I read an article in a chronic pain magazine about Annette Funicello's battle with MS a while back, and I've been meaning to post on it for some time so here it comes. A quick warning, this will be lengthy.
The article I read mentioned how even though people knew she had the condition, she never "appears" as if she is suffering even though it is quite common to do so. Her reason can be summed up in a quote I read which went like this; "I think you only have two choices in this kind of situation. Either you give in to it or you fight it. I intend to fight."
After the first 5 years of my own chronic condition I came to this same conclusion, but somehow I saw it as logical and not something anyone else may need to hear so I really kept it to myself. But in recent days I have observed others in my life with chronic conditions who are not accepting the situations they deal with enough to fight the outward appearance no matter what they are feeling internally.
I found the reason that I don't allow myself to show many outwards signs is because I don't want others to pity me, or look at me any differently because of my disability. Sure I will talk about my condition to help people understand, but my only motivation is for others to be aware of my limitations to physical contact. (Not to say I haven't tried to do things with the result being some very severe consequence, but that too is a learning process which sometimes takes trial and error to discover the boundaries). However even through the sometimes rigorous trials of even everyday life, I do this not for my own sake but for the emotional well being of those around me, whom without my self control would be targets to lash out at in anger (more at the pain than for anything they might have done).
In particular there have been 2 other people that I am in direct (though infrequent) contact with which made me realize that the coping skills I developed may not be to everyone what I saw as a logical conclusion.
The first of these individuals I watched very harshly (quite rudely for that matter) speak to someone they call a friend, simply because this friend was performing a simple ability that the disabled individual could no longer manage for any length of time. This act was the simple act of standing, but the disabled person was so caught up in how they couldn’t do it that they took it out on their supposed friend. This is what I meant at the end of the last paragraph, if those of us who suffer don’t accept that we are and may forever suffer we will lash out in jealousy at those able bodied around us.
The second person I know was disheveled, lethargic and had an attitude of discontent when I ran into him the other day. Now I am in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY saying that he should be clean shaven and immaculately dressed, his appearance was mentioned only because it helped me understand that he is not at all coping well with his condition (which is the same as mine) even on vast amounts of Opiates. After talking to him I also found that he had not accepted his condition and is aggressively searching out a cure.
This attitude of not accepting said condition is extremely common among chronic illness sufferers. Unfortunately this can cause more harm than good, which is apparent after learning that this individual’s condition has worsened because of the continued search for treatment options and therapies that will cure him. When I decided to discontinue taking opiates for pain relief I understood that my amount of daily pain was going to increase exponentially, but that knowledge was very helpful in dealing with it. The key was having a mindset change from doing everything I could to get rid of the pain to one of knowing I will have to deal with, so I needed to learn to balance my activities to manage my condition and for the rest I just have to suck it up and deal with it!
At a men’s breakfast today I heard someone very succinctly describe “Joy”. He said that joy is an attitude that is outside the situation which we are currently experiencing, experiences which would normally cause more negative attitudes. My attempt to revisit his wisdom is a little longer, but I hope it conveys the information appropriately. It is up to us to experience joy through whatever we are dealing with, and this can only be found through Christ. This is not mere happiness which can be obtained by the simple act of receiving a gift, but true joy through even the worst circumstance and even further to outwardly glorify God by actions indicative of someone with the joy of Christ. Unfortunately neither of these fellow sufferers show anything near this joy, one because they don’t know the Lord, and the other because they haven’t dealt with the self centered issues of betrayal, disappointment, bitterness and jealousy just to mention a few.
How do I get this joy? What does it feel and look like? I can’t answer that because God will encourage each person differently, but it will look outwardly the same for everyone. It will manifest itself in the visible attribute of the gift of the Holy Spirit, Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. Unfortunately these will be more obvious to others than to ourselves, and if we fail to listen to those around us (no matter who they are) that point out our shortcomings in these areas we will be unable to correct ourselves. There is a way to have this joy, but it takes a lot of self examination to align your mind with scripture, and sometimes very pointed truths by others that will be a severe blow to your pride and your feelings.
I’ll be honest, I feel like I stumbled onto this by accident (though I don’t really believe in accidents, I’m sure the understanding was given to me by God). Nonetheless it is still something I work towards in an ongoing battle against the pain and limitation I deal with.
Bob
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, November 03, 2006
Hypocrisy thy name is ?
The latest scandal involving Christian leadership is that of Ted Haggard. Mr. Haggard has been accused of a homosexual affair and illicit drug use. Who is his accuser? The accuser is none other than the homosexual prostitute drug dealer that Mr. Haggard was said to have had the affair. But wait it gets better; the reason that this person said he came forward was a “matter of principle”.
I believe that leaders in the church are just as apt to make mistakes or fall into sin as anyone else, but I also believe we have to take into context the character of the accuser. This is especially true when dealing with homosexuals or their activist groups. They sheer hypocrisy of Mike Jones to accuse Ted Haggard of any wrong doing is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Sure there need to be repercussions to Ted Haggard’s actions, and these are already coming into effect as he has stepped down from his leaderships roles. However before we condemn him for anything more, we need to look at the motives behind Jones’ accusations.
Jones said he did it as a “matter of principle”. But this man is a self proclaimed drug dealer and homosexual prostitute, yet people are putting blind faith in his accusations. Since this man obviously doesn’t hold to the principles I do, it begs the question of what principles did he find so offensive that made him feel he must shout his claim to the world? Was it because Mr. Haggard was scheduled to speak out against homosexual marriage in a political arena (with US elections looming)? The timing does seem a little too coincidental, and since I don’t believe in coincidences I can only come to the most obvious conclusion that this was the case. It wouldn’t be the first time that a gay activist group tried to rally support by propaganda spreading.
What I’m trying to say is look behind the motives of people. This may or may not have been Jones’ reason, but his obvious lack of character gives me cause to consider his accusations far less credible.
Bob
I believe that leaders in the church are just as apt to make mistakes or fall into sin as anyone else, but I also believe we have to take into context the character of the accuser. This is especially true when dealing with homosexuals or their activist groups. They sheer hypocrisy of Mike Jones to accuse Ted Haggard of any wrong doing is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Sure there need to be repercussions to Ted Haggard’s actions, and these are already coming into effect as he has stepped down from his leaderships roles. However before we condemn him for anything more, we need to look at the motives behind Jones’ accusations.
Jones said he did it as a “matter of principle”. But this man is a self proclaimed drug dealer and homosexual prostitute, yet people are putting blind faith in his accusations. Since this man obviously doesn’t hold to the principles I do, it begs the question of what principles did he find so offensive that made him feel he must shout his claim to the world? Was it because Mr. Haggard was scheduled to speak out against homosexual marriage in a political arena (with US elections looming)? The timing does seem a little too coincidental, and since I don’t believe in coincidences I can only come to the most obvious conclusion that this was the case. It wouldn’t be the first time that a gay activist group tried to rally support by propaganda spreading.
What I’m trying to say is look behind the motives of people. This may or may not have been Jones’ reason, but his obvious lack of character gives me cause to consider his accusations far less credible.
Bob
Monday, October 30, 2006
What is Marriage?
Question: Is marriage simply a union between to people that love each other?
Answer: No.
To explain further, marriage is the union between one man and one woman that love each other and come together to have and raise children. There is no such thing as “gay marriage”, there are gay unions but within the true definition of marriage there is no such thing as “gay marriage”. Marriage is for procreation not for recreation, and it has the vital function of passing down morals and values to the next generation. Marriage is FOR children or for the propagation of humanity; and in no way is this possible for, or between, to people of the same gender.
Is gay marriage really best for society, or are we bowing to the pressure of political correctness forced on us by those only interested in themselves (homosexual activists)? What benefit will this social experiment of gay marriage have, or better yet we should ask ourselves what further damage this will have on the already lowered morals and values of the next generation. .
People may think this is equality, but really it is more like giving in to a child that is throwing a temper tantrum. It is not for the benefit of everyone, but for the benefit of a partisan group (to quiet down the raucous child in other words). This is not something that should be taught as acceptable to our children, but taught as a deviation from normal due to unknown traumatic experiences. I also don’t feel it is in the best interest of children to be adopted or raised by a homosexual couple either, nor do I believe that we should be teaching in a public education system that this lifestyle is either appropriate or acceptable.
Homosexual marriage does not strengthen society, it weakens it by saying that morals are relative and that self desires override that of society as a whole.
Bob
Answer: No.
To explain further, marriage is the union between one man and one woman that love each other and come together to have and raise children. There is no such thing as “gay marriage”, there are gay unions but within the true definition of marriage there is no such thing as “gay marriage”. Marriage is for procreation not for recreation, and it has the vital function of passing down morals and values to the next generation. Marriage is FOR children or for the propagation of humanity; and in no way is this possible for, or between, to people of the same gender.
Is gay marriage really best for society, or are we bowing to the pressure of political correctness forced on us by those only interested in themselves (homosexual activists)? What benefit will this social experiment of gay marriage have, or better yet we should ask ourselves what further damage this will have on the already lowered morals and values of the next generation. .
People may think this is equality, but really it is more like giving in to a child that is throwing a temper tantrum. It is not for the benefit of everyone, but for the benefit of a partisan group (to quiet down the raucous child in other words). This is not something that should be taught as acceptable to our children, but taught as a deviation from normal due to unknown traumatic experiences. I also don’t feel it is in the best interest of children to be adopted or raised by a homosexual couple either, nor do I believe that we should be teaching in a public education system that this lifestyle is either appropriate or acceptable.
Homosexual marriage does not strengthen society, it weakens it by saying that morals are relative and that self desires override that of society as a whole.
Bob
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Being Strong.
