Thursday, May 24, 2012

Childhood memory #2563

One time when I was a young lad of maybe 5, I had gotten all gussied up for some reason. Hair combed, a nice red and white jacket on. Clean. We were going somewhere. The destination has been lost from my memory. Anyway, it may have had something to do with a movie theater my Dad used to work at. The point is I looked like a dapper little fellow. While waiting to depart, I was outside in my backyard "messing around" wasting time, being careful not to get dirty or mess up my hair. My neighbors, the Lotts, had relatives visiting them. One of them was a boy who was about 4 years older than me. He was a lanky kid of questionable sanity. The proof of which was soon to be presented to me in spades. He was in the back yard of the Lott house. He called to me. Hey, he said, come over here. So, with deft agility I scaled the low chainlink fence that separated the Lott backyard from ours. I walked up to this wild-eyed, messy haired individual (David?) and asked him what he wanted and he delivered, without the slightest warning, a vigorous and powerful punch straight in my gut. Next thing I knew I was on one knee holding my stomach trying to get that next elusive breath. I was that way for approximately 3 days. Or at least it felt that way. It was actually a couple seconds. Finally my air rushed back into my lungs and along with it, a gentle weeping voice, with which I expressed unbridled bafflement as to why he would deliver such a devastating blow to a smaller and gentler child. I think he ran off after that, and maybe went back inside. Anyway, he exited the stage of this small drama quite suddenly. I climbed back over the fence while simultaneously wondering why this all had happened. In fact, that is the primary question I have about the whole episode. "Why?" I can't recall if my hair got messed up. I used to know more details about this story (the things we actually said to each other, where I was waiting to go to that day, etc.) but time has erased this minutiae from my memory banks. Anyway, I never interacted with this kid again after that.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Gay Pastor and Softball

Here is the PATHETIC headline:

"Pastor's sexuality splits Missouri church softball league"

Here is the REDICULOUS story:

The sexual orientation of a new pastor in a Missouri church softball league has put his team on the bench.

Rev. James Semmelroth Darnell, the 27-year-old pastor of St. John United Church of Christ in Saint Clair, told FoxNews.com that pastors of three other churches in a local church softball league said their teams would no longer take the field against St. John after hearing rumors questioning Darnell’s sexuality. Rather than force the issue, St. John pulled out of the league.

Good for them.

“Three teams had issue with that and no longer wanted to play against our team since I am an out bisexual person,” Darnell told FoxNews.com. “And it’s surprising because I don’t even play, I have no affiliation with the league.”

That's hardly the point is it Mr. (or is it Mrs.) Darnell? The point is that YOU ARE OPENLY ENGAGING IN a lifestyle FORBIDDEN by the Bible. Rather than turning from your "lifestyle" and living within the boudaries set by God, you have identified yourself with it, and become an activist for your cause, which is to normalize the abnormal.

Darnell, who joined the church in October after completing seminary in Washington, D.C., said he anticipated his sexuality might lead to “some difficulty” in the town 45 miles west of St. Louis, but had no idea it would ultimately cause his church to quit the softball league.

Aw isn't it cute when these dumb ignorant churches have dust-ups over the old fashioned view that moral decency as ordained by God is required from his teachers.

“It’s very different than that nation’s capital, but I certainly didn’t expect this,” he said. “I don’t feel that anyone’s sexual orientation has anything to do with how they play softball or just to enjoy each other’s company during a game.”

He's right, he doesn't understand softball, or sports in general. You play to win, not "enjoy each others company".

Darnell said pastors at Bethel Baptist Church, Friendship Baptist Church and Liberty Baptist Church did not want their respective teams to compete against the team from Darnell’s church.

That is their right, I do believe.

The Rev. Ben Kingston, pastor of Bethel Baptist Church, could not be reached for comment, but he confirmed the news to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch while behind the plate during a game on Tuesday.

"We believe that God’s word speaks clearly about boundaries, and that lifestyle is outside of those boundaries,” Kingston told the newspaper.

I couldn't have put it better. Brilliantly said.

Darnell, for his part, said his sexuality will not affect his ability to lead his congregation off the field.

“I don’t think it will, because I’ve been able to go about doing the work of a pastor,” he said. “If it’s a distraction from that, we want to take a stand and say, ‘This shouldn’t be happening in this day and age.’”

Of course when he says "this day and age" he means the growing tolerance for sin in the modern day. Oh yes. Those old fuddy duddies of the past had their time. Those intolerant people from the past are gone now. This is a new age of tolerance, and enlightenment. Sorry dear friends. Homosexuality has never been normal, and never will be normal. It is a perversion and it must be controlled somehow by the sexually confused individual. We should NEVER under ANY circumstances hate or be mean to a homosexual person. But their so-called "lifestyle choice" is NOT acceptable now, and never will be. We must hate the sin, but love the sinner.

I pray thet Mr. Darnell will somehow be able to conquer his addiction to perverted sexual practices. Until then, he is an openly sinning pastor, and therefore not acceptable to the pastorate.

What is our world coming to? Where morality is so flexible as to be all about personal preference.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/16/pastor-sexuality-splits-missouri-church-softball-league/?cmpid=GoogleNewsEditorsPicks&google_editors_picks=true#ixzz1v44bFmJw

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Blaine Samuel Walk

On Sunday May 13th, 2012, my son Blaine Samuel was born. He weighed 4lbs, 8oz. He is a beautiful baby boy and though he came early, and was a little "sick" at first, he is growing stronger every day! As of this writing he is still in the hospital. Hopefully he will be out soon.

