And the Prank of the Year Award Goes Too...

Apparent hoax forces decontamination of KFC employees

By STAFF REPORT Thursday, Feb. 26, 2009 Manchester Union Leader

Manchester – Three employees at the KFC store, 677 Daniel Webster Highway, were taken to a hospital Thursday afternoon for decontamination after an apparent hoax resulted in the release of a fire suppressant chemical.

Cook Mary McCarthy said the store manager, Sonia Gilbert, received a phone call from someone claiming to be from the corporate office, telling her to test the fire suppression system. McCarthy said that resulted in the release of a chemical powder in the sandwich area where she and a third employee, Fay Owens, were working.

As fire, health department and police investigated this afternoon, McCarthy stood outside the side door of the restaurant, wearing one jacket and using another as a skirt. Standing next to a pile of clothing on the ground, McCarthy said: “We had to strip out here.”

Police Sgt. Todd Boucher said officers went to the restaurant in response to a call about a naked woman standing in a doorway. He said the caller had told the employees to go outside and strip and urinate on one another.

Boucher said police are conducting an investigation into the incident.

District Fire Chief Michael Gamache said because the chemical powder is a respiratory irritant, employees needed to be checked and the restaurant needed to be cleaned and cleared to reopen by the City Health Department. He said it would not be reopened until at least Friday.

Tokyo Zoo Penguins Get Giant Companion

Fri Apr 1, 2:40 AM ET
TOKYO (AFP) - Emperor penguins looked up in awe as Tokyo's main zoo unveiled its latest addition -- a giant penguin said to be suspiciously close in height and weight to a human.

"A great discovery!" blared the special news release by the Ueno Zoo, saying the Tonosama (Lord) Penguin was 165 centimeters (five feet, six inches) tall and weighed 80 kilograms (176 pounds).

As the cameras rolled, the real penguins rose their beaks and gazed up at the purported Lord -- but then walked away disinterested when he took off his penguin face to reveal himself to be zoo director Teruyuki Komiya.

The press release -- which stressed the newly discovered animal would be unveiled on April 1 -- said the giant penguin's favorite food was "white fish meat with soy sauce."

My Truth vs. Your Truth

By its definition, truth must contain an absolute. This is illustrated by simply looking at the opposite of truth, which is, of course, Falsehood. A statement, an idea, a concept, an idiology, or anything is either true or false. It cannot be both. While a statement may contain elements of both truth and falsehood, you can break down each piece and evaluate the truth of the components.

To say, ''you have your truth and I have mine" is intellectual cowardice. I experienced this the other day in my Creative Writing class. We were critiquing someone's work (a piece that resembled a sermon). It was rather harsh in its tone, but at the heart of the piece was still truth.

And the professor said to him (the writer of the piece), "You have to be careful with this sort of thing so you don't offend people. People each have their own truth. While this may be your truth, it may not be true to someone else."

At this I simply could not hold my tongue, my words may have been harsh, but I'll let you decide that. I said, "The elements of this piece, while harsh, are core values of the Bible. Yes, there are pieces of the Bible we can sit here and theologically debate, but everything contained in his work is spelled out clearly in the Bible and is not a matter of 'your truth or mine'. It's either true or it isn't, and in the end you are forced with the choice to either accept it or turn your back on it."

It was the first time I ever made a professor speechless! I would have enjoyed that moment had it not been for the nature of my rebuke. I should not have had to say those things. It's like pointing out the obvious and at a college (a place of "higher learning") I would have thought we would have moved past such ideas.

However, in America's attempt to become more "open minded", the world of Academia is attempting to redefine the word truth. While it has always been understood that 2+2=4, there are even those who would accept 2+2=5 because that is the "student's truth". Granted, I understand these cases are rare and extreme, but it is an idea that is permeating the culture nontheless in more ways than one.

Jesus Himself said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one cometh unto the Father but by me." You cannot take that statement and say "well, that is your truth". That is a direct statement. A claim that is absolute. Either Jesus was correct -thus making any other way to Heaven false- or else He was a liar. It is one or the other. While people may feel good thinking there are many roads to Heaven, the Bible claims just the opposite. And in light of that, it completely destroys the concept of religion being "relative".

Truth is truth. Falsehood is falsehood. It cannot be both.

Simple as that.

reprinted from my college days

How to Pass an Immigration Test in the USA

Mujibar was trying to get into the USA legally through Immigration.

