...it would look like the baby Gosnell murdered.
If you don't understand the reference, I'm mocking Obama's statement about Trayvon Martin, the black Florida youth who was shot by George Zimmerman, a hispanic man who made a 911 call about a suspicious character while serving in his capacity as the neighborhood watch, moments before. Obama personally inserted himself into the news by saying that 'if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon.' Not only is this utterly irrelevant, but it's distasteful for the President to try to sway public opinion in favor of Trayvon being a victim by making him seem more sympathetic, when the facts of the case are still not yet fully known to the public, since the trial isn't set to begin until next month.
In a curious irony, Obama kept himself completely out of any media exposure with reference to the Kermit Gosnell trial, which arguably has much more relevance to the national interest. Why might he be so silent now, whereas before he had no qualms with making a murder accusation his personal business?
It could be that Gosnell, the now-convicted murderer, is black? It could be that the babies he aborted, and the babies he killed after they were already born, were likewise black? I believe Obama is racist. I think he decided to take Trayvon's side because he sympathized with him on the basis of skin color and some strange notion of fighting back against the "white oppressor," given that Zimmerman is a very "white-sounding" name. That George turned out to be a mixed man became a bit of an embarrassment for Obama, seeing as he thinks he's the savior of all hispanics as well. Obama's problem is that his identity-politics comes into conflict with his social agendas. He wants abortion to be fully free and legal at all costs, but he also wants to be seen as the guy all black people should vote for because he has their best interests at heart. So when a black murderer murders black babies in an abortion "clinic," that's embarrassing for Obama.
Even more embarrassing is the fact that Obama voted four times, while he was a senator, to make the stuff that Gosnell did LEGAL. That's the bottom line why I think the President has avoided making public comments about the trial. The fact is that according to his voting record, Obama doesn't think that Gosnell should have been accused of murder, much less convicted. If he were to speak against Gosnell, he'd be called out on his hypocrisy. And if he said what he really thinks, he'd alienate his voter base by revealing himself to be very, very anti-poor, anti-minority, and anti-woman.
Here is a hub link that gives source information to prove that Obama voted against making it illegal to kill a baby born after a botched abortion over four times: http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/
~ Rak Chazak
[edit: further ironic is the fact that during the trial, Obama held a speech at a Planned Parenthood conference, ending with the cringe-worthy statement, "Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you."]
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Monday, May 13, 2013
This MeTV Stuff is Way Better than Modern Sit-Coms
A few years ago, the regional channel 45-2 began broadcasting vintage movies. The channel is called "This," and its catchphrase is "I love this," or "this is great," etc etc which is fun. Just recently, however, I noticed that channel 11-2, perhaps noticing the popularity of vintage television, decided to jump on the bandwagon, but from a different angle. Rather than show old movies, "Me" (catchphrase "watch me," etc) is airing antique classic television shows. I have to be honest: it's refreshing to watch.
I've hardly watched much of that channel at all, but when I have, it's been a breath of fresh air by comparison to modern sitcoms. It's as if the scenarios keep getting more and more ridiculous in what passes for entertainment today. What little I've seen of these shows:
Two and a Half Men
Two Broke Girls
Friends
Modern Family
Malcolm in the Middle
The Middle
Everybody Loves Raymond
The King of Queens
Rules of Engagement
How I Met Your Mother
Modern Family
Mike and Molly
ETC
gives me the prevailing impression that nothing in the script relates to me at all. I can get the jokes and stuff, but it's just so absurd. And while not all of the above attempt to be as depraved as possible, some do, and it makes you wonder why they go through the effort. It's as if shock value is the new standard by which to produce entertainment television. It seems as though producers determined to take the Jerry Springer show and turn it into a scripted drama.
Allow me to draw on a few episodal themes from the above selection which DO NOT APPEAR in older shows like the ones shown on MeTV, or even the Cosby Show, for cryin' out loud.
* a child younger than 5 cussing because she learned it from her parents
* a 30-something adolescent, upon seeing his personal assistant's Skype window open (the assistant was talking to his sister), tells the girl to take her top off, assuming that she was a privately employed "cam-girl" porn actress who engages in cyber sex for money. Worse: she then goes on a date with him.
* the leading man's wife leaves or threatens to leave him because of his incompetence
* one of the main characters urinates on herself in public
* the mother of one of the characters gives a man a heart attack, of which he dies, while having sex
* one of the characters new housemates has sex with the other's mother within hours of meeting her.
* it goes on and on and on
I'm supposed to laugh at this? The fact that this is being marketed toward my age group (mid-twenties, for example most of the "Friends"-esque sitcoms feature a group of 5-8 guys and girls in a city who get into shenanigans) really bothers me. Consequently, now that I have seen just one episode of the Dick Van Dyke Show and the Mary Tyler Moore Show, I want to see more. Allow me to give a synopsis:
In the Dick Van Dyke episode I watched, Dick and his wife go to a hotel somewhere for their anniversary. His wife goes to the bathroom to freshen up and Dick waits outside. The main plot device around which the episode revolved was that Mrs. Dyke got her toe stuck in the faucet of the bathtub while the door was locked. Wow, no gratuitous sexual references or cursing or scatological humor? Not one in the episode!
In the Mary Tyler Moore episode I just saw yesterday, Mary's friend Rhonda's mother comes to visit and the latter wants to be friends with her daughter rather than just be her mother, since she doesn't like the relationship she has with her daughter. Too much knocking heads, basically. The episode concludes with Rhonda deciding that she wants her mother to be her mother again. The closest thing to a sexual reference is Mary telling Rhonda's mom that "I don't think people do that anymore," with reference to Parking (if you don't know what that means, ask someone who lived through the 60s and 70s, or better yet, just watch Grease); and later, when Rhonda comes home, she expresses her disdain over her date's behavior and Rhonda's mother goes out the door with a look of purpose to give him a stern talking-to.
By far, I enjoy these antique shows much more than what comes on tv nowadays. The stark differences between the shows of the 50s-70s and the sitcoms of the 90s and 00s goes to show you how rapidly a culture can change, and with it its appetite. Hopefully, if enough people tune in to This and Me, broadcasters will get the hint and increase the offering, so that our cultural entertainment can turn back just as quickly. Maybe I'll be able to watch t.v. again.
~ Rak Chazak
I've hardly watched much of that channel at all, but when I have, it's been a breath of fresh air by comparison to modern sitcoms. It's as if the scenarios keep getting more and more ridiculous in what passes for entertainment today. What little I've seen of these shows:
Two and a Half Men
Two Broke Girls
Friends
Modern Family
Malcolm in the Middle
The Middle
Everybody Loves Raymond
The King of Queens
Rules of Engagement
How I Met Your Mother
Modern Family
Mike and Molly
ETC
gives me the prevailing impression that nothing in the script relates to me at all. I can get the jokes and stuff, but it's just so absurd. And while not all of the above attempt to be as depraved as possible, some do, and it makes you wonder why they go through the effort. It's as if shock value is the new standard by which to produce entertainment television. It seems as though producers determined to take the Jerry Springer show and turn it into a scripted drama.
Allow me to draw on a few episodal themes from the above selection which DO NOT APPEAR in older shows like the ones shown on MeTV, or even the Cosby Show, for cryin' out loud.
* a child younger than 5 cussing because she learned it from her parents
* a 30-something adolescent, upon seeing his personal assistant's Skype window open (the assistant was talking to his sister), tells the girl to take her top off, assuming that she was a privately employed "cam-girl" porn actress who engages in cyber sex for money. Worse: she then goes on a date with him.
* the leading man's wife leaves or threatens to leave him because of his incompetence
* one of the main characters urinates on herself in public
* the mother of one of the characters gives a man a heart attack, of which he dies, while having sex
* one of the characters new housemates has sex with the other's mother within hours of meeting her.
