so, i got a new computer today!! yay!!
my old one had been kinda dieing more and more...and more...it was making loud noises and my hard drive was vibrating louder than my phone...it was bad. and a couple of weeks ago it started randomly shutting itself off. it was running really bad...so, my parents randomly decided to get me a new computer...and i'm so excited!!
yay!
19.5.09
18.5.09
peace.
little things annoy me. probably little things that shouldn't annoy me, but they do nonetheless. i hate when people (and by people, i mainly mean mass media) claim that the bible/Jesus says/said things that are quite the opposite of what was actually said. for instance, anyone who has ever read the gospels knows with much certainty that Jesus claimed more than once that He was God, thus the blasphemy charge the pharisees arrested Him for. and this would have been a very true accusation, had it not been that Jesus was in fact God. that was a pretty ridiculously serious claim to the jews, saying you were God, so the incredulity of the pharisees was not totally unfounded. the only saving grace for Jesus' claim was that He was God, so the statement was true, not blasphemous. but i didn't get on to discuss the theological implications of Jesus' claim to deity; i digress. the point then is that anyone who's read the gospels knows Jesus made it clear that He believed Himself God. now, then, what do the mushy, conformist "professional experts" from the most liberal colleges in the country they get on the news or the history channel say? "oh, Jesus never actually claimed to be God; that's something the church made up." if He never claimed to be God, He chose a sorry lifestyle, mislead a great deal of people, picked a nasty way to die, and apparently had a different definition for the word "god" when He chose to claim that He was "God."
so then why should it surprise anyone that other things these cushy "experts" -- people who, by the way, don't believe any of the things they spent their life studying; instead they spent their professional careers trying to disprove their field of expertise and these non-arguments are the best evidence they can find against one of arguably the most influential characters in the world's history -- that other things these cushy experts have claimed is not only misleadingly false, it's directly against Jesus' own words?
i suppose the reason it bothers me most is that it seems most people listen along, believing everything the news/discovery/history channel says without ever attempting to look at the opposing opinion's view and evidence. like lost, wandering children, they take the first hand that's offered them, regardless of whether that hand is a friend's or a kidnapper's. here's a wild idea: maybe everything mass media claims isn't true; maybe they're not always the friend. so when they say something is unbendingly true about the bible, a piece of literature they consider fiction, isn't there just the slightest possibility that what they're saying serves more their own agenda than is actual fact? if this is the case, and what they say serves their own agenda, shouldn't you check their agenda and see perhaps what all they may be "bending the truth" on to fit their views?
i think we would all agree that it's ridiculous for religions to kill each other for not conforming to the one's beliefs. after all, the point of one having independent thought and opinion is that one can choose what one wants to believe. if one is simply blindly following and obeying out of fear, is one really believing? no. it's not genuine. that goes for any religion. but i think anyone who uses their half a brain could figure out that opposing religions of the world are never going to be able to just sit down, talk it out, come to some kind of agreement, and be all peaceful and one with one another. that's a fairly naive thought. [[it's been said that where one or two people are gathered together, there will be at least eighteen opposing points of view...]] for instance, the koran, whether you want to believe it or not, does state that if someone does not convert, they should be killed. now we all agree that most muslims, if you get to know them, are fairly peaceful people on the whole. particularly within america. but the reason that some are radical enough to do things like 9-11 or blow themselves up to kill a few "infidels" is because they take the koran very literally. and as long as someone is there to take the koran at it's word and interpret it literally, there will be "radical islam" and thus suicide bombers.
so then what are we supposed to do? take away their koran and tell them not to believe that nonsense? isn't that what today's liberal media is asking "radical christians" who are opposed to abortion and euthanasia and homosexual rights to do? well when it's a muslim, people get up in arms over it and say we're trampling their rights. (which is almost true to some extent. they have the right to believe whatever they want. it's when they break the law with manslaughter that they deserve to be prosecuted.) besides, more importantly, we all know it wouldn't work. there would form some other radical faction for killing.
so then why do people believe that some kind of easy peace of religion is possible, wherein all religions of the world will gather together in one conference room, sit in circle, holding hands, and sing kumbaya? how would that be possible, when the muslim would believe that all the peopl in the room unwilling to convert should be killed, the buddhist doesn't even believe it matters whether or not there is a god, the atheist believes it matters because there is no such thing as a god, the hedonist believes everyone is their own god, and the christian stands unwavering that there is one true God and the others will go to hell if they don't believe, a fact which a "radical" christian would be willing to die for?
