessary? How many of us would shut that off in favor of the framerate boost? How many of us would sleep better at night after an 8 hour LAN party if we could? I could. You know why? Because it IS disturbing, and it SHOULD be. Seeing people's entrails splattered across a Q2 level isn't in our natural frames of reference, and I maintain that causing it to be DOES desensitize us to violence. Completely idiotic and brutal crimes are now being committed for the sake of nothing more than convenience. Can anyone honestly say that they don't think that the increase in the graphical depiction of violence in the media (including video games) doesn't have something to do with that? Bottom line: what's to be done? Give me the option to turn off the unnecessary visuals in Quake III, like I could do in Duke Nukem. You know, shooting creatures in Unreal is not bad. There's a little blood, and they fall over. But when you can blow them to bits, then blow the bits into smaller bits, that's excessive. Understand that I know some people want that. That's fine. I may want to see it myself once or twice. But... You know you've had too much Quake II when you have dreams of blowing people away on a school bus point blank with a shotgun. I have. Mind you, they were all smiling and we were having a great time, but doesn't that disturb the rest of you as well as me? I laid off for awhile and my dreams cleared up. Doesn't that tell us a little something about the effects of the game? Now I simply don't play the game that much. The problem is that Quake III, which I am eagerly awaiting, will focus on making the characters MUCH more realistic, to the point of being able to scan in, and paste onto the models, your very own skin. Now how disturbing will it be to blow your friends to bits on the network? Say what you will: your mind is in there watching and reacting regardless. <hr width="50%"> The preceeding only serves to underscore a completely-forgotten point in this day and age. The fact is that we all must develop `filters' in this life. We need to filter all kinds of media. Not just video games. And we can't do that by simply eliminating the totality of that medium, because where would we draw the line? Are all video games evil? No, of course not. As a toddler, my daughter had a computer game that taught letters, numbers, colors, etc. That's certainly a good thing. Are some games `evil'? Yes, of course. There are several I won't buy because I think they're either too violent (imagine that!) or deal with things like witchcraft. I have limits, too, but I'm talking about filters. Some people, particularly in my faith, describe television seemingly as the root of all evil in this world. Has it helped the cause in general? I think so. Definitely. But can we eliminate it as a valid form of entertainment or education based on that alone? I think it would be silly, but probably not for the reason you're currently thinking. See, I think that there is an equal amount of `evil' in radio, newspapers, magazines, movies, professional sports games, and basically anything that we as Americans find entertaining today. If it draws eyeballs, someone has got their fingers in it, trying to subvert it to their desires, and by that, I mean ungodly desires. So we need limits and filters. There are some things that just won't pass muster. Some things are sufficiently devoid of value that you can avoid them entirely. Casinos. Bars. (Hey, I may be religious now, but I've been around the block. I gave it up for a reason. I can count the number of honest-to-goodness good times I've had while drunk on about one hand.) But the vast majority of things that you can partake of in this world has varying degrees of utility, and that requires one to filter the garbage and take the good for what it's worth. I watch `R'-rated movies, but I fast-forward the gratuitous scenes, sexual and otherwise. Some movies have so much foul language that I simply stop the tape, rewind it, and take it back unwatched. The $3 or $4 dollars I've paid for the privilege doesn't mean much compared to having peace in my mind and spirit. <a href= "/images/the_need_for_filters.jpg"><img src= "/images/the_need_for_filters_small.jpg" alt="The need for filters" border="0"></a> Everyone has to determine where their comfort level is in this regard. Some people won't have problems playing violent video games; some people will. The problem is that we as a society have lost track that not everyone should be allowed access to everything that this world has to offer. It comes down to good, old-fashioned `responsibility'. Imagine that! Taking responsibility for ones actions and decisions. Actually determining - for oneself - what's profitable and what's not. Another word for this is censorship. I whole-heartedly disagree with state-sponsored censorship, but I also think that - like `separation of church and state' - the government has gone too far in guaranteeing that censorship is prevented. It's gotten to the point where you're guaranteed that you will see garbage. So it's up to you. It's up to each one of us to ensure that we see what we are personally responsible enough to see. You and you alone can make that determination, and you and you alone must make those decisions. And as a final note: <a href= "/images/calvin_on_violence.jpg"><img border="0" src= "/images/calvin_on_violence_small.jpg" alt= "Calvin's take. (615593 bytes)"></a>

