Journal Entry: On Feminism, "Male Privilege," and "Rape Culture."

 Background: I had a debate earlier this year with a couple of feminists on-line about something I'd never heard of before. The term was "rape culture," and in short order I found myself being accused of contributing to it for having the temerity to dispute the idea that casual speech has a significant causative relationship to actual violence toward women. I was provoked to remember this conversation when I read about the "privilege" referenced in this article by Daniel Greenfield, "The Israeli Man's Burden." To start off on the right foot, make sure you begin reading the first sentence of the entry below as a rhetorical question, referencing a hypothetical claim, mentioned in the second sentence.

This post tackles sensitive subjects.

*     *     *     *     *

                        I don’t have an opinion on “rape culture,” a made-up word meant to attempt to instill guilt in teenage gamers who say “damn, you got raped,” in reference to getting killed in a first-person shooter by another player? Obviously I have ‘privilege,’ white privilege, even, and my lack of comparable upset to the ‘feminist’ means I don’t care about women, or wink at rape. It’s an offensive insult, as I care very much about honoring and protecting women, but my way of accomplishing this is not reducible to screaming at someone for violating my private banned-words list. Instead, it shows itself through modeling actual chivalrous behavior, and confronting guys who have wrong views of women, sex, relationships, etc. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think actual rape is a funny thing and I am certainly angered when someone actually jokes about sexual assault without any show of seriousness. But the word ‘rape’ on some level simply means a violent domination of someone against their will. The word definitely applies to, say, getting chainsawed through the back, as may happen in the Gears of War video game series. One could make the distinction that it’s a virtual rape. And I don’t think that the use of that term necessarily diminishes it, and if a person does have a blasé view of sexual violence, I maintain that simply using the word in a fantasy-violence context isn’t what made them have that view. Rather, their attitude towards sex was already present and the way they used the word was an outgrowth of that unconcerned attitude. 

                        Simply looking at the words someone uses or is okay with hearing on occasion does not validate the conclusion that they disregard the seriousness of sexual assault or have a low view of women. The nicest, kindest, most soft-spoken men you know could harbor violent urges and secretly hate women. How would you know? You can’t know a person’s thoughts. You may know something about them by the words they say, but you can never know everything. Consequently, this works for people who use harsh words, too. Guys who cuss might be otherwise responsible and respectful; there is then simply a disconnect between the character they know they ought to have and the one which they present to others. Are guys supposed to feel guilty over having the “privilege” to not live in fear of being raped, so that they have the opportunity (whether they act on it or not, whether they choose to be a jerk or whether they choose to have empathy) to not view rape as deadly serious business to the point of being afraid to say the word? Some modern feminists would answer affirmatively. This is one of the reasons why I can’t respect modern feminists. People who are innocent of crimes that are committed by others who have nothing to do with them are not guilty and should not feel guilty over it.  IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT. This is the linchpin for the fight I have with third-wave feminists over the issues of “male privilege” and other made up concepts designed to give man-haters an outlet and an excuse to practice misandry and get away with it. Well, whether you follow my logic or not, now you know my suspicion, and why I don’t trust those making the accusation.

                        I should, in fairness, point out that the 3^rd-wave feminist would dispute that they’re attempting to place the guilt, blame and shame of male-on-female rape on law-abiding, responsible young men without the slightest tendency of violence toward women, in word or deed. Instead, they would claim that by their words (to recap, using “rape!” as an interjection when being virtually killed by a computer game) somehow affect other boys/men to the point where their accumulated words create a “culture” of irresponsible unconcern for women that somehow is supposed to imply to those who go on to be rapists that rape is apparently okay, because those other guys seem to talk about it like it’s no big deal. Apparently. Yeah, I don’t buy that argument. 

                        First, I agree that every individual bears some responsibility for the community because they do in fact influence it. But this is not an enforceable responsibility, which they can be punished for failing to uphold according to someone else’s arbitrary opinion about how they should or should not conduct themselves. Second, I defy the claim that the 3WF is just talking about increasing civic responsibility, and hold that she is indeed attempting to pin the blame for actual rape on those who are innocent. (My experience with seeing how they argue bears this out, their self-serving objections to the contrary.) We’ll call these ‘gentlemen,’ for future reference. Guys who behave themselves as they should. 

                        The fundamental underlying thing that angers me about the way the 3WF goes about the problem (does anyone deny that rape is an actual societal ill?) is that their modus operandi in “rectifying” the fact of women being attacked is to retaliate by attacking men. And not even the men who attacked women, but the guys whom the feminista derangedly thinks aren’t doing “enough” to stop rape from happening. As if any individual man has both the power and opportunity to stop the FACT of rape. It’s egregiously illogical, and to be showered with words intended to produce guilt over something that I bear no culpability for is, bottom-line, unjust. Nothing frustrates me quite as much as wrongful punishment.

                        Let’s go back to the point I made about not knowing whether a guy is a ‘bad guy’ or ‘good guy’ based on how they speak. The verse “out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks,” came to my mind fairly easily. It’s a good thing to consider. So that I’m not misunderstood, I don’t mean to say that a guy can have a severe potty-mouth and be perfectly fine. On some level, the heart isn’t right, because otherwise he wouldn’t be saying those things. But it would be a mistake to conclude that because a guy presents himself very well, that this means that he has a good heart. Another verse is “man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.” What the mouth speaks, while being ‘out of the abundance of the heart,’ is still part of the ‘outward appearance,’ and is therefore deceptive. I think the appropriate way to understand the first verse is that a person who talks like a jerk is, fundamentally, a jerk on some level, but this is all you can conclude. You can not conclude anything about what you do not see. If someone does not speak, then you cannot know what is in their heart. So the point of the verses together is to say that you can draw conclusions about a person based on what you see, but you cannot draw conclusions based on what you do not see, and therefore you should be careful to judge by what you see alone. In other words, you should be careful how you judge someone by their actions, and if you cannot be careful, it’s better to avoid judging at all in the first place, because you’re pretty much guaranteed to come to the wrong conclusion. And that’s third wave feminism in a nutshell.

