On Pacifism

On Pacifism

Pacifism, as an idea, as a concept, as a creed and a standard and a life defining principle, is essentially a reaction to war. Therefore, in order to understand pacifist and their reasoning one must first understand war and its reasoning. Only by grasping what pacifism is reacting to can one understand why it advocates for the things it does, why it has gained so much popularity, and why some individuals feel threatened by it.

War is a type of conflict, and therefore, before a full understanding of war can be grasped conflict must first be defined and understood. The reason why people, especially Christians, have an instant emotional reaction against pacifism often arises out of this failure to understand the nature of conflict.

Throughout human civilized history and society, there has existed an ideal tranquility or harmony that all civilized societies strove to reach. The ancient Egyptians named it Ma’at, the concept that there was a divine order that society needed in order to function. To abandon this concept of order, was to abandon civilization and would lead to chaos and uncertainty. This ordered, structured, societal neutral medium called civilization consists basically of the idea that one looks to one’s own (tribe/household/family/self) while allowing others to do likewise without interference.

However, this ideal structure of society begins to fall apart when one’s own interest or gain, comes at the expense or in competition, with that of another. This is the birth of conflict. Within all conflict there exists these two parties. The Initiator, is the party that decides to challenge the status quo of the ideal structure, and therefore strives to affect and change that. The second party, however, is just as vital to the creation of conflict, the Reactionary. The Reactionary is the kindling to the spark of the Initiator. Reactionaries may simply uphold the status quo, or be challengers of it as well, but in a manner in contest with the Initiator. Without either of these there is no conflict.

Since conflict is composed of these two parties, there then develops three ideal forms of conflict resolution. In the Socratic Model, both parties involved in conflict approach it with the intent of reaching a common ground/goal/good. In his model, Socrates implied that conflict should be aimed at reaching a resolution in which both parties “win”. This form of conflict resolution, the “win-win” form, often takes the most time and effort, things humans loath to part with, and so, is not commonly found in historical endeavors for resolution of conflicts.

In the Common Model of resolution, one party gains victory while the other is left to defeat. This is by far the most commonly used conflict resolution strategy as it takes less time, less effort, and allows for more aggression. The common form has often been the immediate response of humanity, because of the inherit selfishness of human nature, to simply demand or force ones own right or way, without thought or regard to the state of others/competitors/rivals. However, this form of conflict resolution is not particularly stable, as often the “loosing” party will not accept the “winners” new status quo and therefore, the “loosing” party will become Initiators in another conflict. This is clearly seen with the end of WWI, in which the Allied demands attached to the Treaty of Versailles not only drove the formation of the Axis power, but actually led to the rise of Hitlter’s power and then WWII. Therefore, the common model is prone to instability, although it is still the preferred method of conflict resolution.

The final model of conflict resolution is essentially war. During war, both parties, Initiators and Reactionaries, go into the conflict expecting to loose money, resources, and lives. When war is chosen as a model, it appears that its result is similar to the Common Model, “win-loose” but in fact, in war, there are no winners. Both Initiators and Reactionaries loose when war is the medium of conflict resolution. The reasoning behind it is as follows.

Firstly, during a war, lives are lost. There have been very few bloodless battles in history, and no bloodless wars, at least in what constitutes a war. Even the loss of a single life to a nation, people, tribe, group, or clan is disadvantageous. That one individual’s potential to aid society and humanity has been cut short. While it’s true that most soldiers would not end up being the next Socrates, Galileo, Leonardo Da Vinci, or Shakespeare, there is no certain way of guaranteeing that they aren’t. All individuals who have added to human culture and humanity as a whole have been just that, individuals. Therefore, the loss of a single individual, while often considered minute, may in fact be the greatest loss a society, people group, or nation suffers. Many great writers, painters, poets, philosophers, thinkers, inventors, sculptors, and engineers have all had military service, and had they been killed in battle, their life’s work would not have been left for us today.

In relation to this, there has never been a time when the cost of war was only felt by the Initiators and Reactionaries. The cost of war, emotionally, physically, mentally, and developmentally has always impacted spectators, civilians, bystanders, children, and those who had no part in the conflict. Children especially have suffered because of war. Whether they have been the children of soldiers killed in battle, left to grow up without a parent, or the children who are raped, killed, enslaved, tortured, or brutalized as “spoils” of war. While many societies have attempted to curb this cost on the innocent with codes of war (Samurai code, Chivalric code, Geneva Convention, etc.) historically their attempts have failed. Even today that is clearly seen in the “spoils of war” that American troops collected when they took over the Abu-Grebe prison and its political prisoners, many of whom were Christians who had been sent there by Saddam Hussein. The impact of war on children has further repercussions, as they are then desensitized to violence at a young age and brought up in a culture in which war and revenge are then portrayed as the socially acceptable means of conflict resolution. This then leads to further wars, and creates a never-ending cycle.

