CalvinDude.com

Since Steve’s recent post on porn addiction has generated so many responses, I thought it might be useful to print the following excerpt from a novel I’m currently polishing up entitled The 13th Prime. Needless to say, since I’m still editing it, it’s subject to much change and all that. However, the point of the passage should be clear without my having to enlighten anyone as to the plot or any of that :-)

——–

“Let’s take an example. Pornography. Porn is something that even a lot of people in the church struggle with. I’ve heard statistics that say as many as two thirds of pastors surf internet porn at their home. That’s a lot of people, and you have to wonder why they do it.”

Rick shrugged, hoping his perceived indifference wouldn’t give away his discomfort at how close this topic was to his recent infidelity. “I don’t know. I guess there’s something about the sex appeal.”

“Certainly that’s the hook,” Killen agreed. “But that’s not really the point of pornography. You see, porn has nothing to do with nudity or even sex when you boil it all down.”

Rick burst out laughing. “How can you possibly say that?”

“Because these are married men who look at porn. They download pictures of naked women when they have a wife whom they have seen naked too. They watch videos of anonymous strangers having intercourse, and yet they have a wife whom they’ve slept with too. If it was just the nudity and just the sex they wouldn’t need the porn. There’s something else there.”

“I’ve never thought of that,” Rick said and he sat back. “But what would it be if there’s something else? Just a drive for variety?”

“Perhaps,” Killen said. “But I think it’s more than that. I think that the reason pornography is so addictive is because it is something that men know on an instinctual level is wrong.”

“But how—”

William raised his hand. “Just hear me out for a minute. People who are addicted to porn generally start with softcore porn. They look at beautiful women in skimpy clothes and then graduate to revealing more and more skin. Soon, though, that doesn’t satisfy them. They need something more, because it doesn’t…it doesn’t shock them anymore. And so they look at hardcore pornography, and for a while that gives them the thrill they need. But soon, that wears off and they begin to look for something else to fill that need, that desire inside.

“And so they turn to something else that will shock them more. They look at bondage pictures. They look at sadomasochistic videos. They watch bestiality. And soon that becomes common place too, and so they move on to more and more. They start to watch simulated rape videos. They start to download crime scene photos that show people hacked to pieces. They start to get copies of executions. They watch all these things and soon simply watching isn’t enough. They have to get into the action themselves.

“So they follow a woman home one night and they rape and beat her. But that’s not enough of a thrill so they molest her daughter too. And then they force her to call her husband from a payphone and explain in all the gory details what happened to them while he stands there by the car with a gun pressed to her head. And while they still talk on the phone, he kills your four-year-old daughter and then your wife.”

Rick’s face had gone ashen. “You’re talking about something that really happened.”

Killen stood still for a moment just staring at his wedding band. It was a story he had almost told Rachel Fitzsimmons when she asked why he still wore it, but he couldn’t. Now he knew he had no choice.

“I moved here to get away from all that and I’ve only found it again in another place. When that man murdered Caroline, he killed a part of me that could never come back. And what he did, that seed of evil is within every single one of us. And for the most part, we nurture it. We hide it in the secrets of our life and we try not to let the beast get too out of hand. We fear the consequences of it, you know.

“But when surveys find that most men would rape a woman if they knew they could get away with it, you have to wonder about how well contained that beast is. You have to wonder how long God’s going to hold you from falling into the pit of hell.”

Killen ran his hand over his eye. “You see,” he said, fighting back emotion. “There was no reason for that man to rape and kill my wife. He was married. He had three children of his own. And yet he did it anyway. He did it because he wanted to do something evil. He wanted to let the beast out of its cage, and he did it.

“My daughter was four years old, Rick. Four. No child has sex appeal. The only reason that man raped her was because he knew it would inflict pain. The only reason he forced Caroline to call me and tell me what he had done to her is because he knew it would inflict pain. He wasn’t looking for a sexual release, he was looking to commit evil, pure evil.”

Rick could say nothing so Killen continued. “I know that’s a shocking example. It happened twelve years, five months, and six days ago. My daughter, if she were alive today, would be your son’s age. But she never made it past her fourth birthday because a man committed an act for the sole sake of doing something wrong.