                        So, what is my view, then? It’s easy to disagree with someone. One can look very impressive by being perpetually critical of others, but unless you have an alternative position which you are willing to defend, you’re either an ignorant fool (if you don’t have one) or a coward (if you’re unwilling to defend it). Either way, you’re criticizing someone else’s ideas without putting forth any of your own, and that is the behavior of an intellectual terrorist. You only tear things down, you don’t build anything yourself, only destroy. But I am not such a person. I’m not criticizing for the sake of criticizing, but because I have a well-developed view which third-wave feminism contrasts with. On those points of difference, I find reason to object, and therefore offer criticism. I’ve hinted at a few things I believe already. One, individuals of any genographic group (in contrast to demographic. Demographics concerns religious beliefs, political affiliations, cultures, social status, etc; Genographics concerns national origin, sex, ethnicity(skin color/shade), birth language, age, etc) bear no culpable (guilt, fault, etc) responsibility for the actions of any other member of that genographic group, or any member of any other group, for that matter. Two, all individuals have some responsibility to act in a certain way for the betterment of their society – but here’s where I differ from 3WF – this does NOT mean that if society deteriorates, you can trace this back to some error on their part. In other words, I have a responsibility to honor women. If someone in New York City rapes a woman, that did not occur because of some failure on my part to honor women. That’s my thesis. This is where I knock heads with third-wave feminism. Furthermore, I assure you that I have not misrepresented my opposition at all. I have had repeated interactions with others to this effect, and the people I have spoken with have not been one-off aberrations, but highly educated women holding positions as representatives of the present feminist movement on multiple levels. They all say the same thing, so I’m justified in characterizing the movement as promoting this view.

                        The solution to rape, according to 3WF, is to find something to scream at, because that’s just so productive, isn’t it? Since screaming at random guys is insane and makes you look like a crazy sociopath, the feministas decided that they needed to invent something to be a convenient target, or excuse, for the venting of their anger and frustration. So “rape culture” was born, which is simply one of the newer buzz-words that essentially mean the same as the catch-all, “male privilege.” Basically it’s a philosophy that says that as a man, if you’re not a woman-hating criminal, you’re part of the problem. Read that again, I didn’t mistype. It’s a complicated roundabout excuse for man-hating women to scream at random guys after all. It’s what they wanted to do, and with a little bit of crackpot philosophy, it’s possible for them to behave outrageously and get away with it, all while making themselves look smart to each other by talking about the newest “gender theory” that explains why women are so awesome and guys are lame and stupid. And mean jerks. 

                        Can you tell that I’m a bit emotionally invested in this? I notice that my tone became more severe through the course of writing, but despite  the bitter sarcasm in the last few hundred words, I maintain that my accusations are valid. Far from saying that all women who consider themselves “feminists” are necessarily the way I describe, I nevertheless insist that the movement as a whole is misandrist – man-hating – and nothing more than an elaborate pseudo-scholarly façade which sole purpose is to give angry women an outwardly legitimate reason to spew vile invective, disrespect, patronizing insults and unwarranted accusations toward people who don’t deserve any of it. And why are they angry? Well, why do some men hate women? You answer that question, and you’ll have the answer to why some women hate men. I suspect the pathology is quite similar and presumably much more of a personal issue than anything involving a conspiracy to diminish the seriousness of sexual crimes.

                        If 3WF’s “solution” to rape isn’t really a solution, then what would be the solution? Contrary to feminism’s solution of putting men down, I propose the simple alternative of raising men up. Not over women, mind you. Just out of the gutter where they’ve been left to fester for the last several decades while the “Women’s Movement” has produced a real “culture” of systematically ignoring the needs of boys and in fact privileging young girls, resulting in disproportionate levels of men entering any area of life. I suppose some statistics here would be helpful, but I’m not connected to the internet right now. I do know that roughly 60% of Baccalaureate degrees go to women, and considering that the ratio of men to women is much closer to 50:50 than 40:60, and furthermore considering the notion that the goal of the Women’s Movement was to achieve equality, hasn’t the time long ago come for spending more effort helping boys so they can be equal to girls? The fact that even as women make up a sizeable majority of college students and college graduates, the Movement keeps pushing ahead while ignoring the men and boys being left behind reveals that it was never about “equality.” It was about superiority, plain and simple. And the worst part about it is that this isn’t even helping women. But talking about how the “Women’s Movement” has failed women is a 3,000-word subject in its own right. I can’t divert to talk about that now. Forgive me. But based in part on some arguments that won’t fit here for lack of time, I believe that modern feminism has both created and fostered the “culture” of misogyny that it ironically rants about. You can’t promote the “right” of young girls to engage in pornography and then complain about women being degraded in the culture. There’s no consistency there. If your hope is to encourage people to respect women, why would your every action be directed at disrespecting women? The third-wave feminists have themselves created the “culture” of chauvinism that permeates the places they frequent, and the maddening irony of this is that the very thing that they accuse innocent men of – creating a culture that degrades women and subjects them to violence – is what they themselves are guilty of! This is what most frustrates and angers me about the whole thing. 

                        Feminism has had its chance. Now, instead of letting a bunch of sexist women dictate how men should behave, while refusing to put any limits on how women should behave, I suggest that the time is nigh for men to take the initiative themselves. Don’t be tempted to take advantage of the culture that the feminists created. Allow me to explain. This is what many guys do. I’ve seen this everywhere I go. The vast majority of males LOVE what feminism has produced: hordes of uninhibited young girls who will drink and lay and on top of it, if they mess up and get pregnant, they’ll get an abortion, absolving the guys of any and all consequences of their own irresponsible actions. What’s the best way to stop date rape? Might I suggest not promoting that girls view drinking and ‘hooking up’ as “fun,” but rather something to avoid? Shocking. I can feel the feminist anger rising against me. But the truth tends to insult people—that’s how it lets them know they don’t have it. However, as I noted, since the change is not going to come from the female side, since the girls are squarely in the grips of the perverting influence of 3WF, the change needs to come from the male side. These same guys who are living it up, taking advantage of the easy access to sexually unrestrained girls and women, are the same guys who need to be the ones to say “stop,” and to resist and reject the very thing that they find so enjoyable.

