LXIII. Public or Private?

A big difference between the to political parties today is about choice when it comes to schooling. The GOP argues that parents should have a choice on where to send their kids to school while most DEM say that would cause some schools to be less productive. The GOP would like to give out vouchers to those parents since most of these schools that would take these vouchers are private schools and cost a lot of money. What's the problem with people wanting to send their kids somewhere to get a better education? Nothing. But who says that just because they are private that they would automatically be better? Here are the results of last month's poll:  Is public education good enough?

• Yes. I send my child or would send my child to public schools. 3 (15%)
• No. But I still send or would send my child to public schools. 11 (57%)
• No. I send or would send my child to a private school. 3 (15%)
• No. I home school or would home school my child. 2 (10%)

Bottom line is you can get an education anywhere. On the streets, in church, by conversation, and in any school setting.

LXII. Whip it. Whip it good.

How do you teach someone to do the right thing?  The best way is to BE the example not just set and example, which usually only involves the now overused term "teaching moments".  Instead of just telling someone how to do things in the right (moral) way, one should ALWAYS be DOING the right thing to show someone how to do the right thing.  But, alas, no one in perfect so other methods are needed to intervene, and that would include discipline.

Discipline needs to start at an early age.  From the day that you become a parent, or guardian, is the day that you need to live your example.  Too many times parents want to be friends with their children, or they just want their children to like them.  They want to be the cool parent that their child will want to hang out with and will want to tell their own friends about how cool they are.  Of course that is part of the times we live in.  People are more worried about their reputation than they are about character.  Then when the child starts to make their own decisions and they make one the parent really doesn't agree with, and the parent tries to intervene but the child rebels, the parent wonders what happened and why they can't control the child anymore.  Well, here is a secret.  If this is the way they raised their child, they never had control to begin with.  If you have not established that you are the parent by the time they are 10 years old, forget it, you lost this battle.  One of the greatest things you can do with a child is to give them some kind of morality system to live by.  Make friends of your own age.  Be the parent.

Discipline allows a young child to understand that we all have consequences in our lives.  Everything we do has either a positive and/or negative impact on our own lives and on the lives that surround us, either directly or indirectly.  Sometimes things we do cause pain in other's lives.  If we understand what pain is then we will be less likely to inflict it upon others.  This is not to say we automatically cause pain in a child's life to teach them.  But they need to understand that we do not get away with everything pain-free.  Wrong actions deserve punishment.

Proverbs 22:6 says, Train a child in the way he should go,and when he is old he will not turn from it.

Discipline comes in many forms.  Some only need a stern lecture (not many by the way) and they will not doing anything else.  Some need limitations set in their life.  Some need physical intervention.  Some need all three.  Spanking a child is a legitimate way of disciplining a child.

Here are the results of the last poll:  Should parents spank their children?

• (35%)  Said Yes. It is very effective and there is nothing wrong with it.  However, keep in mind that spanking is not beating a child.  The butt is soft for a reason.  It is meant to absorb a spanking.  The face was not.  The face was meant to absorb affection.  The hand was meant to absorb the pain of helping others.  The feet were meant to absorb the pain of going the extra mile.  But the butt was meant to absorb the pain of being disciplined, not beaten!
• (30%)  Said yes. But only as a last resort.  Perhaps this is the best answer.  Other methods should be used first.  This allows the child to understand that violence should never be the first step to any situation.  It allows the child to know that you are a person that can reason through a situation.  This is not to be confused with "reasoning with a child" to allow them to get their way.  It also allows the child to understand that some things can be carried out too far.
• (10%)  Said no. But the threat should be there.  What good is a threat if you are not willing to use it.  Wishy-washy.  This sends the wrong signal.
• (15%)  Said no. It may send too many mixed signals about violence.  Only if you hit on areas besides the butt.  Only if you do it out of anger.  Only if you do it excessively.  Only if you do it in a way that isn't needed.
• (10%)  Said no. It is abusive.  Then you get what you deserve.  If your child disobeys you and you can't do a thing about it, tough luck.  If they are perfect in this way, be thankful.
• (0%)  Said other.  Again, what does this mean?