"A strong man stands up for himself, a stronger man stands up for others". It's ok to encourage these principles to children in movies like "Barnyard, The original party animals", but heaven forbid that adults should act on them.
Just a simple thought for those of you that disagree with the efforts in the middle east.
Bob
Just a simple thought for those of you that disagree with the efforts in the middle east.
Bob
Friday, October 20, 2006
Hate speech
Hate speech.
Ok so what truly constitutes hate speech? I’m going to be blunt; hate speech is not any opinion opposing the views of any group (whether they are called evil or not), hate speech IS when someone tries to garner support for physical violence towards another group. PERIOD!
Freedom of speech allows me to say that Islam is a religion of evil; it even allows me to say that Islamic Muslims will be going to hell when they die. Freedom of speech DOES NOT allow me to incite violence against this group, which is not only what I believe to be wrong but is also common sense. (Unlike the current Muslim threat of violence against Israel and countries that support it.) So what is hate speech? Obviously that which threatens bodily harm on someone or promotes actions against any other group, not that which tells them they are wrong or that a different way may be right.
Again I heard this on CTV coming from a Muslim activist group, and I guess all I can say is know what you are talking about before you go spouting off rhetoric that could damage ALL freedom of speech.
So let’s recap: Hate speech encourages violence; Freedom of speech allows opposing opinions. Did I make that simple enough?
Bob
Ok so what truly constitutes hate speech? I’m going to be blunt; hate speech is not any opinion opposing the views of any group (whether they are called evil or not), hate speech IS when someone tries to garner support for physical violence towards another group. PERIOD!
Freedom of speech allows me to say that Islam is a religion of evil; it even allows me to say that Islamic Muslims will be going to hell when they die. Freedom of speech DOES NOT allow me to incite violence against this group, which is not only what I believe to be wrong but is also common sense. (Unlike the current Muslim threat of violence against Israel and countries that support it.) So what is hate speech? Obviously that which threatens bodily harm on someone or promotes actions against any other group, not that which tells them they are wrong or that a different way may be right.
Again I heard this on CTV coming from a Muslim activist group, and I guess all I can say is know what you are talking about before you go spouting off rhetoric that could damage ALL freedom of speech.
So let’s recap: Hate speech encourages violence; Freedom of speech allows opposing opinions. Did I make that simple enough?
Bob
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Cultural relevance vs. Christian conservatism.
One CTV news report today focused on how a church in Moncton, NB was trying to be “culturally relevant” in their community by holding a heavy metal concert for the youth. Although I understand that they are trying to draw the youth into the church, what does it matter if you draw them in with worldly enticements?
What point is there to draw them into the church by worldly offerings and throw a few minutes of God at deaf ears? Do you really think it matters to kids if they have to sit through a few minutes of “religious stuff” to get what they want? In a word, no! Instead of a house of worship this church was turned into a house of the world; and instead of presenting God to these youths in an appropriate manner by the church’s actions they told them that their selfish desires were acceptable.
In today’s youth culture which includes bad parenting, over stimulation by media sources and intense peer pressures, I understand how some might see this as a justifiable action to get the youth into the church. But just getting them in is not enough. Yes, I agree that kids need to realize that they are accepted as they are but just accepting them without mentoring or discipling is a waste of time and energy. For a quick analogy it’s like throwing the jack and tire iron at a flat tire and expecting it to fix itself.
I also have issues with defiling a house of worship with something as obviously anti-Christian as heavy metal music. Look at Christ’s example of righteous anger at the money changers; it’s not much different than when you allow music designed to balk at traditional religious morals (it was created to antagonize parents and promote and proselytize a worldly set of immoral values). The church isn’t here to give people their worldly desires, what it is here to do is teach people about God. I’m not saying this can’t be fun and exciting but to be effective for God it can’t conform (through acceptance or even encouragement of secular desires) to a fallen world.
This speaks directly to the teachings that youth pastors are being taught in Bible school, which I feel are become far too liberal in their attempts to “reach” the youth. There is no substitute for sound doctrine and good theology, and I feel that the latest crop of youth pastors are concentrating too much on fluff ministries that are more acceptable to the secular masses. Showing youth motorcycle stunts in a church parking lot before this concert was also irresponsible and unacceptable; it just goes to even further encourage them in worldly behaviour which in this case is very dangerous. This youth pastor in particular even admitted that he wasn’t there to “convert you to my religion”, so I have to ask what was he there to do? Was he just there to enjoy the concert too? Was he there to do anything for God? Mark Moore (loosely titled youth pastor) even went so far as to say "Jesus Christ loves you. He does not care what you've done,", but if Christ doesn’t care what we’ve done why did He have to come to save us from our sins? This is not only bad theology; it is unscriptural and ineffective evangelism. Moore also said "It's easy to be an arm-chair critic and sit at home if you're 40 or 50, and say, 'I can't believe this is happening,”, but it shouldn’t be (and isn’t) that I can’t believe it’s happening but rather that it is unacceptable no matter what age you are. This is just another attempt to erode Christian values with a justification of reaching today’s youth. It is yet another current trend in the church to offer the world where we should rather be a “light in the world” (Matthew 5:16, Luke 1:79, Eph 5:8) set apart from it. The Ten Commandments are not all there is to being a Christian, and if that’s how you are living you are forgetting (or discounting) salvation and repentance; the only way to heaven.
“Culturally relevant” does not have to mean culturally accepting, or even worldly (culturally) encouraging; there are many verses that tell us that the world will hate us and God’s feelings towards those “of the world”, so we need to be careful of the message we are sending the youth. Remember we are to bring a message contrary to worldly views, values and desires, so to encourage and accept those things in a house of the Lord is unacceptable. (1 John 2:15-16, John 15:19, 1 John 4:5). 1 John 4:1 specifically tells us to be careful of false prophets, and 2 Peter 2:1 warns us of false teachers. If you’re preaching or teaching it, you should make very certain that it lines up with the Word of God and not just your theology based on your desires and interests.
Bob
What point is there to draw them into the church by worldly offerings and throw a few minutes of God at deaf ears? Do you really think it matters to kids if they have to sit through a few minutes of “religious stuff” to get what they want? In a word, no! Instead of a house of worship this church was turned into a house of the world; and instead of presenting God to these youths in an appropriate manner by the church’s actions they told them that their selfish desires were acceptable.
In today’s youth culture which includes bad parenting, over stimulation by media sources and intense peer pressures, I understand how some might see this as a justifiable action to get the youth into the church. But just getting them in is not enough. Yes, I agree that kids need to realize that they are accepted as they are but just accepting them without mentoring or discipling is a waste of time and energy. For a quick analogy it’s like throwing the jack and tire iron at a flat tire and expecting it to fix itself.
I also have issues with defiling a house of worship with something as obviously anti-Christian as heavy metal music. Look at Christ’s example of righteous anger at the money changers; it’s not much different than when you allow music designed to balk at traditional religious morals (it was created to antagonize parents and promote and proselytize a worldly set of immoral values). The church isn’t here to give people their worldly desires, what it is here to do is teach people about God. I’m not saying this can’t be fun and exciting but to be effective for God it can’t conform (through acceptance or even encouragement of secular desires) to a fallen world.
This speaks directly to the teachings that youth pastors are being taught in Bible school, which I feel are become far too liberal in their attempts to “reach” the youth. There is no substitute for sound doctrine and good theology, and I feel that the latest crop of youth pastors are concentrating too much on fluff ministries that are more acceptable to the secular masses. Showing youth motorcycle stunts in a church parking lot before this concert was also irresponsible and unacceptable; it just goes to even further encourage them in worldly behaviour which in this case is very dangerous. This youth pastor in particular even admitted that he wasn’t there to “convert you to my religion”, so I have to ask what was he there to do? Was he just there to enjoy the concert too? Was he there to do anything for God? Mark Moore (loosely titled youth pastor) even went so far as to say "Jesus Christ loves you. He does not care what you've done,", but if Christ doesn’t care what we’ve done why did He have to come to save us from our sins? This is not only bad theology; it is unscriptural and ineffective evangelism. Moore also said "It's easy to be an arm-chair critic and sit at home if you're 40 or 50, and say, 'I can't believe this is happening,”, but it shouldn’t be (and isn’t) that I can’t believe it’s happening but rather that it is unacceptable no matter what age you are. This is just another attempt to erode Christian values with a justification of reaching today’s youth. It is yet another current trend in the church to offer the world where we should rather be a “light in the world” (Matthew 5:16, Luke 1:79, Eph 5:8) set apart from it. The Ten Commandments are not all there is to being a Christian, and if that’s how you are living you are forgetting (or discounting) salvation and repentance; the only way to heaven.
“Culturally relevant” does not have to mean culturally accepting, or even worldly (culturally) encouraging; there are many verses that tell us that the world will hate us and God’s feelings towards those “of the world”, so we need to be careful of the message we are sending the youth. Remember we are to bring a message contrary to worldly views, values and desires, so to encourage and accept those things in a house of the Lord is unacceptable. (1 John 2:15-16, John 15:19, 1 John 4:5). 1 John 4:1 specifically tells us to be careful of false prophets, and 2 Peter 2:1 warns us of false teachers. If you’re preaching or teaching it, you should make very certain that it lines up with the Word of God and not just your theology based on your desires and interests.
Bob
Monday, October 16, 2006
Submission to the paper.
Recently I was affronted by a post submitted in the “Letter to the Editor” section of my local paper. This post stated that only “religious leaders” should be able to openly oppose homosexuality, and that the “rank and file” should not have this right. The reason this got my hackles up was that this writer was using the same freedom of speech to express his opinion that he wanted to take away from everyone else! I couldn’t imagine someone so stupid as to write something like this without thinking of the potential consequences of such an idiotic ideology, so I felt I had to write the editor myself to correct this egregiously stupid philosophy.