The Officer said, "Mujibar, you have passed all the tests, except there is one more test. Unless you pass it you cannot enter the United States of America."

Mujibar said, "I am ready."

The officer said, "Make a sentence using the words Yellow, Pink and Green."

Mujibar thought for a few minutes and said, "Mister Officer! I am ready."

The Officer said, "Go ahead."

Mujibar said, "The telephone goes green, green, green, and I pink it up, and say, 'Yellow, this is Mujibar.'"

Mujibar now lives in a neighborhood near you and works at a Verizon help desk.

Yep for sure, I talked to him yesterday.

Watch Out For Stone Walls!

I've been wondering for a long time now; why do kids play outside a lot less than I did when I was a kid? There's been a lot of theories put out there, some blaming TV and video games... others blaming parents... and still others blaming the "lazy" kids themselves. Well, I'm going to throw my theory into the ring with everyone else. I doubt it'll be well received, but I think it's just as legitimate as the rest.

We're going to use my little brother and my old elementary school as our primary example here. But for the record, I know this is going on all over the place. When I was in elementary we would do many things at recess. Recess was one of the best times of the day. After all, we finally got to get rid of all that pent up energy that we couldn't express during class without fear of being sent into the hall. During the Fall and Spring we would play soccer, play on the playground, and play tag (or various versions of tag). During the winter months we would have snowball fights, make snowmen, play King of the Mountain (a game where everyone climbs a mountain of snow and tries to push everyone else off)... and of course, play tag still.

However, my little brother's recess experience has sadly been much different than mine. At some point a stray snowball hit a kid, caused him to cry and now snowball fights have been banned. But not only snowball fights. No, my brother and his friends are not even allowed to pick up snow. Naturally they are not allowed to play King of the Mountain. Soccer is often banned when kids get hurt. And --get this-- they are no longer allowed to RUN on the playground!

There's a part of me that wants to go back there and scream at these teachers, "Kids get hurt! I got hurt! And guess what... I'm still alive!" But in a world that is so paranoid of law-suits, I can understand where they're coming from in a weird sort of way.

But let's look at this from a different angle now. Where do kids learn to have fun playing outside? Well, if they're lucky enough to have friends in the neighborhood, they can learn from playing from them. But let's face it, in a world where people feel less and less safe, people are less and less secure about meeting strangers, let alone letting them play with their kids. So we must ultimately fall back on school and the recess experience for the majority of children in our country.

Now given the supreme paranoia on the playground, with all their limiting and binding rules, do we really expect kids to find playing outside to be as much fun as playing Sony Playstation? Sure, it beats sitting in class, but when they get home they go straight to the TV. Why? Because they have been conditioned since Kindergarten that there are many many rules to playing outside which makes it not nearly as much fun as a video game.

"Yes, but what about parents... they're not worried about lawsuits like a school is", you say. Yes, parents aren't concerned with such things. They're not going to sue themselves... but all you have to do is watch the news and you'll see they are equally ridiculous. I saw this one news story about this kid who went sledding into a stone wall and ended up hospitalized. The community's reaction to this was to ban sledding in that area!

Hey, how about telling your kids to watch out for stone walls!

Is it really any wonder kids prefer video games to the idiocy of teachers and parents these days? I know I would. When a kid is conditioned to associate playing outside with a million rules (half of which don't make sense), it makes perfect sense that they would rather sit inside playing XBox than having to worry, "will I get in trouble for picking up this snow?"

Originally written on Feb. 20th 2005

Words of Wisdom

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others." -Nelson Mandela

Apathy Breeds Ignorance

Far too many of the problems around the world develop from a lack of understanding on any particular issue. For example, Venezuela just voluntarily voted to give Hugo Chavez the open door to dictatorship and socialism despite the fact that people living under dictators or socialist governments have always been miserable. Or people’s belief that our new President will see to it that our cars are always filled with gasoline and other goodies, as a cause to vote for him. Or embryonic stem cells will cure all our diseases, when they haven’t succeeded in curing a single thing yet. Or how a socialist economic policy can revive a capitalist system and still remain a “free market”.

Why do people believe these things? The simple answer is ignorance.

The longer answer is apathy.

