CalvinDude.com

…but I find it funny reading critiques of “Calvanists” by people who talk about how “Calvanists” just don’t know what they’re talking about.  I mean, how well do you know what you’re talking about if you can’t spell it correctly?  And I’m not talking about supra/infralapsarianism, which at least has the benefit of not being in common usage–but c’mon, how difficult is it to spell the name Calvin and add the -ism?

…evangelicals are now doing this.  That’s right, the Great Commission isn’t important any more–Global Warming is.

What a pointless waste of resources (and not just because Global Warming is bunk, but because what business does the church as a whole have in dictating what our political response to Global Warming should be in the first place?).

As to the first point, Global Warming is most certainly bunk.  Global Warming advocates currently say that the average temperature on Earth has risen by a whole half degree Celcius.  Naturally, they do not tell us how they determine this number.  Is it based off the high temperatures during a day?  Is it based off the median average of highs and lows?  The difference between these two is already vast.

Consider, for example, two hypothetical days.  The first day has a high temperature of 90 degrees.  The second day has a high temperature of 100 degrees.  Which day is hotter?  Obviously the second day.

Or is it?  What if the low temperature of the first day was 70 degrees and the only reason it didn’t hit 100 degrees was because a thunderstorm came through, while the low temperature of the second day was 60 degrees and the 100 degree temperature was just a little spike during the day?  The average temperature of the first day is 80 degrees.  The average for the second day is 80 degrees.

In other words, identical average temperatures for the day despite the fact that the high temp was 10 degrees warmer the second day.  This is only considering highs and lows, of course–it’s actually much more complicated when you consider hour-by-hour temps, for example.

Obviously, what I have put forth is somewhat arbitrary, but it demonstrates the point.  We don’t know what these Global Warming people are measuring, so how can we determine that a raise of half a degree C is even a big deal?

As to the second point, even if Global Warming is real, what’s to say that humans are causing it?  And even if they are, what is the Church’s role regarding climate?  What is the Biblical model for a church calling for “regulatory measures like a cap and trade program, a system in which industries would buy or trade permits to emit greenhouse gases”?  What is the Biblical model for the Church to ask for “federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through ‘cost-effective, market-based mechanisms’”?

Let’s see now.  Muslims are burning buildings in protest over cartoons.  How many greenhouse gases are they releasing in doing that?  But even that is beside the point–how many Muslims will die this year and go to Hell?  And we’re worring about whether the US puts too many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?  (By the way, anyone who thinks the US is a major polluter really needs to go visit a third world country and look at the pollution there.)

This kind of thing makes me sick, both politically and theologically.  We have better things to do than to mix it up with politics using junk science for our backing.  The Church’s response to Galileo ring a bell?

There seems to be a theme coming out now due to the Muslim riots.  There are polls asking, “Is it better to have freedom of expression or to be tolerant toward religious views?”

If you want my answer, it’s simple: Freedom of speech is more important than tolerance of religious views, if (and that is a big if) what is meant is simply that speech is used against religious views.  Everyone ought to have the right to say whatever they want about someone else’s religious views, and others have the right to disagree with those people.  What should never happen is what the Muslims are doing now–burning and killing people over what amounts to a written opinion.

On the other hand, if people were actually being physically oppressed for their religious views then tolerance of religious views becomes more important than freedom of speech.  This, however, is a fundamentally different state than what the poll questions are asking, since the polls are linking personal expression to religious intolerance, rather than physical intolerance (such as attacking a person for being a Hindu, etc.).

In the world we currently occupy, it is better to have the ability to dissent than it is to have to bend over backwards to avoid offending someone.  This doesn’t mean that we should go out of our way to offend people–although if you do, you should expect to be offended in return.  It does mean, however, that we should never kowtow to those who would threaten violence over a mere opinion, regardless of how right or wrong that opinion is.

Of course this is all just my opinion.  If you disagree, I’ll firebomb your house….

