Friday, September 29, 2006

"Blog" is not in the Blogger Spell Check.

Were it human, that would be a fascinating psychological telltale...

I'm probably going to get killed for this, but...

Warning: Totally Politically Incorrect.

Look at the different continents: Europe - heavily influenced by Christianity; Eurasia (Russia) moderately influenced by Christianity. (Parts are influenced by Islam, which other than the extremists desire to kill everyone else, has a very strong moral base).North and South America - heavily influenced by Christianity.

Africa - Little to no influence by Christianity.
Asia (Occidental) - No influence by Christianity.

Africa - Unless a cheap cure for AIDS is discovered soon, Africa will be no more. The pandemic so devastating now will doom the next generation and all thereafter.

Asia - Those without totalitarian governments are so perverse, so decadent, it defies description. The practices of Thailand alone are Hell on Earth (and because I know some young people read this blog, I won't enumerate them).

I'm not saying they are cursed by God, rather cursed by the unrestrained depravity that IS restrained to a large degree in the Christian-influenced nations (yes, there is horror even here, but it is NOTHING next to Asia).

I have had conversations with people who think the Church has had little influence in our society, but I think Asia and Africa put the lie to that. There are ministries in both places, to be sure, though none have risen to a national influence yet. Also interesting, is the different "flavor" of Asia and Africa. Asia seems to delight in decadence, whereas Africa (despite horrific violence) has somewhat innocently adopted promiscuity into their culture. So prevalent, in fact, that AIDS can't be halted (partially because of ignorance and largely because once Pandora opens that particular box, closing it is impossible).

What will the rest of the world look like after the Rapture, if such a thing exists, when all Christians are removed from Earth? Secular morality is based in what's good for society; so what happens when society breaks down?

If the Shining City takes residence on the Earth without wiping other cities out, what will that world look like?

I believe strongly that totalitarian governments are evil... still, they halt - in their legalism - a complete slide to decadence (except in themselves). The Biblical ramifications are fascinating...

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

So, the kids are swimming in the pool, happily screaming and playing while the DOG runs like a maniac around and around the pool, desperate to play but terrified to jump in.

Metaphor for life?

Could be...

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Hey, by the way, blogs are supposed to be commented on. It isn't just my opinion, it's yours, too.

So comment already!

Infatuation vs. Love

There’s no such thing as love at first sight. Infatuation at first sight? Definitely. And I suppose that infatuation can segue smoothly into love making it feel like love at first sight, but I am convinced that love takes years to fall into.

What got me on this train of thought was someone’s contention that love is a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Something goes off in your brain and someone you wouldn’t look at twice before is suddenly the most exquisite creature on earth. Doesn’t matter who, it was just the first opposite sex member (in most cases) that you laid eyes on.

Patent hogwash, but it does raise the question of why we are attracted to someone. It can’t just be looks, because ugly people fall in love (thank the Lord. Thank you, Lord). As you might have guessed, I think I know. It could be Divine Intervention, but that aside, I think it is body language. Yes, pretty helps, but I believe subtle mannerisms, expressions, gestures and body movements are what attracts us, and, in fact, infatuates us.

Body language consists of thousands upon thousands of tiny and large movements. We subconsciously catalog body language of people we spend time with, assigning them values. That funny person we really enjoy moves his shoulders just so? Mom crinkled her eyes in that peculiar way? And thousands of attributes, most so subtle you don’t even consciously see them, from people we really care about (and those we don’t) go into our mental computer and creates a subconscious list. The reason your buddy has a girlfriend who makes you shake your head and wonder “what does he see in her?” is that she had a preponderance of checkmarks on your friend’s list (there are other things on that list as well, of course, but once a certain threshold is reached we become infatuated).

So what is infatuation? It’s your subconscious saying this person has the hallmarks of someone who can get our motor running. Infatuation is potential; love is the reality. Love is complete knowledge of, and complete acceptance of another. God has the “complete” part down, and we lowly humans have to substitute “some knowledge” and “mostly acceptance”. Infatuation knows little and ignores much. Love that knows and tolerates isn’t love. Moving from infatuation to love takes time and more time (knowledge isn’t gained in a day).
Men and women handle this transition differently, however.

Women will give and give and give to be accepted.

Men are happy to take and take and take just for the greed of it.

Women want the acceptance more than to be known (but you can’t have one without the other) and many will do anything to get what they think is acceptance.

Men want sex, and give counterfeit acceptance and forego knowledge and quite often food to get it.

Yes, we’re shallow creatures. Pity us.