This illustrates another aspect in which the War Model of conflict resolution fails. All conflict is meant to have an end. The purpose of conflict is goal orientated, namely, for either one or both parties to change the status quo and thereby become “winners”, by attaining a different status quo or reaching a place where the current status quo is now acceptable. Whoever, because of War’s affect in creating two sides who both feel the status quo is unacceptable, this makes war endless. Current conflicts in North and South Korea, as well as in Pakistan, Afganhistan, Darfur, Sudan, and Iraq all illustrate this, as they have no foreseeable end. In the example of the War in Iraq, the more the war goes on, the more the militant forced in Iraq are justified in their struggle and the more they fight. The more of them the US kills, the more their children take up arms against the US in retaliation. The more US soldiers they kill creates a greater sympathy for the war, and justifies it in the political system and the general public’s eye, thereby increasing troop numbers. Theoretically, the only way for a war to actually end is for one side to completely wipe out the other side, thereby establishing their dominance without leaving anyone that can retaliate. Obviously, this is not an acceptable model of conflict resolution.

Even historically, wars have been endless. An example is the war between the English and the Irish, which is still going on from its inception in the early 12th century. It has been officially declared and officially ended time and time again, however, neither side has ever reached a place of forgiveness, and instead retaliation and revenge by the unacceptable status quo enforced afterward has caused its most recent incarnation, the Irish Troubles, to end with an uneasy peace and a renewal of conflict soon afterwards. Like all other wars, this 800 year long war has found most of its casualties in the form of innocent civilians.

To return to the larger issue, many people have ideas that all conflict is either good or bad. To believe that all conflict is good, means that peace and tranquility is undesirable. To believe all conflict is bad, means that submission and injustice must be tolerated. Neither of these situations are acceptable, because neither of them come from an understanding of what conflict is. As shown above, there are many forms of conflict, some more desirable and affective than others. Conflict comes from humans and so it has the very human nature to be either good or bad, depending on how it is used.

Conflict can end oppression. Conflict can heal old wounds. Conflict can actually be the vehicle for greater peace, understanding, and love in a society. However, conflict can bring death, destruction, misunderstanding, great harm, great injustice, great oppression, and great hate. Conflict is neither good nor evil. To turn to conflict as an answer to all problem or to shun its use completely are both foolish ways of using it. Conflict is a tool. It is up to humanity to decide whether to build bridges or break heads with it.

War is a type of conflict in which there is no resolution. War is a type of conflict in which there is no healing. War is a type of conflict in which neither party is, as Socrates put it, searching for common understanding and mutual enlightenment to understand a problem and overcome it. War is a cheap out with a great expense. War is the easy path, which leads to suffering that never ends. War is by nature, not a good form of conflict resolution.

That doesn’t mean that there have not been some good side affects of war. Wars have general increased nationalism, which in some areas have led to increased culture and art, though heavily influenced by propaganda and government censorship. Wars have also stimulated economies which were on the verge of self destruction. However, in the current global economic market, that is no longer a viable way of economic reform, as wars no longer increase production, only expenses. Wars have at times temporarily alleviated the human situation, as found at the end of WWII, with the stop of Hitler’s eradication of the Jewish, disable, immigrant, homosexual, and Christian sections of European population. However, wars are at their core profit, not principle, motivated. As for alleviating the human situation, other forms of conflict have shown much greater progress with lasting change, such as the boycotts of the civil rights movement in the USA, or the hunger protests led by Ghandi for Indian Independence.

For all these reasons and many more, War is not a rational decision to make. For something to be a purely rational decision, the benefits must outweigh the costs. There are very few benefits that come from war, and even less that have lasting impact. The true cost of war is incalculable in that the effects and repercussions of wars last for generations. Even just a purely financial cost for wars is uncountable, in the amount of potential economic stimulus lost by the lives lost, brain drain affect by lives lost and defectors during war time, and resources depleted with minimal or no gain. And then that is just the beginning, as future conflicts that arise from the treaties made at the end of wars in order to cover part of the massive expenses then lead to further wars whose expenses can then be traced to that war and should be included as a cost of that war. Some people may quip at the “money wasted by NGOs such as the UN” but compared to the cost of war, it is a very minute price to pay. War is an irrational decision as the cost is just too great.

While war is irrational, it is also not simply an emotional reaction. Emotionally, war is traumatic. War is brutal. It involves massive amounts of death, carnage, destruction, hatred, anger, aggression, fear, and repression. Emotionally, war is one of the unhealthiest things a person can do. Those leaders who start wars no longer take part in them, for a very good reason. They need the emotional distance to make the decision they make. If they knew each soldier they sent into battle personally, and had to watch as they died, they would probably commit suicide or go insane. From a psychological stand point, in order to “make” a soldier who can act under the pressure of war and deal with the amount of emotional trauma that any normal, healthy, human would experience during battle, the person’s mind, will, and emotions must be completely broken down and rebuilt so that they see the entire world from a dualistic paradigm, therefore breaking down where they may question what is right and wrong, and on a mental level, giving them the same kind of psychological barrier to face reality that is found in serial killers. They perform essentially the same activities, and require the human mind to be insulated in the same way otherwise they would not be able to carry out their acts. This is not to perjorate soldiers, but to show that aside from those mental barriers of dualism, which say that anyone who isn’t on my side is my enemy and is evil and deserves to die, the only type of human being who would be able to wage war would be a psychopath or sociopath whose mind is already unable to register empathy or human suffering. War is therefore not emotionally acceptable to healthy human beings either.