Often times, Christians seem to be full of doom and gloom about the future.  Ironically, since I am someone who suffers from clinical depression, I am really optimistic about the future, and for the most part I’ve always been.

I think it is ultimately because Christianity is a religion of hope.  Even when I feel down, I can never abandon the fact that there is a ray of hope for me.  And when I am not feeling down, it is so obvious that I find content.

Contrast that with the pictures we see out of the Middle East now, as the riots continue because of the Mohammed cartoons.  I’ve read several pieces on the internet written by Christians who say that Christ has been depicted far worse in many cartoons.  That, to me, is really beside the point.  The point isn’t that our views have been mocked before, it’s that when they’ve been mocked the worst we do is write letters of complaint.  Even the secularists in America are hard pressed to find a radical Christian who is violent towards others.  Sure, they point to the abortion bombings–but that was what, three people?  And when was the last abortion bombing?

Contrast that with the thousands of people rioting in the streets across many countries in the Middle East, threatening death.  Their threats are not idle, as they’ve already proven that they have no problem murdering innocent people for political gain.  The difference is, indeed, vast.

Naturally, someone might ask me why I still remain optimistic then, if these Muslims exist in the world.  Frankly, it’s because the Muslims are showing their true colors right now.  The “religion of peace” is anything but peaceful, and it’s on display for the whole world to see.  On the other hand, the secularist regimes who are provoking this response are likewise demonstrating that they are intolerant and intellectually elitists snobs.  This, too, is out for the world to see.

While this, of course, is a relatively new thing, it only underpins the things that I have felt for a long time.  I think that God is moving in America.  He is either bringing about a Reformation, or He is going to bring about our downfall–but in either way, Christianity will advance.  And honestly, of the two options, I really think that Christianity is very close to another Reformation, something akin to the Great Awakening. 

Do I have proof for this beyond a feeling?  Well, nothing concrete.  But crime statistics are mostly down, as are teen pregnancies and drug use.  These sorts of things give us a general barometer of the culture (although one cannot make dogmatic claims based on them, naturally).  I don’t think there will necessarily be an immediate shift, but perhaps in the next ten or twenty years (as, to put it bluntly, the Baby Boomers start to die off, along with their attitudes cultivated during the 60s), our culture will gradually improve even more.

Could it be a pipe dream?  Yes.  But could it really happen?  That too is yes.

Today I started the book of Ezekiel.  Having just read Isaiah and Jeremiah, it is really easy to pick out a theme.  Israel has committed evil and God is punishing her.

Often, we Christians tend to think that the God of the “Old Testament” was a vengeful God, full of wrath, who punished people for their misdeeds, while the God of the “New Testament” is a merciful God who wouldn’t want to harm a flea.  Seen from an extremely limited viewpoint, there is some validity to that notion; but when one looks at the history of Israel from the broader perspective of the Messiah, it is actually quite easy to see the mercy of God even as He punishes Israel.

The Messiah was promised from Genesis 3 on.  Eve knew that one of her Seed would crush the head of Satan.  That is why Adam and Eve were so distraught when Cain murdered Abel–it wasn’t just that Abel was their son, but Abel was part of the Chosen Seed from whence the Messiah would come.  That is why God replaced Abel with Seth, and Eve rejoiced saying that God had blessed her with a replacement.

By the time of Noah, however, one could make a strong argument that only one person remained from the line of Seth–Noah himself.  God destroyed the earth in a seemingly vengeful act.  But there was something else that was working then too.  God was protecting the offspring of Seth.  God was protecting the lineage of the Messiah.

After Noah came Abraham, and then Isaac and Jacob.  The line of the Messiah continued down through Israel to King David.  David was promised that the Messiah would be one of his sons.

But shortly after David’s death–just two generations later–Israel descended into a mass of moral decay.  There was civil war and the two southern tribes broke off from the northern tribes.  The kings of Israel did evil in the eyes of the LORD, while the kings of Judah fluctuated back and forth between those who were righteous and those who were sinners.  Finally, God sent the Babylonians to conquer Israel for her sins.