* it goes on and on and on
I'm supposed to laugh at this? The fact that this is being marketed toward my age group (mid-twenties, for example most of the "Friends"-esque sitcoms feature a group of 5-8 guys and girls in a city who get into shenanigans) really bothers me. Consequently, now that I have seen just one episode of the Dick Van Dyke Show and the Mary Tyler Moore Show, I want to see more. Allow me to give a synopsis:
In the Dick Van Dyke episode I watched, Dick and his wife go to a hotel somewhere for their anniversary. His wife goes to the bathroom to freshen up and Dick waits outside. The main plot device around which the episode revolved was that Mrs. Dyke got her toe stuck in the faucet of the bathtub while the door was locked. Wow, no gratuitous sexual references or cursing or scatological humor? Not one in the episode!
In the Mary Tyler Moore episode I just saw yesterday, Mary's friend Rhonda's mother comes to visit and the latter wants to be friends with her daughter rather than just be her mother, since she doesn't like the relationship she has with her daughter. Too much knocking heads, basically. The episode concludes with Rhonda deciding that she wants her mother to be her mother again. The closest thing to a sexual reference is Mary telling Rhonda's mom that "I don't think people do that anymore," with reference to Parking (if you don't know what that means, ask someone who lived through the 60s and 70s, or better yet, just watch Grease); and later, when Rhonda comes home, she expresses her disdain over her date's behavior and Rhonda's mother goes out the door with a look of purpose to give him a stern talking-to.
By far, I enjoy these antique shows much more than what comes on tv nowadays. The stark differences between the shows of the 50s-70s and the sitcoms of the 90s and 00s goes to show you how rapidly a culture can change, and with it its appetite. Hopefully, if enough people tune in to This and Me, broadcasters will get the hint and increase the offering, so that our cultural entertainment can turn back just as quickly. Maybe I'll be able to watch t.v. again.
~ Rak Chazak
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Wretched Christian Song Lyrics, Revisited
After the first 2 minutes of this, I feel confident that I've parsed Todd Friel's criticism of 'Christian music' correctly:
http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=11B1A672B6FA68EA13C980E90081E0D0&page=2
A song is played, that's supposedly intended to encourage people with body image or 'self esteem' issues. Here are the lyrics: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/brittnicole/gold.html
Excerpt:
This is the problem with most things put out from and marketed to the Church these days, be they sermons, 'self-help books,' conferences or music. There is an attempt to make people feel good about themselves, so praise is heaped on them, but this Mr.-Rogers-approach to solving problems doesn't accomplish the solution, because it is only ever the symptoms that are recognized, and not the underlying illness.
Body image issues and lack of self-confidence, and everything that is termed "self-esteem" by the school system, all stem from the same place that everything wrong with this world stems from -- sin. There's two ways this can be true: it can be a result of the original sin of Adam, which essentially broke the once-perfect Creation, resulting in what we know as The Fall, making all sorts of natural evil and chaos to be a normal occurrence in this world we live in. The other way is a direct result of someone's sin -- a mean word by someone, or guilt over the wrong things you yourself have done or thought, can make you feel bad about yourself. The world has its own solution to this: to stop feeling bad, a person must simply tell and be told enough nice things that the bad feelings are drowned out by good ones. But this doesn't deal with the problem at its root, and the potential for a recurrence is still there. God's solution to the problem of sin is not for it to be ignored, but for it to be destroyed--and for all who take His offer, they'll have forgiveness in the meantime. Being forgiven, as anyone who has experienced it can attest, is freeing. There is a very real sense of closure when you are forgiven of the totality of your sin, because the problem has now been dealt with, and anything you feel between now and the Resurrection is merely the aftershocks of the Fall, which no longer has the potential to hurt you eternally, only temporarily.
Music that would encourage people with guilt or confidence issues would then necessarily point to Jesus Christ as the solution, and not settle for vain compliments. Here are some songs that I suggest as more Gospel-centered alternatives to the song from the podcast above. Each addresses feelings of guilt, inadequacy, hurt, etc from different angles. Each is more or less blatantly referential to Jesus.
Beloved -- Tenth Avenue North
Corinthians -- Apologetix
Dear Heart -- Sanctus Real (for personal guilt)
Faith to Be Strong -- Andrew Peterson
Love is Not A Fight -- Warren Barfield (for relationships)
Healing Begins -- Tenth Avenue North (for someone hurting; applicable to bullying victims or those feeling lots of peer pressure)
Before the Morning -- Josh Wilson (for having a big-picture perspective to suffering)
Fall Apart -- Josh Wilson (very similar to Blessings, by Laura Story in its "angle")
You Loved Me Anyway -- Sidewalk Prophets (lyrics come from the "angle" Todd was talking about in the podcast)
Who Am I -- Casting Crowns
I'm Not All Right -- Sanctus Real
Forgiven -- Sanctus Real (this song brings the closure I was talking about)
If you're struggling with body image issues, bullying, teasing, social ostracism, relationship difficulties, personal guilt over dirty secrets you have, etc, then please take a listen to any one of the songs above. I hope it'll give you both perspective and the appropriate encouragement.
~ Rak Chazak
http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=11B1A672B6FA68EA13C980E90081E0D0&page=2
A song is played, that's supposedly intended to encourage people with body image or 'self esteem' issues. Here are the lyrics: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/brittnicole/gold.html
Excerpt:
You were walking on the moon, now you're feeling low || What they said wasn't true, you're beautiful || Sticks and stones break your bones, I know what you're feeling || Words like those won't steal your glow, you're one in a millionIt came out last year, was at the top of the Christian contemporary billboards for a while, and now is being re-released into the mainstream market. Not surprising at all, says Todd: there's nothing distinctly Christian about it.
This, this is for all the girls, boys all over the world || Whatever you've been told, you're worth more than gold || So hold your head up high, it's your time to shine || From the inside out it shows, you're worth more than gold
This is the problem with most things put out from and marketed to the Church these days, be they sermons, 'self-help books,' conferences or music. There is an attempt to make people feel good about themselves, so praise is heaped on them, but this Mr.-Rogers-approach to solving problems doesn't accomplish the solution, because it is only ever the symptoms that are recognized, and not the underlying illness.
Body image issues and lack of self-confidence, and everything that is termed "self-esteem" by the school system, all stem from the same place that everything wrong with this world stems from -- sin. There's two ways this can be true: it can be a result of the original sin of Adam, which essentially broke the once-perfect Creation, resulting in what we know as The Fall, making all sorts of natural evil and chaos to be a normal occurrence in this world we live in. The other way is a direct result of someone's sin -- a mean word by someone, or guilt over the wrong things you yourself have done or thought, can make you feel bad about yourself. The world has its own solution to this: to stop feeling bad, a person must simply tell and be told enough nice things that the bad feelings are drowned out by good ones. But this doesn't deal with the problem at its root, and the potential for a recurrence is still there. God's solution to the problem of sin is not for it to be ignored, but for it to be destroyed--and for all who take His offer, they'll have forgiveness in the meantime. Being forgiven, as anyone who has experienced it can attest, is freeing. There is a very real sense of closure when you are forgiven of the totality of your sin, because the problem has now been dealt with, and anything you feel between now and the Resurrection is merely the aftershocks of the Fall, which no longer has the potential to hurt you eternally, only temporarily.
Music that would encourage people with guilt or confidence issues would then necessarily point to Jesus Christ as the solution, and not settle for vain compliments. Here are some songs that I suggest as more Gospel-centered alternatives to the song from the podcast above. Each addresses feelings of guilt, inadequacy, hurt, etc from different angles. Each is more or less blatantly referential to Jesus.
Beloved -- Tenth Avenue North
Corinthians -- Apologetix
Dear Heart -- Sanctus Real (for personal guilt)
Faith to Be Strong -- Andrew Peterson
Love is Not A Fight -- Warren Barfield (for relationships)
Healing Begins -- Tenth Avenue North (for someone hurting; applicable to bullying victims or those feeling lots of peer pressure)
Before the Morning -- Josh Wilson (for having a big-picture perspective to suffering)
Fall Apart -- Josh Wilson (very similar to Blessings, by Laura Story in its "angle")
You Loved Me Anyway -- Sidewalk Prophets (lyrics come from the "angle" Todd was talking about in the podcast)
Who Am I -- Casting Crowns
I'm Not All Right -- Sanctus Real
Forgiven -- Sanctus Real (this song brings the closure I was talking about)
If you're struggling with body image issues, bullying, teasing, social ostracism, relationship difficulties, personal guilt over dirty secrets you have, etc, then please take a listen to any one of the songs above. I hope it'll give you both perspective and the appropriate encouragement.