My letter went as follows;
______________
Although I only saw part of a quote from an editorial in your paper, "There is an argument to be made for allowing religious leaders leeway in criticizing homosexuality. Many religions have prescriptions against the practice and religious leaders should be permitted to publicly defend their religion's tenets. But extending that right to rank-and-file members of a religion goes too far.", I am amazed that anyone in a free country would try to take away anyone else's charter right to freedom of speech (Canadian Charter Right number 2 a & b).
It goes to show that this writer clearly doesn't value the freedoms the charter gives them, and believes if you aren't an authority you should not be able to voice your opinions (which really begs the question: what authority has the writer to say what he did?). I guess if his wish were the case, he would also not be able to voice the opinion he did.
If homosexuals have the right to voice their opinion that their lifestyle is ok, and they do, they have to accept every opposing opinion as well. You cannot say that one group's "rank and file" have the right to speak in advocacy of their beliefs, but that any opposing group doesn't have that exact same right.
This writer really needs a lesson in rights, and how they belong to everyone. If they don't believe that is the way it should be, then I guess maybe they should do as they themselves suggest and keep their mouths shut.
Sincerely
Bob
________________
I was alerted to this situation by an article from Lifesite news (view full article here). I understand that this was only the writer’s opinion, and he’s welcome to it, but the sheer hypocrisy of it is astounding. If everyone would take a little more time to logically and rationally work out their opinions before they opened their mouths, we would have a lot less people of the out there that look like idiots.
Opinions are like armpits; everyone has them, and a lot of them really stink.
Bob
My letter went as follows;
______________
Although I only saw part of a quote from an editorial in your paper, "There is an argument to be made for allowing religious leaders leeway in criticizing homosexuality. Many religions have prescriptions against the practice and religious leaders should be permitted to publicly defend their religion's tenets. But extending that right to rank-and-file members of a religion goes too far.", I am amazed that anyone in a free country would try to take away anyone else's charter right to freedom of speech (Canadian Charter Right number 2 a & b).
It goes to show that this writer clearly doesn't value the freedoms the charter gives them, and believes if you aren't an authority you should not be able to voice your opinions (which really begs the question: what authority has the writer to say what he did?). I guess if his wish were the case, he would also not be able to voice the opinion he did.
If homosexuals have the right to voice their opinion that their lifestyle is ok, and they do, they have to accept every opposing opinion as well. You cannot say that one group's "rank and file" have the right to speak in advocacy of their beliefs, but that any opposing group doesn't have that exact same right.
This writer really needs a lesson in rights, and how they belong to everyone. If they don't believe that is the way it should be, then I guess maybe they should do as they themselves suggest and keep their mouths shut.
Sincerely
Bob
________________
I was alerted to this situation by an article from Lifesite news (view full article here). I understand that this was only the writer’s opinion, and he’s welcome to it, but the sheer hypocrisy of it is astounding. If everyone would take a little more time to logically and rationally work out their opinions before they opened their mouths, we would have a lot less people of the out there that look like idiots.
Opinions are like armpits; everyone has them, and a lot of them really stink.
Bob
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Family values
In recent posts I have mentioned Family Values, but I don’t think I’ve explained my views on dynamics behind this issue. Family is not just a bunch of people who live together, but a support system to develop productive and resourceful future generations.
Now I’m going to step out of the generally accepted “politically correct” view, and tell you how I think a family should be run. The “PC” view has the man and woman as equals, (for that matter the current trend is to even treat the children as equals) but I see this as way to appease the militant feminist instead of strengthening the family as a whole.
Whether you believe that the traditional view of men as the head of the house or not, the truth is that this is how it was meant to be. Current trends have the children dictating their desires to the parents (with fear of outbursts as a motivation); this is a warped family unit that is not functioning for the benefit of those children, but to create as little friction as possible for the parents. I call this “namby pamby” parenting, as it is usually done by weak parents with lowered self esteem, those that cannot handle confrontation, those lacking parenting skills, and/or those with a worldly set of values.
Look at the family as a ship, there is only one captain (the father) and his is the final say. This captain is responsible for EVERYONE on his ship; his duty is to see that the ship runs smoothly and that all of his crew is safe. I see the wife as an XO (this is the executive officer, next in command on the ship). But even though the XO answers to the captain, they still have a set of experiences and skills that the captain draws on to make the best decision making the XO invaluable to the captain. The children are the crew, anywhere from raw recruits with no knowledge or experience (babies) to junior officers such as Lieutenants (teenagers) with much more knowledge, experience and responsibility. You could never run a ship with two captains; just like you could never run a ship with a raw recruit as the captain. When everyone in the family lives up to their responsibility that is when the ship will run smoothly.
This is not a direct parallel, but an analogy as an example of the way I see a strong family structure to be. It is our job as parents to raise our children in such a way as to prepare them for life on their own, and be able to properly take care of their own children. This means teaching them morals and values which society scoffs at (love, integrity, righteousness, compassion, and the importance of traditional family), and not accepting the eroded values of the world we live in.
This means men have to be men and women have to be women, and you can’t let the lines of these roles become unclear or you end up with a weak family which in the long run will cause the children suffer the consequences. Men have to stand up and accept their familial responsibilities in a respectful way, and women have to let men lead without feelings of inferiority (because they are not). Men and women were created for different roles, that much is apparent by physiology, but this in no way goes to say that one is inferior to the other.
Whether you like what you’ve read or not, you should think about what and why you believe what you do with an open mind to what I’ve said. There are a million ways to disagree with what I’ve said, and there just as many justifications. But in all honesty if you are not treating your spouse and children with the appropriate respect (and respect is everyone’s responsibility), those relationships will fail no matter how you run your family.
(This was written at my wife’s prompting, after a discussion on the relevance of youth pastors in the church.)
Bob
Now I’m going to step out of the generally accepted “politically correct” view, and tell you how I think a family should be run. The “PC” view has the man and woman as equals, (for that matter the current trend is to even treat the children as equals) but I see this as way to appease the militant feminist instead of strengthening the family as a whole.
Whether you believe that the traditional view of men as the head of the house or not, the truth is that this is how it was meant to be. Current trends have the children dictating their desires to the parents (with fear of outbursts as a motivation); this is a warped family unit that is not functioning for the benefit of those children, but to create as little friction as possible for the parents. I call this “namby pamby” parenting, as it is usually done by weak parents with lowered self esteem, those that cannot handle confrontation, those lacking parenting skills, and/or those with a worldly set of values.
Look at the family as a ship, there is only one captain (the father) and his is the final say. This captain is responsible for EVERYONE on his ship; his duty is to see that the ship runs smoothly and that all of his crew is safe. I see the wife as an XO (this is the executive officer, next in command on the ship). But even though the XO answers to the captain, they still have a set of experiences and skills that the captain draws on to make the best decision making the XO invaluable to the captain. The children are the crew, anywhere from raw recruits with no knowledge or experience (babies) to junior officers such as Lieutenants (teenagers) with much more knowledge, experience and responsibility. You could never run a ship with two captains; just like you could never run a ship with a raw recruit as the captain. When everyone in the family lives up to their responsibility that is when the ship will run smoothly.
This is not a direct parallel, but an analogy as an example of the way I see a strong family structure to be. It is our job as parents to raise our children in such a way as to prepare them for life on their own, and be able to properly take care of their own children. This means teaching them morals and values which society scoffs at (love, integrity, righteousness, compassion, and the importance of traditional family), and not accepting the eroded values of the world we live in.
This means men have to be men and women have to be women, and you can’t let the lines of these roles become unclear or you end up with a weak family which in the long run will cause the children suffer the consequences. Men have to stand up and accept their familial responsibilities in a respectful way, and women have to let men lead without feelings of inferiority (because they are not). Men and women were created for different roles, that much is apparent by physiology, but this in no way goes to say that one is inferior to the other.
Whether you like what you’ve read or not, you should think about what and why you believe what you do with an open mind to what I’ve said. There are a million ways to disagree with what I’ve said, and there just as many justifications. But in all honesty if you are not treating your spouse and children with the appropriate respect (and respect is everyone’s responsibility), those relationships will fail no matter how you run your family.
(This was written at my wife’s prompting, after a discussion on the relevance of youth pastors in the church.)
Bob
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Suicide bombers, Islam's temper tantrums.
I just came to the conclusion that suicide bombers are like little children throwing temper tantrums.
Look at how the mentality is the same. Both the child throwing the tantrum and the suicide bomber are doing everything they can to get what they want, and in the bombers' case if they can't get what they want they take the stand that "then they don't want anything". I'm sure you can picture your child crossing their arms and pouting when they don't get their way, the only difference is that suicide bombers will kill people to get what they want.
Sure it's simple, but the similarities are incredible.
Bob
Look at how the mentality is the same. Both the child throwing the tantrum and the suicide bomber are doing everything they can to get what they want, and in the bombers' case if they can't get what they want they take the stand that "then they don't want anything". I'm sure you can picture your child crossing their arms and pouting when they don't get their way, the only difference is that suicide bombers will kill people to get what they want.
Sure it's simple, but the similarities are incredible.
Bob
A safe school part 2.
Feminism at it's finest. The beating of a 14 year old girl by two other girls on a school bus is another new trendy type of violence. Girls now see themselves as having to be just like boys (a feminist ideology), and since they see boys as violent and irrational (not knowing really how men and boys really are, or why) they are starting to act out with violence.
There's only one way out of these ongoing trends in violence, but it means self sacrifice and conservative morals (Family and yes I dare say it, Christian morals). This is something I don't see happening in the near future, because most people are selfish and immoral; and that means the rise in violence from girls and shootings in schools will only increase (and escalate).