PRAYERS TO JAPAN

No posts...

Just thoughts and prayers to our allies, friends, and brothers!

LXI. Behind the Eyes

Challenge

Find someone you know that will be willing to do the following:  Stare into their eyes without saying a word for two minutes.  Try not to let any thought go through your mind, at least anything judgemental.  It's okay to blink but every time you are done blinking remain focused on the person you are staring at.  Then stop for a little bit and this time stare at them for two minutes and think of the person they are.  Think of what they like to do.  Think of what makes them who they are.  Do not focus on their attractiveness or any bodily features. Then stop for a while.  This time stare at them and only have thoughts about things you want to tell them.  Think of things that you want to share with them about your feelings, desires, and dreams.

Here is the problem.  You won't be able to get through the first two minutes and that is a shame.  Why?  Your mind will start to wonder because two minutes will become a very long time just to stare at someone.  Or you may start to laugh because you think the exercise is silly.  Or you just can't do it because it makes you nervous.  You will never get to the second set of minutes.  You will never get to ask yourself if you know the person in front of you.  Or if you actually get to this point you will come to find out you don't know that much about them anyway.  Why?  Because we are too self-involved.  We only care about what we see and feel, not what other's see and feel.

The point is we don't know how to look into each other's eyes and understand who the person is we are looking at.  We don't know how to take the time to get to know them because we are too focused on ourselves.  We have become so cold in the way we treat each other it's all we know how to do.  All the texting, twittering, and facebooking we do waters down our relationships.  We take short cuts to say I love you.  We post private things thinking public expression will solve or enhance these issues.  We hide behind the ICON or avatar thinking there are no consequences by what we say if we don't say them directly to a real person.  We have lost the art of empathy.  And then when we try and have a relationship with something or someone we are not ready for the reality of life.  When someone is hurting we don't see the scars life has given them because we can't look at them.

Plumb, Cut:

• I'm not a stranger.  No, I am yours.
• With crippled anger and tears that still drip sore
• I may seem crazy or painfully shy and these scars wouldn't be so hidden if you would just look me in the eye

Too many of those around us who are close to us are hurting and we are too busy being electronically gratified to notice.  Take the time to look behind the eyes.

LX. Ozzy Chewed Off Bat Heads

Ozzy Osbourne used to bite off the heads of doves or bats. KISS wore make up. Bill Clinton said he was black and played the sax on the Arsenio Hall show.  McDonald's has Monopoly.  Geico has that stupid little gecko and thise even more inanely Twilight Zonish excerpts on saving money in only 15 minutes.  And then you have those free credit reports that make you pay a fee to actually get the free report.  Or electronic stores saying that they are having a 25% off sale only to come find out that they had raised the prices 26% before the sale event happened.  What is it about gimmicks, limericks, dumb hicks, and risky shticks?  Well, they work!  But how long does the effect last?  Eventually the person falling for these things has to find out one day if the product that suckered them in was worth anything or if it was just all hype.  Sure word of mouth is good for business and it brings people in but if your product is lousy you can have all the Hollywood endorsements you can get, all the catchy jingles you can think of, and all the funniest commercials one can come up with and it will still be lousy, like anything David Hasslehoff sings or acts in.  On the other hand, does McDonald's really need monopoly to get people to eat there?  Uh, no, as long as their fries are cooked correctly and not limp then they will always be at the top.  So if what you are selling is good and/or even perfect then why do you need a gimmick?  So if that is the case then why do churches feel the need to do things like businesses?

That brings us to the poll from last month:  Should Churches use gimmicks to bring people into the doors?

• 50% said No. There are more important things for the church to be doing.
• 22% said It doesn't matter if they do or not.
• 13% said Yes. But only to get people to hear the word of God.
• 9% said No. It is very un-Biblical.
• 4% said Yes. It is a good technique.
• 0% said Other.

If you add these together, 59% said something is wrong with this type of activity.  22% said it didn't matter, and  only 17% said it was okay to do and more than half of those said only to get people in the doors.

First of all what kind of gimmicks would churches use?