Friday, May 11, 2012

God's Standard of Living

What is truth? Without an overarching authority figure, above and removed from the question at hand, how can anyone know the truth? One man's opinion is as valid as another's. The only way there can be absolute truth is to appeal to an authority figure that presides over the situation. This is the basis for government, and the justice system. An authority is set above the opinions of one individual. This then becomes "the truth". In matters of human nature, and human morality, who do we appeal to for such authority? The only one we CAN appeal to is God. He is the ultimate authority on matters of human morality and ethics. God, through the revelation of his word "The Bible", has given us clear guidelines to live by. In every society where the simple principles of God (and his son Jesus) have been adhered to without human deviation, or interpretation, that society has become a standard of peaceful, decent existence. So powerful are the ways of God over human existence, that when applied, there is peace and social harmony superior to societies based on humanistic principles.

We must, therefore, live according to God's standard of life. What is it? Here is God's standard of living as clearly as I can delineate it:

01. Don't hate other people.
02. Control your anger.
03. Treat other people the way you would want to be treated.
04. Do good deeds as often as possible, for no other reason than just because it is nice.
05. Control the words you say.
06. If you do not have anything nice to say about someone, say nothing at all.
07. Help the poor.
08. Help the elderly.
09. Don't lie.
10. Keep yourself sexually pure.
11. Control your thought life.
12. Let your conscience guide your decisions. Follow your moral compass.
13. Murder is out of the question.
14. Learn to forgive people.
15. Spend time communing with God.
16. Desire to be a good and obedient child of God.
17. Refrain from mischief.
18. Try to make other people smile as often as possible.
19. Don't be rude.
20. Never use foul language.
21. Don't be vengeful.
22. Kill your resentment.
23. Realize that this world owes you NOTHING!
24. Protect the weak from evildoers.
25. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
26. Develop a passion for decency.
27. Be worthy of being trusted. Never betray someone's trust.
28. NEVER steal other people's things.
29. Never cause anger in another person.
30. Put other people's feelings above your own.

This is God's standard of living.

Why I oppose the so-called "gap theory"

The first two verses of the Bible describe in simple terms "the beginning" of earth.

Verse 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

Verse 2: Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The "gap theory" is the idea that there is vast amounts of unrecorded time between these two verses. While this notion is intriguing to say the least it has many problems when one carefully considers it as a legitimate explanation of origins.

[an edited exerpt from Wikipedia follows]

Proponents of the "gap theory" believe that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is far older than can be accounted for by scripture. In order to maintain that the Genesis creation account is inerrant in matters of scientific fact, "Gap creationists" suppose that certain facts about the past and the age of the Earth have been omitted from the Genesis account; specifically that there was a gap of time in the Biblical account that lasted an unknown number of years between a first creation in Genesis 1:1 and a second creation in Genesis 1:2-31. By suggesting such an event, various observations in a wide range of fields, including the age of the Earth, the age of the universe,dinosaurs, fossils, ice cores, ice ages, and geological formations are allowed by adherents to have occurred as outlined by science without contradicting their literal belief in Genesis. [end of Wikipedia exerpt]

Lets look at the pros and cons of this idea.

pro 1: There seems to be a narrative disconnect between verse 1 and 2. The word "now" implies an undisclosed passage of time.

pro 2: The mentioning of a formless and empty Earth, devoid of life, with a mention of the phrase "the deep" implies a flood-like occurrance, many years before Noah's flood. Elsewhere in Genesis Adam and Eve were commanded to "replenish" the Earth. Does that imply that there was once life on Earth, but it had somehow been wiped out? Was Noah's flood actually a second global flood?

con 1: One must literally "read between the lines" to make this idea work.

con 2: NO WHERE in the Bible is it stated that there were people before Adam. That isn't to say it isn't possible. But there is no indication of this anywhere in scripture. Jesus referred to Adam as "the first man". Had Adam NOT been the first man, why would Jesus (who created everything) call him that?

con 3: NO WHERE in the Bible is it stated that Noah's flood was one of many (or two) global floods.

con 4: To claim that "vast amounts of time" passed between these verses concedes the evolutionary notion that the Earth is billions of years old. This plays into the hands of evolutionists and concedes their main point. That given enough time, life can evolve. Making such a concession implies that evolutionists have proved their point in an ironclad way. Since their opinion about the age of the Earth is not supported by any empirical facts, and since their theory is really only an assumption, such a concession is not necessary.

Therefore, I do not believe there is anything to the "gap theory" as it has been called.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Why I oppose "Gay Marriage"

I oppose homosexual marriage primarily because I reject the notion of "redefining" any commonly, traditionally-held, long-standing, institution. Marriage, for the last 6000 years, has been defined as a union between an adult woman (wife) and a man (husband). And so it must remain.

Let me state right now that I DO NOT oppose homosexual people. They have the same basic rights we all have to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the law. However, radicalism in any group must be deferred for the sake of the common masses.

Once we begin to redefine things, where is the end? Will we redefine what a family is, what parents are, what good is? When moral relativism takes hold, so begins the dangerous slide toward chaos. So, while I DO NOT oppose civil unions among homosexual partners, I DO oppose redefining "marriage" to include things that were never before included in the traditionally held definition of the word.