So again I ask; what are you doing to help ensure safety in our schools (or for our children)?
Bob
There's only one way out of these ongoing trends in violence, but it means self sacrifice and conservative morals (Family and yes I dare say it, Christian morals). This is something I don't see happening in the near future, because most people are selfish and immoral; and that means the rise in violence from girls and shootings in schools will only increase (and escalate).
So again I ask; what are you doing to help ensure safety in our schools (or for our children)?
Bob
Monday, October 09, 2006
A safe school?
Here's a question to all of you out there that send your children to public school; Are you doing everything you can at home to make the public schooling environment safe for everyone else?
Now you’re probably asking “What does he mean?” or “What can we do to make schools safer?” or maybe even “Why do we have to do anything to make schools safer?” Well if you asked the latter question you are in serious denial of your parental responsibility, but if you asked the first questions you understand that your actions affect your children’s social behaviour.
What I’m really talking about is actual parenting. Not just having kids and shipping them off to daycare and then public school, but personal parental interaction with our offspring. It’s up to parents to pass down morals and values to their children; this is not the school’s job, nor is it the job of their peers and/or friends from school. It’s about taking the focus off ourselves and our own desires and doing what’s best for them, which is spending time with them ourselves. Get to know your child, once you know them you are able to help them when they are struggling with things that might make them suicidal or even, God help us, homicidal.
I have a real problem with feminist groups that devalue the incredible task of raising children, in favour of seeing equality as “the same pay for the same job” as men. But the truth of the matter is that mother’s who choose to stay home and dedicate their lives to raising moral, upright children are far more successful than any female businesswomen. What the stay at home mom has done is ensured that the next generation will be properly raised by someone with a vested interest in them instead of shipping them off to satisfy their own ambitions.
I’m not saying that there aren’t single mothers out there who go against the “mom at home” scenario, but if the fathers had been raised with stronger family values there would be no need for this scenario.
Society says that school is the best thing for our children, but the same system that is considered best for our children is also where they are most vulnerable. Just look at the problems with daycare abuse, school bullying, and now the increasing rash of school murders. Is this truly best for our children, or just more convenient?
Look out for everyone’s kids by taking care and knowing your own.
Bob
Now you’re probably asking “What does he mean?” or “What can we do to make schools safer?” or maybe even “Why do we have to do anything to make schools safer?” Well if you asked the latter question you are in serious denial of your parental responsibility, but if you asked the first questions you understand that your actions affect your children’s social behaviour.
What I’m really talking about is actual parenting. Not just having kids and shipping them off to daycare and then public school, but personal parental interaction with our offspring. It’s up to parents to pass down morals and values to their children; this is not the school’s job, nor is it the job of their peers and/or friends from school. It’s about taking the focus off ourselves and our own desires and doing what’s best for them, which is spending time with them ourselves. Get to know your child, once you know them you are able to help them when they are struggling with things that might make them suicidal or even, God help us, homicidal.
I have a real problem with feminist groups that devalue the incredible task of raising children, in favour of seeing equality as “the same pay for the same job” as men. But the truth of the matter is that mother’s who choose to stay home and dedicate their lives to raising moral, upright children are far more successful than any female businesswomen. What the stay at home mom has done is ensured that the next generation will be properly raised by someone with a vested interest in them instead of shipping them off to satisfy their own ambitions.
I’m not saying that there aren’t single mothers out there who go against the “mom at home” scenario, but if the fathers had been raised with stronger family values there would be no need for this scenario.
Society says that school is the best thing for our children, but the same system that is considered best for our children is also where they are most vulnerable. Just look at the problems with daycare abuse, school bullying, and now the increasing rash of school murders. Is this truly best for our children, or just more convenient?
Look out for everyone’s kids by taking care and knowing your own.
Bob
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Irrational does not mean illogical
Yet another day goes by with reasons and excuses for Robert’s shootings of the young Amish schoolgirls. No matter what caused him to do this, there is absolutely no justifiable reason or excuse to make this in any way acceptable. But we need to look at it logically even though Roberts himself may not have been thinking rationally.
One theory touted by the media is that the death of Robert’s premature child changed him which psychologically contributed to his attack. The failure of the logic here is that Robert’s should have been more empathetic to others who have lost children, and not sent him into a murderous rage (and more specifically to kill only young girls). Whether or not the death of his daughter made him mad at God, or anyone else for that matter, it is illogical for this unfortunate event to lead to murder.
The second theory, based on the information released from Robert’s suicide note, is that he had molested minor children in the past and was having dreams of doing so again. Again this is not the catalyst to the murders he committed, but at this point it is conceivable that the guilt may have turned suicidal. Had it been simply that he was guilt ridden; he could have chosen suicide without the need for murder, but it did turn to murder, and apparently almost repeat pedophilia.
The fact that Roberts went to the school was a testimony to how he succumbed to the pressure of his depravity; and when he couldn’t fulfill his lusts (either by interruption or inability), in either aggravation and frustration (or both) he turned the gun on his intended victims. Finally he felt his only option was to take his own life, knowing that after taking such offensive actions as murder and pedophilia (admitted in a suicide note and attempted by the paraphernalia he carried with him) he could never face his family or community again.
What I’m saying is that the death of Robert’s premature daughter more than likely had absolutely nothing to do with his actions at the school, but the fact that he was a pedophile did. Roberts may try to justify his actions in his own mind by bringing up his grief, but it was his lack of willpower and/or self control led him to the school for what he wanted, and this is indicative of the current societal values which elevate self over others.
This is also a good example of how even the man or woman next door may be suffering with temptations like this, and the outcome shows how unable they feel to seek help. So why is it they feel unable to seek the help they need? Is it because of the judgmental attitudes of our society (both worldly and religious)? Is it because they really don’t want help, or maybe they think they don’t need it? Is it that they feel to guilty or self conscious about admitting they have a problem? (These are rhetorical questions for reflective purposes).
I don’t really know, and would it really make a difference even if we did? What we do know is that we have to live with the reality that we will deal with people like this, and that no where is truly safe. So what do we do? I gave an outline in my last post on how we need to raise our children with appropriate morals, but that is not even going to be enough especially when these offenders don’t see even death as a big enough deterrent to stop them from committing their crimes. Maybe if they understood that death will not get them out of paying for their crimes, it would change the way they act. But this is what happens when you live in a society that criticizes belief in God and moral behaviour; you feel like you will get away with it if you kill yourself.
So maybe the world views of “self gratification, look after #1, if it feels good do it, and it’s my life to do what I want” are wrong after all, and society need to take a good look at how destructive this view is before it is to late.
The real reason for this heinous crime will never be known, but we need to look at this as more than just a sad story of something that happened to someone else because this could happen to you, me or anyone just as easily. We all need to look at the way we raise our children, and we need to look at the values our children are adopting from a society that doesn’t care about them.
Bob
One theory touted by the media is that the death of Robert’s premature child changed him which psychologically contributed to his attack. The failure of the logic here is that Robert’s should have been more empathetic to others who have lost children, and not sent him into a murderous rage (and more specifically to kill only young girls). Whether or not the death of his daughter made him mad at God, or anyone else for that matter, it is illogical for this unfortunate event to lead to murder.
The second theory, based on the information released from Robert’s suicide note, is that he had molested minor children in the past and was having dreams of doing so again. Again this is not the catalyst to the murders he committed, but at this point it is conceivable that the guilt may have turned suicidal. Had it been simply that he was guilt ridden; he could have chosen suicide without the need for murder, but it did turn to murder, and apparently almost repeat pedophilia.
The fact that Roberts went to the school was a testimony to how he succumbed to the pressure of his depravity; and when he couldn’t fulfill his lusts (either by interruption or inability), in either aggravation and frustration (or both) he turned the gun on his intended victims. Finally he felt his only option was to take his own life, knowing that after taking such offensive actions as murder and pedophilia (admitted in a suicide note and attempted by the paraphernalia he carried with him) he could never face his family or community again.
What I’m saying is that the death of Robert’s premature daughter more than likely had absolutely nothing to do with his actions at the school, but the fact that he was a pedophile did. Roberts may try to justify his actions in his own mind by bringing up his grief, but it was his lack of willpower and/or self control led him to the school for what he wanted, and this is indicative of the current societal values which elevate self over others.
This is also a good example of how even the man or woman next door may be suffering with temptations like this, and the outcome shows how unable they feel to seek help. So why is it they feel unable to seek the help they need? Is it because of the judgmental attitudes of our society (both worldly and religious)? Is it because they really don’t want help, or maybe they think they don’t need it? Is it that they feel to guilty or self conscious about admitting they have a problem? (These are rhetorical questions for reflective purposes).
I don’t really know, and would it really make a difference even if we did? What we do know is that we have to live with the reality that we will deal with people like this, and that no where is truly safe. So what do we do? I gave an outline in my last post on how we need to raise our children with appropriate morals, but that is not even going to be enough especially when these offenders don’t see even death as a big enough deterrent to stop them from committing their crimes. Maybe if they understood that death will not get them out of paying for their crimes, it would change the way they act. But this is what happens when you live in a society that criticizes belief in God and moral behaviour; you feel like you will get away with it if you kill yourself.
So maybe the world views of “self gratification, look after #1, if it feels good do it, and it’s my life to do what I want” are wrong after all, and society need to take a good look at how destructive this view is before it is to late.
The real reason for this heinous crime will never be known, but we need to look at this as more than just a sad story of something that happened to someone else because this could happen to you, me or anyone just as easily. We all need to look at the way we raise our children, and we need to look at the values our children are adopting from a society that doesn’t care about them.
Bob
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
A sign of the times.