~ Rak Chazak
Thursday, May 9, 2013
PhD Pontification
They say that networking is the best way to get your foot in the door at a job.
It turns out that human interaction is the best way to get anything done, as anyone who's put in the effort to make a phone call or go see someone in person surely knows--mail correspondence can be ignored, but face time warrants a response. And casual conversation is often a gold mine of information you wouldn't be able to find elsewhere easily, for the simple reason that each individual person prioritizes information according to the perceived value it has to other people they may be talking to.
While I was studying for an exam earlier, I had a conversation with a young woman who clearly "knows her stuff" when it comes to academics. She was taking an active role in teaching us the material. But beyond the course material, she knew some things about after-graduation options, which she passed on to me. She herself had only learned about this last semester. And that's what's so mindblowing about it.
It sounds suspicious, but it is indeed true, she insisted. The upsetting thing is the realization that despite several years of schooling, no one has ever yet told me this. I've had the impression that continuing school would mean going even further into debt, and that's intolerable, so I've been refusing that idea. But now I find out that you can skip a Master's program and go directly into a PhD program--provided you're accepted--and actually be paid. The actual setup is something like this: Tuition is 17,000 ish and they pay you maybe 30,000/yr so after tuition you're technically getting paid to do research. It's a net benefit for all involved because the university can pay you less than they would pay a full time faculty researcher. But you're getting experience, an advanced degree, and more money than before, on top of it all. For a guy like me, currently making $0/yr, that sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
I'm late hearing about this, though. I don't think I'm out in time to apply for any such programs this year. Maybe I'll have an opportunity later on, and perhaps something even better comes along in the meantime. I'll have to play it by ear. But at least now I know of somewhere that I can start looking. I can't fully express my frustration that no professor, academic advisor, TA or career/internship advisor ever told me this. The person who told me didn't know until she was 25, going on 26. Something is wrong when you're completely left to fend for yourself in college. I understand that having to gain independence is a valuable lesson to learn, but if that's the plan, universities can't really take credit for producing its graduates. University didn't help us, we survived University.
How's that for perspective?
~ Rak Chazak
It turns out that human interaction is the best way to get anything done, as anyone who's put in the effort to make a phone call or go see someone in person surely knows--mail correspondence can be ignored, but face time warrants a response. And casual conversation is often a gold mine of information you wouldn't be able to find elsewhere easily, for the simple reason that each individual person prioritizes information according to the perceived value it has to other people they may be talking to.
While I was studying for an exam earlier, I had a conversation with a young woman who clearly "knows her stuff" when it comes to academics. She was taking an active role in teaching us the material. But beyond the course material, she knew some things about after-graduation options, which she passed on to me. She herself had only learned about this last semester. And that's what's so mindblowing about it.
Apparently grad school doesn't require you to pay to go -- they pay you.
It sounds suspicious, but it is indeed true, she insisted. The upsetting thing is the realization that despite several years of schooling, no one has ever yet told me this. I've had the impression that continuing school would mean going even further into debt, and that's intolerable, so I've been refusing that idea. But now I find out that you can skip a Master's program and go directly into a PhD program--provided you're accepted--and actually be paid. The actual setup is something like this: Tuition is 17,000 ish and they pay you maybe 30,000/yr so after tuition you're technically getting paid to do research. It's a net benefit for all involved because the university can pay you less than they would pay a full time faculty researcher. But you're getting experience, an advanced degree, and more money than before, on top of it all. For a guy like me, currently making $0/yr, that sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
I'm late hearing about this, though. I don't think I'm out in time to apply for any such programs this year. Maybe I'll have an opportunity later on, and perhaps something even better comes along in the meantime. I'll have to play it by ear. But at least now I know of somewhere that I can start looking. I can't fully express my frustration that no professor, academic advisor, TA or career/internship advisor ever told me this. The person who told me didn't know until she was 25, going on 26. Something is wrong when you're completely left to fend for yourself in college. I understand that having to gain independence is a valuable lesson to learn, but if that's the plan, universities can't really take credit for producing its graduates. University didn't help us, we survived University.
How's that for perspective?
~ Rak Chazak
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
The Folly of Wisdom
I've learned a bit since beginning to comment on the online discussion forum at my university's web site.
When I began, I was thrilled to share what I had discovered about political, theological and scientific reality with everyone else in the online campus community. I love learning the truth and I seek it with all my might. SURELY, I thought to myself, surely everyone else must also want to know the truth, and be glad to hear it?
Right?
In retrospect, it was an extremely naive thing for me to suppose. In expecting others to be happy to hear the truth, I foolishly assumed that they would recognize it as truth upon hearing it. Furthermore, I've found that some people consciously resist the truth because they are unwilling to accept its implications for emotional reasons.
Strife ensued. I'm disappointed that so many people have sought to defame me in public and in secret, with vicious rumors, mostly false, all misleading. I was naive to not anticipate that people would go after me instead of wrestling with the truth I challenged them with. In retrospect, I imagine I am, after all, an easier target.
I find that this passage from Ecclesiastes 2 expresses my heart's cry:
When I began, I was thrilled to share what I had discovered about political, theological and scientific reality with everyone else in the online campus community. I love learning the truth and I seek it with all my might. SURELY, I thought to myself, surely everyone else must also want to know the truth, and be glad to hear it?
Right?
In retrospect, it was an extremely naive thing for me to suppose. In expecting others to be happy to hear the truth, I foolishly assumed that they would recognize it as truth upon hearing it. Furthermore, I've found that some people consciously resist the truth because they are unwilling to accept its implications for emotional reasons.
Strife ensued. I'm disappointed that so many people have sought to defame me in public and in secret, with vicious rumors, mostly false, all misleading. I was naive to not anticipate that people would go after me instead of wrestling with the truth I challenged them with. In retrospect, I imagine I am, after all, an easier target.
I find that this passage from Ecclesiastes 2 expresses my heart's cry:
13 Then I saw that wisdom excels folly
As light excels darkness.14
The wise man’s eyes are in his head,
But the fool walks in darkness.
Yet I myself perceived
That the same event happens to them all.15
So I said in my heart,
“As it happens to the fool,
It also happens to me,
And why was I then more wise?”
Then I said in my heart,
“This also is vanity.”16
For there is no more remembrance of the wise than of the fool forever,
Since all that now is will be forgotten in the days to come.
And how does a wise man die?
As the fool!
17 Therefore I hated life because the work that was done under the sun was distressing to me, for all is vanity and grasping for the wind.
This
is likely to continue for as long as I remain in view. When I finally
manage to pick up my feet and walk away, I won't do so announced. I will
simply leave and let the chips fall where they may. I do not hate those
who have spoken evil of me; I hate their deeds. I will refrain from
judging and let God settle the account.
Psalm 28:4 May the Lord repay them according to their works.
I am at peace. God is in control. He will have the last word.
~ Rak Chazak
Monday, May 6, 2013
Silly Obligations
Obligations are things no one forces you to do, but which you have some moral requirement to perform. There can of course be consequences to not fulfilling obligations, but the unique thing about them is that the person who is obligated has total freedom to either perform or neglect to perform what is obligated of them.
Now that the table is set,
People experience different sorts of internal obligations that motivate them to do certain things. Some feel driven to do what they think will relieve poverty, or improve the health and safety of society. But people experience smaller obligations on a day-to-day basis that influence how they interact with other people. Chivalry, for example, drives boys to show respect to women through little acts like opening doors or letting them go first, and most people feel an obligation to say thank you when served food at a dining establishment.