Again, we look at these events as if God is being vengeful and wrathful.  Certainly, there is an aspect of that as God is righteously bringing forth judgment on sin.  But there is another aspect to His actions that cries out how merciful He is, for He is proceeding to protect the line of the Messiah through all things.  God is protecting the lineage of Christ to ensure that He would come.

After the Babylonian exile, the Hebrews returned to their land.  When they got back, they realized that exile hadn’t been really all that fun.  They didn’t want to go through it again, so they looked at why God had punished them.  They saw that it was because they had not obeyed the Law, and thus the Pharisees were born.  They decided that if they were punished for not keeping the Sabbath then they were going to make sure that no one broke the Sabbath, so they added rules to the Law that dictated how far a person could walk, what counted as “work” and what didn’t, etc.

The Pharisees, in other words, tried to be morally righteous to avoid judgment.  And despite this, the Romans conquered Israel.  Partly, this was because the Pharisees were misunderstanding the reasons why Israel was conquered before–it wasn’t because they didn’t obey a list of rules, but because they were evil.  It was because they were evil that they did not obey the commandments of God, and it was because they were evil that they were punished.

But there was another aspect to it.  When Rome conquered Israel, they took away the rights of the Jews to execute criminals.  People who were condemned to death in Israel had to be tried by the Roman guard.

What was the penalty in Scripture for a blasphemer?  It was stoning.  The Jews tried to stone Jesus several times, because they believed He blasphemed.  But the prophets had said that the Messiah would not be killed by stoning, but instead He would be hung upon a tree.  If the Romans had not conquered Israel, Jesus would have been stoned to death instead of crucified, and the prophets would have been wrong about the Messiah.

So the conquering of Israel by the Romans was also a merciful act of God.  The Pharisees misunderstood the Scriptures so that they would not understand who Christ was, and the Romans were in charge so that when they killed Him it would be according to the prophecy.

Thus, all the judgment in the Old Testament is only judgment and wrath when you divorce God’s actions from His means of granting Salvation to all kinds of men.  God used His wrath to keep the Messiah’s lineage intact.  God used His wrath to save us.

God’s wrath to the sinners of old is God’s mercy to us today.

Well, yesterday I decided to get rid of my Jake Plummer look.  That is, since I’ve been moving alot in the past months (hopefully I’ll cure that after today–you can pray for it, if you don’t mind) I just let my hair grow out pretty long, so I was starting to look like Plummer.  Yesterday, I finally buzzed my head and got rid of all my hair again.  So now I get to deal with a little razor burn on my neck from where I shaved those icky little hairs that grow beneath your normal hair.

Yesterday I also watched the Super Bowl (or is it now the Stuper Bowl?).  I have to say that it was one of the worst officiated games I’ve ever seen, and that’s saying something since I’m used to hockey games.  Frankly, I still think the better team won (Pittsburgh ought to have beaten Seattle), but it would have been nice if the refs hadn’t made such an impact on the game by calling non-existent holding and pass interference penalties.

Oh well.  At least the season is finally over so I don’t have to watch any more stupid commercials (aka. Football Analysis on CBS).

Apparently, Jack Danforth doesn’t like Christians to be in politics, even though he claims to be one himself.  According to the Washington Post (so you might be able to believe it):

As a mainline Episcopal priest, retired U.S. senator and diplomat, Danforth worships a humbler God and considers the right’s certainty a sin.

The right’s certainty is a sin?  Is “St. Jack” certain of that?  (Let him without sin cast the first stone and all that, “St. Jacko.”)

This shows a bit of the postmodernistic hypocrisy that is inherent in, well, postmodernism.  Relativism preaches that all truth is relative…except the truth that all truth is relative; it touts that there is nothing certiain…and it is certain that that is the case; it says there is a moral imperative to resist morals.