What does this mean? It means that if you get intimate before marriage, the guy isn’t ever going to move from infatuation to love, and the girl isn’t going to be able to tell. She sees love as him wanting to be with her, talk to her, etc. He gives all that to get what he wants, which ain’t love, baby. He’ll say it, he’ll even likely believe it, but it isn’t love. Proof: if the intimate girl breaks it off with the guy, he then has to evaluate a few things: Is she worth waiting for? Quite probably he’s going to look at the reality that is his girlfriend for the first time and do a quick tally of good and bad. If he doesn’t try to restore the relationship then the bad outweighed the good. If he comes back then either the good outweighed the bad or he’s desperate or too lazy to look elsewhere. IF they get back together and resume intimacy, he’s not going to move forward. If they get back together without sexual intimacy, he can finally get on the road to figuring out if he loves the girl or not.

I’m willing to bet that a lot of men aren’t really in love with their wives when they get married. They think so, but they probably haven’t done the math yet. Forever changes things, though, and so does marriage. Necessity makes both of them whip out their calculators as they get to REALLY know each other (dating doesn’t do it, living together doesn’t do it, marriage is its very own kind of animal) and now they have to figure out if they can accept each other. This is, I think, the reason for the divorce statistics.

The safe bet, then, is courtship, with the emphasis of actually getting to know each other without the blinders of sex getting in the way. It’s risky because you reveal yourself (to be known) and acceptance isn’t guaranteed to follow. My wife and I are proof that this approach works. We made conscious decisions to get to know each other, and there were critical junctions when acceptance had to be carefully weighed. We called it off twice to gain the distance to really figure it out, obviously getting back together each time. Lucky for me. J

The really cool thing is that in a vibrant, growing relationship, the rush of infatuation can co-exist with love, because there are always new frontiers to learn about each other, and marriage is a covenant to accept anything in the other even if (when) it’s difficult.

Capital Punishment

I’ve finally figured it out.

Some background: Capital Punishment as a concept gives me no problems, I believe the State has the responsibility, or at least the authority, to condemn someone to the first death for such things as murder, treason, child abuse, and rap music to name a few.

Take a step closer, though, and I start struggling. In reality it isn’t the State executing someone, it is a person doing it. People killing people just isn’t good. Even within war, where it is a necessary evil, it’s still evil (though I believe no judgment is levied on the soldier). Even if you develop a machine to do it, whoever turns on/plugs in the machine is the executioner.

Another step closer and I see some of the scum on death row, I think death by dull spoon is perfectly acceptable, but that’s neither here nor there.

I’ve figured out the answer.
We have someone provide the means of life – not death – to the death row prisoner. A study is done to figure out the minimum amount of dirt, nutrients, sunlight, water and seeds is required to sustain someone on a vegetarian diet (both for them and the garden. Minimum levels, only). And that’s all they get. We can even give them a book saying how to do it, I suppose, and leave them alone forever. If they can manage to get their garden to produce, they can stay alive. If they can’t, they die.

Ah, you’re thinking death by dehydration and/or starvation is cruel and unusual punishment. Not so. The Terri Schivo (sp) case took that argument away (and if you say, ‘but she was brain dead,’ then you’re saying conditions excuse C&UP, and isn’t THAT a dangerous precedent. I could say the death-rower is morally-dead and there you go.)

No one, then, is responsible for the death of the condemned except himself. By virtue of (or lack thereof) their crime, they have said they want to live outside society, and this simply fulfills that. If they are diligent and disciplined, they can make a go of it. If they still have a crop failure, that’s an act of God and who are we to stand in the way of that? (Also, to qualify for the DP, physical evidence as well as - or instead of - witnesses is required. Witness only means a maximum of life imprisoned).


Saturday, September 09, 2006

Wheee! The Primaries are over and there is absolutely no one worth voting for.

Two democrats are running for governor (one just calls himself a republican).

The Cheeseburger Congressman gets another shot to do absolutely nothing of value for another few years.

Florida will be in the hands of liberals and do-nothings.



I love the fall. September's okay and October rocks (and not just because I was born smack dab in the middle of it).

I love theme parks. They're a lot of fun, good family stuff, and a lot of fun (I'm easily amused).

I just don't like them together. In the fall, theme park billboards - which are normally quite creative - give way to the most vile of graphics.

When I was a kid, the Johnsons at the IGA store mounted what was to my child's eye a humongous Frankenstein Monster on the end of aisle 4. It flat out terrified me. I knew it wasn't real, I knew it was harmless, but I hated it. It was just a big, green stereotypical monster.

Not so the theme park billboards. Universal Monsters were great. Far removed from real life in fantasy and time, the were the ultimate escapism. But serial killers, bloody hands holding bloody cellphones, psychotic vagabonds with grotesque expressions, demented grandmas bearing knives... these are neither fantasty, nor removed from our time. Why glorify these things?

If they want them inside their theme parks, no problem; but on billboards that we drive our kids by? Along the highways I drive to work on?

No thanks. No thanks, at all.