A truly sad social commentary played out recently in the Amish community in Lancaster. It is inconceivable that anyone would enter a school and shoot children, and it is particularly heinous in a community of known pacifists. (Murder in any form is never acceptable, and when the act is perpetrated on a group known not to defend themselves physically it is like shooting fish in a barrel and particularly reprehensible.)
Shooting children has seemed to become acceptable in some people’s minds, whether it is kids shooting other kids or now even adults shooting children. It goes to show that these people (both types of murders) care for nothing except their own desires, no matter how abhorrent or malicious. Self has become the focus instead of community; and I know this is not my first diatribe on the subject of selfishness, but it is an issue that people need to hear about for the betterment of life for all of us.
I guess what disturbs me most about this is that there will be people out there that will try to figure out why Roberts did this, but that really doesn’t matter now. What does matter is seeing the upward trend of violence (especially that perpetrated against children), and trying to find a solution for all of society. Of course this is impossible; first off because what will happen is that there will be reactive measure put into place (band-aid mentality) and it will be accepted as being fixed. But no matter what security measures are put in place, it is no substitute for proper parenting with family, community, and moral values. Secondly it is because society as a whole is unwilling to change its belief that the individual comes first, to that of one where the community (or others) should come first. (For example, look at these common sayings. "If it feels good do it", "If you don’t like it, change it", and even in music you find lyrics like this one from Sloan’s song titled "If it feels good do it"; "If it feels good do it -Even if you shouldn't". Even look at modern business practices; you are encouraged to step on whoever it takes to make it to the top, instead of giving your neighbor a hand up when he’s down.) And thirdly, it is because we have devalued human life right from the stage of conception. When our own governments condone the murder of the most innocent of human beings at their most vulnerable time of life, the message they send to the immoral masses is that anyone else’s life is not as important as yours.
This is why I say that the current shootings are a commentary on society, because society shares the responsibility with the offender for encouraging this mentality of self importance. When we elevate the importance of self over the importance of community welfare, we come up with situations where eventually the individual will feel violence is legitimate because what they want is more important than anything else. This type of logic does not take into account the wants or needs of others, and only that of the individual. It is a self defeating way of thinking, because if all we think about is what we want (and then fall in with the current trend toward violence to achieve those goals) we will eventually kill off the human race.
I pity the family of Charles Roberts, because the children will have to grow up knowing their father murdered completely helpless children, his wife will wonder how the man she loved could ever do something so amazingly terrible and how will she ever explain it to her children, and his parents will ask themselves where they went wrong.
But in the end this falls on no ones shoulders but Charles Carl Roberts, and even though he took his own life he will face a justice far mightier than anything here on earth.
Bob
Shooting children has seemed to become acceptable in some people’s minds, whether it is kids shooting other kids or now even adults shooting children. It goes to show that these people (both types of murders) care for nothing except their own desires, no matter how abhorrent or malicious. Self has become the focus instead of community; and I know this is not my first diatribe on the subject of selfishness, but it is an issue that people need to hear about for the betterment of life for all of us.
I guess what disturbs me most about this is that there will be people out there that will try to figure out why Roberts did this, but that really doesn’t matter now. What does matter is seeing the upward trend of violence (especially that perpetrated against children), and trying to find a solution for all of society. Of course this is impossible; first off because what will happen is that there will be reactive measure put into place (band-aid mentality) and it will be accepted as being fixed. But no matter what security measures are put in place, it is no substitute for proper parenting with family, community, and moral values. Secondly it is because society as a whole is unwilling to change its belief that the individual comes first, to that of one where the community (or others) should come first. (For example, look at these common sayings. "If it feels good do it", "If you don’t like it, change it", and even in music you find lyrics like this one from Sloan’s song titled "If it feels good do it"; "If it feels good do it -Even if you shouldn't". Even look at modern business practices; you are encouraged to step on whoever it takes to make it to the top, instead of giving your neighbor a hand up when he’s down.) And thirdly, it is because we have devalued human life right from the stage of conception. When our own governments condone the murder of the most innocent of human beings at their most vulnerable time of life, the message they send to the immoral masses is that anyone else’s life is not as important as yours.
This is why I say that the current shootings are a commentary on society, because society shares the responsibility with the offender for encouraging this mentality of self importance. When we elevate the importance of self over the importance of community welfare, we come up with situations where eventually the individual will feel violence is legitimate because what they want is more important than anything else. This type of logic does not take into account the wants or needs of others, and only that of the individual. It is a self defeating way of thinking, because if all we think about is what we want (and then fall in with the current trend toward violence to achieve those goals) we will eventually kill off the human race.
I pity the family of Charles Roberts, because the children will have to grow up knowing their father murdered completely helpless children, his wife will wonder how the man she loved could ever do something so amazingly terrible and how will she ever explain it to her children, and his parents will ask themselves where they went wrong.
But in the end this falls on no ones shoulders but Charles Carl Roberts, and even though he took his own life he will face a justice far mightier than anything here on earth.
Bob
Thursday, September 21, 2006
"There's the rub"
So here's the "rub" (problem), how do you tell people the truth? 1st when they really don't want to hear the truth, 2nd because they think they know the truth, and 3rd because they think truth is subjective (basic relativism, your truth may be right for you, but mine is right for me).
Right now I’m speaking particularly about witnessing to others, but this is a universal problem with even simple issues. Do we put too much emphasis on opinion making it more important than truth? I mean just because we have the right to an opinion doesn’t make that opinion right, and without clear moral guidelines and reasoning’s for that opinion shouldn’t we question it?
In “A few good men” with Jack Nicholson (Jessep) and Tom Cruise (Kaffee), Kaffee says “I want the truth” and Jessep responds “You can’t handle the truth!” But in reality it is just the opposite. It’s not that we can’t handle the truth, but that we really don’t want to hear it because it may mean that we don’t have it as “all together” as we thought we did. Or it may even go as far as meaning we might have been wrong.
This means as Christians we have to know what we believe, and why we believe it to be an effective witness. But even deeper how can we relate it to those around us that may have little or no Biblical knowledge (thereby having no frame of reference to understand the Scriptures) without coming off sounding like a “religious nut”?
The rub here is twofold; 1st Christians need to realize that we are no different than the people we are trying to bring the truth to. (If you didn’t get it, we are ALL sinners and deserve death! So we need to understand that no matter who it is, except for Christ as man, they are our equals!) 2nd we have to be able to relate to those outside Christian circles by understanding the world they live in. (In other words get our heads out of the sand of “Christianese” and start living in the world! Now be careful, I said IN not OF. We don’t have to accept the loose moralities of the world, but if we don’t understand where people of the world are coming from we have no frame of reference to know how to witness to them.)
But back to my first question, how do you tell the truth to those that don’t want to hear it? Do we just accept them as lost? Maybe we hope that some day they may see the benefits of a Christian life lived before them? Or do we go on banging away at them with the potential of making Christianity look pushy? I really don’t know the answer to this one, because there is no pat answer for it.
I often feel that some Christians evangelize because they see it as their job, or as some way of racking up points in heaven. I also feel they lose site of what is truly important in evangelism too, Love. God loved us enough to give His Son to save us from our sins, and Christ told us to love our neighbours. We need to be witnessing because we love people and don’t want to see them lost to hell, not only because we were given the task of spreading the Gospel.
This is where relationships come in. If we are in relationship with the people we are trying to witness to, we have more insight to how to witness to them, and even more importantly a reason TO witness to them, LOVE. Don’t mistake me here, I don’t believe we are called to witness to only those we can love or agree with; but we are called to love everyone, however we don’t love everyone we meet or know because our values and/or opinions may differ enough to cause this division. It’s a matter of differentiating the values or morals we find inappropriate or offensive from that person, and then loving the person even though they hold them. (Easier said than done I find; I know I still struggle with this. I even struggle with this with other Christians, especially with the touchy feely, wishy washy Hyper Charismatic ones. No offense intended.)
I think one of the saddest and hardest things for me lately was when my neighbour said “I don’t need to be saved from anything”. This is a nice guy, and it is apparent that although he lives a life in the world, he tries to live by a higher set of ethics. So to hear him say this made me very sad for him, because he really doesn’t understand that there are consequences at the end of this life (and I got the distinct impression that my neighbour has been pushed at by "religious nuts" in the past). Mainly I see the reason behind this attitude as not wanting to be accountable to anyone but themselves, and when they are only accountable to themselves they can’t understand that there will be consequences no matter how good a life we try to lead. So my reason behind this post is really to work out how to witness to him in a way that he would find accepting, and until I know him better I won’t know how to do it (and maybe to help someone else work through the same or similar issue.)
Bob
Right now I’m speaking particularly about witnessing to others, but this is a universal problem with even simple issues. Do we put too much emphasis on opinion making it more important than truth? I mean just because we have the right to an opinion doesn’t make that opinion right, and without clear moral guidelines and reasoning’s for that opinion shouldn’t we question it?
In “A few good men” with Jack Nicholson (Jessep) and Tom Cruise (Kaffee), Kaffee says “I want the truth” and Jessep responds “You can’t handle the truth!” But in reality it is just the opposite. It’s not that we can’t handle the truth, but that we really don’t want to hear it because it may mean that we don’t have it as “all together” as we thought we did. Or it may even go as far as meaning we might have been wrong.
This means as Christians we have to know what we believe, and why we believe it to be an effective witness. But even deeper how can we relate it to those around us that may have little or no Biblical knowledge (thereby having no frame of reference to understand the Scriptures) without coming off sounding like a “religious nut”?