                        Sounds impossible. How would this be accomplished? There’s a couple of answers to that question. The first: slowly. There is no quick fix to any problem in society. You can’t just throw money at something, as politicians are wont to do, and you can’t just hold a conference to “raise awareness,” as academia is wont to do. The only way to change a large group of people is through grass-roots mobilization, a bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down one. You can’t simply command people to behave a certain way. For the record, rape is already illegal, not to mention deeply morally wrong. For somebody to commit rape, they’re not going to hesitate because somebody told them not to do it. The mentality that can rationalize a violent sexual act against someone else’s will is not one that submits to moral authorities, be they legal, familial or theological. The person in question needs more than merely deterrence – he needs to have his entire way of thinking changed. And THAT is something that culture can effect (that’s not a typo, either). The best way to prevent crime is not to be able to intervene at all times wherever the criminal may strike. This doesn’t solve the problem. The criminal is still a criminal at heart, even if the crime wasn’t committed that time. 

                        The best way to stop crime is to destroy criminals – by turning them into law-abiding citizens. How do you do that? You change their perspective. You convince them that the sexually gratuitous lifestyle is not satisfying, and ultimately destructive. You convince them that exercising self control and serving the good of others prior to the pleasure of the self is a superior way to live. When the guys who go out looking for someone to have sex with no longer feel compelled to do so, the chances of someone being taken advantage of in the service of someone else’s lusts greatly diminishes. And I could devote more words to elaborating on my point, but I think it makes enough sense to not need many examples. Simply put, you need to perform “inception” on all the males in America. Quite like the movie, that’s why I’m referencing it. The idea is to plant an idea, or multiple ideas, in their mind that then take root and lead to changed behavior in their lives. Instead of making demands, get them to understand why they would want to change their ways. When you show them that your alternative is not only right but also more appealing, you’ll have a better result. Granted, some will resist your attempts to model real manhood and insist on taking advantage of loose girls just because they can. These boys are too far gone for you to have any success with the ‘carrot’ approach. They’re going to have to experience punishment before they “get” it. That’s not your responsibility, it’s not our responsibility – it’s law enforcement’s. Or his parents’, or some other authority. Our goal is to work with the receptive minds that are out there and confront them with the fact that there’s an alternative way to be, and they’re making the wrong choice by not choosing it. This is what’s going to change the culture, and produce true harmony between the sexes. And I feel compelled to add, if this approach is rejected, in favor of the tried-and-false method of the feministas, then I assure you that things will get worse and worse. You can take my solution or leave it. But there are consequences to doing the wrong thing.

                        I would be remiss if I didn’t addend that the only way to really change a person’s heart is by the transformation of the Holy Spirit that is called the “new birth.” Christianity is more than just a belief system. When a person is saved, God begins to transform them on the inside, changing their very desires. Remember how I said that law could only punish but wouldn’t make the criminal a non-criminal at heart? Well, that’s what the Gospel has the power to do. It not only justifies a person in the sight of God, but it changes his heart so that the things he used to love, he begins to hate, and the things he used to hate, he comes to love. Only a total spiritual transformation of the soul can accomplish the feat of turning a rapist-at-heart into a man who loves and honors women. And the only way that can happen is if the Gospel is preached to them. 

                        So the solution to the problems faced by feminists, not just rape but EVERY problem stemming from the sinful human heart, is the love of God available through Jesus Christ. The solution is for the Gospel to be preached. Consequently, then, ignoring God and avoiding dealing with the profound spiritual issues at the heart of societal ills such as rape and misogyny will not accomplish anything but exacerbating the symptoms and perpetuating the decline in man’s interaction with himself. But don’t mistake me for peddling the Gospel as a pragmatic solution to temporal dilemmas. The Gospel is so much more. First and foremost, it is a reconciliation of man with God, forgiveness of sins and the offer of salvation and eternal life. Even if this was “all” there was, it would be enough for me. But God isn’t content merely to promise future things. He’s intimately involved with us and everyone who comes to Him not only receives the promise of eternal life, but they receive a life full of Him even until then. And a life filled with God can never defy God’s commandments to such an egregious extent so as to result in rape. A more harmonious society is just a side effect, one of the many wonderful blessings that by no means must happen, but which God lavishes on the nation who honors, loves, and seeks after Him. 

                        I want the Gospel to be spread so that my countrymen can avoid the wrath to come, and be saved. But second to that, I know that millions of Spirit-filled men and women have the power, God’s power through them, to bring peace and blessing to this country of a magnitude yet not seen. Why wouldn’t I want to see my nation prosper? So, in more ways than one, the answer to every thing is God. It is His Gospel. And the choice is ours. If we want to have peace in the next life,  we must accept the Gospel for ourselves. And if we want to live in peace in this life (no guarantees, though!), we must spread the Gospel to others. Not to mention that your efforts might be the only chance they get to take hold of eternal life. Love your fellow men and women. Don’t wait. 

~ Rak Chazak 

Leisurely Labor

I haven't had internet for a week.

I love it. Instead, I've spent time working around the house. There's something satisfying about manual labor that makes me feel relieved. Sitting on the computer, I don't necessarily accomplish anything tangible, and it's easy to waste a lot of time. The feeling of ..shame, I guess?.. over not having done anything for many hours stresses me. When I shut the computer, get up and work with my hands, rather than feel tired, I feel relaxed. I get energized. I love the end result after a day's labor. Or even an hour's labor.

That's an interesting thing to note: work is exciting at first, but can have a tendency to get tedious as time drags on. The trick to keeping up productivity is to avoid letting work become toil. What fascinated me a while back was the discovery that we are created to work. Genesis 2:15 says, "Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it." I take two things away from this. One is that upkeep, on some level, is a "good thing," and not the result of sin, because Adam was given this duty before he fell. Secondly, whatever it is about work that causes aches, pain, exhaustion, suffering et cetera is a side effect of living in a cursed world.

Genesis 3:17 gives more insight: Then to Adam He [God] said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

Tending/keeping and toil are distinct from each other. Work is good for you. Toil is bad, though sadly necessary in many cases. Work is rejuvenating. Toil is draining. Work, like everything good, is a gift from God (James 1:17). Toil is a curse. So you can see that labor isn't all bad, but there is a definite negative aspect to it that we do well to avoid. How? I haven't thought that far yet, but walking with God and keeping His commandments seems like a start. Praying and reading the Word. It seems silly until you do it. I remember being perplexed over how early universities in the middle ages mainly taught religion. I've had a change of perspective since then. When you have the right foundation, everything else snaps into focus much more easily.