If war is neither logical nor emotionally driven, then why do individuals go to war? Many have postulated that it seems to be the only answer humanity has had for a long time. Since ancient Egyptian times, when they worshiped the tranquil order or Ma’at, humans have viewed war as being a last resort of sorts, when all others fail, in order to preserve ourselves, our culture, and our tranquility. War has been labeled a necessary evil in order to preserve the greater good. In tribal or Abrahamic times, this may very well have been the case, that people had no other choice but to choose violence as a means of self defense and self preservation. However, during those times people also trekked from place to place in a nomadic lifestyles, herded goats, lacked toilets and toilet paper, did not brush their teeth, married at young ages, died at younger ages, killed girl children when they wanted sons, had none of our modern conveniences, could not read, and in general lived and functioned much differently then we do today. To justify war based on tribal times would be equivocal to justify infanticide based on those same practices at those same times. Humanity is set apart from animals in that we progress. We are not the same we were 2,000 years ago, or 200 years ago or even 20 years ago. Why should our method for dealing with conflict remain the same?

Pacifism may be taken too far in some cases, with people who will not allow any kind of conflict. However, that is not true pacifism. That is simply a person who struggles with people pleasing and who wants to make everyone happy. A pacifist knows there are times to be an Initiator of conflict, but that they will remain in control of the conflict they initiate, that they will not allow it to progress into a lesser form of conflict resolution. They seek to allow not only themselves to benefit from the resolution, but everyone, the Reactionary and even non-participants. A true pacifist see the need to take their eyes of their own situation and circumstance, and understand the other parties involved in the conflict too. A pacifist draws a wider circle around themselves, taking care not only of their own, but of everyone. We are not tribal anymore. We build larger buildings that last longer. We have larger cities that look grander. We make larger plans for the distant future. Can we not, then, take a larger view when it comes to conflict? Can we not recognize that everyone is human? That everyone wants to win? That everyone wants that Ma’at, that peace? There was a time when this was merely a dream. But no more. We have the UN. We have ambassadors. We have cultural ties. We have no more excuses to go to war.

A Note on Christians and Pacifism

From a Christian stand point, there is even further evidence of the need for pacifism. While the Old Testament was full of warriors who killed the enemies of God, we find in the New Testament that our weapons are not carnal but meant to cast down spiritual strongholds. We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual things. Make no mistake, there is a time for peace and a time for war, but that time for war is a spiritual war when we are called to step out and take authority and break the strongman, e.g. Satan and his forces. Even in the Old Testament times, God said that David could not build His house because he was a man of bloody hands. Jesus commands us to love our enemies, bless them that curse us, and do good to those that despitefully use us or persecute us. We are commanded to turn the other cheek, to forgive, to love. The Early Church, which was suppose to be the closest example of what Jesus wanted the church to be like, would pray for and love their persecutors even as they were persecuted. They did not fight back. They submitted. They loved. They died. And there were added thousands to their numbers daily because of it. The Bible makes it clear, he who lives by the sword will die by it. Even if the world does not accept pacifism, we as Christians should, as it was one of the clear principles established not only by the New Testament writers but by Jesus himself. All of the reasons for war are discredited by the Bible. We are not to take revenge because vengeance is our Gods. We are not to defend ourselves because the glory of the Lord will be our rear guard. We are not to worry about tomorrow, what it will bring or how we will defend ourselves because the Lord our God, Jehova-Jireh will provide a defense. And as Paul writes, we are to have a perspective that to live is Christ and to die is gain. Not that we are to seek death (especially in warfare) but that we are to keep that perspective that life is temporal and loving people is the only thing that lasts. One of the key emotions that justifies war is fear. God has not given us a spirit of fear but of love, power, and a sound mind. A sound mind, as has been shown above, would not accept war. The Bible makes it clear, war and violence are two things that came to the cross and did not go through it. They are part of an older system that we need to leave at the cross and instead pick up love, forgiveness, and the peace of the Lord which surpasses all understanding.

Red Memories of the Moon in June

Come, come, come to me my children
For I have a tale that must be told
Of a far off land of greatness and splendor
Where dwelt the dragon emperors of old

Oh the sun rises red over mountains blue
Plum blossoms drift in the sad breeze
A song echoes through forest of bamboo
Who can remember, who can forget, these

In this far away land there was a place
The greatest courtyard of stone ever seen
Two ancient gates and an ancient palace
Stood beside it, and all the ancestors between

Oh the sun has risen into the fair blue sky
Withering the blossoms of the precious plum
The day had come and the night had died
Where are you, O white shirted one?