“But you know what, Rick? That man wasn’t so different from you or me. I’ve had a lot of years to reflect on it. For a time, I hated God and I wanted to do everything I could to destroy Him. I wanted to make Him hurt for what He allowed—no, for what He did to me. And I did things too. I did things because I knew God didn’t want me to do them.”

“You didn’t kill anyone, did you?” Rick asked.

“Of course not,” Killen responded. “But that seed was in me. If God hadn’t…I guess the only word I can use is restrain—if God hadn’t restrained me, I would have. I’m sure of it. Because doing those things, even when you know they’re wrong—maybe especially when you know they’re wrong—they provide their own sick pleasure, the pleasure that can only come from thumbing your nose at what’s proper. Have you ever wondered why so many movies depict the cute innocent girl as a slut? It’s because we want to tear down that beautiful, innocent creation simply because it would be evil to do so. Each of us, Rick, each of us has that inside of us.”

Rick shifted uncomfortably in his chair. “I’m not sure,” he said, but at the same time he knew it was true. Why had Alice seemed so appealing to him? Wasn’t it because she had that same look of naivety, that innocence? Wasn’t part of the thrill because he had already been married?

No, that couldn’t be the case. He couldn’t allow it to be the case. “No, I don’t buy it.”

“Rick, people can try to justify all number of things. Abuse, infidelity—”

“I said I don’t buy it!” Rick shouted. “Those things aren’t really evil! They can’t be.”

Killen sat back. “Even if we pretend that it isn’t intrinsically evil for a man to rape my wife and daughter—”

“I didn’t mean them,” Rick protested. “I meant th-the, you know, the infidelity and stuff.”

“Fine. Even if we pretend that it isn’t intrinsically evil for a man to have an affair with a woman, it cannot be denied that the man in most cases still thinks that it is wrong for him to engage in such behavior. Tell me, what does it say about a man who will do something that he thinks is wrong?”

Rick swallowed. “I don’t know.”

“Would a good person do something he knew was wrong? It doesn’t matter whether it actually is wrong or not. If a man knows something is wrong, and he does it anyway, is that man a good man or an evil man?”

“I guess he’s an evil man.”

“And that’s why we are all evil,” Killen said. “Because we have all done things we knew were wrong. For no other reason that because they were wrong.”

I’ve previously had this file up as a MIDI, but I finally recorded it into audio. I’ve also decided that it’s the first movement to my first MIDI symphony (even though it’s now recorded in audio format, the synths are still based on MIDI, and the instrumentations is geared that way too–orchestrations would be different in real life). So here’s Symphony # 1 in G Major — First Movement by Peter Pike.

Our server at work is making a wonderful case for Linux. That’s because it’s a Windows machine. Long story short: it’s down. Best scenario: it’s up in an hour. Probable scenario: it’s up on Monday. Ooh-rah, right in time for year end. I blame Bush. And Global Warming. Which is Bush’s fault.

Stupid Bush.

I’ve been having a discussion with a commenter named Persiflage on Steve’s post entitled Soul-murder. As is typical of internet discussions, we’ve quickly strayed from the original point of Steve’s post. Since Persiflage has expressed interest in continuing the discussion along the lines we’ve gone, I’m creating this post to help with that, as well as to bring the issue to light for those who do not read comments since, in my opinion, this is an area of Reformed thought that should be investigated more often.

I encourage any who are interested to read through the entirety of the comments in the previous post. For some background, however, I’ll start by quoting one of my original comments:

Persiflage said:
—
Precisely - most Calvinists are not fatalists in the sense that every single action on earth is predestined by God.
—

Actually, that’s not what I meant. Fatalism is actually closer akin to the typical Arminian view of God than the Calvinist view of God. This seems wrong to most people, but look at the logic of it and you’ll see it’s true:

Calvinists are not fatalists because we believe that God ordains the means as well as the ends. Furthermore, we hold that two moral agents can both will the same event for radically opposed reasons, such that for one moral agent the action is moral while for the other moral agent the action is immoral.