Work will be a part of eternity. So work existed before toil, and will continue to be a part of the Creation afterwards. Toil, like death and suffering and all other sorts of things are the result of sin (Romans 5:12), and will be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26). Burdensome labor is an enemy. Leisurely labor is a divine gift. What a difference that perspective makes! It is better to work than to not work. This understanding will keep me from working too hard, or from giving up on working, in the hopes that I'll find rest in inactivity. The truth is that I won't. So while I'm here on earth, there's work to do, and I'm happy to set about doing it. 

Are you feeling tired at work? Or anxious from not doing anything? Take heart! Mix work and rest for best results. 
~ Rak Chazak

Journal Entry: On the Need to Travel

"This didn't cost $1500 to enjoy." ~ myself, referring to a 7-foot waterfall we'd just crossed downstream of.

For me, adventure can be found simply by going off the beaten path--or even on a beaten path, just as long as it's not a highway of foot-traffic. People follow natural lines of drift (credit goes to JWR for getting that phrase stuck in my head). If, as you're walking along a sidewalk with a crowd of hundreds, and you veer off to one direction and stop, perhaps to observe the crowd from the outside rather than being a part of it, congratulations, you're an eccentric. Doing something that not everybody else is doing is fundamentally weird to them. But the joy you get from being someone who thinks and makes decisions for himself is exhilarating. Ergo, I naturally choose unorthodox ways to get from one location to another, particularly if I have spare time. Maybe I'll walk down the side street instead of the main one? Maybe I'll drive through some back roads instead of following the interstate? Maybe I'll go through the forest, or up the hill, rather than following the trail around.

By making simple little decisions to rebuff the usual routine, or the expected route, in favor of charting new courses to keep things interesting, you give yourself the opportunity to discover things that the vast majority of other people miss out on. I don't much enjoy the idea of missing out on the 'special little things' in life. But many others are content with it. There is an excellent poem that expresses what I'm trying to say, with more finesse:

The Few
The easy roads are crowded

    And the level roads are jammed;

The pleasant little rivers

    With the drifting folks are crammed.

But off yonder where it's rocky,

    Where you get a better view,

You will find the ranks are thinning

    And the travelers are few.

Where the going's smooth and pleasant

    You will always find the throng,

For the many, more's the pity,

    Seem to like to drift along.

But the steeps that call for courage,

    And the task that's hard to do

In the end result in glory

    For the never-wavering few.

~ Edgar A. Guest

I'm one of those few, and I love it! Where I've been living this year, there's mostly houses and streets, but if you take the time to leave the pavement and climb a hill on the side of the road, you can find all sorts of exciting things. And the view can be spectacular.

A friend of mine and I decided to "walk-and-talk" earlier this week, and so we absconded to a nearby State Park and walked the foot-trails there. The first leg of our journey was paved with asphalt. Nevertheless, there were trees all around to shade us, and a river off to our right, and though there were other people enjoying the park, it was nice to get away from the city despite being just a few miles away. That's the part that continually fascinates me--that there are places of "contained wilderness" within well-developed areas that you can stumble upon suddenly, and it's like finding a buried treasure every time. 

I had an interesting thought, in the course of our conversation. My friend hasn't been out of this country (though they've traveled farther west than I have), and wants to take the opportunity to do so in the coming year or a few. I, on the other hand, don't have a particularly strong desire to 'see the world' before I 'settle down,' and I think it could be due in part to the fact that I've already traveled some in my day. I've been to Sweden and Crete, and road-tripped up to New York City and down to Cape Hatteras. Last year I also got to go on an airboat tour of a portion of the Everglades. These were all things I enjoyed but feel no particular need to do again. I'm also quite content to take road-trips in the States rather than pay exorbitant prices to fly to Europe. I'm a visual person, so the various travel documentaries on PBS, or for that matter nature documentaries, are enough to satisfy me when it comes to seeing the world. No, having traveled already, I know my heart is here, in the Mid-Atlantic. I can see the world from the comfort of my own home, without needing to feel the world by actually being there. 

But make no mistake, I have my sights set on a few places in America that I'd still like to go to. But not to visit. I want to live there. Maybe that's why I don't get too attached to places I've traveled, or could travel to. If I were to dwell too much on being somewhere I couldn't stay, that would make me sad. And having seen a lot of the world, in person or in vitro (in vitro means 'in glass,' i.e. through a lens), I think America's pretty great itself, in all honesty. Don't sell this country short, if you've lived here all your life. Maybe you just need to travel, so that 'absence from home will make the heart grow fonder.' :)

My friend needs to travel far. I don't. But we both share a love for exploration and adventure. I'm just content, for the time being, to find it where I may. I have more opportunity to have adventures close to home than far away. But in a sense, I think my friend is probably doing the same thing. They're reaching out to take the opportunities they have to travel to a few places in Europe. And if you have the opportunity to go somewhere you haven't been before, why not take it? That is, after all, the spirit of adventure. Whether you go somewhere near to home, or far.

~ Rak Chazak

PS I figured I would attach a song which lyrics fit in very nicely with what I was expressing about my own desire for adventure and how it's not so much about necessarily going to a certain place, but about having an adventure wherever you happen to be. 

World Traveler, by Andrew Peterson

Food Adventures

I'm not a picky eater, but I'm not adventurous. 

I find something I like to eat and then, being comfortable with it, will avoid straying too far from that if given the choice to try something strange off of a restaurant menu. The running joke in my family is that my most-ordered dish at sit-down restaurants has always been a cheeseburger. I just don't like having to commit to eating something before determining whether I like the taste of it or not. I'd hardly waste my own money experimenting with this, much less the money of whoever's treating me to dinner.

So my experiment at a Spanish(Hispanic? Mexican? I'm not entirely sure what the distinction is, when it comes to food) restaurant recently was somewhat out of the ordinary for me. I went with a friend of mine whose parents were treating us. I was nervous right from the get-go, because Mexican food, to my mind, is associated with "spicy," and I don't like spicy food. Not because of any problem with the taste, but simply because I really can't handle it. 