They gathered there the bright eyed youths
To mourn a hope fallen and gone
They came in thousands to light candles
And to honor him with their hope songs

The Sun is setting, the light fades away
The breeze is cold now, the stars unmade
The heavens are red at the dying of day
And foul shadows cast now inky shades

They broke down the statue of fair liberty
They shot all the students in the square
They ran over bones and bicycles in their tanks
They told the world no one should care

Yet in darkest night rises fair Chenge’e
Yue’s silver face of hope in the night
And so their memory and bravery shine true
And no army, red or blue, can extinguish their light

Remember Tiananmen
Remember the Square
Remember the Young Ones
Who gave their lives there

Remember Tiananmen
Remember the place
Remember your principles
Do not, their memory, disgrace

And So America Went Down the Crapper...

Wow, I never thought it would happen this way. Excuse me for my very politically themed posts recently but, hey politics are everywhere these days. So, have you heard about HR 1424 aka The Emergency Economic Stablizaion Act of 2008? Oh, you mean that thing on the side collumn of the paper this morning? YES!!!

Basically tonight I am glad I am not a US citizen. Sorry but its the truth. Tonight history was made and Bush offcially became the worst president ever. He signed in the HR 1424 into law. What does that mean to the average american?

FIRST A HISTORY LESSON - Investors on Wall Street got greedy. As they always do. They made some very risque investments, and a lot of them. Meanwhile, home owners weren't reading the fine print about adjustible morgage rates. So the lending isntitutes, who also wanted more and more money, adjusted the rates. Many Americans could not pay the new rates so instead of doing something productive the Fed cut intrest rates. That didn't help anyone except the companies that the Fed Board of Directors owned. So then the lending institutes weren't getting their money and went bankrupt. This led to large scale unemployment and a drop in the stock market. Thats were we are now. Well the stock market dropped and then Bush said, "I will pass a Bill to help fix teh market." And it rose very slightly at this. Then the bills were proposed and rejected. The Markets tumbled like they haven't tumbled in decades. This led everyone to crying "Economic crises!"

SO WHAT? - Well this meant that there had to come a bill now because Wall Street was expecting it. The problem was that the Bill, HR 1424 would fix the markets through taxpayer money. Thats right your money will be used to help all those poor million dollar CEO who lost a few shares because they were greedy get even more back.

Why else is the bill bad? Well, lets start with the obvious fact that the bill is not endorsed by anyone other than people who have large scale investments in lending companies such as Goldman Sachs. All the other politicians, investors, financial advisors, etc are aposed to it. Not just that but the majority of economist from across teh nation's universities, people that study this kind of situation and the response to it for a living, made a petition and had it signed by nealry 300 diffrent heads in the course of a day, ALL APOSED TO IT SAYING IT WILL HAVE WORSE RESULTS THAT WILL LAST FOR GENERATIONS!!!

Plus there is the fact that it has this one small clause that says that the money will all be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury (aka Bush's employee) and that he will not be able to be held accountible by any judiciary board or senate comitee for his decisions. That is a lot of power for one person. $700billion in taxpayer money that he doesn't ever have to answer for. BTW he is a majority share holder in one of those lending companies (Goldman Sachs).

Oh, and if this wasn;t all bad enough, the US deficit will now rise to almost $12 trillion dollars in 2009. Meanwhile your GDP is falling because of all these mortgage and financial crises. Last year it was around $13 trillion. Your annual debt is almost equal to your annual income. That is a scary thought for a nation. Think about it.

And thats why I said that on this night, America went down the crapper!

A Post About A Debate About A VicePresident

Okay! If you missed the vice presidential debates tonight you have probably missed the best ones in the last 20 years! At least thats what all the old people are saying. And these are my thoughts on it.

First off, congradulations to Gov. Sarah Palin, you didn't completely blow it like everyone thought you would! Maybe now everyone will forget that embaressing interview with Katie Curic. :)

Oh, and congrats Biden for winning the actual debate. Didn't see that one coming. LOL

Now, first of Gov. Palin. When she spoke she drew you in, she captivated you with her phrases, jokes, eyes, and warm smile. She spoke with so much truth and conviction that you almost wanted to answer the alter call. The only problem was that afterward, sitting back and thinking about what she said, you'd realise that it made no logical sense.

Examples: She said she wanted to pay teachers and educators much more, yet later said she was going to move to tax much less... how does that work, especially when you want to keep the wars in afganistahn, pakistan, and iraq going?

She also said that they were going to tax less and thereby make more jobs... yet thats exactly what bush did and it caused an 8 month employment drop. How does that work? Pixie dust "aint gonna cut it".

Sen. Biden spoke with clear confidence and wisdom that echoed the many long ages he has served on Capitol hill. He shared stories and ancedotes from years back. He showed his vast knowledge by being abel to recite variouse bill initiatives, and teh people for ang against it, thereby showing he may be almost as old as McCain but at least he can still rember stuff. Too bad that after listening to him, you realise, wait, didn't he say the exact same thing last week?

Yup, thats right, he's a repeat offender. He had nothing original to say. Same old blah blah blah. At least Palin messed up enough on her international information that it made the show enteraining.