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

Violence in computer games leads to violence in real life?... violence.html false 63

7 Violence in Games

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

The Bible is an extraordinary book for many reasons. The most significant to someone unfamiliar with it is that it is a remarkably accurate book. On the one hand, all the archeological evidence that we can find supports it. On the other hand, even though it was written over the course of about 3000 years, it never contradicts itself. But there's a third hand, if you will, that shows the Bible to be the most significant book in the world. That is, that the Bible is more than factual and more than consistent. It is layered with spiritual "typology" that foreshadows and builds upon itself. The dictionary defines type to mean: 3. An example or model; embodiment. What I mean is that there are spiritual concepts laid down in the Old Testament that find expression and or clarification in the New. Topic to topic, we find that the same thing is occurring - in a spiritual sense - in various circular patterns, some big, some small. Hosea 12:10, "I have also spoken by the prophets, and have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." I want to demonstrate what I mean and let you see the real, hidden wonder of the Bible. First I will look at the really big picture, the one that sums up the entirety of what I mean. Then I will look at several smaller ideas that support the larger. Finally, I will extend these thoughts to explore the idea that the Bible actually contains a predictive quality about when the Earth will end.

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

whole.html false 64

5 The Whole Story

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

The story of the Bible is the story of God's redemption of a wayward people. Though this process of redemption actually begins much earlier, let us start with what is the most significant part of the Jewish faith, and what is the largest of spiritual types in the Bible: the Temple. The Temple is the center of all Jewish worship. It is a place to be forgiven of sin. A place where things are made right between man and God. A holy place. It is even the symbolic dwelling place of God Himself. <a href="/images/tabernacle.jpg"><img border="2" src="/images/tabernacle_small.jpg" alt= "The Tabernacle of the Wilderness" width="100" height="83"></a> The Tabernacle The Temple actually started out as a big tent, called the Tabernacle. The plans of its construction were given to Moses at Mount Sinai along with the rest of the law. The Israelites could the could strike and move the Tabernacle with the camp as they wandered in the wilderness. All the important elements of the Temple were present in the Tabernacle. There are numerous spiritual symbols to be found in the Temple, but I want to focus on three. <div align="center"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="center" height="64" width="188"><a href= "/images/solomons_temple.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/solomons_temple_small.jpg" alt= "The Jewish Temple During Solomon's Reign" width="100" height= "83"></a></td> <td align="center" height="64" width="188"><a href= "/images/zerubbabels_temple.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/zerubbabels_temple_small.jpg" alt= "The Jewish Temple During Zerubbabel's Reign" width="100" height= "83"></a></td> <td align="center" height="64" width="189"><a href= "/images/herods_temple.jpg"><img border="2" src= "/images/herods_temple_small.jpg" alt= "The Jewish Temple During Herod's Rule" width="100" height= "84"></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" height="64" width="188"><a href= "/images/solomons_temple.jpg"></a>Solomon's Temple</td> <td align="center" height="64" width="188">Zerubbabel's Temple</td> <td align="center" height="64" width="189">Herod's Temple</td> </tr> </table> </div> Firstly, there was an altar. That altar was used to sacrifice animals to atone for sins that a person had committed. When a Jew had sinned, he would bring his sacrifice - carefully specified in the law according to his sin and his financial capacity - and the priest would dress it and cook it on the altar. The fragrance of the cooking flesh was pleasing to God, and this is another type that we will examine in a moment. Another important thing that happened at the altar is that some of the blood from the sacrifice was saved for use on the Mercy Seat. Again, more on that in a moment. Secondly, there was a gigantic bowl of water called the laver. The laver was used to wash the hands of the priest after he had dressed the sacrifice and placed it on the altar. Thirdly, there was the Mercy Seat. Inside both the Tabernacle and the Temple, there were a couple rooms where only the high priest could go. Past the altar, past the laver (always in order to the west), there was the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. In the Holy of Holies stood the Ark of the Covenant, in which Moses had placed the tablets of stone upon which were inscribed the 10 Commandments. Anyone who has seen Raiders of the Lost Ark has a good idea of what the Ark looked like. In actuality, there was a space between the angelic figures on top that made a seat, of sorts. That seat was the very Throne of God on this earth. Once a year, the high priest would offer an atonement for all of Israel. He would sacrifice a spotless, one-year-old lamb on the altar, then wash in the laver, and then take a bit of the blood of the sacrifice into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle it on the Mercy Seat. This would roll the sins of Israel forward for that year. In essence, the sacrifice couldn't remove sin, it could only postpone judgment. Then came the Messiah. The death of Christ took away all sin, past and present. It removed all the sin that had been rolled forward through the yearly Temple sacrifice, and it made payment for all the sins to come after. Jesus was our "perfect" Lamb, slain to make propitiation for every sin every person would ever commit. The reason that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice wasn't just because He knew no sin, it was because He had the choice to sin, and didn't. (A lamb is also innocent, but it's not an innocence of choice.) But the paradigm shift introduced by Jesus didn't stop with His death, nor even with His resurrection... Footnote: The images of the Tabernacle and the Temple were taken from the New International Version Study Bible by Zondervan publishing. Though I don't use it for <a href= "disclaimer.html">everyday reading</a>, I cannot recommend another bible study aid more, besides a concordance. By the way, the best bible I have ever seen is the Dugan Topical Reference Bible. [ <a href="whole.html">UP</a> ] [ <a href= "whole2.html">NEXT</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