1. "Come on in and get a free sin".  Well, probably not, although that is what the Catholic Church did for a long time with the idea of indulgences.
2. "Come on in and play pin the tail on the devil.  Have some fun while you put the blame on where it belongs".  Sounds good but what does it prove?
3. "Come on in or we will come to you".  Enough said?

But there are some real ones and some quite serious ones that are being used in the Church today.  It used to be free concerts and/or festivals.  But now it is free donuts and coffee.  Charity funds with membership.  Win a car (seriously!).  Silent auctions.  Passion plays.  Some churches have even gone the casino route if you will, making bets but calling them challenges instead so as not to confuse or offend those who think betting is a sin.

Where is the line that is drawn? There isn't anything dramatically wrong with a friendly bet but when you use to it promote your church or to raise funds in a non-steward way, wouldn't it become wrong? Just because the money may be used to help certain groups of people, it should not be the focus. If we really wanted to help people then why doesn't the church staffs take pay freezes, or have messages from the pulpit be more about giving from the heart!  Is there something fundamentally wrong here or is this making it into something larger than it is?  The problem is the 17% who believe nothing is really wrong with this type of activity is the leadership.  A great person once said, the church is only as strong as its leaders.  If the leaders think that the Word of God has to be watered down to gimmicks then it is no wonder why atheism is growing faster than Christianity.

Now, it really isn't anti-scriptural as 9% said.  There is nothing in the Bible that says we can't do these things.  Paul even states that he didn't care how the message was brought to the people as long as they heard it.  But, he probably didn't mean that we should offer free coffee and donuts as a substantial gospel message segway.  Wow, donuts and salvation.  How could you lose?

Why not have something called "split the pot"? You go to church buy a ticket for $5 and get a chance to get half the tithes and offerings.  That would really bring people into church. A chance to win money and be saved! Even better than donuts.

All Jesus told us to do was basically lift Him up.  So maybe gimmicks aren't all that bad.

LIX. The Antitheory of Evolution

A thesis is a statement that needs to be proven.  An antithesis is a word or phrase that shows a negative connection between two things, to err is human.  A theory is an explanation that has been tested and has shown a connection between facts and guesses.  If these are all true then that means evolution is an antitheory; an explanation that needs to be proven but contradicts its guesses and facts, or the lack of facts to be more exact.  Now this (antitheory) of course  is not a real word (anti theory of something though is real) but nevertheless is a real concept.

Here is a little math lesson for you to help explain the whole concept.

• 1+1=2  and   2+1=3  and   3+1=4  and   4+1=5  and  5+1=6

And so on.  One should get the picture.   There is a progression, a natural progression, to get from one number to the next by adding the same element.  You can not get from 1 to 6 in progression by going straight from 1 to 6.  There are steps in between.  Evolutionists find 1 and they find 6 very easily.  They may even find 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well with research and artifacts.  But they forget there may be infinite rational numbers in between 1 and 2, such as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3678, and 1.976544324565.  All fall in between the two whole numbers of 1 and 2.  Evolutionists find the whole numbers only and say that the theory of evolution is the only reliable collection of facts there are.

In other words, they have been searching for the "missing link" or should we say "links" since the study began.  They think they have found all they need because they have 1-6.

Here is the problem in reality:  they may have found different species that look like they were once related, but they didn't.  They have only found the "whole numbers".  For evolution to work and become a law of nature each stage of evolution has to be found.  Each and every minute mutation has to be found.  And they are not.  There are only bits and pieces of one species and bits and pieces of another completely different species and then they try and connect them.

If evolution was real here is what it means.  Two species have an offspring.  The offspring either picks up a recessive gene or for some unknown reason has a brand new gene, a mutation, that no other specie has had before.  Now this offspring will find a mate and have an offspring of its own.  Somehow this recessive/mutated gene gets passed on to where it eventually becomes the dominant gene or the mutation becomes the norm, not only in its own family line but apparently other family lines.  This single mutation, which is now a common characteristic, makes a new species and the process starts all over.