One curious obligation I've imposed on myself is the motivation to go out of my way to give compliments to girls. Not profusely or in any way strangely, but simply more often than I might feel inclined to. I've simply conditioned myself to literally speak my mind, within certain limitations. And here's the reasoning why: my logic is that well-behaved guys might be less likely to be very upfront with personal comments about young women, which is all well and good until you realize that this means that the guys girls are most likely to hear compliments from are jerks, or otherwise unrespectable young men. Since it's in our nature to be grateful to people who are kind to us, my theory is that this is part of the reason that some girls end up with loser boyfriends--because these guys are the only ones she ever hears nice things from. She naturally appreciates their attention, and consequently, is far more likely to find herself in a relationship with such guys than with the guys she probably thinks are "better," but whom she feels ignored by.
My one-man crusade is to stop this. Not because I want to compete, and to get the personal attention of these young women for myself, but because I want to condition them to realize that guys like me do indeed have eyes that can see, a heart that beats red blood, and enough of a suave touch to make them feel excited by the interest and attention I can show them. In my mind, I imagine that I represent the nerdy, socially awkward guys who respect women but can't seem to get their attention. I think that many girls in my age group don't know what they want. If I can help some of them be "awakened" to the realization that a dork like me might actually treat them well then maybe they'll be immunized against the attentions of "bad boys." By simply giving a kind, heartfelt compliment at the end of our conversation, I can turn them on to the idea that inside every (well most) awkward geek(s) is a gentleman and a guy with potential to be a good lover (and I'm not using that in a sexually explicit sense here), then maybe they'll be inspired to wait, rather than settle for what seems like the best option at the time, because they're afraid that if they wait too long the good guys will let them down.
Now it's just a matter of getting the guys on board. I'm busy giving young women I meet the impression that there are other guys like me out there (not to toot my own horn), now I just hope that I haven't misled them. Step up, men! Be gentlemen but be bold! Love is not a passive engagement. You must pursue, for if you don't get her attention, someone else will. And I don't want that to be a bad boy.
I'm sure this'll upset the sexists--er, I mean "feminists." ;)
~ Rak Chazak
Now that the table is set,
People experience different sorts of internal obligations that motivate them to do certain things. Some feel driven to do what they think will relieve poverty, or improve the health and safety of society. But people experience smaller obligations on a day-to-day basis that influence how they interact with other people. Chivalry, for example, drives boys to show respect to women through little acts like opening doors or letting them go first, and most people feel an obligation to say thank you when served food at a dining establishment.
One curious obligation I've imposed on myself is the motivation to go out of my way to give compliments to girls. Not profusely or in any way strangely, but simply more often than I might feel inclined to. I've simply conditioned myself to literally speak my mind, within certain limitations. And here's the reasoning why: my logic is that well-behaved guys might be less likely to be very upfront with personal comments about young women, which is all well and good until you realize that this means that the guys girls are most likely to hear compliments from are jerks, or otherwise unrespectable young men. Since it's in our nature to be grateful to people who are kind to us, my theory is that this is part of the reason that some girls end up with loser boyfriends--because these guys are the only ones she ever hears nice things from. She naturally appreciates their attention, and consequently, is far more likely to find herself in a relationship with such guys than with the guys she probably thinks are "better," but whom she feels ignored by.
My one-man crusade is to stop this. Not because I want to compete, and to get the personal attention of these young women for myself, but because I want to condition them to realize that guys like me do indeed have eyes that can see, a heart that beats red blood, and enough of a suave touch to make them feel excited by the interest and attention I can show them. In my mind, I imagine that I represent the nerdy, socially awkward guys who respect women but can't seem to get their attention. I think that many girls in my age group don't know what they want. If I can help some of them be "awakened" to the realization that a dork like me might actually treat them well then maybe they'll be immunized against the attentions of "bad boys." By simply giving a kind, heartfelt compliment at the end of our conversation, I can turn them on to the idea that inside every (well most) awkward geek(s) is a gentleman and a guy with potential to be a good lover (and I'm not using that in a sexually explicit sense here), then maybe they'll be inspired to wait, rather than settle for what seems like the best option at the time, because they're afraid that if they wait too long the good guys will let them down.
Now it's just a matter of getting the guys on board. I'm busy giving young women I meet the impression that there are other guys like me out there (not to toot my own horn), now I just hope that I haven't misled them. Step up, men! Be gentlemen but be bold! Love is not a passive engagement. You must pursue, for if you don't get her attention, someone else will. And I don't want that to be a bad boy.
I'm sure this'll upset the sexists--er, I mean "feminists." ;)
~ Rak Chazak
Don't Die Twice for A Straw Man
Who would die for one of those, anyway?
I was having an online discussion with an atheist I've had occasional back-and-forths with for a few years, and he trotted out this line:
Here was my full response:
So the understanding that the world is perishing and I have a part to play in saving it motivates me to be more aggressive in spreading the Gospel. I'd gladly take the risk of being seen as "one of those crazy Christian nutjobs," than to make people feel comfortable even as their eternity is in peril. My conscience won't let me accept quietness. I must speak.
What saddens me so much is when guys like him say that they don't think it's legitimate to be good because otherwise you'll be tortured. I TOTALLY AGREE! That IS illegitimate! And it isn't the Christian way! We don't do good because God is threatening us. We do it to repay Him with gladness for everything He has given us. We honor Him out of love, not out of mortal terror. I wish my opponent would understand this...
I think he chooses to believe that because it makes it easier to reject the Christian faith. But if you're offended by something that isn't actually Christianity, and you turn around and reject Christianity, you've made a terrible mistake.
The Straw Man Fallacy is the logical misstep of misrepresenting what you're arguing against. Then you defeat this 'straw man' and claim to have defeated what you were arguing against. But if you don't ever attack the actual position, you can't ever defeat it, and so you're never justified in rejecting it. That's the mistake my opponent made above. He's right to reject what he describes, because a belief system that makes God out to be an extortioner is clearly false. Sadly, he makes the error of asserting that this is the Christian faith, and this is not so.
I said 'don't die twice for a straw man,' because hell is referred to as the "second death." (Revelation 20:14)
It's not worth it to go to hell because you insisted on believing a lie. The character Yossarian in the novel Catch-22 was having a debate with a lady friend of his, and though they were both atheists, the woman was upset at how Yossarian characterized God--angry, mean, stupid, evil, etc. Yossarian reaches a compromise by saying, "the God you don't believe in is not the same God that I don't believe in." (That's paraphrased).
My atheist friend, the god you don't believe in is not the God I believe in. Repent and live.
~ Rak Chazak
I was having an online discussion with an atheist I've had occasional back-and-forths with for a few years, and he trotted out this line:
I don't want my philosophy to comfort me, I want it to tell me the truth at all instances.You know, I suspect he thinks this would upset me most because it supposedly reveals the hypocrisy of people of faith. Namely, that of supposedly being concerned with people's "greater good," to the point of ignoring their earthly needs. He thinks faith breeds fatalism, with regard to making the world a better place. What really upsets me is that he still has this wrong view of faith, despite months and years of telling him the truth.
When I see a dying, starving person, I don't want to see a person going to heaven. To me, that is one of the most sinister lies and I wouldn't want my children to believe this about a person in strife. Strife is a REAL thing, and for me, it is something that does not end in heaven or hell. Truly, I am only comforted by atheism to know that the REALITY of life, including a dying and sick world, is a real one. I can't do anything about this dying and sick world except be my best, but at least I know it isn't a fight of devils and angels--rather in humanity's control.
I believe life comes once, I don't want to be a good person because I will be tortured and my skin burned off if I don't. That's not morality for me.
Here was my full response:
I can tell you what, [opponent], when I see people dying it doesn't comfort me to see people going to hell. That's what motivates me to reach out to them with the Gospel lest they perish in vain.Every day, 200,000 people die. Realizing that so many people are slipping into eternity without you having even the slightest opportunity to do anything about it is distressing. It's not comforting at all. What is comforting in moments of realizing that, is that God is sovereign. Simply, He's in control. You don't have the responsibility over all those people. God will ensure that there are Christians strategically placed just where He wants them, to be salt and light for a dying world. And guess what? You are the one that He's handpicked to do just that, where you are.