The rub here is twofold; 1st Christians need to realize that we are no different than the people we are trying to bring the truth to. (If you didn’t get it, we are ALL sinners and deserve death! So we need to understand that no matter who it is, except for Christ as man, they are our equals!) 2nd we have to be able to relate to those outside Christian circles by understanding the world they live in. (In other words get our heads out of the sand of “Christianese” and start living in the world! Now be careful, I said IN not OF. We don’t have to accept the loose moralities of the world, but if we don’t understand where people of the world are coming from we have no frame of reference to know how to witness to them.)
But back to my first question, how do you tell the truth to those that don’t want to hear it? Do we just accept them as lost? Maybe we hope that some day they may see the benefits of a Christian life lived before them? Or do we go on banging away at them with the potential of making Christianity look pushy? I really don’t know the answer to this one, because there is no pat answer for it.
I often feel that some Christians evangelize because they see it as their job, or as some way of racking up points in heaven. I also feel they lose site of what is truly important in evangelism too, Love. God loved us enough to give His Son to save us from our sins, and Christ told us to love our neighbours. We need to be witnessing because we love people and don’t want to see them lost to hell, not only because we were given the task of spreading the Gospel.
This is where relationships come in. If we are in relationship with the people we are trying to witness to, we have more insight to how to witness to them, and even more importantly a reason TO witness to them, LOVE. Don’t mistake me here, I don’t believe we are called to witness to only those we can love or agree with; but we are called to love everyone, however we don’t love everyone we meet or know because our values and/or opinions may differ enough to cause this division. It’s a matter of differentiating the values or morals we find inappropriate or offensive from that person, and then loving the person even though they hold them. (Easier said than done I find; I know I still struggle with this. I even struggle with this with other Christians, especially with the touchy feely, wishy washy Hyper Charismatic ones. No offense intended.)
I think one of the saddest and hardest things for me lately was when my neighbour said “I don’t need to be saved from anything”. This is a nice guy, and it is apparent that although he lives a life in the world, he tries to live by a higher set of ethics. So to hear him say this made me very sad for him, because he really doesn’t understand that there are consequences at the end of this life (and I got the distinct impression that my neighbour has been pushed at by "religious nuts" in the past). Mainly I see the reason behind this attitude as not wanting to be accountable to anyone but themselves, and when they are only accountable to themselves they can’t understand that there will be consequences no matter how good a life we try to lead. So my reason behind this post is really to work out how to witness to him in a way that he would find accepting, and until I know him better I won’t know how to do it (and maybe to help someone else work through the same or similar issue.)
Bob
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
homonazi's new propoganda war.
It never ceases to amaze me how supposedly rational people can accept an irrational act like homosexuality enough to add it into a school curriculum as a "viable alternative lifestyle". What a crock of bull manure. For more information on the book in question, visit Lifesite news at their website. Simply put this is just another attempt by homosexual activists to promote (and recruit to) that lifestyle. However I won’t lengthen this post any more than necessary by quoting the article, but I encourage you to read it for yourself. I think the thing that bothered me most in this article was even the possibility that my tax dollars may be funding something I find so morally abhorrent.
I went on to read another article which featured a pro life individual being arrested in Lodz, Poland. This reminded me of WWII, and of hearing about the “Lodz ghetto” which I believe I heard was reserved for Jews. However the cross thinking of these two situations did not end there, and brought back a term I had once heard; “homonazi’s” (as pertaining to radical militant individuals bent on global acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle). But this isn’t the extent of it; it also made me look at the similarities and differences between the two groups.
Although Hitler wanted to rule the world, he at least wanted to have a surviving society (what he called “the master race”). Whereas homosexuality doesn’t even leave room for furtherance of the human race, as homosexuality does not propagate any species but is purely for the gratification of the individual. (This makes me wonder why homosexuals believe they should be able to adopt children; beside the fact that they cannot conceive their own children through the homosexual relationships they pursue, they should also not expect to have children outside a relationship designed for the purpose of having children.) Ask yourself this, if homosexuality is normal and/or natural, how would the human race survive? In the same way I disagree with Hitler’s attempt at ethnic cleansing, I also disagree with the homosexual agenda to promote and recruit to the acceptance of an abhorrent lifestyle.
But they both have some startling similarities; Like both being militant about a view not consistent to the well being of all people, both are militant that their opinions be accepted without any tolerance toward the opposite viewpoint, and they both believe that they are doing what’s right.
Is it scary? Yes!
Is it surprising? No.
Bob
I went on to read another article which featured a pro life individual being arrested in Lodz, Poland. This reminded me of WWII, and of hearing about the “Lodz ghetto” which I believe I heard was reserved for Jews. However the cross thinking of these two situations did not end there, and brought back a term I had once heard; “homonazi’s” (as pertaining to radical militant individuals bent on global acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle). But this isn’t the extent of it; it also made me look at the similarities and differences between the two groups.
Although Hitler wanted to rule the world, he at least wanted to have a surviving society (what he called “the master race”). Whereas homosexuality doesn’t even leave room for furtherance of the human race, as homosexuality does not propagate any species but is purely for the gratification of the individual. (This makes me wonder why homosexuals believe they should be able to adopt children; beside the fact that they cannot conceive their own children through the homosexual relationships they pursue, they should also not expect to have children outside a relationship designed for the purpose of having children.) Ask yourself this, if homosexuality is normal and/or natural, how would the human race survive? In the same way I disagree with Hitler’s attempt at ethnic cleansing, I also disagree with the homosexual agenda to promote and recruit to the acceptance of an abhorrent lifestyle.
But they both have some startling similarities; Like both being militant about a view not consistent to the well being of all people, both are militant that their opinions be accepted without any tolerance toward the opposite viewpoint, and they both believe that they are doing what’s right.
Is it scary? Yes!
Is it surprising? No.
Bob
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Islam vs Pope Benedict.
I guess my question would be this; if Muslims don't want to be seen as violent threats to other religions, why would they react violently over a speech they felt was defamatory? Wouldn't it have strengthened their position to rationally approach the Vatican and ask for a public apology, rather than burn a "crude effigy" of the Pope? Consequently the response of the muslim community has only strengthened the view that many muslims are violent extremists ready to go overboard at the drop of a hat.
Bob
Bob
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
The Crocidile Hunter; Steve Irwin.
With everything that has alread been said about The crocidile hunter there is not much left for me to say, except that I hope he knew and accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour. As any Christian knows; just because we are good people does not mean we will go to Heaven, and this is why I hope that Steve Irwin accepted Christ.
My heart and condolences go out to the Irwin family, and especially Terri, Bindi Sue and Bob, who I know will miss him greatly.
Bob
My heart and condolences go out to the Irwin family, and especially Terri, Bindi Sue and Bob, who I know will miss him greatly.
Bob
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
5 Canadians killed in Afghanistan.
So does this mean that the Canadian military should turn tail and run like cowards? HECK NO!! (FYI; Jack Layton is one of these people that would bring our troops home and sacrifice the Afghani people to the Taliban regime, rather than support our troops already there.) These men should be honoured for the contribution they put in for the freedom of a nation, and remain there to finish the job they started!
Here's the thing, If we were to leave Afghanistan now the previous tyrants which ruled over this Country would be back in power faster than you could shake a stick at. The problem with this is the group we are talking about were muslim extremists with no value for human life, and this means a very bad situation for not only women and children but every average Afghani citizen. Afghanistan would become another safe haven for terrorists, and a threat to North America in the future. What we are doing there now is really securing our own safety by encouraging a democratic and reasonable Government for their people.
As for the people out there that say "oh Canadians are dying... we better bring them home", I say GET A GRIP! These are Canada's military and they knew they may be called to serve in a military capacity, and now that they are we have people saying they were wrong for choosing this work? This is not a draft in which people were forced to fight, but these brave men and women signed up for this task. I also say stop demeaning the nature of their work and SUPPORT THEM; and instead of questioning why they are there, tell the world that they died for a noble and righteous cause... FREEDOM.
Do I like the fact that these men died? Absolutely not.
Do I think they died in vain? Absolutely not.
Do I support the military initiative in the middle east? ABSOLUTELY!
Maybe we need to stick our heads out of our turtle shells here in Canada and realize that many other nations do not have the freedoms we have, and it is our responsibility as a member of a global community to help these other nations enjoy these same freedoms we take for granted.
Stepping off my soapbox,
Bob
Here's the thing, If we were to leave Afghanistan now the previous tyrants which ruled over this Country would be back in power faster than you could shake a stick at. The problem with this is the group we are talking about were muslim extremists with no value for human life, and this means a very bad situation for not only women and children but every average Afghani citizen. Afghanistan would become another safe haven for terrorists, and a threat to North America in the future. What we are doing there now is really securing our own safety by encouraging a democratic and reasonable Government for their people.
As for the people out there that say "oh Canadians are dying... we better bring them home", I say GET A GRIP! These are Canada's military and they knew they may be called to serve in a military capacity, and now that they are we have people saying they were wrong for choosing this work? This is not a draft in which people were forced to fight, but these brave men and women signed up for this task. I also say stop demeaning the nature of their work and SUPPORT THEM; and instead of questioning why they are there, tell the world that they died for a noble and righteous cause... FREEDOM.
Do I like the fact that these men died? Absolutely not.
Do I think they died in vain? Absolutely not.
Do I support the military initiative in the middle east? ABSOLUTELY!
Maybe we need to stick our heads out of our turtle shells here in Canada and realize that many other nations do not have the freedoms we have, and it is our responsibility as a member of a global community to help these other nations enjoy these same freedoms we take for granted.