Over after millions of years and mutations do we finally get modern man.  We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.  But where is the 3.2?  Evolutionists have only found the "complete" stages of the process.  They have not found all the intermediate stages to fill the gaps.  Oh, some will say they have by claiming they have transitional fossils with the truth etched in them.  Or they will state that they have found groups of species with the same mutation to prove that communities of these species flourished and not just a fluke, thereby proving the evolution process.  They will usually tend to leave out that there are still way too many gaps. Donald Prothero, professor of Geology at Occidental College, said that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species.  95% is of unknown origin.  (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/donald_protheros_imaginary_evi029041.html)  And by the theory of Darwinism, as defined by http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html, Multiply by "budding" into  new species.  Budding of course meaning one species splitting into a new species by retaining as many characteristics as the original species while developing something different to make a new species (1, 1.1, 1.2...).  However, is there evidence that shows how an amoeba became a man with every step of mutation/evolution accounted for by budding?  No.  Why?  Because it isn't the answer.   

Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.

Now none of this is saying that two people with blond hair as a dominant gene can not have a baby with dark hair to where eventual dark hair will become dominant.  But they are still people, not another species.

Evolution is a antitheory, an explanation that needs to be proven but contradicts its guesses and facts, or the lack of facts to be more exact.

LVIII. Stinkin Thinkin

Dr. Phil McGraw, made famous by appearing on Oprah, has a saying he uses when he hears someone not making rational decisions. The decisions people make may allow them to get what they want but in the end it has negative results. He calls it "stinkin thinkin". The following is pretty much a real conversation. It may not be verbatim but the idea is still easy to grasp onto. There is a little bit of stinkin thinkin, but the lesson comes from what you may not hear at first.

Teen: I am going to get my ears gauged.

Adult: Why?

Teen: So I can stand out and tell the world it is wrong to judge me.

Adult: (sarcastically) So you want to do this to get back at the world?

Teen: Yeah, in a way.

Adult: Why do you want to get back at the world?

Teen: I want to send a message to some people. People judge and it's all wrong to do so I want to do this to show they are wrong. I would like to get some tattoos too.

Adult: What did the world do to you that you want to get back at it?

Teen: Well, I just want to show that all people are different and that no one should judge anybody.

Adult: But if you do this on purpose, you force people into judging you. When you walk in for a job interview looking like that (with gauges) you already forced someone into making a judgement.

Teen: But that is what I am trying to show them.

Adult: You realize it is mutilation.

Teen: No it's not. It's just a way of showing who you are.

Adult: So when does piercing become mutilation, instead of decoration? What about piercing the tongue?

Teen: No. If they want to do it, it's okay.

Adult: What about splitting the tongue like a snake, like that one guy?

Teen: That's weird though.

Adult: So would you ever date a girl who split her tongue?

Teen: No I don't want to go that far.

Adult: Isn't that judging?

Stinkin thinkin. He couldn't hear or see that he was splitting hairs and doing the same thing that he didn't want people to do to him. Why would he do that to himself to begin with? Why would a child feel the need to "stand out" the way he wants to?

After hearing this conversation you learn it is not about decoration like just the piercing of an ear that has no feeling. You learn it is not about judging as the teen tries to say it is. You learn it is not about being your own individual. If you really listened to the teen you would hear what the teen is really trying to say. He said it right up front but tried to mask it as something else. It is about getting back at the world. Not the whole world, but his part of it. And the question then rises, what is so strange about his world that makes him want to mutilate himself? One place being pierced may be adornment. Two places may be individuality. But when you get multiple piercings then it deals with your mind set. The same with tattoos. Nothing is wrong with getting something that says who you are. If you get a tiger on your chest, okay. Mother on your arm. A rose on your derriere. Big deal. But when it starts to become an addiction, or when it starts to become an outlet for life, or to "show the world" something, then it is more about a problem in your mind or heart rather than art.

The problem is many people use these things as an outlet for pain in their life. They realize the pain they have inside will not heal with the life they have to live. So they hurt themselves on the outside because they know those will heal. And if they don't then they can always look at the scar and know that at least it's not on the inside. One of these actions leads to another. And many teens start to do other things besides piercing or inking. They turn to cutting. That is stinkin thinkin.