[Opponent], being a good person won't get you into heaven. You're already going to hell because you're INCAPABLE of being a good person. This is what you don't get. We Christians don't behave morally because God threatens us. We do good in grateful response to the fact that He saved us from hell even though we did not deserve to go to heaven. If you think we do good to bribe God you are mistaken. That's not Christianity, that's works-righteous false religion. Don't die twice for a straw man.
So the understanding that the world is perishing and I have a part to play in saving it motivates me to be more aggressive in spreading the Gospel. I'd gladly take the risk of being seen as "one of those crazy Christian nutjobs," than to make people feel comfortable even as their eternity is in peril. My conscience won't let me accept quietness. I must speak.
What saddens me so much is when guys like him say that they don't think it's legitimate to be good because otherwise you'll be tortured. I TOTALLY AGREE! That IS illegitimate! And it isn't the Christian way! We don't do good because God is threatening us. We do it to repay Him with gladness for everything He has given us. We honor Him out of love, not out of mortal terror. I wish my opponent would understand this...
I think he chooses to believe that because it makes it easier to reject the Christian faith. But if you're offended by something that isn't actually Christianity, and you turn around and reject Christianity, you've made a terrible mistake.
The Straw Man Fallacy is the logical misstep of misrepresenting what you're arguing against. Then you defeat this 'straw man' and claim to have defeated what you were arguing against. But if you don't ever attack the actual position, you can't ever defeat it, and so you're never justified in rejecting it. That's the mistake my opponent made above. He's right to reject what he describes, because a belief system that makes God out to be an extortioner is clearly false. Sadly, he makes the error of asserting that this is the Christian faith, and this is not so.
I said 'don't die twice for a straw man,' because hell is referred to as the "second death." (Revelation 20:14)
It's not worth it to go to hell because you insisted on believing a lie. The character Yossarian in the novel Catch-22 was having a debate with a lady friend of his, and though they were both atheists, the woman was upset at how Yossarian characterized God--angry, mean, stupid, evil, etc. Yossarian reaches a compromise by saying, "the God you don't believe in is not the same God that I don't believe in." (That's paraphrased).
My atheist friend, the god you don't believe in is not the God I believe in. Repent and live.
~ Rak Chazak
Saturday, May 4, 2013
The Gospel in 60 Seconds
Self-explanatory.
This is what separates Christianity from all other beliefs. If you don't know this, you don't know anything that matters. Make sure you know this. Reject it or accept it, that is your choice. But if you don't know it, you can't freely choose it.
Therefore listen. Transcript posted below the video.
The Greatest Gospel verse in the Bible, 2 Corinthians 5:21:
"He made Him, Who knew no sin, sin for us,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."
Lemme unpack those 15 Greek words.
He, God, made Jesus sin.
'Whattya mean He made Jesus sin?' Only in one sense:
He treated Him as if He had committed every sin ever committed by every person who would ever believe,
though in fact He committed none of them.
Hanging on the Cross He was holy, harmless, undefiled,
Hanging on the Cross He was a spotless lamb.
He was never for a split second a sinner.
He is Holy God on the Cross.
But God is treating Him -- I'll put it more practically -- as if He lived my life.
God punished Jesus for my sin, turns right around and treats me as if I lived His life.
That's the great Doctrine of Substitution, and on that doctrine turned the whole Reformation of the Church; that is the heart of the Gospel.
And what you get is complete forgiveness, covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
When He looks at the Cross He sees you, when He looks at you He sees Christ.
~ Rak Chazak
This is what separates Christianity from all other beliefs. If you don't know this, you don't know anything that matters. Make sure you know this. Reject it or accept it, that is your choice. But if you don't know it, you can't freely choose it.
Therefore listen. Transcript posted below the video.
The Greatest Gospel verse in the Bible, 2 Corinthians 5:21:
"He made Him, Who knew no sin, sin for us,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."
Lemme unpack those 15 Greek words.
He, God, made Jesus sin.
'Whattya mean He made Jesus sin?' Only in one sense:
He treated Him as if He had committed every sin ever committed by every person who would ever believe,
though in fact He committed none of them.
Hanging on the Cross He was holy, harmless, undefiled,
Hanging on the Cross He was a spotless lamb.
He was never for a split second a sinner.
He is Holy God on the Cross.
But God is treating Him -- I'll put it more practically -- as if He lived my life.
God punished Jesus for my sin, turns right around and treats me as if I lived His life.
That's the great Doctrine of Substitution, and on that doctrine turned the whole Reformation of the Church; that is the heart of the Gospel.
And what you get is complete forgiveness, covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
When He looks at the Cross He sees you, when He looks at you He sees Christ.
~ Rak Chazak
Poignant Music
Lyrics
I like songs based on their lyrics. It's hard for me to like a song that has a pleasant melody if its lyrics are meaningless, or worse, profane and stupid. But that doesn't necessarily mean that every song I like is explicitly Christian. In my life, I never really encountered Christian music (outside of a capella church hymns) prior to 2009, so my experience has largely been with songs from the '80s and '90s. I had to find something to like about them or I wouldn't have been able to tolerate listening to it. Incidentally, my little brother became interested in Alternative Rock at about halfway through middle school for me, and eventually became "one of those" guys who uses screamo to channel their emotions or to drown out everything around them while they exercise. It has driven me nuts on occasion, especially after he gained his driver's license and I had to sit with him in the car. I don't NEED it to be that loud to hear it!!! Ugh.Back to the story: for as long as I remember, I've never liked a song instantaneously, but had to listen to it carefully until I understood the lyrics, before I could wholeheartedly enjoy it and sing along. Since much music is about romance, and a large chunk of that involves sex, I'm not comfortable singing the lyrics to Bon Jovi's "Never Say Goodbye" which say in one line, "remember when we lost the keys? You lost more than that in my backseat, baby!" much as I think the extended guitar solo on that ballad is nice to turn the volume up for...
I think I remember the first time I invented the concept of "poignant" music. It was on the way to a winter camping trip with the Boy Scouts, and the other cars were full, so I got to ride alone with one of the older guys in his car. I dozed in the car due to the heat (I have a habit of falling asleep on car rides; long road trips have always had a soothing effect on me), and he played a hard rock station. That was the very first time I heard "Welcome to the Jungle," by Guns 'n Roses. I suppose I was 15.
Staring into the abyss
Here's my interpretation of Welcome to the Jungle. Regardless of the intention of the writer, it's a self-satire. It shows in raw detail the dark side of cities (referenced in the term "jungle," as in, "the concrete jungle."). This is confirmed by the music video's setting. So whether the song is meant to glory in the depravity of what goes on in cities, or to point out what's wrong with it, I think it actually accomplishes the latter, either way. Here is a sampling of the lyrics:We are the people that can findIt's a microcosm of the vices you'll find in the city. You have references to drugs and sex, a very clear sense of physical threat toward the woman being addressed in the song, and most pertinent of all, the lines about "taking it day by day" and "you better not take it from me" perfectly describe, to me, the self-absorbed, self-worshiping nature of those who have nothing to live for beyond their own personal pleasures. It's all about them. They have no future, just the present ("take it day by day"), and they don't care what you do, just as long as you don't bother them ("can have anything you want but you better not take it from me"). This was written in the late eighties but still applies profoundly to a subset of young people in our society that doesn't seem to have gone away with time.
Whatever you may need
If you got the money, honey
We got your disease
....
Welcome to the jungle
We take it day by day
....
You can taste the bright lights
But you won't get them for free
....
Welcome to the jungle
It gets worse here everyday
....
You can have anything you want
But you better not take it from me
....
And when you're high you never
Ever want to come down, YEAH!