Unfortunately we live in a “feel good” society. No one wants to work harder than they have to…even then it’s too much. Our affluence has breed apathy. And our apathy has bread ignorance. Is this unique to our time and culture? Probably not. However, people’s lack of curiosity and learning has consequences. For example, if the people of our country had any real understanding of what “nationalization” or “socialism” really means, they would never allow what’s going on in this country at this moment. However, not only do they not know anything about these matters, they don’t even believe it’s happening in most cases! The only reason for this is apathy which breeds instant ignorance. It’s not until reality slaps them in the face (and by then it’s often too late) that the apathy snaps and they begin to learn and act. It wasn’t until Hitler had demonstrated his evilness that (some) of the Germans began to dislike him, but by then they were powerless.

This ignorance is costly. Literally and figuratively. In our immediate case, it’s going to cost this nation more money than we can fathom to recover from the greater mess and inflation our government’s policies will inflict. It will also cause a lot more suffering; especially if the socialism marches on into other matters besides monetary policy. Socialism succeeds in making people equally miserable, which is evidenced in any socialist country you wish to examine. But most people don’t care to look. Instead they think with their feelings, wishes and hopes…their ignorance on the issues.

There are plenty of ways of getting informed, but all require work. But the work stems from a desire to know. If one is apathetic, then ignorance will always follow closely after.

"Brilliance" Spoken

Benediction at Obama 's inauguration, Rev. Joseph Lowery:
'Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen'...


umm...

Scientists find new penguin

There's been a new, previously unknown species of Penguin found in New Zealand. Apparently the scientists had no idea it had ever been there before. I wonder why that is.....

Could it be that no one thought to look in a dense forest??

Story here

Or will we start this game over again?

When in the course of Christian Ministry it becomes necessary for its members to dissolve the leadership which has connected them as one body and to assume through careful prayer and counsel, the reading of Scripture and meditation on it's Truths, a new leadership ordained by God, a decent respect to the opinions of that body requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be manifest and clear, that all ministry is equal and singular in its purpose, that it was established by God for the encouraging of others in the faith, and for the providing for those in need, and the spreading of the Gospel, which is the end thereof. — That to secure these principles, Leadership is instituted among a Church Body, deriving their just authority from the consent of our Sovereign Lord, — That whenever any form of Leadership becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Body to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Leadership, laying its foundation firmly back on such solid principles and organizing its authority in such form, as to most likely to effect the purposes of Ministry and the sovereign Will of God. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Leadership long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and misdeeds, pursuing invariably the same offenses hindering and preventing the objects of Christian Ministry, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Leadership, and to allow God to provide new direction for their future ministry. — Such has been the patient sufferance of this Body; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their Leadership, through Faith and Trust in God. The history of the present ministry Leadership is a history of repeated injuries and abuses, all having in direct affect the hindrance and prevention of the objects of the Ministry. Thus the body of the ministry has found it necessary and proper, under such pretenses, to establish a new Leadership.

*Adaptation of Mr. Jefferson's masterpiece.

Serentae 2.0

So I'm back, and so is this neglected website. As you can see I took the time to recreate the design and layout. It looks a lot better in my opinion and provides flexibility to adapt it in various ways. The theme of the site will continue as it was before, and you'll notice that all the old posts are still intact. Suggestions and comments are, as always, welcome.

Perhaps If We Say "Please"?

This is not a typical essay style post as I usually write on, but this just needs to be said.

I was reading the news this morning when I ran across a "fun" little article by David Bauder, an AP television writer who would be better served sticking to writing about television rather than political rants. But as his article was deemed important enough to show up on Yahoo.com's news headlines, I thought I would take the occasion to respond. Here's an excerpt of this guy's story:

"Demanding information, Jack Bauer faces a terrified man tied to a chair in front of him. Through a window over Bauer's shoulder, the man sees his two children bound and gagged.

Tell me where the bomb is, Bauer orders, or we'll kill your family. Silence. The prisoner watches as a thug kicks down the chair his son is tied to and fires a gun at point-blank range. He screams but still doesn't relent until the gun is pointed at his second son. Having gotten what he needed, Bauer whispers that the execution was staged.

The scene from Fox's "24" is haunting, but hardly unusual. The advocacy group Human Rights First says there's been a startling increase in the number of torture scenes depicted on prime-time television in the post-2001 world.

Even more chilling, there are indications that real-life American interrogators in Iraq are taking cues from what they see on television, said Jill Savitt, the group's director of public programs."