Highlight of the evening:

The Cheney issue-

promtor: So, Gov.(palin) tell us what you view the role of the vice president is? Is the Vice President part of the executive branch only or also part of the legislative branch because of Cheney's recent reforms?

Palin: Well, I'm glad that the founders of our nation were wise enough to make the consitution very flexible. I view the office of teh vice president as being very flexible and yes, i do think that the vice president is part of both.

promtor: Sen.(Biden) your reply?

Biden: First, the first amendment makes it clear the vice president is under the President and part of the executive branch only. The only power that teh vice president has over the senate is in the situation of a tie. Other than a tie situation the Vice President has no say in teh legsilative branch! The Constitution is clear!

So Biden won in knowledge area, Palin won in Charisma area, but who won when it came to heart area?

Here's what happened. Palin was talking about being a mom with kids and bringing them up and how she has kids galore. Then as she was winning the crowd's heart with her mentioning of her special needs child, she made the statement in regards to raising children, "Oh, I know."

The promtor turned to Biden, who, when repsonding simply began saying, "When it comes to raising children, believe me, I know..." And he actually choked up and couldn't finish what he was saying. Everyone there knew about his wife and daughter's death in the car accident and how he had been left to raise his two small boys as a single father.

Needless to say, that small bit of having to stop to collect himself won him everyone's heart there, and made Palin look like a jerk for even suggesting that she knew anything about life. Thats not to say that it's true, thats just the feeling you got from watching it.

In the end, it was better than watching the office. And no, I'm not a democrat, yet ;), and no I'm still pretty sure I won't ever stoop to the lowly level of the retarded republicans, but I must say that I do admit Palin's ability to hold her own almost as much as I admit that Biden was still her better in almost everyway. Remember, i went into this almost completely neutral and this is how I came out.
:D

Healer

Things to Learn from the song "Healer"

+That a song should never be about who wrote it. Instead a song should be assessed on the truth of the words, the relevance of the music to the purpose of the song, and annointing of the spirit on it. This is one of the big issues that revolve around this song. For too many people the song was just about the person who wrote it, and when his confession came out suddenly the song was now irrelevant and sacriligious.

+What happens when a good person does bad things. This song is powerful because it acts as a perpetual reminder of the cost of unrepentant and secret sin, especially when it's found in a person of influence.

+That it is never my place to judge, and always my place to love and forgive.

+That God can take what the enemy intends for evil and use it for good. Look at the bad situation with this song. It seems that the song could only carry bad memories and shame with it, but really there are many good things we can learn from it and be reminded of when we listen to it.

A Reply to Global Warming

So last month I posted a somewhat politically charged post about Global Warming and asking for explanaton from my fellow Christans why the majority of Christian leaders and therefore the people that blindly follow them, are so appose to Global Warming. I since received several post from people (and a few angry emails lol!) in responce and this is what I gather so far.

_________
"Well if it's going to happen then it's going to happen and there's no stopping it. If it happens it must be part of God's plan, and therefore we cannot apose it. If it's not part of God's plan then we don;t have to worry about it. So either way, why worry?"
_________


My response to this is again, we are called to be GOOD stewards of God's creation, not exploiters. And in regrads to God's plan, at the end of the day, God looks at the heart. He looks and sees if we tried, regardless of the results. As P.F. says almost every time he talks about healing:

"The result is not my responsiblity, the action, the faith to step out and do what God has told me to do in His word (be a good steward), that is my responsibility."

Also, the spirit of complacency is not of God, the spirit that would say, "Why worry?" We are told over and over again in Proverbs that it's just simple wisdom not: to take the easy way out, to just sit back and relax, or to be lazy when we could be doing something about whats happening around us.

________
"Radicals on the left use global warming to enforce unrealistic policies that would exchange widespread economic down fall for a minuscule change in climate change. The enormous economic costs that these policies demand would create poverty and therefore increase the dirty emmissions of so-called pour man's fuel (coal, etc.)"
________

Well, let me ignore that very biased and unproveibly opening phrase, and just say that you can't just call anyone who disagrees with you a radical. That's what Bush does, and we want to be like Jesus, not Bush. (see how a very biased and unprovible statement makes a reader feel.) ^__^

So, to get to the main point, I understand the policy issue, but let's take a second and actually look at "liberal" policy in regards to global warming.
-Reuse and recycle more instead of producing new and wasting old.
-Replace oil depedency with clean renewible resources that are home grown (american)
-Stop pollution and destruction of natural resources
-Become active participant in arising global market and economy

So far, aside from the cutting back on new production, which does cause an economy to slow down, I don't see any other effects here that would be detrimental to US economy IN THE LONG RUN. The problem we face is SHORT RUN vs. LONG RUN thinking. In the short run, we have all the plants and product we need RIGHT NOW, in order to prosper if we just keep doing what we have been doing for centuries. In the long run, we do not have the resources (especially if we are detroying them from polluting and deforesting) to keep the economy stable as we loan more and more of our national currency (thats right, i'll post more on the Fed later) and base more and more of our money on nonexsistant gold, and grow more and more dependant on Arab oil. Trust me, in the long run, its stupid to base all of your economy on one source (oil) when there are a wide variety availible (tidal, nuclear, solar, ethanol, hydro, etc) of untapped energy.