To give a Biblical example, when God used Assyria to punish Israel, it was God’s sovereign decree that Assyria do such. Assyria willingly went along with this, because it was Assyrias desire to tear down nations and uplift themselves as pseudo-gods. The net result: God’s will occured, and Assyria was later punished for it (cf. Isaiah 10).

So let me be clear. God predestines everything that occurs. Or as the Westminster Confession puts it: “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (WCF III:1).

This is not fatalism because the will of the agents involved is not infringed. Another example are the Pharisees who killed Jesus. They did what God ordained they would do; yet they did so because they were wicked. They were not forced to do this, but rather it was what their wicked hearts desired to be done. God, however, willed it for good.

As I said above, the Arminian position is more closely related to fatalism. This is because the Arminian will typically say such things as “God ordains the ends but doesn’t do the little details.” The net result is that either God knows in advance what people will do (the foreknowledge argument Arminians use), which renders His ordaining of events as superfluous since they will happen regardless of His ordanation; or God does not know what people will do (a la Open Theism) and must work to fix things after the fact. Most Arminians reject Open Theism and state the first alternative, but really hold to something like Open Theism. Namely, God ordains the ends, and then knows what people will do and, because He is smarter then they are, can work what people do back to His own ends.

The problem with this idea is that that just is what fatalism is. Fatalism is the idea that no matter what you do, you cannot escape your fate. In the Arminian scheme, this cashes out as the fact that God’s end will result no matter what you do; you cannot thwart Him because, like a superior chess player, He will always beat you.

Calvinists, on the other hand, do not hold to that position at all. It is not a case of “no matter what you do” but rather “this is why you do what you do.” In other words, rather than having a fate you cannot avoid (Arminianism), God has an ending that is intended to include you as a means to that end.

In other words, under a fatalistic scheme, it would be like an engineer who builds an engine and takes a piece that doesn’t fit but jams it in until the engine functions. No matter what the piece’s shape is, it will be forced to do it’s part. Calvinism teaches instead that God crafts the parts to the engine such that when a piston is needed for the engine to run, the piece is exactly what is needed. This isn’t fatalism; rather it is a well-designed plan.

I shall now interact with Persiflage’s response to the above. Also, for the record, Persiflage has stated he intends to do a five point series on his website—when he does so, I encourage him to post a link to it, as he at least has shown himself to be a more reasonable opponent than certain other responders of late! (Yes, Mandalay, this means you.)

Persiflage said:

So a few major points -

- you quote from the Westminster Confession’s - “God ordains whatsoever comes to pass”, which then tries to qualify it with “but he’s not the author of sin” and “this doesn’t deny free will.” You say this is possible because “two moral agents can both will the same event for radically opposed reasons, such that for one moral agent the action is moral while for the other the action is immoral.” Assyria conquering Israel is an example. God put it into their heads to go down and conquer Israel in order to punish them for their disobedience.

So this argument is our biggest problem. I don’t see where in Scripture it says that “God ordains whatsoever comes to pass” or that everything is God’s will. The Confession then flat out contradicts itself by trying to make qualifications. Hey, either everything that happens is God’s will (including Adam and Eve eating of the tree in rebellion to God) or it’s not. The Bible is clear that God predestines the elect to salvation. It is not Biblically clear that God predestines the lost to hell, nor that God predestines “every single action on earth.”

Let’s start with the first part: “I don’t see where in Scripture it says that ‘God ordains whatsoever comes to pass’ or that everything is God’s will.” The WCF itself provides Scripture references for its claim. You can find these at http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/. Additionally, and in no particular order, from the ESV (unless otherwise noted):

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will… (Ephesians 1:11 – emphasis mine)

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD (Proverbs 16:33).

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father (Matthew 10:29). “Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father” in NIV. “And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will” in NKJV.

Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps (Psalm 135:6).

… he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” (Daniel 4:35b)

For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust (Matthew 5:45) Note: this shows God’s dominion over the natural realm; that is, God’s will extends even to the weather, etc.

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place… (Acts 17:26, emphasis mine).