The rest of the article can be found here if you want to waste your time with it. But let's put that episode of "24" into context, because I happened to see this one. The terrorist that Jack Bauer is interrogating has knowledge of a nuclear bomb set to go off in Los Angeles. This is the only person that they have in custody that has knowledge of the weapon and it could explode at any moment. It is an extreme situation to be sure, but even if it were not as extreme as a nuclear bomb, I have a few questions for Mr. Bauder from the AP. Who died here? Jack Bauer killed no one, which was what made it so brilliant! The worst this terrorist received during the scene being described is to be tied to a chair (oh, horror!). Yes, he thought his family had died. Yes, this could be considered psychological torture, but it's hardly permanent once he learns it wasn't true. But this story goes on for about three pages about how it is horrible that this sort of thing could be copied in real life.

If you ask me, this sort of thing should happen more often! We're not hurting anyone by using these techniques; we're doing what needs to be done to extract information that will save innocent lives! Perhaps it would be more humane to let allow the innocent people to die, set the terrorist free and let him kill more people? Thank God we have a president like Bush who takes this enemy seriously. If the national security of the country were left to liberals like David Bauder of the AP, we would have lost our country a long, long time ago. There should be more Jack Bauers in this country; not in that they go off and do their own thing as Jack is so fond of doing, but rather people who have the guts to do the right thing despite what the gutless David Bauders of the world think about it. It's people like David Bauder who believe there is nothing worth fighting for, and if it weren't for the Jack Bauers of our country willing to work in the CIA, or fight in Iraq, or the countless others, he wouldn't be free to be the glittering jewel of colossal ignorance that he is and write about it for all to see.

So I have a question for you David Bauder: the next time we catch a terrorist that has knowledge that could save lives (perhaps even yours), what should we do? Sadly, if it were up to you, you would simply say "please" and offer him a cupcake. Why don't you ask Neville Chamberlain how well those tactics worked with a man named Adolf Hitler?

That which we cannot understand

What makes a person a person? What makes us different than animals? Naturally a person would reply, 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' or even 'our higher mental process'. But are not all these answers trying to describe the same thing? And what is intelligence? Problem solving abilities, rationality, abstract cognitive abilities, emotions, etc. These are all things that can simply be describes as 'thoughts'. But what are thoughts? Where do they come from and where are they stored? In the brain of course. But where?

The human self is a marvel when considered. The physiology alone can leave a person in wonder at the complexities. A never ending tunnel of mysteries- each door leading to the next. We can never fully understand it, and the chances of it all coming together by random chance are as good as hoping for a computer will build itself and run perfectly. Unfortunately this never happens even with human help.

But put the physiology aside for a moment. What is the self? What makes us truly who we are? We are certainly more than well placed, working parts functioning together as a whole to keep us living. If this was all we were, we would simply be a machine -if what we mean by 'machine' is a collection of working parts. We use many such machines, and the obvious difference being they are artificial and we are organic. However that is hardly the true difference between us. We are who we are- wholly unique from each other with distinct personalities and thoughts and emotions and the other myriad of things that make up what has come to be known as 'cognition'.

But what is cognition truly? Where are these thoughts stored? Naturally one replies, 'the brain'. But where? In the neurons? In the cells? In the chemicals that make up the cells? In the elements that make up the chemicals? In the atoms that make up the elements? In the protons or neutrons that make up the elements? No one truly knows. Psychologists can confirm that the thoughts are there and that various parts of the brain function to produce them at certain times, but what are they? They are an abstraction.

A computer houses its information in chips- silicon, plastic, wires, and whatever other properties that store the electric signals. But, ultimately, everything done or produced on a computer can be broken down into a binary code. A series of ones and zeros. A sort of Morse Code. This is understandable. But a computer isn't intelligent. It produces what it is told to, nothing more. A human often produces things it was never specifically taught. There is an infinitely higher level of intelligence (I use this word for lack of a better) that cannot be explained, but must be simply accepted.

Like the wind, we can feel, experience and study our own thoughts and personalities. We can run experiments, predict it, learn about it, counsel it, and teach it. But what are we talking about exactly? Thought. Personality. These are merely abstract concepts that can only be truly defined as, 'that which we can study, but cannot understand'.

