It is a common belief within the Christian religion that mankind was created perfect. That is, Adam and Eve were created perfectly, without flaw. It is asserted that it wasn't until they were tempted, and ate the forbidden fruit that they became less than perfect.
Until now I have always accepted this belief, but no longer. Perfection is something that is "entirely without flaw, defects, or shortcomings."
It might be more correct to say that when mankind was created, he was without sin. Of course, sin is imperfection, but the lack of sin at a given moment does not necessarily mean perfection. Perfection is not a state that can be entered, left and then reentered. Something is either perfect or it is not. And if we accept the definition that perfection means free from defect, then we must say that man was never perfect.
If man was ever perfect, he never would have sinned. In other words, his ability to sin is a defect. I know of no Christian who would assert that a person could be born and live an entirely sinless life (Jesus is the obvious exception for various reasons).
If it is impossible for a person to live a perfect life, then God created something imperfect in that it was destined for corruption. This leads us to many other questions for which I have no answers. Like, if God cannot abide sin, yet created a being destined for sin, why would he do it?
Some might say that God provided an "out" for this defect - Jesus. But isn't it a little disingenuous to say that God provided Jesus because of his great love when God is the one who created this flaw in us? And if God is responsible for creating this flaw in us, how could he justly punish us for it? Moreover, if this love is so amazing, why is it that the slightest offense warrants death? Imagine if our laws said that lying and murder were illegal, but that the penalty for both was death. Would anyone believe this to be fair and just; would anyone call it "love"? Not a chance.
Yet, despite my grave concerns with my belief system, the overriding question is "Is this God true?" In other words, if the God of Christianity is the true God, then my questions concerning the system he put in place are irrelevant.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Quick Traffic Education
I just want to educate some of you who do not know the rules of the road.
1. Merging traffic MUST yield. So if you are merging onto the highway, you are required to yield to the traffic already on the highway. They don't slow for you, you slow for them. You don't just ignore the fact that they are already there and try to force them over. You wait.
2. When two cars come to an intersection at the same time, the car turning right has the right-of way, then the car going straight, then the car turning left. If you are turning left, but arrive first, you go. Don't waive the other driver on - just go. It always seems to happen that you waive, then the other driver waives, but you don't move fast enough, so he starts to go, then your lurch forward, then both of you stop. If you have the right-of-way, just GO!
3. The left lane is for faster traffic. Don't drive in the left lane if you intend on going below (or even at) the speed limit. Move over.
1. Merging traffic MUST yield. So if you are merging onto the highway, you are required to yield to the traffic already on the highway. They don't slow for you, you slow for them. You don't just ignore the fact that they are already there and try to force them over. You wait.
2. When two cars come to an intersection at the same time, the car turning right has the right-of way, then the car going straight, then the car turning left. If you are turning left, but arrive first, you go. Don't waive the other driver on - just go. It always seems to happen that you waive, then the other driver waives, but you don't move fast enough, so he starts to go, then your lurch forward, then both of you stop. If you have the right-of-way, just GO!
3. The left lane is for faster traffic. Don't drive in the left lane if you intend on going below (or even at) the speed limit. Move over.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Iran Has Right To Nuclear Weapons
I want to address this notion that is bandied about on a regular basis - that Iran, North Korea and other "hostile" nations do not have a right to nuclear weapons because of the higher probability of those weapons being used...what...inappropriately? This is poppycock.
Any country with the know-how, the materials and the money has the right to develop nuclear weapons. The reason the "west" objects is because we believe that these hostile nations will use these weapons in war. Well, what else are nukes for? And I should point out the obvious, that the United States is the only country to have ever used nukes in war- not Russia, not China, not Pakistan.
Now, on the other hand, every other country has the right to impose sanctions on any country it wants (assuming they are not parties to a trade treaty). So the western nations can impose economic sanctions on Iran as a means of voicing their objections to Iran's nuclear ambition. But that right to impose sanctions does not void Iran's right to obtain weapons.
Let me be clear (to quote Obama), I do not support a nuclear Iran or North Korea, but I'm haven't been talking about what we support, rather whether a nation has a right to pursue nuclear weapons.