in fact, anyone who's done even a cursory glance at the religions of the world should be able to conclude that there will be no peace among religions. sure, we all hope for it and strive towards a mostly peaceful existence, but we're in america. since when did the rest of the world -- particularly the third world countries in turmoil that are known for being jealous of our power and hating our presence -- care what we think or do? their politicians may pretend to, to avoid sparking a war they know their country couldn't win and economy couldn't handle, but the countries that present the biggest problem politically, economically, and environmentally (because believe it or not, america has been a fairly green country for decades in comparison with the rest of the world; in point of fact, the biggest causes to the hole in the ozone are actually due to volcanic eruptions which release a toxic gas that destroys ozone and the methane gas released from cows) don't particularly want to follow america's example. so even if we're the most peaceful, greenest country in the world, why would the hugely pollutant, unstable governments, whose people aren't dieing of obesity and heart disease but malnutrition and malaria want to step in line and follow their enemy country's example? it's illogical, and fairly naive to believe that would be the result.
. . .
but i've gotten way off from the point i actually got on to make.
i'm so tired of wishy-washy, flaky christianity, wherein the so-called followers and even "experts" claim neutrality on points Jesus was clear about. this morning i was reading from matthew 10. well, Jesus makes a lot of stuff clear in this chapter, not the least of which is that being a strong christian may cost you your life. in opposition to taking the lives of non-converts, christianity demands that you pursue righteousness and truth in the face of adversity (non-converts) seeking their conversion, not through threats but through love, which is more powerful apparently, since doing this could cost you (and has cost many) your life in demonstration of that love. but Jesus makes a point in this chapter that is often overlooked. no disciple of Christ, or christian, should ever convert into this lifestyle thinking that Christ came to bring a peaceful solution to all the world's problems and that all christians just live happily in harmony with society. wrong. Jesus says explicitly in matt 10:34:
so then why should it surprise anyone that other things these cushy "experts" -- people who, by the way, don't believe any of the things they spent their life studying; instead they spent their professional careers trying to disprove their field of expertise and these non-arguments are the best evidence they can find against one of arguably the most influential characters in the world's history -- that other things these cushy experts have claimed is not only misleadingly false, it's directly against Jesus' own words?
i suppose the reason it bothers me most is that it seems most people listen along, believing everything the news/discovery/history channel says without ever attempting to look at the opposing opinion's view and evidence. like lost, wandering children, they take the first hand that's offered them, regardless of whether that hand is a friend's or a kidnapper's. here's a wild idea: maybe everything mass media claims isn't true; maybe they're not always the friend. so when they say something is unbendingly true about the bible, a piece of literature they consider fiction, isn't there just the slightest possibility that what they're saying serves more their own agenda than is actual fact? if this is the case, and what they say serves their own agenda, shouldn't you check their agenda and see perhaps what all they may be "bending the truth" on to fit their views?
i think we would all agree that it's ridiculous for religions to kill each other for not conforming to the one's beliefs. after all, the point of one having independent thought and opinion is that one can choose what one wants to believe. if one is simply blindly following and obeying out of fear, is one really believing? no. it's not genuine. that goes for any religion. but i think anyone who uses their half a brain could figure out that opposing religions of the world are never going to be able to just sit down, talk it out, come to some kind of agreement, and be all peaceful and one with one another. that's a fairly naive thought. [[it's been said that where one or two people are gathered together, there will be at least eighteen opposing points of view...]] for instance, the koran, whether you want to believe it or not, does state that if someone does not convert, they should be killed. now we all agree that most muslims, if you get to know them, are fairly peaceful people on the whole. particularly within america. but the reason that some are radical enough to do things like 9-11 or blow themselves up to kill a few "infidels" is because they take the koran very literally. and as long as someone is there to take the koran at it's word and interpret it literally, there will be "radical islam" and thus suicide bombers.
so then what are we supposed to do? take away their koran and tell them not to believe that nonsense? isn't that what today's liberal media is asking "radical christians" who are opposed to abortion and euthanasia and homosexual rights to do? well when it's a muslim, people get up in arms over it and say we're trampling their rights. (which is almost true to some extent. they have the right to believe whatever they want. it's when they break the law with manslaughter that they deserve to be prosecuted.) besides, more importantly, we all know it wouldn't work. there would form some other radical faction for killing.
so then why do people believe that some kind of easy peace of religion is possible, wherein all religions of the world will gather together in one conference room, sit in circle, holding hands, and sing kumbaya? how would that be possible, when the muslim would believe that all the peopl in the room unwilling to convert should be killed, the buddhist doesn't even believe it matters whether or not there is a god, the atheist believes it matters because there is no such thing as a god, the hedonist believes everyone is their own god, and the christian stands unwavering that there is one true God and the others will go to hell if they don't believe, a fact which a "radical" christian would be willing to die for?