Let me explain. When I first came to college, one of the earliest meals I had in the dining hall included fries. They were served with Old Bay on them. I had never experienced this before. I used to dip my fries in ketchup as a kid, but when I grew older I graduated to only using salt. I'd never even tried Old Bay. I really wanted french fries, though. So I exposed myself to the new sensation, and boy was it spicy! I had to try to scrape some of it off the fries just to be able to handle it, despite having water to wash it down with. Some of you may say, "what? Old Bay isn't spicy." Let that impress upon you just how little I can tolerate seasonings of any sort. If Old Bay is spicy to me, imagine what "salsa caliente" is like. As a general rule, I fear anything Mediterranean, Oriental, Indian, Cajun, or Mexican. If I'm going to eat 'ethnic,' I'll go to an Italian restaurant and order myself a plate of spaghetti. You can't go wrong. :D

The appetizer was served immediately. Chips with guacamole and some sort of salsa. For those who don't know, avocado is the fruit, and guacamole is what you make out of it -- adding some pieces of tomato and maybe citrus etc. Much like salat is the leafy stuff and salad is the mix of veggies you get when you throw it all together (I learned that from the chef when I worked as a dishwasher some years back). I hadn't had avocado in a long time, but I figured I'd try it. It's a strange sensation if you're not used to it -- very creamy, whereas I'm used to vegetables being watery or crunchy -- but it was very good. Apparently the guacamole is the pride of the establishment we visited. 

Next up, we ordered the meals and I couldn't figure out what anything was by looking at the names. Pictures would have been VERY helpful! I ended up deciding on a Chimichanga (always thought that was "chimmy-chonga"), based on the description of the ingredients and the urging of my friend's brother. As it turns out, a chimichanga isn't all to different from a burrito. It's thinner, and just has meat inside (in this case, beef), but then the bread is fried, and it's served together with rice, refried beans (something else I'd never had--baked beans all the way, baby!--and it resembled baby food; the texture was the weird part, but the taste was familiar), and more guacamole to boot!

As it turned out, everything I had was delicious and now I know a "safe bet" to order if I ever find myself at a similar restaurant in the future. If you haven't tried Chimichangas, I recommend them to you heartily. Expand your palate! I did. And I'm glad for it.

PS (technically speaking, I think the style of food is "Tex-Mex." I probably would in fact fry my tongue if I tried authentic Mexican food)

~ Rak Chazak

The Unfairness Trap: BSA On A Collision Course

The BSA National Council held a secret ballot vote to decide if the organization would allow openly gay boys into the organization. 757 voted for, 475 voted against. 

Timeless Values?

Albert Mohler summarizes this succinctly (link at bottom):

In 2000, the B.S.A. prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court when the nation’s highest court ruled that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude openly gay boys and leaders from the organization, so long as that exclusion is based in one of the organization’s core convictions — an “expressive message.” The B.S.A. won the case because that is exactly what they claimed. They argued that excluding openly homosexual boys and leaders from Scouting was necessary and required by the Scout Oath. [emphasis added]

In my previous article about the BSA policy change, I said this:

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.

So now we know the answer to that. The BSA National Council has decided that its creeds are not timeless, but arbitrary. It is thereby implicitly admitting to wrongful discrimination against homosexuals for over two decades, since the policy was enacted. Let the litigation begin!

A Time to Tell

The BSA commissioned a video in the '80s which at the time I joined was required watching for all boys entering the program. This was called "A Time To Tell," and acted out 3 specific scenarios which were introduced through the context of a conversation between three friends after school. Its purpose was to educate the young boys (ages 10-12 when entering the program) to "Recognize, Resist and Report" sexual molestation. I think it might be worth introducing to the general public. It largely speaks for itself.

More info: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/boy_scouts_and_sexual_abuse_what_will_happen_to_it_happened_to_me.html

Unfairness

Now that the BSA has opened up its doors to homosexual youth, it's unfair to keep the doors shut to atheists any longer. It's actually ludicrous to allow the former and not the latter. Atheists can, at least in theory, be just as moral as any monotheist, with the only difference being their rejection of belief in a deity. Meanwhile, homosexuality is an evil in each of those religions, and so if those who break the law should be allowed in, by what standard do you aim to keep out those who do not break the law? Maybe one could suppose that even if "morally straight" has been abandoned, the BSA will still attempt to uphold "duty to God" as a point of the Scout Oath. This would exclude atheists, certainly. But isn't moral straightness part of one's duty to God? To purport that active homosexuals honor the God of any faith--Christianity, Judaism or Islam; even the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism) seem largely to oppose the notion that homosexual activity can coexist with religious piety -- to thus purport that homosexuals can honor the "duty to God" aspect of the Scout Oath is ludicrous, and therefore if they can be allowed into the program while rejecting this "timeless value," then so can atheists, by the same standard. We have thus utterly destroyed the Scout Oath. All that's left is this:

"Oh my honor, I will do my duty to my country, and to keep myself physically strong." 

Permit me to scoff derisively.

Prediction: the BSA will soon have to give in to further pressure and allow atheists to join. 

The question is, will atheist boys be allowed in first, or homosexual leaders? We could start a betting pool. Anyone interested? I'll stake my claim on homosexual adults. Any takers?

Further Reading 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/05/25/BSA-and-gay-phase1
http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/05/22/boy-scouts-at-the-brink-the-moment-of-decision-arrives/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/rip-boy-scouts-of-america/

~ Rak Chazak

Victory! Finals Have Been Defeated!

I haven't felt quite this strange in a long time. It's weird when you conclude a sequence of predefined challenges and now suddenly have to figure out what ladder you're going to climb next. It was a little bit less of a "huh..what now?" feeling after high school graduation, because I had already been accepted into college, so that was where I was going, no need to think about it. But now after graduation, I'm not immediately designated for going anywhere in particular. 

Let's put a positive spin on this.

Rather than to look at it as if I'm ambling around without a sense of direction or purpose, I choose to think of myself and my future as being omnidirectional. 'Omni' means "every," and so now that I have nowhere I have to go, and nothing I have to do (exception being to find a way to get money, and soon), I have a potentially unlimited pool of possibilities in front of me. It's as if all doors are open, and which ones close and which ones open after this will depend on the choices I make as I go from here. I'll only have one actual future, but at the moment I have multiple potential futures, and on some level, I have the freedom to choose which I prefer.