Any country with the know-how, the materials and the money has the right to develop nuclear weapons. The reason the "west" objects is because we believe that these hostile nations will use these weapons in war. Well, what else are nukes for? And I should point out the obvious, that the United States is the only country to have ever used nukes in war- not Russia, not China, not Pakistan.
Now, on the other hand, every other country has the right to impose sanctions on any country it wants (assuming they are not parties to a trade treaty). So the western nations can impose economic sanctions on Iran as a means of voicing their objections to Iran's nuclear ambition. But that right to impose sanctions does not void Iran's right to obtain weapons.
Let me be clear (to quote Obama), I do not support a nuclear Iran or North Korea, but I'm haven't been talking about what we support, rather whether a nation has a right to pursue nuclear weapons.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Farmers Don't Get It - Issue Two
I live in rural, northwestern Ohio. Much of the land out here is farmland. In fact, I grew up climbing around inside of combines, driving tractors for my grandpa, and walking fields to relax.
Lately I have noticed that signs are popping up everywhere in support of "Issue Two". Ohio state Issue Two is the proposed constitutional amendment that will create a board of individuals who will set guidelines for food safety, animal/livestock care, and other agricultural related activities.
Most of the signs supporting this issue say things like "safe, local food"...or "protect our livestock". Question: Is our food currently unsafe? Is our livestock unprotected?
You see, the pro-2 lobby has done a very good job at convincing farmers that if this issue doesn't pass, then the Human Society is going to come in and place all of these ridiculous rules on farmers that will put them out of business. That, my friends, is bunk. There is absolutely NOTHING to support this argument.
The State of Ohio currently has an agriculture board that, by all accounts, has done an excellent job of regulating agriculture in Ohio. Moreover, any changes to laws, rules and regulations have to go through this board or the Ohio legislature. In other words, the Humane Society has absolutely no jurisdiction, right or ability to come in and just make rules. If they did, wouldn't you think they would have done it by now. Of course they would have.
But now, the pro-2 lobby has convinced farmers that without issue 2, this nightmare would come true. But Issue 2 does nothing to stop the Humane Society. In fact, one member of this new panel is required to be from the Humane Society.
Let me lay out a few, very specific problems I have with this law:
1. Each of the members is politically appointed with no term limits in the proposal.
2. This Board would have a sort of "trump" power over the Ohio Department of Agriculture and the State Legislature because it is a constitutionally mandated board.
3. It would almost undoubtedly increase the cost of agricultural commodities in Ohio and the costs of growing crops and raising livestock.
4. All members of the board are politically appointed.
5. This is a constitutional amendment, not simply a law that can be modified or revoked by an act of the legislature. Any changes that would occur would come through further ballot initiatives and require more tinkering with the state constitution.
Farmers need to wake up and understand that this proposal would NOT do what they think it will do. Rather, it will create the nightmare they so fear.
You can view the "No On Issue Two" website here.
Lately I have noticed that signs are popping up everywhere in support of "Issue Two". Ohio state Issue Two is the proposed constitutional amendment that will create a board of individuals who will set guidelines for food safety, animal/livestock care, and other agricultural related activities.
Most of the signs supporting this issue say things like "safe, local food"...or "protect our livestock". Question: Is our food currently unsafe? Is our livestock unprotected?
You see, the pro-2 lobby has done a very good job at convincing farmers that if this issue doesn't pass, then the Human Society is going to come in and place all of these ridiculous rules on farmers that will put them out of business. That, my friends, is bunk. There is absolutely NOTHING to support this argument.
The State of Ohio currently has an agriculture board that, by all accounts, has done an excellent job of regulating agriculture in Ohio. Moreover, any changes to laws, rules and regulations have to go through this board or the Ohio legislature. In other words, the Humane Society has absolutely no jurisdiction, right or ability to come in and just make rules. If they did, wouldn't you think they would have done it by now. Of course they would have.
But now, the pro-2 lobby has convinced farmers that without issue 2, this nightmare would come true. But Issue 2 does nothing to stop the Humane Society. In fact, one member of this new panel is required to be from the Humane Society.
Let me lay out a few, very specific problems I have with this law:
1. Each of the members is politically appointed with no term limits in the proposal.
2. This Board would have a sort of "trump" power over the Ohio Department of Agriculture and the State Legislature because it is a constitutionally mandated board.