in fact, anyone who's done even a cursory glance at the religions of the world should be able to conclude that there will be no peace among religions. sure, we all hope for it and strive towards a mostly peaceful existence, but we're in america. since when did the rest of the world -- particularly the third world countries in turmoil that are known for being jealous of our power and hating our presence -- care what we think or do? their politicians may pretend to, to avoid sparking a war they know their country couldn't win and economy couldn't handle, but the countries that present the biggest problem politically, economically, and environmentally (because believe it or not, america has been a fairly green country for decades in comparison with the rest of the world; in point of fact, the biggest causes to the hole in the ozone are actually due to volcanic eruptions which release a toxic gas that destroys ozone and the methane gas released from cows) don't particularly want to follow america's example. so even if we're the most peaceful, greenest country in the world, why would the hugely pollutant, unstable governments, whose people aren't dieing of obesity and heart disease but malnutrition and malaria want to step in line and follow their enemy country's example? it's illogical, and fairly naive to believe that would be the result.
. . .
but i've gotten way off from the point i actually got on to make.
i'm so tired of wishy-washy, flaky christianity, wherein the so-called followers and even "experts" claim neutrality on points Jesus was clear about. this morning i was reading from matthew 10. well, Jesus makes a lot of stuff clear in this chapter, not the least of which is that being a strong christian may cost you your life. in opposition to taking the lives of non-converts, christianity demands that you pursue righteousness and truth in the face of adversity (non-converts) seeking their conversion, not through threats but through love, which is more powerful apparently, since doing this could cost you (and has cost many) your life in demonstration of that love. but Jesus makes a point in this chapter that is often overlooked. no disciple of Christ, or christian, should ever convert into this lifestyle thinking that Christ came to bring a peaceful solution to all the world's problems and that all christians just live happily in harmony with society. wrong. Jesus says explicitly in matt 10:34:
"do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."now before you go crazy thinking Jesus was claiming war, understand the meaning of the word sword. Jesus wasn't talking about the shiny weapon used in lord of the rings; He was referring to what is also called to the sword of the Lord -- Jesus' words. His words divide and separate two clear sides as would a literal sword cutting through a...block of wood, we'll go with a block of wood. Jesus controversial teachings clearly define truth and falsehood and force one to be on one side or the other. either you believe Him or you don't. you can't sit on the fence with Jesus' teachings. if you don't 100% believe He's the Son of God, come for the salvation of all, then on you're on the other side, intentionally or no. Jesus' words sparked debate, controversy, riots, and total lifestyle changes with an opposing way of thinking. while His actions were never viscous or cruel and he was only ever physically peaceful, His teaching were not. in His own time two millenia ago, His teachings were confrontational enough to send Him to death on the cross as a convicted felon. how much more so today should we as christians expect His teaching to be confrontational to the point of public crucifixion? but the chapter goes on to offer an overused/under appreciated promise:
"he who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."if Jesus offers those willing to lose their life for Him a new and better life in eternity with Him, then what are we so afraid of losing?
11.5.09
graduation prayer
at baccalaureate the other night, they had us (graduates) repeat the lyrics to this old song as a prayer. i already loved this song, but it means even more to me now, as it will always carry with it that memory from graduation. it's an awesome song; the lyrics pack a powerful message. anyways, it's been on my mind, so i decided to post it: "take my life" (written as performed by chris tomlin)
take my life and let it be
consecrated, Lord, to Thee.
take my moments and my days,
let them flow in ceaseless praise.
take my hands and let them move
at the impulse of Thy love.
take my feet and let them be
swift and beautiful for Thee.
take my voice and let me sing
always, only for my King.
take my lips and let them be
filled with messages from Thee.
take my silver and my gold
not a mite would i withhold.
take my intellect and use
every power as You choose.
here am i, all of me.
take my life, it's all for Thee.
take my will and make it Thine
it shall be no longer mine.
take my heart it is Thine own
it shall be Thy royal throne.
take my love, my Lord i pour
at Your feet its treasure store
take myself and i will be
ever, only, all for Thee.
take myself and i will be
ever, only, all for Thee.
here am i, all of me.
take my life, it's all for Thee.
here am i, all of me.
take my life, it's all for Thee.
here am i, all of me.
take my life, it's all for Thee.
here am i, all of me.
Lord, take my life, it's all for Thee.
take my life and let it be
consecrated, Lord, to Thee...
congratulations to the graduating class of two thousand and nine.
may this be your constant desire and eternal prayer.
may this be your constant desire and eternal prayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