________
"There are much more important issues in the world, like orphans, AIDS, wars, genocide, etc for us to worry about that."
________

Thats not right. The Bible says not to worry about ANYTHING and to prayerfully make you supplication known to God. Now unless you actually pray for the orphans, the AIDS vctims, the genocidal areas, and the war crime victims, every night before you go to bed, you can;t use this as an excuse to harm the enviroment. If you do, then bravo, and let me tell you that it still gives you no right to shrug off teh iussue. Obviously we will always place people over plants. That's a given. What I'm saying is that most of us are not constantly occupied with caring for orphans. Most of us live comfertible lives, drive our comfertible cars, and heat our comfertible houses. We have no excuse. If we're not helping the needy at least we can take care of what God has given us.
________
"Stupid Liberal Democrats will do anyhthing to get us to change and conform to there way. Its part of there plan to make us change into belieivng that things they believe."
_________


That's an arguement and excuse known as an 1)ad hominem attack AND 2)a strawman fallacy AND 3)a Non Sequitor. First off, what does the fact that liberals were the first to take up the banner of global warming have to do with its validity. Ask yourself this, if it does make a dffrence, are you basing your opinion off the fact that you don;t like global warming or that you don't like liberals? Second, this arguement is besides the point entirely. Even if it was a part of some evil liberal conspiracy, it does not take away from the validity of taking care of the only planet God gave us. And Third, the arguement that because we agree with one thing that a liberal says means we are slowly going to give up all our morals and become liberal is utter hogwash. Guess what, they are right about several things! Biblically!!! And guess what, conservatives, are wrong about several things, Biblically!!! So, if we want to line up with the Bible we need to stop lining up according to some man made lines in the sand and look to the higher call God has given us and get in line with it.

After hearing back from believers about the reasons they and their family memebers believe that Global Wamring is nothing to worry about, I must say, I'm not convinced by their complacent ways. I do agree that "Stupid Liberal Democrats" place way too much empheses on creation and not enough on humanity, and that with all the ad campaigning they have done they could have helped the homeless or the orphans. But even then I'm still glad, because that meant they had less money to suppost abortion, abortion laws, and abortion information. Look at it this way, for every dollar that organizations like teh ACLU spend on global warming education, they have to pull from somewhere. What's been their biggets budget? Abortion! So where will they most likley begin making cuts? Thats right, abortion! Either way you look at it, its better to try and fight Global Warming, then to sit back and let them keep killing babies while big oil companies kill old growth forests. At least that's my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

^__^ (I should have been a politician!)

Sipping Saints?....

Well, recently I have had a very intresting discussion with one of my beloved buddies. As you have probably guessed from the title of this post is had to do with Christians and drinking. Let's just say that he made some good points and I made some good refutations, so I decided to post some of it. Names have been changed to protect the guilty, er I mean innocent. :)

1) Jesus drank wine.

Okay, so let's make a few points clear. Back in ancient times water was brought to cities via aquaducts. The channels were lined with lead* so that the water would flow faster. Needless to say, by drinking this water the population in general grew weary of water so that it came to the point that water was considered dangerouse by the people of the early Roman Empire (when Jesus lived). Ergo the water to wine miracle.
*BTW, lead is poisenous.

The Greek word translated as wine can also be translated simply as juice, and in the Bible there is frequently a diffrence made between "wine" and "intoxicating drink". Therefore, there is a very real and very possible chance that Jesus was just drinking grape juice.

And finally, Jesus said he was God, yet we don't. Jesus dinned with prostitutes, but we don't. Jesus never married yet we marry. It's safe to say that there were somethings Jesus did that were done because he was the perfect and holy Son of God.

2) The Bible says that 'nothing that enters a man can defile him'.

Well, if you are going to quote that verse read the whole verse and get the context. Its all about washing your hands before you eat not drinking wine. Not just that but it misses the whole point of the conversation. This is not about being clean or dirty because in Christ we are all purified. What this comes down to is whether it is morally acceptible for a Christian who wants to follow God wholeheartedly to drink.

3) The Bible never calls it a sin

Just because something isn't spelled out as a sin doesn't retract from its immorality. Paul says, "Everything is lawful to me, but not everything is expedient/acceptible unto me...I will not be mastered by anything" and what that comes down to is plain, simple, old fasioned wisdom.

Is it wise to open a door to the enemy in your life? Is it wise to expose yourself to alcoholism, especially IF YOUR FAMILY HAS A HISTORY OF ALCOHOLISM!!!! Is it wise to threaten the safety and security of your self and your family by doing something for no good reason.

4) There are places in Leviticus and in Thessalonians and Timothy where it talks about wine, in an alcoholic sence, and encourages drinking.

First the Leviticus one. This is said in relation to widows as a means of releaving their distress over the loss of a husband. Second is Paul stating that he'll need some for his stomach and later he recomends the same to Timothy for his stomach. So what's going on?