Take a look at the following video. Don't just watch. Listen. http://vodpod.com/watch/1527797-cut-by-plumb

We hear but we do not listen to those who hurt. We see but do not act. We watch but we do not learn. We are afraid to do anything because of the times we live in for fear of judging.

LVII. No More Heroes

Definition of Hero:  a person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his/her brave deeds and noble qualities.

But that definition still leaves a very important thing out of what a hero is.  That just explains what they do.  The Man of Steel, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Wonder Woman, Captain America, and Spider Man. What do they all have in common? They are known comic heroes in American culture. They all have special powers and/or abilities beyond normal capacity of a human being (flying, speed, suits of armor, climbing walls). They all have gadgets that they have created or that were made specially for them (fortress of fortitude, bat belt, lasso of truth). But these are not what makes them heroes.  All of this just explains the first part of the definition.  The second part is perhaps the more important.

All of the above did (and do) brave deeds.  They have enough courage to stand up to those who are defiant.  Their brave deeds cause stories about them to spread.  Fables, folklore, and legends are born with stories of great deeds.  But sometimes brave deeds are only brought on by the situation.  Not taking away from the bravery but there is even more to the definition of hero that needs expansion.

Noble qualities.  All of the above had something about their character that makes them heroes more than their special abilities, or even their brave deeds.  They all showed character above reputation.  They showed moral standard is more important than instant gratification.  There was something about them that made them put themselves last.  They chose to help others.  They chose to stand up.  They chose to be committed to their cause.  They chose to do what is right!

We don't have any more heroes in this world.  That does not mean that policemen, firemen, or soldiers are not of this nature.  They need to be respected, cheered, and helped in any way.  This is referring to the ordinary person.  The average person doesn't know how to be heroes anymore.  They don't know how because they don't know how to be unselfish.  They don't know about commitment.  We don't know how to do what is right.  Actually, that is not accurate.  We choose not to do what is right.  We choose to do the easy things.  We choose to do the thing that will benefit us the most.

The worst thing about all of this is we live as though there is no consequence.  We live without regard to anyone around us.  We think nothing we do affects anyone around us and that is the complete falsehood or rationalization of our actions.  Everything we do affects others.  If you physically interact with people, that is obvious you have affected them.  If you verbally interact with people, you have affected them.  We know this and we still choose to hurt others with our actions and/or words.  And by the way, words sometimes hurt worse.  Sticks and stones may break my bones but your words cut right through me.

But what people do not understand is that the things we do to ourselves, even though there is no interaction with others, still affects those around us.  You do drugs?  You just hurt someone.  You neglect you children by not paying support?  You just hurt someone.  You are full of hate?  You just hurt someone.  You can't handle commitment?  You just hurt someone.  No matter what we do our action whether done by commission or omission affect ourselves and others.  Everything we do has a consequence.  And here is the most important part of this whole thought.  Our actions are our own responsibility.  Stop blaming others for your whole life.

Anything that takes actual commitment and/or guts to follow through with has an easy way out. Or at least people take the easy way out. No one wants to fight for what is right anymore. If the Batman was real in today's time, he would have been sued by the ACLU. There is no such things as heroes today because we have wimped out of everyday life.

LVI. Misery Loves Company

Why do people update their status on atrocities like Facebook?  Even a better question is why do people feel the need to update their status on Facebook?  Have you ever noticed that these status changes are more negatively charged than positively? 

The trend for the last two years just to name a few are phrases like HMU (Hit me up) and FML (F*** my life).  Both are used most frequently by teens.  But they are both signs of a culture that is fixed on pain.  Hit Me Up:  a term to have people call them or get in touch with them or to somehow communicate with the one who is posting that message.  Why are they doing it?  Because they are lonely individuals.  It actually is a cry for help:  please someone talk to me.  Why isn't anyone talking to this person?  Because they are all too busy texting others and/or IM everyone else in their stupid address book.  The lonely heart cries for someone to communicate with.  But what they are not realizing is that even if someone does text them in one way or another that they aren't really communicating.  The personalization or intimacy of relationship is lost.  No matter what stuff.com.nz says, "In fact, we believe there is sufficient evidence that social media afford opportunities for new expressions of friendship, intimacy and community."  These are the wrong rationalizations for Facebook.  Most of these new expressions only tend to hurt people.  Intimacy with a computer...hello...phone sex.  Community????  Since when do people work together to get things done in the real world on Facebook?  No, HMU means people are hurting.