Yearning to break the chains
This is what brings me to the song that prompted my reflection on this, this evening:If Welcome to the Jungle is about what it's like in the city where it seems that everything is about sex, drugs, and rock and roll, then Good Life is about what it's like for young people in this age whose lives are empty and who can only think to find fulfillment through a loose lifestyle of partying and getting wasted drunk, to the point where your old friends don't even know who you are anymore.
Allow me to give my perspective on the lyrics:
Woke up in London yesterdayFound myself in the city near PiccadillyDon't really know how I got hereI got some pictures on my phoneNew names and numbers that I don't know
The singer got wasted the night before at a party and blacked out. He doesn't have any recollection of who he met, but apparently he exchanged phone numbers with people, and has some disconnected pictures to try to piece together the night's events with.
We're young enough to sayOh, this has gotta be the good lifeThis has gotta be the good lifeThis could really be a good life, good life
There's so much in this to analyze. First, you know that he's talking about young people, based on the first line. The implication by use of the word "enough" is that by virtue of being young, they can survive the cognitive dissonance necessary in order to convince themselves that this has to be the good life, without entering into an existential crisis.
Do you notice that? He says "this has gotta be the good life," which can be taken two ways: one, a sincere belief that it is, (how sad) or an attempt to convince oneself that it surely must be "the good life," because if it wasn't...they've wasted their life on things that don't satisfy. That's an uncomfortable thought, so an attempt is made to push it out of his mind. He finishes the chorus by saying "this could really be a good life," revealing an uncertainty, as if he's hesitant to make the assertion that it really IS a good life...because deep down, he senses that it isn't.
A further interpretation of "this could really be a good life" is that it could be in the future, but right now, it's not a very good life at all, as the singer seems to be silently expressing throughout the lyrics.
Sometimes there's airplanes I can' t jump outSometimes there's bullshit that don't work. Now,We all got our stories, but please tell meWhat there is to complain about?
Long story short, I think the singer here feels guilty over complaining about how bad things are. He walks back his initial uncertainty about whether he's living the good life, by telling himself that even despite the "airplanes he can't jump out," it really isn't anything to complain about. Implicitly, I think he's suggesting that he has it so much better than other people in different parts of the world, and so he feels guilty and ashamed over his depressed feelings, since he thinks he doesn't really have an excuse to feel that way. I think he's confused. He doesn't have anything to complain about, but the emptiness inside is very real, and he doesn't know how to deal with it. I can sense a bit of irritation in his voice as this part of the song progresses.
HopelesslyI feel like there might be something that I'll missHopelesslyI feel like the window closes oh so quick
HopelesslyI'm taking a mental picture of you now'Cause hopelesslyThe hope is we have so much to feel good about
This is another interpretive gold-mine. First, notice the fourfold repetition of the word "hopelessly," which would seem to come out of nowhere if the song really did intend to convey that the singer is singing about the good life, rather than being miserable over how very not-good it happens to be. This repetition strongly confirms my view that the singer feels a sense of emptiness and vanity over his pursuit of pleasure. It makes me think of Ecclesiastes.
He thinks that he's wasting his life and he's worried that he might be missing something important. The window closing quickly means that he's worried that he only has a short time to reach out and take hold of whatever it is that would give his life meaning, and if he waits too long, he'll miss the opportunity.
I can't help but admit that my soul is screaming, "it's Jesus! He's the One you need to take hold of before the window closes on you and you miss Him!" The emptiness of the life without Christ at the center of it is so palpable, it just oozes out of the song and penetrates me to the bone. It fills me with a great sense of sadness. Listening to this song is one way in which I hope to motivate myself to reach out to the lost young men and women around me. Not everyone "has a God-shaped hole," and that is a silly thing to say. But a great many people do indeed feel a sense of emptiness after the 100th night of debauchery as they begin to wonder if this is all there is to life. May there be a Christian near by that can reach out to them and show them that there is so much more to life than a hopeless hope, as the song puts it.
"The hope is we have so much to feel good about." The singer hopes that there's something to feel good about. Why? Because he doesn't feel good. That's why he's hoping that he's mistaken. Yet he feels his hope is hopeless. In other words, in vain.
Ecclesiastes 2:10-11
10
Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them.
I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure,
For my heart rejoiced in all my labor;
And this was my reward from all my labor.
11
Then I looked on all the works that my hands had done
And on the labor in which I had toiled;
And indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind.
There was no profit under the sun.
Conclusion
I yearn to just be able to reach out and grab him by the shoulders and shake him. How I wish that he would not remain stuck, wallowing in vanity and reaping the existential bitterness that comes from "chasing after the wind," a bitterness (realism, nevertheless) that is rife throughout the book of Ecclesiastes. I wish I could tell everyone who hears this song and who is in such a lifestyle, living day by day, trying not to think about the future, wondering why they feel so lousy when there's so much they figure they should be obligated to feel happy about...I wish I could just point them each, individually to the answer to our every need, the satisfier of our every yearning -- Jesus Christ, God Almighty, our Creator and Redeemer.Have you felt empty, like the way I've described the singers in these two songs? I want you to be fully satisfied, to not have to seek the temporary sense pleasures that the lyricists are reduced to continually returning to. Eternal satisfaction. This transcends feelings. There will be airplanes you can't jump out of, metaphorically speaking, in reference to the song, but even in your darkest moments you can know that your life has meaning and purpose and that you will one day be fully freed from all these things that hold you down--you know, "being held down" is another way to say "depressed." I can't promise a life free from pain, but I can promise you a life free from the sting thereof. Not because it's in my power to give. But because what was given to me is offered to you also. Please read this if you're open to considering Christianity: http://www.gotquestions.org/way-of-salvation.html
The sad part about Good Life is that the singer seems to realize that he's missing something in his life, but he rejects the possibility that his emotions are telling him something he needs to listen to, choosing to end on the note "please tell me what there's to complain about?"
My hope is that you don't end on the same sour note.
~ Rak Chazak
Friday, May 3, 2013
ESPN Regrets Christian Speech... Full-Blown Persecution Is On Our Doorstep
We have entered an era where it is a liability to be a Christian, and a boost to your popularity and career to boast of your secret sins. Or not so secret.
Stop for a second. If coming out of the closet gets you nationwide media attention, widespread encouragement and support throughout the media and the public, and even a presidential phone call to congratulate you, what's brave about it? Even a USA Today column this week made the admission that this could only be a net benefit to his career.
Can anyone look at this particular case and honestly say that homosexuals are oppressed in this country?
ESPN hasn't immediately fired him, but it's early, yet. Supposedly, the website issued an apology for letting their tv coverage get 'nasty,' with apparent reference to the fact that someone who dared to disagree got airtime. Keep your eyes open for possible future contract termination. Persecutors of Christians in this country tend to try to be subtle...but they're getting bolder.
What's interesting is the response. While the backlash among the populace is vocal and aggressive, as is a typical product of internet anonymity, the fact that Mr. Broussard is able to clearly show that he's not hateful of homosexuals, that he's not behaving like an elitist or a hypocrite either, and his responsible and frequent bringing-up of Scripture to support his case, seems to have had the effect--if temporary--of actually stifling the animosity from the other side. He actually has gotten his critics to shut their mouths. Partially. And you know why that is? The Word of God.
http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=E6E7FF801F595092DC829C929E2981FD&page=1
Just recently, Mr. Broussard did a radio interview where he excellently exegeted Scripture and stood his ground. If you want to be encouraged that God is raising up true believers in public places to be salt and light, this second clip from today is must-hear radio:
http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=96399C6B6BB75AC77CDF8CCA9C7D5E6A&page=1
The first link is a little more cynical. I won't say pessimistic. In my view, pessimism is cynicism combined with a touch of fatalism (the feeling that there's no point because everything you do is futile). Cynicism is realism, namely the realization that things are bad, and the correct understanding of how you relate to it -- you have a purpose and things are never totally hopeless. You don't know what God's working on outside of your sphere of knowledge. Todd is cynical in his perception that persecution is on the way, but he's not a pessimist--the very fact that he has this radio show and that he goes to preach on "Witness Wednesdays," and his "Biggest Project" DVD-tracting ministry all show that he thinks his efforts -- and that of those who join ranks with him -- have the potential to be used by God to accomplish revival if it is in His sovereign will to do so. Pessimism leads to fatalism, which leads to a lack of action and motivation toward action. I don't see that in Todd, and I don't recognize it in myself, either. This blog is my personal attempt to do something about the situation in our nation today. I don't have the following of Wretched, Answers in Genesis, Way of the Master, or Grace to You, but to underestimate the impact that I as an individual can have is to ignore the implications of the Butterfly Effect -- that minor events can have huge consequences down the road due to the cascading ripple effect.