Let's have another history lesson. In ancient times a very common practice was to soak medicinal herbs in wine and letting the essential oils dissipate into the drink. This was medicinal drinking not social drinking. Not only that but it was always done in small doses and infrequently, usually with some kind of physician overseeing the process. The widows would have been drinking anti-depressant infused wine while Paul and Timothy would both be drinking carmative (e.g. digestive system cleansing) wine. These are not the same as drinking for dumb reasons.

5) But a glass of red wine is suppose to be good for you.

Actually according to the FDA two glasses of red wine a night decreases your risk of heart desease. BUT, one cup of green tea does the same and it's not addictive at all, except for the minute traces of caffeine depending on how long you seep it. And one vegetabletarian (e.g. no meat lots of veggies and a few carbs) meal a day does four times the good the two glasses of wine do. So if this was REALLY about health then why do the people advocating this still eat meat three times daily.

And what's more my friend Phil ate at Carls Jr. and Taco Bell everyday so if this was really about health I'm no doctor but its logical sense that eating better would be far more helpful than beginning to drink.

There was more than this, but what it comes down to, in reagrds to the morality of Christians drinking, are three very simple priciples.

1) The Devil is not your friend.

This is basic doctrine 101, and I hate doctrine, so this pains me to quote it. But its true. Yet I think sometimes we forget that. Right now, he is planning, doing his best to ensnare and trap us, get us addicted to something, or caught in some kind of cycle of destruction.

When, and its only a matter of when, you get drunk, you loose control of yourself, your actions, and your words. And worse of all you think you're still in control but you're not. Its the same as when you're high on pot or dope or some mind altering hallucinigen, or even a cigar. You are in the EXACT same place as a person tampering with a oija board or tarrot card set or who is part of a seance. You have literally opened your soul for demonic opression.

So, just to be clear, Christians can't be possessed by a demon, but they can be oppressed, e.g. not controlled but influenced, by one. How do you open yourself to opression? Why, simply by exposing yourself to the occult and occultic practices or by willfully giving up control of your body to the enemay, which is what happens when you're high or drunk.

2) Why?

Seriously ask yourself this. Why do I have to drink? It's not medicinally worth the risk of addcition, its not socially worth the risk of humiliation when you're drunk, and its not spiritually worth the cost of opression. So, why do it? Instead of asking me "Well how come a Christian can't drink" I ask you to give me one good reason to start drinking if you are a Christian.

And please don't tell me its for evangelism. That's been the excuse for everyone from the poor STD stricken Indian missionary who just wanted to reach out to the prostitutes, to the slave owners who just wanted the slaves to inherit the earth by forcing them to be meek, to Mr. Ted Haggart himself and all his...stuff. Let's not kid ourselves, we reach out to the world not by imitating their behavior but by lifting up a standard and reaching down to help lift them up. I'm not saying condemn them, duh. But I'm saying we are salt and light BECAUSE WE ARE DIFFERENT!

3) The Sin

Oh yes, you thought I said it wasn't a sin, but there is actually a place where this does go into the realm of sin. If you have children and you drink you are sinning. Studies over the last century have repeatedly shown that children who grow up in a home where there is alcohol present, even in minute quantities, are more likely to start drinking at a younger age and suffer from alcoholism.

If you have children and you get drunk, you are held responsible before God for whatever actions and words you take while in that drunken stupor because it could have been avoided if you had simply had the foresight not to drink.

And, if you, either by your drinking example or by your drunken actions cause one of these little ones to stumble well you're in for more trouble then even hell can contain. You remeber sweet, mild mannered Jesus who skipped through the green meadows and preached sermons on love and forgiveness and the heart? Well, his response was that it would be better for you to have a millstone placed around your neck and be thrown into the sea then to face the White Throne someday when all your actions will be made known and you will have to face the consequences of your decision just to have a small drink.

In the end, I'm not trying to judge, but I come from a family with alcoholism on both sides and I have seen the scars where fathers have beaten their sons to a bloody pulp and mothers have disfigured their beautiful daughters while drunk. I have seen what drinking leads to and I can't believe people still sit around and discuss it like they would the latest release of a movie. This is serious and the point of this post is to get across the very serious nature of a very avoidible action.

Please don't feel like I am judgeing any of you who read this. If you have decided to drink, or if someone in your family has decided to drink, then I honestly pray that God protect you from meeting that end result. I am not in a position to judge anyone, and frankly don't want to. All I want is for you to ask yourself this question:

Why do I really want to drink and is it worth the risk to myself and my family?

BTW, if you feel diffrently about this topic or just havea diffrent opinion feel free to post. It's always good to hear more than one side of an arguement and the WHOLE point of this post is to generate discussion. I promise I won't flame you or sent a hitman to your home. Well, not unless you make a valid point . :)

Global Warming?

Last night it happened again. I had a conversation with a dear christian friend, whose opinion I respect in many ways. Like times before with other people, the "arguement" was good mannered and we both mearly laughed it off and continue don with what we were talking about before the nasty topic had surfaced. Glabal Warming.