Yes, the hypocrisy runs so deep that it is virtually unseen by those who are in the midst of it.  That is why they do not even realize they are making absolutist and certain claims when they say such bunk as, “the right’s certainty is a sin.”

So “St. Jerk” is certain that certainty is a sin.  I am certain there’s a special place in the depths of Hell for such as these.

We have the right to free speech…right? Wrong.

Drudge is reporting that a 19 year old woman was charged with “ridicule on account of race, creed or color” in addition to breaching the peace for calling a Taco Bell employee a racial epithet.

Now I have no problem with the second charge–if she did what she is being accuse of, she did indeed breach the peace.  But how is it that ridicule is a chargable offense, let alone ridicule on the basis of race, color, or creed?

Besides, who defines when it is a racial epithet anyway?  Riding the bus the other day, there was a group of three black students and one white student, all of whom were members of a gang.  They talked a lot about the various Crips and the Bloods and the Mexican Mafia, and they all dropped the “N” word about each other quite liberally throughout their talk.

Now let’s put this in perspective.  If these black youths were not being racist in refering to themselves by the “N” word, why would it be racist for someone like me to do so?  The action is identical in both cases, but somehow there’s an added attachment of racism to my use of the term that is not applied to them.  How is this possible?

The only possible way one could make an argument that my use of the term is racist would be if you argued that my intent in using the word was racist.  The intent of these black youths was not racist because they presumably do not view themselves racistly.

There’s only one problem with that.  The law is not written to judge intent, it is written to judge actions.

This specific case about the Taco Bell incident also demonstrates yet another problem: there is no more free speech.  Certain words are deemed “insensitive” and then criminalized.  That’s right, these words are now illegal to use.  But who defines what words are “insensitive”?  If it was the black youths on the bus, the “N” word would not be insensitive…unless a white person used it (which to me seems a racist application of the rules of “insensitivity”).

What if we decided that the word “the” was insensitive?  We could outlaw the usage of that word!  And make no mistake, outlawing the use of the word “the” is just as arbitrary as outlawing the use of any other word.

People ought to have the right to make a fool of themselves.  If they are racists, they have a right to their views.  Just as we have a right to tell them they are stupid for their views.  We ought not ever criminalize words, no matter what the intention, because that is just another way to criminalize thought.  And when the rules change so that your thoughts are declared criminal, where do you go then?

Man Sues Apple Over Potential Hearing Loss

That’s right, potential hearing loss.  We’re now suing people because of the potential for something to happen.

In that case, I’d like to sue this guy because he could potentially run his car into me one day.  He could potentially be a mass murderer who could include me as a victim.  He could potentially be the Antichrist, for all I know.

Besides which, no one makes you listen to your iPod at max volume.  If you do that, that’s a personal choice you make.  Certain people want their music that loud, so Apple makes their iPod go that loud.  If you don’t want to damage your hearing, don’t crank the volume.

I think maybe I could sue this guy for potentionally being an idiot, except I’d lose that one because of the “potential” part.

A Comparison:

ABC Offends Christians

Danish Cartoon Offends Muslims

Look at how the responses differ.  Why, those icky vile Christians go so far as to actually send letters of complain to NBC Chairman Bob Wright!  How dare they!

Muslims, on the other hand, displaying the religion of peace have threaten to kidnap foreigners.  Indeed, we read:

 

 

Gunmen in the West Bank city of Nablus entered four hotels to search for foreigners to abduct, and they warned hotel owners not to host citizens from several European countries. Gunmen said they were also searching apartments in Nablus for Europeans.

…

Thursday’s events began when a dozen gunmen with ties to Fatah approached the office of the EU Commission in Gaza.

 

 

In this article we read:

“Every Norwegian, Dane and Frenchman in our country is a target,” said the Popular Resistance Committee and the radical Al-Aqsa brigades. If the three countries in question don’t shut down their offices and consulates in the Palestinian territories, “we won’t hesitate to destroy them.”

 

Yes, the Christians are outta control.