3. It would almost undoubtedly increase the cost of agricultural commodities in Ohio and the costs of growing crops and raising livestock.
4. All members of the board are politically appointed.
5. This is a constitutional amendment, not simply a law that can be modified or revoked by an act of the legislature. Any changes that would occur would come through further ballot initiatives and require more tinkering with the state constitution.
Farmers need to wake up and understand that this proposal would NOT do what they think it will do. Rather, it will create the nightmare they so fear.
You can view the "No On Issue Two" website here.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Let Me Be Free
It never seems to end. One usurpation after another; one law that is purported to save me from myself after another. Why can’t you all just let me be free?
One of the jobs I used to have had these sayings, dozens of them. One of sayings was, “It’s a thousand and one little things.” The meaning was that if we did a thousand and one little things right, the result would be a very well run big thing. But the opposite is true as well. If you do a thousand and one little things incorrectly, the big thing collapses.
We can apply this saying to the state of our liberties today. Certainly we can look back on history and point to a few large events that have eroded our liberties (the Great Depression and September 11, 2001 are two examples), but for the most part, our liberties have suffered at the hand of incrementalism. Small encroachment after small encroachment has resulted in a large gap between liberty and where we are today.
What is most appalling is that the infringement of our liberties was supposed to be for our own protection. Don’t speed because you’ll kill yourself or others. Don’t drink and drive because you may die or take the life of an innocent family. Don’t speak your mind because it may offend someone. Guns are legal, but only certain guns and only for certain people. Go ahead and make a lot of money, but be warned, if you do, you will be forced to give over a large portion under the guise of charity (though there is no charity where there is force). The list goes on and on, from the menial (like not being allowed to wear headphones while driving) to the more serious (like government takeovers of private businesses).
Why won’t you just let me be free? Are you afraid that I will prosper at someone else’s expense? Or is that you are afraid that I will fail? After all, we don’t allow failure in our society anymore. If you business is failing, the government will bail you out. If you make poor choices, the government will step in to save you. If parents won’t teach their children to be responsible, the government will do it for you (though that simply means teaching them how to enroll in the many welfare programs that will keep them dependent and, thus, a lifelong voter).
Those who wish to steal away our freedoms do so under the banner of protection – protection of families, protection of children, the elderly or even the economy. But do not be fooled. These people care nothing for families, children, the elderly or the economy. They care about power. After all, if child labor was wrong, why are children of farmer exempt? Is that labor somehow less stressful on a child than working in a restaurant? If families are so important, why is divorce so easy? The examples of this hypocrisy go on and on.
Why won’t you let me be free? I’ll tell you why - because freedom and liberty are the antithesis of centralized power. Governments with limited powers are governments beholden to the people. Liberty means the possibility of failure, hard times, and struggle. It also means that children may die, the elderly go homeless, and that people lose their jobs when a business fails. But it also means that every person will have the full, unrestricted opportunity to prosper.
I do not think this to be a liberal versus conservative issue. There are areas where each is hypocritical. Liberals decried the PATRIOT Act as a gross infringement on the rights of the citizenry, but paid no mind to the takeover of private business. Conservatives decried the takeover of private businesses as unwelcome government intrusion, but do not consider their attempts to legislate morality as any sort of infringement on individual liberty.
I suppose that as long as someone thinks they know better how to live someone else’s life, there will be attempts to limit freedom. But I for one, will be working against it.
One of the jobs I used to have had these sayings, dozens of them. One of sayings was, “It’s a thousand and one little things.” The meaning was that if we did a thousand and one little things right, the result would be a very well run big thing. But the opposite is true as well. If you do a thousand and one little things incorrectly, the big thing collapses.
We can apply this saying to the state of our liberties today. Certainly we can look back on history and point to a few large events that have eroded our liberties (the Great Depression and September 11, 2001 are two examples), but for the most part, our liberties have suffered at the hand of incrementalism. Small encroachment after small encroachment has resulted in a large gap between liberty and where we are today.