I would suggest that this abstraction, this thing which we cannot understand stands as proof to the existence of the human spirit or soul. That which makes us different is that which made us in God's image, that which makes us spiritual beings. Where do our thoughts reside? No where. Everywhere. In our 'soul'. In our personality. The person you pass on the street, the friend sitting beside you, the child that refuses to listen. The actually person is not the series of mechanical parts all working in unison like a great orchestra. It is the personality. The spirit. That which we cannot understand.

Our thoughts cannot, like a computer reside in a series of chips, or, in our case, even neurons. Our thoughts are outside the bounds of biology and chemistry. We can study them, learn about them and help them even. But the spirit cannot be captured and it cannot be measured or quantified. It is simply that which we cannot understand.

This evidence of spirit must in turn point to a God. A spirit (like the wind, present yet invisible) cannot create itself, rather it must have been created by God. Sure we can meet people, learn about them, talk with them, and even know them, as is true of men and God. But if we are ever pinned down and forced to explain what it is exactly that makes us who we are, a satisfactory answer cannot be given. It is simply a soul. A spirit. That which can be experienced, but never fully understood. At least, not until we stand before God.

As a psychology major we all learn about personalities. We learn about development and learning and memory and language and many other things. But ultimately what are we studying? And is it not like a perpetual labyrinth? If we are honest with ourselves, we cannot define psychology as the study of mental processes and behavior, for that is ultimately to say the study of the soul. The study of that which we cannot understand.

An Indefensible Position

Evolution from a Biblical worldview perspective is a morally indefensible position. Put aside the evidence for or against it for the moment. Put aside a desire to elevate man to a higher position in order to criticize the work of God. Put aside even Genesis chapters one and two for the moment -they say what they say. I want to focus on something a little more problematic for the Christian - an attack that seems to have blindsided everyone and something I have not seen or heard expressed by anyone.

The Bible is clear about the origins of sin and its consequences. God told Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden that if they eat of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil then they will die. This death was meant literally and as a separation from God.

This idea is repeated in Romans 5:12 - "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

So then, if this is true it would imply that there was no death before the fall of man. If there had indeed been death before sin, then what was the consequence of sin? Why would God threaten Adam and Eve with something that would happen to them anyway? I understand part of this death was the separation of God and man, but it had a double edged meaning and also meant a literal death.

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, thrives on death. Struggle, death, adaptation...these are all hallmarks of evolutionary thought. The idea of evolution without these things could not happen. But that is exactly what the Bible proposes. No death before sin. No struggle before sin (because God had not yet cursed the ground). No adaptation necessary until God's punishment for that first sin was laid to bear. Everything changed after Eden.

So for a Christian who is entertaining the idea of evolution there are several VERY important questions that must be addressed. When did sin enter the world? When did death enter the world? When did struggle enter the world? And most importantly! If these things have always been, and one of the consequences of sin was not indeed death, then what was the consequence of sin? And if sin had no consequence, why did Jesus come?

It's a logical progression of thought that must be considered for a Christian looking to embrace evolution. Somehow it seems, evolution has managed to take out the foundation of the entire Bible. Somehow, Genesis one and two seem a little more important because they set up the context for the entire book! Jesus came to restore fellowship between God and man and to give us eternal life. Why? Because death is a consequence of sin!

Evolution from a Biblical worldview cannot be accepted unless the person believes they can chuck the Bible - more than just a "reinterpretation" of Genesis one and two. As a Christian it is simply a morally indefensible position.

Honesty, Please

Let's try a little honesty for once. Without a doubt scientists like Darwin and those who came up with the "Large Boom" theory (or...Big Bang, is it?) are not stupid people. But what is equally certain is that they were definitely misguided. At the core of their observations were a string of disregarded errors and anomalies that are usually not even mentioned. This is the honesty that is so lacking in modern evolutionary theory and universe (and Earth...etc.) dating systems. The problem is there are more errors than evidence. Things that do not add up, and if the true scientific theory were being applied, the theories (yes, I said theories) would have been thrown out long ago. I will not get into the counter evidence for these theories here because, quite frankly, I do not feel like writing a book (or 10!). If you are interested, I recommend "Tornado in a Junkyard" by James Perloff.