Stepping off my soapbox,
Bob
Understanding
When my pain is bad I often find myself thinking of unusual things, tonight being no exception I was trying to fall asleep when John Merrick came to mind (for those who don't know John Merrick, and I'm not sure if I spelled his name correctly or not but, he was called the elephant man due to rare physical deformities). I went through some of the scenes in the movie, and I think I came to understand what people were afraid of beyond simply his appearance. I believe that generally people were also afraid of his possible actions or reactions, which they were unsure whether they would conform to normal socially acceptable standards. This, of course, was purely base on a preliminary judgement from appearance, but at the same time may have been true due to lack of social skills training due to that same affliction.
I was wondering why this was going on in my head when I remembered an incident in the public pool last week which involved a mentally challenged man coming to close to my arm. The situation was really very benign, the young man was simply saying hello physically instead of verbally, none the less it was still a slightly uncomfortable situation for me. I'm not saying I couldn't have physically stopped this man from touching my arm, but how would I communicate to him that he can't touch a specific appendage? I understood that he was not being aggresive, and I neither felt threatened or upset by the incident, however I did feel confused at how to express my needs in a way that would not offend or upset him.
I am really not sure what meaning or insight I am supposed to get from this yet, but I thought I should put it into words for later reflection. Right now it is a confusing jumble of social skills and graces, warped perceptions and a need for me to be actually heard when I explain what I am going through. It's not a matter of sympathy, but empathy through real understanding. I realize that people know I have some pain, but I also know they don't understand the magnitude of it. Furthermore I know now that pain is much harder to understand than I thought it was before the onset of RSD/CRPS.
Bob
I was wondering why this was going on in my head when I remembered an incident in the public pool last week which involved a mentally challenged man coming to close to my arm. The situation was really very benign, the young man was simply saying hello physically instead of verbally, none the less it was still a slightly uncomfortable situation for me. I'm not saying I couldn't have physically stopped this man from touching my arm, but how would I communicate to him that he can't touch a specific appendage? I understood that he was not being aggresive, and I neither felt threatened or upset by the incident, however I did feel confused at how to express my needs in a way that would not offend or upset him.
I am really not sure what meaning or insight I am supposed to get from this yet, but I thought I should put it into words for later reflection. Right now it is a confusing jumble of social skills and graces, warped perceptions and a need for me to be actually heard when I explain what I am going through. It's not a matter of sympathy, but empathy through real understanding. I realize that people know I have some pain, but I also know they don't understand the magnitude of it. Furthermore I know now that pain is much harder to understand than I thought it was before the onset of RSD/CRPS.
Bob
Friday, August 25, 2006
Why do we need a Federal Status of Women group?
After reading a number of blogs, and looking at the federal Status of Women site I have to ask myself what purpose they serve in this day and age? Now I understand that the general consensus will be that this is a funnel for radical feminists, and this may be true, but I am asking what rights (or lack thereof) Women in Canada are missing that men have.
SWC says on their site; "(SWC) is the federal government agency which promotes gender equality, and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country", but the last time I checked women had as many rights as men if they choose to take advantage of them. However there are those out there that choose a higher calling to better our social situation in Canada by staying home to raise their own children instead of leaving this vital task to strangers or creating more latchkey children. Our society has developed to value financial prosperity of the individual over a sound social structure with children raised with values passed on by their parents. Instead the value society is passing on to them is that they are not important unless they have lots of money, thereby perpetuating the cycle by reinforcing this in further generations. Ultimately this will be the downfall of society, because it favours the individual over what is best for society.
While I was reading the blogs and the website I pondered the Idea of true equality in the workplace, and instead of favouring minorities and women like now lets ad two simple questions to job applications. "Are you married?" and "Are you the primary wage earner in your family?" Let's start to put the jobs back where they belong, with the person that brings in the income to support themselves or their family. Let's start to see the people in need get the jobs they need instead of not being hired because a minority has applied for the same job (I include women in this because the need for such an organization must mean that they are in need of special attention for some reason or another). Or maybe we should encourage true equality by giving jobs to the most qualified individual, which would force applicants to have the appropriate high quality training for the job whether they be man OR woman (which lets face facts would only strengthen Canada's economy as a whole).
True equality would be seeing the value in the woman (or man) that stays home to raise their children, instead of valuing the amount of money or prestige a job or position might seem to hold. When we value the proper raising of children with morals and values, that's when we have a strong and productive society. Children ARE our future, they will be the ones running the Country when we are too old to do so.
I ask you to consider this; Are we raising your children in a manner that makes you comfortable with how they will be when they are in charge?
This is what the stay at home parents out there do. Your job may be important to you, but are you contributing anything to future generations like raising a proper child does?
We've forgotten how important "Mom" (or Dad in some unique cases) is, her job may not be glamorous or notable but it is more important than anyone else. She (He) is the one that passes on the most teaching to us at the most critical stage of our lives.
I had intended this to be a simple critique of what I see to be a useless Federal tax burden, but instead it turned into a commentary on the social ramification of the agenda they are promoting. I only hope the damage is reversible when it is finally realized. We need a return to family values, and that of caring about your neighbor. As I have stated before if we all followed one rule we would have a wonderful world to live in, and that is simply "love thy neighor as thyself".
Below is a list of blogs and the link to SWC. Make up your own mind on the situation, but be informed before you do.
Bob
Lifesite News service
Big Blue Wave
Relapsed catholic
Family Matters
Small dead animals
Angry in the Great White North
Status of Women Canada
SWC says on their site; "(SWC) is the federal government agency which promotes gender equality, and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country", but the last time I checked women had as many rights as men if they choose to take advantage of them. However there are those out there that choose a higher calling to better our social situation in Canada by staying home to raise their own children instead of leaving this vital task to strangers or creating more latchkey children. Our society has developed to value financial prosperity of the individual over a sound social structure with children raised with values passed on by their parents. Instead the value society is passing on to them is that they are not important unless they have lots of money, thereby perpetuating the cycle by reinforcing this in further generations. Ultimately this will be the downfall of society, because it favours the individual over what is best for society.
While I was reading the blogs and the website I pondered the Idea of true equality in the workplace, and instead of favouring minorities and women like now lets ad two simple questions to job applications. "Are you married?" and "Are you the primary wage earner in your family?" Let's start to put the jobs back where they belong, with the person that brings in the income to support themselves or their family. Let's start to see the people in need get the jobs they need instead of not being hired because a minority has applied for the same job (I include women in this because the need for such an organization must mean that they are in need of special attention for some reason or another). Or maybe we should encourage true equality by giving jobs to the most qualified individual, which would force applicants to have the appropriate high quality training for the job whether they be man OR woman (which lets face facts would only strengthen Canada's economy as a whole).
True equality would be seeing the value in the woman (or man) that stays home to raise their children, instead of valuing the amount of money or prestige a job or position might seem to hold. When we value the proper raising of children with morals and values, that's when we have a strong and productive society. Children ARE our future, they will be the ones running the Country when we are too old to do so.
I ask you to consider this; Are we raising your children in a manner that makes you comfortable with how they will be when they are in charge?
This is what the stay at home parents out there do. Your job may be important to you, but are you contributing anything to future generations like raising a proper child does?
We've forgotten how important "Mom" (or Dad in some unique cases) is, her job may not be glamorous or notable but it is more important than anyone else. She (He) is the one that passes on the most teaching to us at the most critical stage of our lives.
I had intended this to be a simple critique of what I see to be a useless Federal tax burden, but instead it turned into a commentary on the social ramification of the agenda they are promoting. I only hope the damage is reversible when it is finally realized. We need a return to family values, and that of caring about your neighbor. As I have stated before if we all followed one rule we would have a wonderful world to live in, and that is simply "love thy neighor as thyself".
Below is a list of blogs and the link to SWC. Make up your own mind on the situation, but be informed before you do.
Bob
Lifesite News service
Big Blue Wave
Relapsed catholic
Family Matters
Small dead animals
Angry in the Great White North
Status of Women Canada
Monday, August 14, 2006
"Our place in the Universe"
As I watched a program on TLC where scientists were presenting their theories of future events, one thought seemed to come to the forefront and that was what our role or place do we have in the universe. It may be true that "some" of the science fiction of today will become science fact for future generations, what and how remains to be seen. Do we really have any place in the universe as aggressive and violent as humans are? Scientists look into the future and don't see more intelligent life, but life forms they equate to prehistoric man (or less). This seems like a more inflated view of humanity than we should have, if there is life out there how do we know they are not avoiding us because of our violent and overly aggressive nature? Or might there not be a spectrum of life from bacteria or microbial right up to even more intelligent than us? But the question remains, what is our place in the universe.
So then what is our place in the universe? We have no way to travel through it (making it to the moon and back doesn't really count when you take into account how vast the universe is), we cannot affect or change anything in it. I will go even further to a truth that hits home: none of us can even change one other person, the only real power for change we have is to change ourselves, and most of the time people don't even use that. (This does not mean we can't be the catalyst for change in others, but it is not us that makes the change, it is that persons will and capacity that changes themselves.)
So what is our place in the universe? A better question may be "do we need a place in the universal community", or even to ask ourselves "why do we need to feel we have a place in the universe". The one little place we do have in the universe, earth, is a mess. Maybe we should stop looking out and start looking in at our own planet with everything that is happening and ask "Do we deserve a place in the universal community?".
If we can't get it right for everyone here on earth, do we really need to subject the universe to how wrong we have gotten it?
I'm going to give you one simple guideline, if everyone used it, it would change the world we live in now to a eutopia.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself". The Bible, Mark 12: verse 30.
We do have a guideline for life, change, and even happiness, the problem is that society has fostered an attitude of selfishness and when you couple this with the aggressive and violent tendencies of mankind you get the world we have today. What we need is to come back to a lifestyle that considers the next person before ourselves, and the satisfaction from those actions would be more rewarding than even getting your own way.
What is our place in the universe? Maybe it is to help and love our fellow man. That would be a truly noble place.