What is most appalling is that the infringement of our liberties was supposed to be for our own protection. Don’t speed because you’ll kill yourself or others. Don’t drink and drive because you may die or take the life of an innocent family. Don’t speak your mind because it may offend someone. Guns are legal, but only certain guns and only for certain people. Go ahead and make a lot of money, but be warned, if you do, you will be forced to give over a large portion under the guise of charity (though there is no charity where there is force). The list goes on and on, from the menial (like not being allowed to wear headphones while driving) to the more serious (like government takeovers of private businesses).
Why won’t you just let me be free? Are you afraid that I will prosper at someone else’s expense? Or is that you are afraid that I will fail? After all, we don’t allow failure in our society anymore. If you business is failing, the government will bail you out. If you make poor choices, the government will step in to save you. If parents won’t teach their children to be responsible, the government will do it for you (though that simply means teaching them how to enroll in the many welfare programs that will keep them dependent and, thus, a lifelong voter).
Those who wish to steal away our freedoms do so under the banner of protection – protection of families, protection of children, the elderly or even the economy. But do not be fooled. These people care nothing for families, children, the elderly or the economy. They care about power. After all, if child labor was wrong, why are children of farmer exempt? Is that labor somehow less stressful on a child than working in a restaurant? If families are so important, why is divorce so easy? The examples of this hypocrisy go on and on.
Why won’t you let me be free? I’ll tell you why - because freedom and liberty are the antithesis of centralized power. Governments with limited powers are governments beholden to the people. Liberty means the possibility of failure, hard times, and struggle. It also means that children may die, the elderly go homeless, and that people lose their jobs when a business fails. But it also means that every person will have the full, unrestricted opportunity to prosper.
I do not think this to be a liberal versus conservative issue. There are areas where each is hypocritical. Liberals decried the PATRIOT Act as a gross infringement on the rights of the citizenry, but paid no mind to the takeover of private business. Conservatives decried the takeover of private businesses as unwelcome government intrusion, but do not consider their attempts to legislate morality as any sort of infringement on individual liberty.
I suppose that as long as someone thinks they know better how to live someone else’s life, there will be attempts to limit freedom. But I for one, will be working against it.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Democrats Tell The Arnold To "Kiss My Faggot A$$"
Arnold made a brief, spontaneous appearance at a Democrat gathering in San Francisco recently. As he made his way to the stage, the heckling began...and it did not let up. Democrats were shouting obscenities at him. One person even yelled, "kiss my faggot ass!"
After the Arnold left, two democrat leaders got up and denounced Arnold. One speaker even dropped the F-Bomb. The other speaker justified the crowds' emotional reaction because there is nothing "funny or lighthearted" about defunding various social services.
Now, just a few weeks ago, democrats lambasted Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina for yelling "you lie" during President Obama's address before Congress. Yet, how many of you have heard or seen a story on the news about this incident?
Now, you might try to claim that there is some difference between Obama and the Arnold; that shouting at the President is worse than shouting at the Governor of California. I assert that there is a difference. The difference is that Joe Wilson was telling the truth while these democrats in California were being foul-mouthed, perverted fools. One was disrespectful, the others were disrespectful, crass, and crude.
Moreover, State Senator Mark Leno goes on to justify the demonstration. He names off several social services that the state provides funding for, that the Arnold is cutting to reduce the massive $42 billion deficit. Leno mentions that the state imposed 3-day furlough has caused Californians to go into foreclosure. Really? Three days without pay puts you into foreclosure, sounds like poor money management is going on at the personal level, not just the state.
The demonstration reveals some of the over-arching problems with liberalism; that it is the duty of the state to ensure that each person has a certain standard of living. And if that means knocking out the legs of some to bring them lower, then that's what they'll do. Because don't be fooled into thinking that social services elevate the poor to a higher status in life - they don't. In fact, the opposite is true. Social services often result in destruction of personal ambition, which then leads to a ever-growing welfare state.
I, to my great regret and shame, work in the social services field. I see every day the entitlement mentality of the so-called "working poor." They are constantly wondering where else they can get free services and money. They demand that private companies bend and twist to their ever-changing circumstances. And when the company says "no", these people cry injustice.
It is disgusting and an afront to the values that made this country great in the first place.
After the Arnold left, two democrat leaders got up and denounced Arnold. One speaker even dropped the F-Bomb. The other speaker justified the crowds' emotional reaction because there is nothing "funny or lighthearted" about defunding various social services.