So what about FML?  Do we have to even go there?

The main question is why do people post these things if they are hurting?  Why do we feel the need to tell the world how much pain we are suffering?  Human interaction has changed but the old adage misery loves company remains true.  It used to be we would call our best friend and unload on them but now we see we have a bigger audience and it tends to feed people off their anger.  They can now express to the world how angry they are all at once.  But since they can hide behind the impersonal avatar they can say anything they want and feel no consequences.  This allows stronger feelings to be expressed and terms of hatred are filtered through our minds.  But little do they care that they hurt others in this way.  Some people aren't happy unless others are hurting.  It doesn't make you any better than those who hurt you if hurt people too.

LESSON TO BE LEARNED:  No one else needs to actually feel the pain in order to have sympathy for you.  No one needs to actually feel the pain to understand that people need healing.

No it's just not Facebook, it's our culture.  We are spoiled.  We think we deserve it all and that the world owes us.  We feel we are the stars of the world and the population is our audience.  Listen, when given a lemon, make lemonade, don't just spit out the seeds at everyone.

The culture is hurting.  The culture is crying out for help.  The culture needs healing.

People are hurting.  People are crying out.  People need healing.

Church, where are you?  Probably texting...

Only God can heal, people have to learn how to forgive.

What do you think?  HMU...

LV. Political Activists

The two things they say you are not supposed to discuss with friends and family are religion and politics.  But this thought (and site) brings them together into one.  Here are the results to last month's poll:  Should Churches be politically active?

• (27%)  No. Because our battle is not with flesh and blood.  This is the most important thing to remember.  No matter what happens in this world the most powerful force is to go to God with any and every issue.  But God does not say that this is where it should stop.  Many Christians wimp out by saying the above.  Actually in all reality those who answer this are probably Christians who have a hard time dealing with the fact that there thoughts do not coincide with Biblical views.  It is their way of reconciling their own thoughts with their spiritual life.  Hint:  it doesn't always work, nor is it always correct. 
• (27%)  Yes. But only on certain issues.  This is probably the best non-biblical answer.  See next answer for explanation.
• (22%)  Yes. No matter what.  Perhaps this one needs to be looked at a little more.  Some issues that do not deal with any spirituality are not needed to be endorsed or opposed by the Church, such as gun control.  This is not an issue that deals with the Church so why get involved as an organization?  Abortion?  Yes.  Marriage laws?  Yes.  Taxes?  Sometimes.  Freedoms of individual liberties?  Sometimes.  Religious freedom?  Definitely.  Candidates?  Yes.  Judges and certain laws?  Yes.
• (18%)  No. Because it would violate "separation of church and state".  This one is controversial because no matter what you say someone always misinterprets the issue and the amendment to the Constitution.  See http://ideasoftim.blogspot.com/2010/08/67-life-liberty-and-pursuit-of.html and the see the comment section as well.
• (4%)  No. Because then they would have to pay taxes.  This has to be the answer that people picked because they are trying to be sarcastic or are angry with the Church.  Churches should not have to worry about paying taxes.  Even Jesus said that we need to pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar.  They are a non-profit organization and should be treated like any other non-profit organization.  But since when does profit making constitute if you can be political or not? Private homes are non-profit (most of them).  Are they not allowed to be political?  Boy Scouts, YMCA, Salvation Army, and other organizations should be allowed to be political.  The old saying goes that if you don't like something you don't have to do it.  If these groups become political then you do not have to support it.

The Church whether people like it or not has been, is, and always will be a force to be reckoned with when it comes to politics.  Those who are Christian need to embrace this fact.  Not to abuse the power of the Church such as what was done by the Catholic Church during the age of feudalism, and not to force others into becoming all conformed like the practice of russification by Czar Nicolas I of Russia but to be the driving force of the culture so that the country can return to God and a higher morality system.