A USA Today column I read about the issue said it all. The writer, pro-gay, admitted that coming out of the closet was bound to be "a net benefit to his career," and I agree. I already questioned the notion that homosexuals are being oppressed by the greater society at large above, and I won't keep beating that dead horse. The irony here is that whereas homosexuality used to have a stigma, it really doesn't any more. Now the stigma is centered on Christianity. The news story of the week ought rather to be that Chris Broussard "came out of the closet" as a Christian on national television (not technically true, as he has been outspoken about his faith in the past).
Todd pointed out something interesting in the second clip: that Broussard, by bringing up Scripture, was able to "shut them up," them being the hosts interviewing him. The takeaway lesson is that we won't have an impact on the culture by being witty or by promoting ad campaigns or joining with unbelievers in social activism. No, the one thing that has the power to accomplish God's plan is none other than God's own Word. The Bible.
In keeping with Todd's observation, here are two typically-leftist major online news websites' articles about Chris Broussard. What strikes me is, (in contrast to the comments at HuffPo), the seeming lack of animus in the writings. It really does seem as if Chris, by rightly handling the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15), has managed to stifle the anti-Christian sentiment, at least temporarily. This should encourage all of us to, when dealing with unbelievers, to not rely on our own intuition or cleverness, but to always bring the discussion back to the Gospel and to bring up Scripture. No matter how much the person we're talking to hates it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/chris-broussard-jason-collins-ask-forgiveness-gays_n_3202418.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-espn-chris-broussard-sparks-uproar-after-jason-collins-remarks-20130429,0,1157118.story
Homosexuality leads to the degrading of women. The logic goes, since relationships aren't about the man taking responsibility to lead and sacrificially love and serve his wife, and the wife respecting and submitting to her husband....if relationships are just about "happiness" and sexual pleasure, then as homosexuality gets mainstreamed, more people will think, since we don't need women for our sexual pleasure, what use is there for them? They're only good for one thing--making babies. Consequently, societies that have been sexually and homosexually promiscuous have not historically honored women. This is where we're going, now. Nothing is more anti-woman than the philosophy of 3rd-wave feminism that seeks to remove gender distinctions and mainstream homosexual behavior.
Another point Todd makes, in one of the three links I've given here, is that if it's really true that homosexuality isn't something people are born with--if it's a learned behavior--then you can expect that it's going to vastly increase in prevalence as it becomes accepted and mainstreamed by our society.
Scary stuff. But I'm encouraged that God is raising up Christians like Chris Broussard in public places to be salt and light and accomplish His divine purposes.
His parents named him well. "Christopher," after all, is a name that means "Christ-bearer."
~ Rak Chazak
The Homosexual Revolution
You've likely heard of the news regarding the basketball player who recently "came out" (I can't remember his name, and I frankly don't feel the need to; why give him more press?). He was greeted with congratulations and accolades from every corner. The President, who couldn't be bothered to comment on the Kermit Gosnell trial (likely because his voting record shows that he thinks the murderer's actions should be legal), nevertheless made a personal phone call to the now out-and-proud homosexual to CONGRATULATE him on his supposed "bravery."Stop for a second. If coming out of the closet gets you nationwide media attention, widespread encouragement and support throughout the media and the public, and even a presidential phone call to congratulate you, what's brave about it? Even a USA Today column this week made the admission that this could only be a net benefit to his career.
Can anyone look at this particular case and honestly say that homosexuals are oppressed in this country?
Broussard Brouhaha
Flip the issue. A Christian ESPN commentator, Chris Broussard, takes a public stand for Christ by saying that homosexuality is a sin and that unrepentant homosexuals can't be true Christians.ESPN hasn't immediately fired him, but it's early, yet. Supposedly, the website issued an apology for letting their tv coverage get 'nasty,' with apparent reference to the fact that someone who dared to disagree got airtime. Keep your eyes open for possible future contract termination. Persecutors of Christians in this country tend to try to be subtle...but they're getting bolder.
What's interesting is the response. While the backlash among the populace is vocal and aggressive, as is a typical product of internet anonymity, the fact that Mr. Broussard is able to clearly show that he's not hateful of homosexuals, that he's not behaving like an elitist or a hypocrite either, and his responsible and frequent bringing-up of Scripture to support his case, seems to have had the effect--if temporary--of actually stifling the animosity from the other side. He actually has gotten his critics to shut their mouths. Partially. And you know why that is? The Word of God.
Analysis
Todd Friel is a Georgia-based Christian radio host who comments on culture from a theologically Christian conservative point of view. Here is his analysis of the initial event:http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=E6E7FF801F595092DC829C929E2981FD&page=1
Just recently, Mr. Broussard did a radio interview where he excellently exegeted Scripture and stood his ground. If you want to be encouraged that God is raising up true believers in public places to be salt and light, this second clip from today is must-hear radio:
http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=96399C6B6BB75AC77CDF8CCA9C7D5E6A&page=1
The first link is a little more cynical. I won't say pessimistic. In my view, pessimism is cynicism combined with a touch of fatalism (the feeling that there's no point because everything you do is futile). Cynicism is realism, namely the realization that things are bad, and the correct understanding of how you relate to it -- you have a purpose and things are never totally hopeless. You don't know what God's working on outside of your sphere of knowledge. Todd is cynical in his perception that persecution is on the way, but he's not a pessimist--the very fact that he has this radio show and that he goes to preach on "Witness Wednesdays," and his "Biggest Project" DVD-tracting ministry all show that he thinks his efforts -- and that of those who join ranks with him -- have the potential to be used by God to accomplish revival if it is in His sovereign will to do so. Pessimism leads to fatalism, which leads to a lack of action and motivation toward action. I don't see that in Todd, and I don't recognize it in myself, either. This blog is my personal attempt to do something about the situation in our nation today. I don't have the following of Wretched, Answers in Genesis, Way of the Master, or Grace to You, but to underestimate the impact that I as an individual can have is to ignore the implications of the Butterfly Effect -- that minor events can have huge consequences down the road due to the cascading ripple effect.
A USA Today column I read about the issue said it all. The writer, pro-gay, admitted that coming out of the closet was bound to be "a net benefit to his career," and I agree. I already questioned the notion that homosexuals are being oppressed by the greater society at large above, and I won't keep beating that dead horse. The irony here is that whereas homosexuality used to have a stigma, it really doesn't any more. Now the stigma is centered on Christianity. The news story of the week ought rather to be that Chris Broussard "came out of the closet" as a Christian on national television (not technically true, as he has been outspoken about his faith in the past).
Todd pointed out something interesting in the second clip: that Broussard, by bringing up Scripture, was able to "shut them up," them being the hosts interviewing him. The takeaway lesson is that we won't have an impact on the culture by being witty or by promoting ad campaigns or joining with unbelievers in social activism. No, the one thing that has the power to accomplish God's plan is none other than God's own Word. The Bible.