Now, just a few weeks ago, democrats lambasted Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina for yelling "you lie" during President Obama's address before Congress. Yet, how many of you have heard or seen a story on the news about this incident?
Now, you might try to claim that there is some difference between Obama and the Arnold; that shouting at the President is worse than shouting at the Governor of California. I assert that there is a difference. The difference is that Joe Wilson was telling the truth while these democrats in California were being foul-mouthed, perverted fools. One was disrespectful, the others were disrespectful, crass, and crude.
Moreover, State Senator Mark Leno goes on to justify the demonstration. He names off several social services that the state provides funding for, that the Arnold is cutting to reduce the massive $42 billion deficit. Leno mentions that the state imposed 3-day furlough has caused Californians to go into foreclosure. Really? Three days without pay puts you into foreclosure, sounds like poor money management is going on at the personal level, not just the state.
The demonstration reveals some of the over-arching problems with liberalism; that it is the duty of the state to ensure that each person has a certain standard of living. And if that means knocking out the legs of some to bring them lower, then that's what they'll do. Because don't be fooled into thinking that social services elevate the poor to a higher status in life - they don't. In fact, the opposite is true. Social services often result in destruction of personal ambition, which then leads to a ever-growing welfare state.
I, to my great regret and shame, work in the social services field. I see every day the entitlement mentality of the so-called "working poor." They are constantly wondering where else they can get free services and money. They demand that private companies bend and twist to their ever-changing circumstances. And when the company says "no", these people cry injustice.
It is disgusting and an afront to the values that made this country great in the first place.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Woody Allen Supports Roman Polanski - Go Figure
Roman Polanski, longtime fugitive and child rapist, has finally been apprehended. Of course you already know that. But did you know that Hollywood elitists have signed a statement demanding his release. Among those who support the rapist is another disgusting individual, Woody Allen.
Allen, you may recall, had an affair with his then pseudo-stepdaughter, Soon-Yi Previn. The affair was discovered when Mia Farrow, Soon-Yi's adopted mother, found nude pictures of the girl (then age 21) among Allen's possessions. During the custody battle between Farrow and Allen, regarding their other children, Farrow accused Allen on fondling their daughter Dylan. That allegation was never proven. But given the fact that Allen cheated on his lady with her daughter (35 years his junior), it doesn't sound unbelieveable. Moreover, I don't think anyone has ever established when Allen and Soon-Yi's affari actually began. Soon-Yi and Allen later married.
Another person supporting Polanski is Whoopi Goldberg. Why does she support him? Because he didn't commit "rape - rape." What!? Plying a 13 year old girl with alcohol and drugs, and then having sex with her while she objects and demands to be let go...that's not rape-rape?
I think the type of people supporting Polanski is a good indication that he does, indeed, belong in jail.
Allen, you may recall, had an affair with his then pseudo-stepdaughter, Soon-Yi Previn. The affair was discovered when Mia Farrow, Soon-Yi's adopted mother, found nude pictures of the girl (then age 21) among Allen's possessions. During the custody battle between Farrow and Allen, regarding their other children, Farrow accused Allen on fondling their daughter Dylan. That allegation was never proven. But given the fact that Allen cheated on his lady with her daughter (35 years his junior), it doesn't sound unbelieveable. Moreover, I don't think anyone has ever established when Allen and Soon-Yi's affari actually began. Soon-Yi and Allen later married.
Another person supporting Polanski is Whoopi Goldberg. Why does she support him? Because he didn't commit "rape - rape." What!? Plying a 13 year old girl with alcohol and drugs, and then having sex with her while she objects and demands to be let go...that's not rape-rape?
I think the type of people supporting Polanski is a good indication that he does, indeed, belong in jail.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
"You Lie!" - Overblown Reactions
Last night the President addressed a joint session of Congress, which is rare outside of the State of the Union address, and the American people. He used the time to talk about health care reform.
At one point in his speech, the President said that the reforms in the current House Bill 3200 would not provide care to illegals in this country. And from the Republican side comes a shout of "You Lie!" The President responded with "that's not true", before returning to his teleprompter.