There has been a question that has plagued my mind for many years now, and its this: Why do so many Christians in America deny the exsistance of global warming before ever even doing any research for themselves? Why do the mainstream Christian media, icons like Pat Robertson among many other, list global warming as a foly of man, or among the sins such as abortion or euthanasia? Is it because glabal warming originated in the "left"?

I'll stop my self from even going into a rant on right wing and left wing politics in the upsurdly ineffiecient bilateral system of US. Instead, I want to honestly try and answer this question. Why do Christians feel threatened by Global Warming?

I've asked several people and the answer has been the same every time.

Yes, I understand that the earth goes through cycles, based on the systematic shift of orbit from an eliptic to a circle, as well as the change in axial tilt, and the poles even switch polarities on a regular basis. I also understand that there is an 11 year cycle involving sunspots and solar activity that also affects the earth, as well as the fact that our readings come from airport data and that they are consstent with airports being moved out of cities and then cities creeping up on them, creating a heat trap that threw off the readings. I understand all of that. But, you still haven't answered my question.

Why do Christians feel threatened by Global Warming?

Some have replied that it is because Global Warming says the world will end with glacial flooding and that the Bible says the world will end with fire. First off, let's make ne thing clear. The eschatology, or end tmes studies, have never made a definitive statement that God plans to singe the earth when He's done. That is all conjecture based off verses with many alternative meanings and interpretations. Second, Global Warming, as a process, also does not claim the earth will be flooded a second time, violating God's promise to Noah. Scientist who wished to spur the public into action stating that Global Warming COULD cause sea levels to rise in teh next THOUSAND YEARS. That in itself is already anticipated through various other cycles active on the earth. So, the only thing that still supports that arguement then is that too many Christians are too laszy to get off their lazy butts and do some research for themselves.

However, there are some, the few who have done research and still say that Global Warming is "of the devil". Why? Why would important figures in Christianity deny Glabal Warming? I think the answer lies in part that they are card carrying memeber sof the Republican party. Before you tune out, listen to the logic here. This is no conspiracy theory, just connecting the dots between facts.

FACT: Because the Republican party apposes abortion(in theory), they are considered morally superior by most Christain groups and organizations when compared to the Democrats.

FACT: With a Republican President in office, a Republican majority in the Senate, and six of the Supreme Court Judges appointed by Republican presidents there still have been no major changes made to abortion laws.

FACT: The Republican Party receives a very large amount of charitible donations from the major large oil corportaions. The deals struck with arab shahs for American oil companies to access the oil in the Arabian peninsula were made for the most part by Republican presidents.

CONJECTURE: Since the Republican Party is considered infallible by so many Christian groups, and since the Republican party, sponsored by the large oil companies, has repeatedly denied the exsistence of Global Warming, most Christians automatically assume that Global Warming must be a lie concocted by the "immoral left" to save more trees and kill more babies.

And then this creates a very convenient way for Christians to simply sherk off their God given responsibility. Think back, way back, past the flood, past the garden, past the snake with the fruit. When God made earth, before he made Eden, he created Adam from the wild earth SO THAT THERE COULD BE SOMEONE TO TAKE CARE OF CREATION. And that same mandate, to be a steward of the earth, has passed on to all Adam's decendants. We are responsible for what God has given us.

Not only does the parable of the man who gave his three servants talents illustrate the point that when God comes back He will hold us accountible for the things he gave us authority over, but there is also the Great Divine Law of Sowing and Reaping.
This law, laid down on the sixth day of creation and reaffirmed by Moses, the prophets, and Jesus himself says very plainly: What you sow, you will also reap.

If we use our resources carelessly, if we drive vechiles that spew poison into the pure air gven to us as a gift by our creator, just so we don't have to use the legs he gave us to walk with, if we persue cold, heartless, endless capitilistic industrailization just so we can gain money, not caring about the cost to our own health, the health of our children, or the health of the home God has given us, according to the Divine Law, we will reap the consequences for our actions.

And Global Warming is just that consequence. Its affects aren't all warming though. In my homeland, last year, something happened that has never occured before in recorded history. The Ocean froze, all around Cape Town. This happened because a glacier in Antarctica broke off into the sea, lowering teperatures and freezing the entire bay solid. And this illustrates my final point.

What we do will not just affect us. Our actions affect other, small, underdeveloped nations who have no protection from the acid rain our factories cause to rain down on their crops, buring the leaves and spreading famine in their lands, or the increased heat that results in hurricanse that mangle countries like Burma and Indonesia. Or our children, who may never be able to play outside in the sun, because we have damaged the ozone layer beyond repair.

Right now, several things can be done. You can follow the mainstream Christian media, denying Global Warming and keep living as if your actions don't affect anyone. Your tax money can just keep being funneled into a pointless war in Iraq and soon Iran. Or, you can choose, as a citizen who can, or someday will be able to, vote to make the responsible choice. Even if Global Warming isn't real, is it not a better thing, to care for the trees, the majestic giants created by our glorious creator to speak of his splendor, and care for our home and our children's home as wise stewards?

Think about.