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”—yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” (James 4:13-15)

Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? (Lamentations 3:37-38)

“‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.’” (Deuteronomy 32:39)

There are many more passages like this. But even with just the above, we can see that God is sovereign not only over election, but also over life and death; the minutia (sparrows that fall to the ground, and we are worth far more than sparrows, as the passage continues); the weather; the decision of lots (i.e. so called “random” events); nations and kings; good and evil. In short, God’s decrees cover every aspect of our lives on Earth, from our birth to our death.

Moving on to the second point, Persiflage states: “The Confession then flat out contradicts itself by trying to make qualifications.” The problem with this is that the qualifications are not contradictions at all, but rather clarifications. Indeed, the clarifications are necessary because simply saying “God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass” is not sufficient to distinguish between fatalism and the Calvinist’s compatiblistic view.

To give an analogy (albeit a rather contrived one) it would be like saying: “Football teams need to score to win, and by ‘football’ we mean European football rather than American football.” The clarification shows we are dealing with soccer, which everyone in the world other than the US calls “football”, and not the NFL; yet this clarification is not a contradiction of the original point, because both soccer and NFL have “football teams” that “need to score to win.”

Linking it back to the original point, it is true for both Calvinistic views and fatalistic views that “God ordains whatsoever comes to pass”, but it is only true of the Calvinist view that God’s ordaining does no violence to the will nor does it remove secondary causes (but rather establishes them).

Persiflage continues:

Forget about Adam and Eve’s free will for a moment. Sin is God’s will? How do we know God’s will? By his commands.

Actually, I disagree that it’s His commands that show what His will is (insofar as God’s will = what God wants to actually happen). More on that later though. Persiflage finishes the above with:

Genesis 2:16 is a very clear command. From Genesis 2:16, couldn’t you say that it was NOT God’s will for them to eat of the tree? Could I believe that God commands his people to do one thing, while what he REALLY had ordained for them to do is the opposite? No - and nowhere do I see a God that tricky or underhanded in the Bible. Even if Adam and Eve remained free moral agents willing to disobey God for sinful reasons while at the same time God had ordained for them to disobey him - there was never any question whether they would sin simply because that was what God wanted them to do - that was His will.

Indeed, Genesis 2:16 is a very clear command. However, you also have the following command in Scripture:

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

Coupled with:

Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false (2 Thessalonians 2:11).

So God has in actuality commanded “people to do one thing, while he REALLY [has] ordained for them to do…the opposite.” Indeed, we also have to contend with the following passages:

And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that ‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven’” (Mark 4:11-12).

As it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” (Romans 11:8)

But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear (Deuteronomy 29:4).

And he [Eli] said to them [Eli’s sons], “Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the LORD spreading abroad. If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death (1 Samuel 2:23-25).

Again, there are many more examples along these lines, but this is sufficient to start. It should be enough to show us that God’s commands are not equivalent with God’s ordaining of what comes to pass. If that were the case, there would be no sin ever. Instead, we see that often God does ordain that which is in direct opposition to His commands. The logic of this follows from the fact that God is a) sovereign over all aspects of our lives and b) God has stated that He does not will for certain things to occur even though they would be consistent with His commands.

What, then, are His commands for? They are first conditionals that, if satisfied, are true. In other words, it is the case that if you obey all the commands of God then you will, in fact, be a holy and righteous person. But the commands do not lead to righteousness. Instead, we see Paul say in Romans 7 that the law brings death; that is, the commands of God bring about sin.

“If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin” (verse 7) and “apart from the law, sin lies dead” (verse 8). “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment) that promised life proved to be death to me” (verses 9-10).

Yet despite this, the law itself is good: “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (verse 12).

How is it possible for a “holy and righteous and good” command to bring about death? “It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure” (verse 13).

God’s commands therefore do not illustrate His will; they illustrate what is holy, righteous, and good. Because they illustrate these things, their very existence condemns us for not being holy, righteous, and good. They exist so that we may know we are sinners. But this is a temporary thing:

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith (Galatians 3:24-26).