That's nice, but the irony is that I don't really know what I'd prefer. I mean, my long-term goals are as concrete as they could be -- move to a mountainous state, try homesteading, get married, etc etc, but my near-medium-term goals are an amorphous haze. My ability to make decisions about my future is hindered by my inability to predict the future. I don't know what will end up happening in the next few months, or year, and this obscures the future in my mind. It's very hard to make plans when your life isn't stable. And by unstable I simply mean that it's rapidly changing in a way I can't foresee. 

I'm going to have to take things day by day for the time being, and not by choice. My biggest motivation, then, to go looking for employment, is the privilege to plan ahead and determine my own future that that would give me. Because to this date, my life has been largely determined by a preset schedule. In early life, my parents raised me and taught me to speak; in my youth I simply went through primary and secondary public school like everyone else; and in my young adult life I've gone to college and wrapped up a degree. There hasn't been a lot of input from my end. My decisions have been similar to the whitewater rafter's decisions about which way to move laterally along a river. The river keeps pushing you downstream no matter what you do. Going upstream is not within your sphere of choice, nor is disembarking at key moments. But now my raft has come to a calm part of the river and I have a choice which bank to row towards. While I'm still in the raft, I can survey the shore and the horizon from a distance and make a commitment before I begin climbing, because when I'm on my way up, I might not be able to see the forest for the trees, as the saying goes. To conclude my analogy, then, unfortunately for me, a fog hangs over the valley and I can't see what the terrain ahead or to the sides looks like. I'm going to have to make a blind decision. In this case, with the current pushing further ahead slowly but steadily, even indecision is blind.

There's the mountain I want to climb, but I can't see how I get there.

(Credit:Stephen Alvarez http://alvarezphotography.com)

Here's to all the other college graduates out there and my best wishes to you. It's my hope that you will make the best decisions, even if, like me, you can't see where you're walking. My desire is that we will look back in time and see where we've come from and cherish the trail as much as the summit.

~ Rak Chazak

The Spoken Word

2 Timothy 4:2 "Preach the word!"

John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. ⁴ In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵ And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. ... ¹⁴ And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

"Spoken word" is a new phrase I recently came across, and to my knowledge it means poetry, which largely rhymes but isn't necessarily in a consistent verse format. How fitting, then, that the two men below are not only performing "spoken word," but are "speaking the Word," the Word of Life? (Philippians 2:16)

Enjoy some Spoken Word

The names of the performers are, respectively, Matt Papa and Propaganda.

I leave you with this until I'm finished my finals. :)

~ Rak Chazak

How Could Sexual Urges Be God-Given?

Culture tells us that there's two main ways to approach sex: as something shameful, or as just something people do. Yeah, there are some who have the idea that sex is something beautiful or romantic or special, but these are unilaterally presented as a minority and as being sheltered, naive and simply wrong. My suspicion is that those who have had sex very young because they saw it as something they 'had' to do, probably take the view that sex isn't special subsequent to having a less-than-wonderful first experience. Upon wondering "was that it?" they don't want to face up to that they did something wrong, so instead they blame the whole concept of sex itself. 

There's a better way.

I am one of those that Hollywood(movies) and New York(sitcoms) pretend don't exist: the romantic. The person who surely must be hopelessly naive if he thinks that sex can be something beautiful and exciting, not just prior to the first time, but every time from then on. But if I simply believed this about sex in general, I would be naive. Instead, my actual view, as with most of my personal beliefs, is very conditional. Depending on the situation, something can be very good or very bad.

Sex is a tool. Like any tool, it has the capacity to be used to create amazing things. But if used wrongly, it can cause horrific injury and even death. (I'm thinking of a circle saw as the metaphor, in case anyone's wondering :D ). If I approach a deadly tool thinking of it as an innocent toy that can only bring me pleasure, then it is inevitable that I will hurt myself, possibly severely, because I had no respect for the tool; I had not submitted my mind to the knowledge of how to use it properly. Sex, if used properly as it should, within a loving, committed-for-life, relationship between only one man and only one woman, then it can bring great blessings to the both of them -- even the greatest blessing of all, life. Sex, if used improperly, becomes an instrument of abuse and defilement, destroying the honor of both men and women and devastating the lives of single mothers and the offspring of men who were too cowardly to stand up and raise their families, as is the man's duty.

If there's a place for sex, then there's a place for sexual desires. And while the line between good desire and lust is nearly impossible for man to toe, and therefore should not be attempted, the fact that we have sexual urges is a divine message to us, telling us something very important about who we are and what our purpose is. 

Watch these two short videos. They'll explain the purpose of sexual desire from a Biblical perspective.

If you want more, here's a bit of further background from Josh Harris.

Taken together, these clips give great advice. The message is this: your sexual desires are not supposed to be an obstacle to you living a godly life. Instead, they are given to you as a motivation to get your life in order so that you can marry and fulfill those desires within the appropriate context. Imagine your desires as rain. It does no good if the rain falls in the ocean, but if it falls on fertile ground it can enable plants to grow -- it can create life. If you have sexual desires, you know you're not called to a life of singleness. Consequently, then, when you pour your energies into the appropriate pursuit, you will reap amazing rewards and be so much more fulfilled than you could possibly be if you had chosen a promiscuous lifestyle.

Just like Ecclesiastes says, "there is a time for every purpose under heaven." There is a time and a place to "glut" on your sexual lusts, as RW Glenn says in his clip above, and that time will come when you have laid the groundwork and entered into a lifelong covenantal marriage relationship. Don't sell your future spouse short by wasting your sexuality on other people, real or imaginary. Pour yourself into them. Enrich their life and yours will be enriched also.

~ Rak Chazak 

Real Feminism on Abortion

When I first began studying history in order to determine that (let's call it "fundamentalist Christianity") wasn't just a reactionary belief system started in the 1900s but that there has been a silver thread running through history where people have always been believing the orthodox truth, I was fascinated to discover things I'd never known before.