Truthfully, this intellectual dishonesty seems to stem from a violent, almost exaggerated, expulsion of anything being explained Biblically. Now I'm not claiming Creation is scientific (in that it can be measured, observed and repeated - because God did that only once) but there is much in the Bible that accounts for other phenomena that are used to support the idea that the earth is ''millions of years old''. A world wide flood, for example. This event found in Genesis would account for the geology and geography of our modern world. Mountains could have formed in very little time as waters receded. The Grand Canyon could have formed extremely fast as large amounts of water moved through wet sediment. Life could have fossilized and oil could have been produced by tons and tons of material piling up and causing pressure. But instead of this getting a consideration, scientists elect a more troublesome theory: millions of years. Truthfully, it seems to take more faith to believe in "millions of years" than it does Genesis.

This brief essay is not meant to be an argument against evolution or dating systems. As I said, I don't have the time, space, or energy to tackle such a thing. But the resources are there. What I am calling for is a bit of intellectual honesty from those who believe such theories. Consider the flaws of the argument instead of pretending they do not exist. Ignoring counter evidence serves no one because it is disingenuous and misleading. I have much more respect for the evolutionist that says, "Yes, there are things that we cannot explain, but this is what we have so far." I still disagree with the theory, but at least a statement like that can carry some respect. Let's bring honesty back into science.

Rule of Life #4 - Choices of Life

Too many times in our modern culture we look at society and -more specifically- ourselves and see only victims. We like to displace blame, rarely accepting responsibility for our actions, or displacing blame for those we sympathize with. There are countless examples to draw on, and anyone reading this will undoubtedly be thinking of different examples. The fact that we as Americans (and humans in general) have forgotten how to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions is no secret. This has been going on since the dawn of time and fluctuates based on a society's proximity to God.

Yet, as a student of psychology, I take a special interest in this relationship. Why do people do what they do? Are we really victims and able to say "society is to blame" or "my family is to blame" or whatever else we latch on to as a reason for our actions, trials or troubles? I don't think so. While I will not totally discount the behaviorist's approach that says external environmental factors are the primary source of human thoughts and behaviors, it is hardly the primary reason. If this was true, we would have been reduced to a tiny leaf floating in the ocean, helpless against where the tide pulled us. Don't get me wrong, environmental factors play a role, but it is simply a variable... and ultimately a small one in the grand scheme of things.

In wondering why people do what they do, I fell back on something I learned in high school. Life is 10% of what happens to us and 90% of how we react to it. This is a hard thing to accept in a world that likes to displace blame for nearly everything. Yet, at the same time, it's true. External factors play a big role in our lives, but no matter the tragedy it is ultimately our decision how bad we are going to make the problem in our minds.

What causes people to start down the path of psychological illness? It's a question that's been around for a long time. Could it be as simple as our choice to react negatively to things? And once reacted negatively, hanging onto the bitterness, pain, hurt, anger and eventually ending up in a depression that has become a medical imbalance? I think it really is as simple as that. Sure, many psychological problems are due to chemical imbalances, but it had to begin somewhere, and that beginning is usually our poor reactions to situations.

We are all guilty of this - myself included. It's hard to be optimistic all the time, especially in the hardest of times. But this is what God calls us to do. It's not easy, but even Paul and Silus had the optimism to be able to sing and praise God while chained in a dark prison. It would have been easy to play the victim in that situation, because Paul and Silus truly were victims. But they understood that life was not about what happened to them. That is out of our control. Paul understood that life was about how we react to these events and he praised God for it anyway. It is a commandment that God gives us to be thankful in all things. Undoubtedly it is not the easiest commandment to keep, but it doesn't change the truth of the principle.

As an old teacher of mine loved to remind us, "Ideas have consequences". It's true, and so does our negative reactions to events that we cannot control. Life is about our reactions - not our being victims of events.

Rule of Life #3 - There is truth and it can be known

Christianity was never a religion with an "open mind". Perhaps the advent of an "open mind" came with modern education. It is true that the more we learn and the more we discover, the more questions we seem to have about our world. In the past, this discovery of the perpetual unknown has spurred on further learning. This is still true today. But many academics, who feel uncomfortable with the idea of the unknown, have rationalized this uncomfortable phenomenon with the "open mind" philosophy. The true open mind believes that truth is relative, and that there are many answers to a single question. Such extremes of this have resulted in "fuzzy math" in public schools and revisionist histories. Statistics show that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to have this point of view. The new definition of enlightened has become "someone with a truly open mind". It is little wonder Christian colleges (mine included) are abandoning their core beliefs to be better perceived, and thus, as a result, believe in nothing at all.