The commands of God expose our wickedness so that we turn to faith and are thereby saved. God’s commands, therefore, far from revealing the will of God (as it relates to what God ordains), are a tool by which God removes all the excuses of sinful men such that non-believers are condemned and believers turn to faith and are saved by Christ.

So to answer more specifically: was it God’s will for Adam and Eve to sin? Yes, for Christ was slain before the foundation of the Earth (Revelation 13:8), and we were chosen in Him before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). God’s plan preceded creation, and that plan included Adam and Eve’s sin (for how else could Christ be killed (another event foreordained by God (cf. Acts 2:23: “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men”))?).

Yet that doesn’t take away the truth of the conditional. If Adam and Eve had obeyed, they would have been blessed in Eden. Nor does it mean that Adam and Eve were righteous in their sinfulness for doing what God had ordained, for Adam and Eve did not intend what God intended. They sought evil; God sought good.

Continuing, Persiflage said:

If God ORDAINS everything that ever happens, then God ordained for sin, death, pain and suffering to enter the world because THAT was what would bring Him the most glory. I cannot believe that - and it’s one of the main reasons I’m not Reformed because of what that would mean about God’s character.

Unfortunately, what you state above is incomplete. It is not that God ordained sin because sin qua sin would bring Him the most glory; rather God ordained sin because “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). The depths of God’s love could not be demonstrated unless Christ died for sinners. God’s mercy could not be displayed if there were no objects for His mercy; nor His justice if there were no objects for His justice.

God does not ordain sin for the sake of sin. If this world was it—if God did not have a redemptive plan and if God did not have a future judgment—then you would be correct in pointing out that God’s character would be evil. But this world is but a necessary step to something greater, and that is what His word tells us.

That said, I fully understand why it would be difficult for many people to accept this. We all tend to have a myopic view of the world. We live as if history began this morning, and the future is only what will happen tomorrow. We have a very focused and limited view—indeed, we have only our own perspective, for we do not experience today the way that, say, someone in Ethiopia or Indonesia does. Because of that, it’s hard for us to focus on a big picture; but God is all about the big picture. And the things that are unfair to us in the here and now are taken care of by God in His big picture.

So if I may also get more personal, while it is the case that you are not Reformed because of how you view God’s character, it is exactly because of how I view God’s character that I am Reformed. Ironically, we both probably agree to a great extent as to what God’s character is. (This is why I have no doubt that you, and many other non-Reformed believers, are Christians too.) Our differences are on the big picture, and that colors our application of God’s character to real world events.

But I personally cannot believe in a God who is not in control of all events, who is more concerned with some philosophical notion of “freedom” than He is with ensuring His promises are kept. I cannot believe in a God who is scrambling to form Plan B because Adam and Eve didn’t do what He wanted them to do. Especially since all that seems alien to Scripture too.

Scripture tells me that God is in control of all things. It tells me that nothing happens apart from His will. It tells me He is sovereign even over evil. And it tells me that He is a good God, a righteous God, a just God, and a merciful God. All these things I find true in Reformed theology, and that is why I am Reformed.

I was in the VIP Lounge this morning contemplating the meaning of life during my morning constitutional when a question popped into my mind. Before I ask it, I need to establish a little background.

Consider the shape of the planets and stars. They are roundish, or “spheroid.” (Planets aren’t perfect spheres because the spin causes a bulge at the equator, which is my excuse too.) But the reason they are round is because of gravity. These objects all have a center of mass, and all the material wants to go toward the center of mass. If they weren’t round, then it would be like standing a book on end: gravity will topple it over. So these objects move into round shapes because round is both very stable and also the best shape to get the most material possible toward the center of mass.

With that in mind comes the question. Why is it that all the planets are in the same plane? (I can say this now that Pluto is no longer a planet, since it was the odd-man out; but even if you include Pluto, it’s fairly close to the same plane as the other planets.) For clarification, the sun is round…yet all eight planets orbit the sun on the same plane, such that it’s like the planets are on a two dimensional field.