Just today, I learned something new. The following is adapted from a recent article from Creation Ministries International:

Modern Feminism (called 'second or third wave') promotes abortion as the pinnacle of women's rights and women's equality. This feminism has been in play since the '60s and '80s, respectively. But what about the original feminism? The feminism of the mid-1800s that championed women's suffrage (right to vote) and sought to criminalize domestic violence, among other things that very obviously were intended to protect women?

1. The Revolution, the newsletter of Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906), described abortion as ‘child murder’, ‘infanticide’ and ‘foeticide’.

2. "Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth." ~ Victoria Woodhull (1838–1927), the first female US presidential candidate

3. Abortion is a ‘disgusting and degrading crime,' and

4. "When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." ~ Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815–1902), who organized the first women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, NY (1848)

5. The mother of the feminist movement, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) had earlier written, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, where she condemned those who would ‘either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born.’

Early feminists were against abortion. Modern "feminism" isn't feminism. It's violence against women and degrading to both women and men.

If that rubs you the wrong way, try your hand at reading the article and see if you still disagree: http://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls

It makes me proud (and not of myself, but of the Truth, mind you) to know that what I believe is not only right, but it has been right and recognized as being right for all of recorded history, such that this truth has not only been with us all along, but it has been the pillar on which all of our civilization stands. Those who would deny the Truth (I speak of God) would seek to undermine our society and destroy the whole world if they could--willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly.

Choose a side. Do it wisely.

~ Rak Chazak

Can't Get Enough

I doubt it will be the case, but I've wondered about whether heaven will be nothing more than an eternal worship service, with music and song and dance, just praising God forever. While I can't imagine what it would be like, I can understand how it could be. One of the fascinating things with reading the Bible and learning theology is that the more you read and listen, the more you want to. It becomes a source of energy. It is literally pleasing and satisfying to hear someone talk about the Gospel, or to talk about it yourself. It's impossible to hold it back. Like trying to stop a faucet with your hands, or for that matter a lightbulb, it just keeps overflowing; it just keeps shining through. You can't hold back the Gospel. You can't resist talking about it and you love to hear it again and again. It never gets old. 

I first got introduced to RW Glenn via the DVD "The Biggest Question," that I got from some people who were partnering with Wretched to get them handed out. Now I ran into a youtube video of him explaining the Gospel. I love hearing the slightly different ways that each theologian presents it. Consider the prior piece from John MacArthur that I posted a few weeks ago. What I really like about RW Glenn is his conversational style. Plus, he's a youngster by comparison to the older preachers and like me, uses exaggerated hand gestures while talking. :)

It's the same Gospel, but every presentation is nuanced based on the personality of the speaker. And sometimes the audience, which you've gotta take into consideration.

I love it. 

And because of this feeling of being drawn to hear it constantly, I think I can understand how heaven could be an eternal 'worship-party.' If it did turn out that standing and singing was 'all there is' to heaven, I can accept that and I would be content.

It's not that I'm satisfied with little. I'm satisfied with few things. God is only one "thing," and yet He is so important, He is everything. It's not hard to be satisfied with everything. I hope I've offered some perspective here tonight.

If you're not a Christian -- just watch the video. And if you're a Christian, definitely watch the video. 

~ Rak Chazak

Feeling Bad in A Good Way

I recently fell into some sin that I'd avoided for a while; the details aren't important, so I won't go into them. But the point to stress here is the disappointment over falling down when you had seen positive indications that you'd finally moved past it, for many months. 

I have to confess, I love the feeling of ending a bout with sin and walking away from it. Getting away from whatever it was, and taking some alone time to pray to God and get back to living for Him instead of running away -- it's such a relief. I wrote about this in an earlier blog post.

Most people feel bad after doing something they know is wrong. But there's two different ways to feel bad about something. As a general rule, you can either pity yourself or you can be filled with sorrow over how what you did affected the person you did it against. There are such things as "victimless crimes," where something you do doesn't necessarily hurt another person. But there's no such thing as a "victimless sin," because all sin is ultimately against God. So the appropriate response to your feelings of guilt after doing something wrong is to be anguished over hurting your relationship with your Heavenly Father. The wrong way to react is to run away from God in shame, refusing to deal with Him. The wrong way to react is to make it all about you. 

Think about it: "I should be better than this." Really? You should be better than you are? You must think highly of yourself. Stop and realize--this sort of thought is actually PRIDE at its core. You suppose that you have it in yourself to be good. That is why you fail to reconcile with God; you run from Him because in your mind you truly think you can fix your mistakes without His help. It's monumentally arrogant! When you no longer say to yourself, "that's not who I really am--that's not me," and instead admit that you are as rotten as the things you do, then you're ready to accept the fact that only God can help you get out of the hole you've dug for yourself. That's why when you've done something wrong, the right thing to do is not to run away from God, but to run toward Him. He's not our enemy. We're our own worst enemy. He's our friend. 

So as soon as you've admitted to yourself that you have sinned, run to God. Find Him in prayer and have the assurance of your salvation restored to you; thank Him for His forgiveness and ask for His help to strengthen you to avoid sin in the future.

That's what I did. And I was really excited when I found this video of R W Glenn saying essentially the same thing that I'd come to recognize on my own:



His illustration with Peter and Judas explains the difference between 'feeling bad in a good way,' and 'feeling bad in a bad way,' as I referenced in the title.

It seems counter-intuitive at first, but I hope you learn to make the habit of running back to God when you stumble into sin, instead of hiding in shame like Adam and Eve did. Forgiveness is a great thing, and it's freely given. You can't earn it, and thanks to God, we don't need to. 

~ Rak Chazak

Ode to An Outdoorsy Wife

This is original to me. Feel free to copy it but if you want to give attribution, use the title above and attribute it to Hakam Adam. I just felt a creative spark and wrote this this evening. I hope you enjoy it!

Come, let me read you a tale from the heart

And soon you will quite understand

How a person like me could consider it art

How the mind works inside of a man

Dusk, when the sun sinks below all the trees

Is my favorite time of the day

Why should it be that the sweet evening breeze

And the night sky incline me to say,

"God, I am thankful to be here this night

And I love what I see with my eyes. 

Please give me grace that I walk in the Light

And to not fail to strive for your prize." ?