Theistic evolution is the newest form of this. This is the belief that God created the world through evolution. Besides the obvious scientifically proven facts that disprove evolution (this is obvious to anyone who is willing to look), the Bible simply does not support the idea of evolution at all. (To disprove this idea scripturally would take an entire essay in itself. For now I will simply speak of it in general). The idea of this, and much of the "open mind" mentality is nothing short of intellectual cowardice. People who refuse to take a stand and examine the evidence of a situation are essentially sitting on the fence and do not have the wherewithal to make a decision. Much of this stems from a deep seated desire to be liked and respected by all sides. As a result, however, this non-position of the "open mind" usually results in the lack of respect of people who have the courage to make an informed decision.

Theistic evolution is only one of countless examples to be drawn from to illustrate people who would rather have an "open mind" than actually know anything for sure at all. They treat truth as an elusive substance, no more easily caught and contained than the morning mist. But this is far from reality. Evolution from a Christian point of view, like so many other things, can easily be discarded when the Bible is examined objectively. Christianity claims to know the truth, and as such, we do ourselves a great disservice by pretending otherwise. Evolution, homosexuality, salvation outside Christ.... these are all things that creep into the church when we try to have an "open mind". While an open mind may be a good thing in learning, it is dangerous when, in the end, you know nothing at all.

There is truth and it can be known for those willing to look. But it requires being considered "intellectually shallow" for not having (what many would call) an "open mind". I may not have an "open mind", but at least I know what I believe, why I believe it... and I know that it is true.

Emotional Christianity

Something I have run into in the last few years at college is the concept of emotional Christianity. This takes on many forms, but the most obvious of these is found in chapel. To say that emotion is not found in worship is untrue. However, worship's primary purpose is to praise God, not make you feel good. Although, praising God often has the affect of causing emotion, this is not always the case, and must not require it to be the case. The hard truth of the Christian life if that we must still worship God and serve him even on days when we do not feel like it. It is a dangerous proposition to set up emotion as a necessity every time you enter the house of God.

When we as the Church get caught up in the emotionalism of the worship, we begin to run the risk of shifting the focus off of God and His majesty and onto ourselves and how we are feeling in that moment. A great example of this is found in the chapel services found at my school. Each chapel begins with singing worship songs. After the songs, somebody leads the students in prayer. However, while this person is praying, the musicians continue to play their instruments softly and repeatedly, the volume rising and falling with the voice of the person praying. This has one purpose and one only: to create emotion. This emotion is created not only in the listener, but also in the person praying. This emotion is for emotion-sake only and has no place. The worship of God and the prayer of His people should be enough to arouse emotion. But to whatever extent that it does not happen, we are operating under the assumption that it is not worship without emotion. We enjoy the "high" the emotion gives us, and in it's absence we feel something missing. Yet there is nothing wrong with this. It is simply human nature to not be happy all the time, but it doesn't mean there cannot be genuine worship without it. We are merely serving our own needs rather than God's by insisting on artificially creating a false sense of emotion.

In truth the musicians continuing to play bothered me because it was disrespectful to the person praying, but more importantly, it was disrespectful to God because they were serving their own needs for emotion rather than bowing in respectful prayer. Yes, it is true spiritual "highs" are nice, but they are fleeting. And we cannot hang our spirituality on the "high" of a church service. We feel that when the high is gone, something is wrong. But this is not true. Emotional states like that do not last forever and must not become the marker for ideas of ideal worship.

True worship comes from the heart. It is about our love toward God that allows us to worship Him when we do not feel like it. It is easy to let the emotion overwhelm us and to get caught up in our own feelings rather than focusing on the One whom we should. And in doing so, that same emotion becomes a necessity. It is in this that the danger lies. We must focus our attention on the One who we trust for our salvation. In a truly grateful heart this will cause feelings of true joy. God calls us to have a joyful heart. But this is vastly different than being "caught up in the feeling".

Yes, we need to worship God and do all with a joyful heart. But let us remember the God whom we serve and not allow ourselves to place the feelings of emotion above the position of our Lord.

Disassembling the "Wall" Myth

The phrase "separation of church and state" is itself a myth brought on through various Supreme Court rulings since 1947. The phrase was originally taken from a personal letter written by President Jefferson and has been sorely misrepresented. (Levin, 35-53) The ideal balance of church and state is found within the US Constitution and the words and actions of our Founding Fathers.