whole1.html false 65

1 The Temple Plan

2009-03-12T22:43:33-07:00

The basic "formula" of God's plan of salvation hasn't changed since he first instituted the Temple plan. As you can read about in my <a href="doctrine.html">studies</a>, salvation comes through three main steps: repentance, baptism in the name of Jesus, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. All three of these things happened - figuratively - to Jesus Christ. He went through a "death of the flesh" when He was tempted in the wilderness. He was also baptized by John (the Baptist) in order to "fulfill all righteousness." At that same time, the Spirit descended upon him "like a dove." Of course, He never needed to repent, as He knew no sin, which also applies to not needing to be baptized. And He didn't need to be "lighted upon" by the Holy Spirit as He was already God. But all three were examples of what we should do. And so I draw a corollary between repentance and the altar. This is the step where the flesh dies. That one turns away from his old life and makes a commitment to live differently. Is there any power in this? Only in the mind. The flesh, left to itself, would soon take control again. Thank goodness this isn't the only step to salvation. Remember how I said that the fragrance of the burning sacrifice was pleasing to God? In the same manner, the prayers that one offers to God in repenting are the odors that please Him now. (Rev 8:4.) Next comes the similarity between baptism and the laver. This is where we get cleansed of our sins. We made a mess of ourselves, and this is where it gets shed. The priest had to wash before entering the Holy of Holies, and we must too. Note here, at baptism, that are sins are not just forgiven, but remitted. When we repent, we get forgiven of sins on this Earth. However, when our sins get remitted (or removed), they are wiped off "the books" (Rev 20:12) in the afterlife. Finally, one gets filled with the Holy Ghost; the very Spirit of God dwells inside you. This correlates with entering into the Holy of Holies. Since that was the dwelling place of God on this Earth, the only place in the world where one could directly commune with God, it becomes a perfect example of what it means to have God fill your "temple." That's why the Holy of Holies' veil was "rent in twain" when Jesus died on the cross. It symbolized that access to the Holiest place was now open to any and every one, not just the High Priest of Israel. Now everyone can have a one-on-one relationship with the Most High God. To summarize: <div align="center"> <table border="3" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" width="75%"> <tr> <td width="50%" align="center" bgcolor="#808080">Temple Plan</td> <td width="50%" align="center" bgcolor="#808080">Spirit Plan</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="50%">Altar</td> <td width="50%">Repentance</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="50%">Laver of water</td> <td width="50%">Baptism</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="50%">Most Holy Place</td> <td width="50%">Infilling of the Holy Ghost</td> </tr> </table> </div> [ <a href="whole1.html">BACK</a> ] [ <a href= "whole.html">UP</a> ] [ <a href="whole3.html">NEXT</a> ]

2008-01-05T18:30:08-08:00

whole2.html