Nature, I reckon, inclines me to worship

The One who created it all

One day, yet future, a songbird in courtship

My bride it shall also enthrall

For if we would ever be joined in one flesh

We can't be too different, you know

As husband and wife, our interests should mesh

And our differences help us to grow

No doubt, she'll be unlike myself in most ways

But I figure we both can agree

That a walk in the evening outside on most days

Will us both inspire genuinely

There's something quite soothing 'bout being outside

And it's something that I want to share

With a wonderful woman--my sister, my bride

I am anxious until I get there

For now, it's just me and my awesome Creator

Conversing on star-studded nights

The hills and the trees are a natural theater

The world is afire with lights

It is easy to see when the sun is up high

And the colors are vibrant and stark

But the light that I seek is a different design

It is one that will shine in the dark.

It is true that I'm never truly alone

My Savior is with me always

But until that day when He bids me come home

There's something inside me that says,

"Lord, let me grow and become a good man,

So that one day a woman will find

That our mutual love could be part of Your plan,

That I will be hers and she mine

Let her be someone who like me loves mountains

And let her also love You

Give me the strength to love like a fountain

Always outpouring anew."

I hope against hope that I'll find her one day

And that when I do, I don't miss her

So until I am ready, I still watch and pray

Until finally, I get to kiss her.

Artful, perhaps, is the mind of this writer

Full of God, nature, women and more

Against loneliness, romance is a fighter

But it's God who foreknows what's in store.

~ Rak Chazak

Be Careful What You Pray For

2 Chronicles 1:7-12

On that night God appeared to Solomon, and said to him, “Ask! What shall I give you?”

And Solomon said to God: “You have shown great mercy to David my father, and have made me king in his place. God, let Your promise to David my father be established, for You have made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude. Now give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people; for who can judge this great people of Yours?”

Then God said to Solomon: “Because this was in your heart, and you have not asked riches or wealth or honor or the life of your enemies, nor have you asked long life—but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself, that you may judge My people over whom I have made you king—wisdom and knowledge are granted to you; and I will give you riches and wealth and honor, such as none of the kings have had who were before you, nor shall any after you have the like.”

This inspired me when I was young. At some point in high school, I began making a habit of asking for wisdom, when I would stand out by the road on summer nights and pray as I walked with my head turned up toward the stars. I figured asking for wisdom was a worthwhile thing to do, even if I didn't necessarily know exactly what acquiring it would entail.

You can rarely tell immediately how God chooses to answer your prayers. But looking back on your life's path, years down the road, it is often evident. Now I can see clearly how God chose to answer my prayer for wisdom. And boy, was I unprepared for the result!

I encountered a personal crisis in the summer of 2009 when I read ahead in a philosophy book for a class I was taking. I became upset when I came to a question that I couldn't answer to my satisfaction. I put off thinking about it for a semester or so, but you can't avoid thinking about these things for long; it kills you. At best, you'll be perpetually bitter, at worst, you'll go nuts. The conclusion of the matter was that I spent countless hours researching theological topics on line in order to satisfy my need to know the answers. And now I have a much fuller understanding of these two verses, which constitute the "fine print" to any prayer you make asking for wisdom:

Proverbs 4:7 -- Seek wisdom, for wisdom is the principal thing. And whatever it takes, get understanding.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 -- In much wisdom is much grief, and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow.

I have a very personal knowledge of the truth of those two statements. They don't contradict. Wisdom is a good thing to get. The thing is, increasing wisdom is directly negatively proportional to your ability to be blissfully naive and ignorant. The more you know, the more there is to offend your sense of order, and what ought to be. One of the ironic and scary things I've noted, particularly with the help of Ken Ham and Todd Friel (who partially serve as watchdogs for compromise in the Christian Church), is that when you're ignorant, you don't know about false teachings and various evil things you should watch out for, which makes you more vulnerable. But when you know about them, you are less vulnerable because your knowledge is like a shield, protecting you from lies. It is a tragic thing that those most vulnerable to deceit are those who are least able to recognize it for what it is. And those who do recognize it do not need to fear so much for their own sake, but for others who remain susceptible. It's a fretful thing.

Another way in which I've found those statements to be true is that the truth about history is very uncomfortable. I've lived a very sheltered life by comparison to the rest of the world. America is quite literally an island, and has been isolated geographically from much of the barbarity in the rest of the world. Sadly, things seem to be changing. But those who are ignorant will be caught by surprise. Knowing about the dangers posed by enemy nations, false religions, foolish political philosophies and tyrannical governments give the educated person an endless source of things to be concerned about. Yet it is those who have the most to worry about that have less to be afraid of, because they will, by and large, be better prepared. I feel very sorry for those who are ignorant of the malevolent realities outside of their sphere of experience. But the truth is not hidden, and ultimately everybody has a choice to remain ignorant or to seek wisdom and knowledge. It's a shame that so many of us are content with so little.

There's much to think about, the more you learn. Getting wisdom and knowledge can lead to racing thoughts and vivid fears of the known, rather than the unknown, which keeps diminishing the more you learn. But in all your seeking after wisdom, remember the fundamental truth that the most basic of all knowledge is the recognition that God is the supreme authority whom we ought to obey and whom we can trust. Consider Proverbs 9:10 and Proverbs 1:7. They say that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge." The secret to having peace despite the increase in sorrow and grief that Ecclesiastes 1:18 describes, is to rest in God (Psalm 62:1-2).

As Ecclesiastes goes on to say, there is a time to weep, and a time to laugh. There is a time to mourn and a time to dance. (Ecclesiastes 3:4).

In gaining wisdom, I've found that the Christian life is not marked by balance, but by rhythm. Some days are marked more by anguish over the world, some by haste to bring the Good News to them that are perishing, and some days are days of rest, when you consider the good things in life that God has given us and contemplate the bigger picture--that one day, all of these things which bring grief and sorrow will finally be done away with. I encourage you to persevere to the very end.

If you are not a Christian and would like to know peace in the midst of all the strife in the world today, I encourage you to consider this. I cannot make you convert, but I can point you to the only thing that can make us whole. Please read. http://www.gotquestions.org/how-can-I-be-saved.html

~ Rak Chazak