The shouter was Republican Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina. Wilson's comment was not greeted well. Both Democrats and Republicans denounced Wilson's comment as a breach of decorum. John McCain said there was no place for that behavior in that sort of setting. But is that true? And if so, why?
I understand giving the President a certain level of respect because of his office - I do. But it is common to see one side or the other very audibly and visibly show disagreement with the President by clapping, murmuring or even booing. This happens at every State of the Union I've seen. So was this a breach of decorum simply because Wilson was the only one to say out loud what others were thinking?
As I was watching the speech, I kept thinking how it would be tough for me not to get up and walk out while the President was speaking. Plus, Obama was lying when he said the plan wouldn't cover illegals. There is no mechanism to prevent it.
At one point in his speech, the President said that the reforms in the current House Bill 3200 would not provide care to illegals in this country. And from the Republican side comes a shout of "You Lie!" The President responded with "that's not true", before returning to his teleprompter.
The shouter was Republican Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina. Wilson's comment was not greeted well. Both Democrats and Republicans denounced Wilson's comment as a breach of decorum. John McCain said there was no place for that behavior in that sort of setting. But is that true? And if so, why?
I understand giving the President a certain level of respect because of his office - I do. But it is common to see one side or the other very audibly and visibly show disagreement with the President by clapping, murmuring or even booing. This happens at every State of the Union I've seen. So was this a breach of decorum simply because Wilson was the only one to say out loud what others were thinking?
As I was watching the speech, I kept thinking how it would be tough for me not to get up and walk out while the President was speaking. Plus, Obama was lying when he said the plan wouldn't cover illegals. There is no mechanism to prevent it.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Thomas Sowell on Obama
It's funny sometimes how things in life seem to flow together. The other day I put up a post about heckling Ben Konop because he's a liar.
Then my co-worker and I go to lunch and I was talking about how a person's integrity is more valuable than any written pledge he makes. Why? Because a person can sign pledge after pledge, make promise after promise, but if he has no integrity then those pledges and promise become worthless.
Again today, Maggie Thurber, over at Thurber's Thoughts, linked to Thomas Sowell's article on Townhall.com via her Facebook account.
Sowell's article talks about exactly what we discussed during lunch - the difference between words and actions. The discussion reminds me of a scene from the movie "Tommyboy", starring Chris Farley and David Spade. There is a scene where Chris is trying to sell oil filters and a potential customer is upset that there's no guarantee on the box. Chris says, "I could get a good look at a steak by sticking my head up a cow's a$$, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it."
Again, the point is that a person can make promises, whether he be Ben Konop or Barack Obama, but if he has no integrity, those promises are worthless.
Then my co-worker and I go to lunch and I was talking about how a person's integrity is more valuable than any written pledge he makes. Why? Because a person can sign pledge after pledge, make promise after promise, but if he has no integrity then those pledges and promise become worthless.
Again today, Maggie Thurber, over at Thurber's Thoughts, linked to Thomas Sowell's article on Townhall.com via her Facebook account.
Sowell's article talks about exactly what we discussed during lunch - the difference between words and actions. The discussion reminds me of a scene from the movie "Tommyboy", starring Chris Farley and David Spade. There is a scene where Chris is trying to sell oil filters and a potential customer is upset that there's no guarantee on the box. Chris says, "I could get a good look at a steak by sticking my head up a cow's a$$, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it."
Again, the point is that a person can make promises, whether he be Ben Konop or Barack Obama, but if he has no integrity, those promises are worthless.
Friday, September 4, 2009
I Booed Ben Konop...
I just thought I would share this quick little happening...I was coming back from lunch with my sister and as we pull to the corner in downtown, there stands Ben Konop. He was less than 10 feet from me, and was talking to a lady about whether or not New Kids on the Block are coming to town (just kidding about that last part, I don't know what they were talking about). I turn to my sister and said, "Should I boo him?" We both knew that it was the right thing to do. So I rolled down the window and yelled, "Booo, Konop, booo."
He tried to pretend like he didn't hear it, but both he and the lady made a quick glance in my direction and then returned to their discussion of the history of women's pantyhose.
He tried to pretend like he didn't hear it, but both he and the lady made a quick glance in my direction and then returned to their discussion of the history of women's pantyhose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