The First Amendment of the Constitution say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What this means is that the government cannot establish a state church, or, through law, hold one church higher than another. Congress is also not allowed to restrict the people's freedom to practice their religion. However, the wording of this amendment says nothing of whether the government may help, fund, or publicly recognize any religion. The Constitution says nothing about separating church and state beyond what is clearly spelled out. As the late Justice William Rehnquist wrote:

"The Establishment Clause (first section of 1st amendment) did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson [v. Board of Education]....The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging." (Levin, 45)

The original phrase "separation between church and state" was originally found in a personal letter from President Jefferson to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut to explain why he had not called for a national day of prayer, fasting and thanksgiving as Presidents Washington and Adams had done before him. This was by no means an official government document, nor was Jefferson even in the country when the Bill of Rights or Constitution was written and ratified. Based on this, Jefferson seems to be a very curious choice to quote concerning the intent of the Constitution. However, his meaning though, this belief did not stop him from publicly mentioning God, nor did he call for others to stop mentioning God publicly and using their government position to promote religion. (Levin, 40-44)

To further clarify Jefferson's thoughts on religion - he also wrote: "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our God alone." In addition to this, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution (the one who did write it) once noted, "Before any man can be considered a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."

Both Presidents George Washington and John Adams called for national days of prayer, fasting and thanksgiving. Our country was clearly founded on Christian principles and the settlers knew all too well how it was to live under government run religious persecution. To best understand the minds of the Founding Fathers on the issue of church and state, it is best to look to their very words. In a speech by President Washington, calling for a national day of prayer to God, he said the "National Government...[should] promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue..." (Levin, 36-40)

Washington also once noted: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports, and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

Unfortunately we now live in a country where people feel they have a right not to be offended. Even more troubling is that the Supreme Court established that imaginary right over the past century. A federal court has even recently ruled against the Pledge of Allegiance because one person was offended by the phrase "under God". There is no foundation for such a ruling other than the mythical "separation of church and state" precedent applied to the mythical "right not to be offended", both established by the Supreme Court. However, as I have stated before, there is no such meaning in the Constitution nor the words and attitudes of the Founding Fathers. People simply do not have a constitutional right not to be offended.

In the words of John Adams (2nd President of the United States) - "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our God alone." Government should not tell us how to worship, nor is it the place of government to restrict or freedom to worship. That is as far as the Constitution allows. The rest are just people's personal policy preferences.

(Resources: Levin, M. [2005], Men in Black, pg. 35-55)

Switching Sites

The time has come to move my website on to bigger and better things. Xanga was great, but as you'll soon see, Blogger allows much more freedom. I admit that I will miss Xanga, but hopefully for you -the people who read this site- you will not notice the difference. I reproduced the layout of the last site as closely as I could since I know a lot of people were fond of it. It was hard work, because while Blogger gives me more freedom, it also asumes that I am a web creating expert. Hopefully thanks to Blogger, I will learn to be. All of what you see was done with Macromedia and hopefully as I begin to feel more and more ambitious, this site will only improve.

Blogger alows for several things that Xanga could not offer. Here are some of the things to look for:

• Most importantly... ANYONE can now leave comments! I will now expect everyone who reads this site to at least be kind enough to leave a comment.
• No ads! ...although I can choose to have ads on my site, and if the readership is high, they'll pay me :)
• Archived posting. So to go back in time to read an old article, click on the archive links in the right sidebar. It is organized by title (for the most recent articles) and by month (for older ones)
• You can post here too! Provided of course I like you and agree to let you ;-) But seriously, if anyone wants to submit an article for the site, all you will have to do is e-mail it to a super secret e-mail address, and it will post automatically.
• Full HTML/CSS control of the site... although this is a benefit for me, it will benefit the rest of the readers too because it will allow for a much better site in the future.

The Xanga site will stay where it is, although I will no longer be posting to it. To visit it go to http://www.xanga.com/handofprovidence . And to answer the question "why did you change the name of the site to 'Serentae', and what does it mean?" ... I changed the name because I wanted something more original. The word is translated "The Stars" in reference to the wonders of God's creation.

Enjoy the new site, look for new posts and changes... and LEAVE COMMENTS!