In keeping with Todd's observation, here are two typically-leftist major online news websites' articles about Chris Broussard. What strikes me is, (in contrast to the comments at HuffPo), the seeming lack of animus in the writings. It really does seem as if Chris, by rightly handling the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15), has managed to stifle the anti-Christian sentiment, at least temporarily. This should encourage all of us to, when dealing with unbelievers, to not rely on our own intuition or cleverness, but to always bring the discussion back to the Gospel and to bring up Scripture. No matter how much the person we're talking to hates it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/chris-broussard-jason-collins-ask-forgiveness-gays_n_3202418.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-espn-chris-broussard-sparks-uproar-after-jason-collins-remarks-20130429,0,1157118.story
Bonus:
A final tidbit, somewhat unrelated:Homosexuality leads to the degrading of women. The logic goes, since relationships aren't about the man taking responsibility to lead and sacrificially love and serve his wife, and the wife respecting and submitting to her husband....if relationships are just about "happiness" and sexual pleasure, then as homosexuality gets mainstreamed, more people will think, since we don't need women for our sexual pleasure, what use is there for them? They're only good for one thing--making babies. Consequently, societies that have been sexually and homosexually promiscuous have not historically honored women. This is where we're going, now. Nothing is more anti-woman than the philosophy of 3rd-wave feminism that seeks to remove gender distinctions and mainstream homosexual behavior.
Another point Todd makes, in one of the three links I've given here, is that if it's really true that homosexuality isn't something people are born with--if it's a learned behavior--then you can expect that it's going to vastly increase in prevalence as it becomes accepted and mainstreamed by our society.
Scary stuff. But I'm encouraged that God is raising up Christians like Chris Broussard in public places to be salt and light and accomplish His divine purposes.
His parents named him well. "Christopher," after all, is a name that means "Christ-bearer."
~ Rak Chazak
Eagle Scout Perspective on the BSA Policy Change
I figure my opinion might be worth something.
I was in the Boy Scouts of America from 2001 to 2008, becoming a "heartbreak Eagle" by turning in the completed binder for my Eagle Project just two days prior to my 18th birthday. My Eagle Board of Review was a few months later and then voila! I passed and about a year later, I had a joint Eagle Ceremony with four other guys in my age range from the same troop. The senator for our district came by and everything. Now I've been out for 5 years, but as they say, you never "were" an Eagle Scout. You are an Eagle Scout, for life.
At your Board of Review, you're asked a number of questions by the adult interviewers for the purpose of determining that you didn't fake your way through the system. They typically begin by having you recite the Scout Oath:
This is no different for homosexuals. While atheists and anybody practicing premarital sex should also be sternly rebuked and risk banishment, the fact that these sins are winked at by a tolerant leadership does not mean that homosexuality should also get a free pass. What the three have in common is that people who break the rules still want to get the benefits of being part of something without having enough integrity to abide by the established rules in order to do so. They have an entitlement mentality, where, like the doping athlete, they think they deserve to be given an award despite their unsportsmanlike behavior.
A homosexual isn't reverent to God. If a Scout must be, then he cannot be a Scout. By definition. Changing the rules to allow rulebreakers into the organization doesn't make the rulebreakers legitimate, it makes the organization increasingly illegitimate.
It's been pointed out before, but here's the fundamental logical reason, which even nonChristians can understand, why the BSA should not lift the ban on gays, whether boys or adults, lest it destroy itself:
God doesn't change. His righteous judgments endure forever (Psalm 119:160). Truth is from God, therefore truth never changes, because God never changes. Changing rules is truthless and therefore godless. If the BSA compromises its position then it might as well throw out the part of the Oath and Law that reference God and moral straightness, or honor, loyalty and bravery for that matter. In other words, the whole thing. If the BSA does this thing, it will destroy itself. Some organization may remain, but it won't be the Boy Scouts of America, any longer.
Another Scout saying which Eagle candidates may be told to recite at their Board of Review is the Motto: "Be prepared." I can hardly imagine that the national leadership was prepared to deal with the challenge posed by mob intimidation by businesses and media on behalf of a minority of society that has no part in their mission and seeks to undermine it. Being prepared means planning ahead so that you do the right thing when you come under fire, rather than scatter and rout like undisciplined cowards.
Regroup. Reorganize. Fall-in. The Boy Scouts of America needs to reaffirm its charter, which has stood for 103 years. If it does not stand the test of time and bear the burden of criticism from an increasingly godless nation, it will cease to remain a force for good in the culture.
I fear that this is the way the chips will fall. When I am old enough to put my own children through a similar program, there may no longer be an existing structure that I can tolerate committing them to. I may have to make an attempt to start my own.
Persecution isn't coming, Christian. It's here.
~ Rak Chazak
I was in the Boy Scouts of America from 2001 to 2008, becoming a "heartbreak Eagle" by turning in the completed binder for my Eagle Project just two days prior to my 18th birthday. My Eagle Board of Review was a few months later and then voila! I passed and about a year later, I had a joint Eagle Ceremony with four other guys in my age range from the same troop. The senator for our district came by and everything. Now I've been out for 5 years, but as they say, you never "were" an Eagle Scout. You are an Eagle Scout, for life.
At your Board of Review, you're asked a number of questions by the adult interviewers for the purpose of determining that you didn't fake your way through the system. They typically begin by having you recite the Scout Oath:
On my honorThe second most commonly recited memorized dogma of Scouting is the Law:
I will do my best
To do my duty
To God and my country,
To obey the Scout Law,
To keep myself physically strong
mentally awake
and morally straight.
A Scout is:"Morally straight" does not merely refer to sexual behavior, but it includes it. This moral straightness refers to one's duty to God. A Scout is Reverent--that means that he does not merely acknowledge the existence of a higher power, but that he honors and worships God through his thoughts, words, deeds and lifestyle. I am ashamed to say that I've known several guys, some who made Eagle, who were clearly not a believer in any orthodox religion, much less Christianity, and furthermore who engaged in premarital sex and illicit drug use. Many boys join Scouts because they want the opportunity to go camping or get to explore their pyrotechnic leanings, whereas others are forced to by their parents, and don't have any internal motivation to use the experience for character development.
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
and Reverent.
This is no different for homosexuals. While atheists and anybody practicing premarital sex should also be sternly rebuked and risk banishment, the fact that these sins are winked at by a tolerant leadership does not mean that homosexuality should also get a free pass. What the three have in common is that people who break the rules still want to get the benefits of being part of something without having enough integrity to abide by the established rules in order to do so. They have an entitlement mentality, where, like the doping athlete, they think they deserve to be given an award despite their unsportsmanlike behavior.
A homosexual isn't reverent to God. If a Scout must be, then he cannot be a Scout. By definition. Changing the rules to allow rulebreakers into the organization doesn't make the rulebreakers legitimate, it makes the organization increasingly illegitimate.
It's been pointed out before, but here's the fundamental logical reason, which even nonChristians can understand, why the BSA should not lift the ban on gays, whether boys or adults, lest it destroy itself:
If the Boy Scouts of America lifts the ban on homosexuals, then it will be saying that its rules were not based on timeless values, but on arbitrary prejudice. Arbitrary prejudice can be arbitrarily abandoned. Timeless values cannot. If the BSA is built on values, then it cannot compromise those values. If the BSA compromises on homosexuality, it will be admitting that it does not stand on values but will give in to pressure. An interesting consequence is that the BSA will open itself up to lawsuits alleging wrongful discrimination, since lifting the ban would necessarily mean that the organization discriminated against homosexuals in the past without any reason to do so.
Another Scout saying which Eagle candidates may be told to recite at their Board of Review is the Motto: "Be prepared." I can hardly imagine that the national leadership was prepared to deal with the challenge posed by mob intimidation by businesses and media on behalf of a minority of society that has no part in their mission and seeks to undermine it. Being prepared means planning ahead so that you do the right thing when you come under fire, rather than scatter and rout like undisciplined cowards.
Regroup. Reorganize. Fall-in. The Boy Scouts of America needs to reaffirm its charter, which has stood for 103 years. If it does not stand the test of time and bear the burden of criticism from an increasingly godless nation, it will cease to remain a force for good in the culture.
I fear that this is the way the chips will fall. When I am old enough to put my own children through a similar program, there may no longer be an existing structure that I can tolerate committing them to. I may have to make an attempt to start my own.
Persecution isn't coming, Christian. It's here.
~ Rak Chazak
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)