But it extends beyond even that. Saturn’s rings have material in the same plane. For that matter, galaxies do not exist as round balls, but rather as disk-shaped rings and spirals and such. In other words, despite being three dimensional (well, fourth dimensional if you count spacetime), and despite the fact that the reason the material is there is due to gravity, all these objects do NOT form spheroid lumps of matter, but instead flatten out into circular disks.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that maybe it’s due to the spinning motion. For example, if you’re a dude at some point in your life you’ve played with mud puddles. And that means that you’ve probably rolled a basketball or soccer ball through a mud puddle and watched the water shoot off the rolling ball. The water tends to do the same thing: it converges on the “equator” of the ball (which, because it’s spinning on the ground, is the “top” of the ball for our example) and then shoots out in a stream from there. It doesn’t shoot out in all directions. So maybe the reason the rings of Saturn, galaxies, and the way the planets move around the sun are based on that kind of principal.

Then again, the Earth itself is spinning, yet it became spheroid…

I’m sure someone’s probably studied this. Regardless, I can still ask questions that bug me during my morning constitutional!

Imagine if it hadn’t been a drill…

Just read this:

Celine Cawley, 46, who appeared in “A View to Kill” with Roger Moore was found bludgeoned to death on the patio of her multi-million dollar home on December 15. She was rushed to the hospital where she died an hour later.

Source.

Now this paragraph brings to mind an important question…

Resurrection? or really bad editor?

I realize that I am one of the few people left in America who actually cares about logic. Still, shouldn’t someone have noticed that you cannot be found bludgeoned to death if you die in the hospital an hour later? I’m pretty sure that violates a law of physics or something.

I was curious, since my official hire date anniversary is coming up, to see how much work I’ve done through the years at my job. Now I should note that my official hire date is kind of wonky because it actually goes back to when I was a senior in high school. I worked for the summer between my junior and senior years as an intern, and then I also worked during my Christmas vacation and spring break. For some reason, the “official” hire date is given as when I started doing my Christmas vacation work (in other words, they skipped my summer internship; but then they also didn’t start it when I came on staff part time after graduation…as I said, it’s wonky). Additionally, while that was several years ago (1995 to be exact), my hire date for calculating my vacation time is linked to when I went on staff full time, which was in 1999. So on the one hand I’m listed as having worked here for 13 years, but on the other hand I get vacation time for having worked 9 years. (BTW: the 9 years date is correct since vacation time is indexed to length of time you’ve worked full time, not just since your hire date; the difference is that this year I’ll get 3 weeks of vacation time while next year, when I hit my 10 year anniversary “officially”, I’ll get 4 weeks of vacation time.)

Anyway, all that to say…I was curious. So I emailed one of our database admins and asked him if there was any way he could run a report to let me know how many prospects I’ve set up in our database during my entire working day. (For those who are worried, I informed him this was for personal reasons and not to waste too much time if it was complicated; but it was a simple SQL query.) This morning, I got the answer.

58,957.

Yup, nearly 60,000 prospects. (For the record, I’m pretty sure today I’ve already added more than 43, so I’m over 59,000 now.) It was kind of interesting to see.

On the other hand, it brings to mind a more serious question. Why do they insist that I have to go through the training on how to set up new prospects with everyone else? Just because they don’t know how to do it doesn’t mean I don’t know how to do it. Still, I have to waste two hours every month from November through January to attend these classes. You’d think after setting up nearly 60,000 prospects they’d know that I actually know how to do it. (Actually, this is just another instance of everyone being forced to conform to the least common denominator…but I don’t wish to get off on a rant, so I’ll stop now.) :-)

First, I ought to point out that the radio today said the high would be 20 degrees. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

Okay, now that that’s out of my system, I’ve been watching the temp on my computer slowly rise. It started at -6 degrees this morning. We got to 1 degree around noon, and I was crossing my fingers hoping to experience….

THE THIRD DEGREE!

Which we finally got. Proof here:

Reminds me of that line from Dumb and Dumber, which I have to edit and change. “That Algore guy is full of…”

The current temperature right now: 0 degrees.

Zero.

As in nothing. Which is appropriate, because that’s exactly how much Global Warming there is outside too.