This was much longer than I planned, but I hope it makes you ponder your place in our world and how much better of we would all be if we followed the precepts of the Bible.
Bob
So then what is our place in the universe? We have no way to travel through it (making it to the moon and back doesn't really count when you take into account how vast the universe is), we cannot affect or change anything in it. I will go even further to a truth that hits home: none of us can even change one other person, the only real power for change we have is to change ourselves, and most of the time people don't even use that. (This does not mean we can't be the catalyst for change in others, but it is not us that makes the change, it is that persons will and capacity that changes themselves.)
So what is our place in the universe? A better question may be "do we need a place in the universal community", or even to ask ourselves "why do we need to feel we have a place in the universe". The one little place we do have in the universe, earth, is a mess. Maybe we should stop looking out and start looking in at our own planet with everything that is happening and ask "Do we deserve a place in the universal community?".
If we can't get it right for everyone here on earth, do we really need to subject the universe to how wrong we have gotten it?
I'm going to give you one simple guideline, if everyone used it, it would change the world we live in now to a eutopia.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself". The Bible, Mark 12: verse 30.
We do have a guideline for life, change, and even happiness, the problem is that society has fostered an attitude of selfishness and when you couple this with the aggressive and violent tendencies of mankind you get the world we have today. What we need is to come back to a lifestyle that considers the next person before ourselves, and the satisfaction from those actions would be more rewarding than even getting your own way.
What is our place in the universe? Maybe it is to help and love our fellow man. That would be a truly noble place.
This was much longer than I planned, but I hope it makes you ponder your place in our world and how much better of we would all be if we followed the precepts of the Bible.
Bob
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Cape Breton U vs Professor David Mullan.
Seems a little like David and Goliath doesn't it, but that's what we have to face now because homosexual activists are far more raucous than those of us who accept traditional morality. So I've written a letter to the University which I have posted below. (To see Professor Mullan's site go here; Professor David Mullan or his other site at Professor David Mulan.)
This has become a fight to save the freedom of speech, but why is there even a question? If it is allowable to have and speak the opinion that homosexuality is right, why is it not allowable to have and speak the opinion to the contrary? Well I will tell you why;
Homosexuals know their lifestyle is wrong and therefore need social acceptance to justify their immoral acts, and anyone who reminds them that they are wrong must be silenced so they can minimize the conviction they feel which nags them in their souls.
This is a very basic explanation, but it covers the base reasoning behind the homosexual mindset against free speech.
Here is my letter to Cape Breton University;
_______________________________________
Dear President of Cape Breton University,
I am writing in response to your actions against Professor Mullan, and I hope you will take the time to read and consider my views.
I feel that the most egregious error in this whole matter was that this was not in fact an issue concerning "Human rights", and therefore the University was unjust in their application of any penalties. The professor was not inciting a riot to take away a homosexual’s right to have unnatural sexual relations, he was merely stating his opinion that the act is immoral, unnatural and simply wrong. The University has instead succumbed to the pressure placed on them by proponents of this lifestyle, and obviously they felt it would be easier to quiet the professor rather than the militant homosexual activists. To take this action you are saying that it is wrong for Professor Mullan to even think this way, and are trying to force a strict framework of thought on him instead of allowing him to be an individual with the freedom for his own thoughts and beliefs.
It does not matter whether a few (or even every student on campus) disagree with Professor Mullan, the University should back up what is a human right (the freedom of thoughts, beliefs and speech), in the same way which this benefit is extended to homosexuals trying to foster support for their lifestyle! Homosexuals are calling foul and "intolerance" at the mention of anything that does not support their beliefs, but this itself has turned into intolerance for the freedom of the rest of society to think or speak anything contrary to them. This is a slippery slope that is especially dangerous for a public institution of higher learning to tread down, the ramifications to the institute’s ability to foster ideas and maintain open discussions on all topics is unknown but could be devastating.
To be fair the University must asses this matter based on what a human rights issue is, and not just because a few raucous activists have made an uncomfortable situation for it by crying wolf. To be a “Human Right” it must apply to ALL humanity, and not simply to one group or faction that perceives themselves persecuted. To allow homosexuals to say that there lifestyle is acceptable on campus, you must also allow the opposite opinion equally.
Sincerely,
Bob
This has become a fight to save the freedom of speech, but why is there even a question? If it is allowable to have and speak the opinion that homosexuality is right, why is it not allowable to have and speak the opinion to the contrary? Well I will tell you why;
Homosexuals know their lifestyle is wrong and therefore need social acceptance to justify their immoral acts, and anyone who reminds them that they are wrong must be silenced so they can minimize the conviction they feel which nags them in their souls.
This is a very basic explanation, but it covers the base reasoning behind the homosexual mindset against free speech.
Here is my letter to Cape Breton University;
_______________________________________
Dear President of Cape Breton University,
I am writing in response to your actions against Professor Mullan, and I hope you will take the time to read and consider my views.
I feel that the most egregious error in this whole matter was that this was not in fact an issue concerning "Human rights", and therefore the University was unjust in their application of any penalties. The professor was not inciting a riot to take away a homosexual’s right to have unnatural sexual relations, he was merely stating his opinion that the act is immoral, unnatural and simply wrong. The University has instead succumbed to the pressure placed on them by proponents of this lifestyle, and obviously they felt it would be easier to quiet the professor rather than the militant homosexual activists. To take this action you are saying that it is wrong for Professor Mullan to even think this way, and are trying to force a strict framework of thought on him instead of allowing him to be an individual with the freedom for his own thoughts and beliefs.
It does not matter whether a few (or even every student on campus) disagree with Professor Mullan, the University should back up what is a human right (the freedom of thoughts, beliefs and speech), in the same way which this benefit is extended to homosexuals trying to foster support for their lifestyle! Homosexuals are calling foul and "intolerance" at the mention of anything that does not support their beliefs, but this itself has turned into intolerance for the freedom of the rest of society to think or speak anything contrary to them. This is a slippery slope that is especially dangerous for a public institution of higher learning to tread down, the ramifications to the institute’s ability to foster ideas and maintain open discussions on all topics is unknown but could be devastating.
To be fair the University must asses this matter based on what a human rights issue is, and not just because a few raucous activists have made an uncomfortable situation for it by crying wolf. To be a “Human Right” it must apply to ALL humanity, and not simply to one group or faction that perceives themselves persecuted. To allow homosexuals to say that there lifestyle is acceptable on campus, you must also allow the opposite opinion equally.
Sincerely,
Bob
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Want a cheap rolex?
High quality replicas! Top quality brand watches!
These are the latest spam blitz I've been receiving, but instead of making think "Ooo I really need one of those", it made me think of those cheap street peddlers you see in movies trying to hawk junk to unsuspecting passersby.
Most of these spam messages are coming from China or Korea (third world internet providers with no real abuse policy enforcement, and more often than not are apt to take money to allow spammers to use them). So every time I see these spam I picture this shifty looking little Asian guy opening a trench coat saying "psst.. scuse please sir, you want to buy cheap rolex?". As funny as this picture is, it's disturbing to realize that there are people out there that actually fall for these scams. There are a couple of old adages that apply here, "A fool and his money are soon parted" or even more appropriately as PT Barnum was apt to say "There's a sucker born every minute!", and if this weren’t the case we wouldn't have all these fly-by-night scams to try to separate the fools from their money.
With that I leave you with a final encouragement to report the spam you get, it’s easy (http://www.spamcop.net) and maybe if we all do it they will get the message that we don’t want this crap. (Pardon the expletive, but it was the only one that seemed to fit).
Bob
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
These are the latest spam blitz I've been receiving, but instead of making think "Ooo I really need one of those", it made me think of those cheap street peddlers you see in movies trying to hawk junk to unsuspecting passersby.
Most of these spam messages are coming from China or Korea (third world internet providers with no real abuse policy enforcement, and more often than not are apt to take money to allow spammers to use them). So every time I see these spam I picture this shifty looking little Asian guy opening a trench coat saying "psst.. scuse please sir, you want to buy cheap rolex?". As funny as this picture is, it's disturbing to realize that there are people out there that actually fall for these scams. There are a couple of old adages that apply here, "A fool and his money are soon parted" or even more appropriately as PT Barnum was apt to say "There's a sucker born every minute!", and if this weren’t the case we wouldn't have all these fly-by-night scams to try to separate the fools from their money.
With that I leave you with a final encouragement to report the spam you get, it’s easy (http://www.spamcop.net) and maybe if we all do it they will get the message that we don’t want this crap. (Pardon the expletive, but it was the only one that seemed to fit).
Bob
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Friday, May 26, 2006
People versus insects.
Some days are harder than others to tolerate the increasingly ignorant masses. It's not always that people don't have the capacity for intelligence or compassion; it is simply that as a society most people have become so complacent in their laziness that they choose not to think or act like a rational, intelligent, caring species should. As I was waking up this morning my mind looked back over the previous days’ events and I saw the general populous comparing in intelligence to a species we see as inferior to us, ants.
Simply my comparison came down to how both humans and ants scurry around on their own little missions without a care for or about their comrade. But it gets worse, if we were to continue to compare the two species humans would lose out in the end because we don’t seem to think of anyone but ourselves, where an ant colony’s goal is for the survival of the whole at the cost of the individual.
Now I’m not saying that we should all go out and sacrifice ourselves for each other, because let’s face it, most of humanity doesn’t have even a fraction of the integrity that an act like this would take, even in a scenario where it might be appropriate. What I am saying is that we need to leave our little cocoons of selfishness and laziness and start thinking about others. Where does this leave the individual you might ask (or the “what about me” mentality), when you consider that if we all were to start caring about their neighbors we would have more people than just ourselves looking out for us it would seem to be more to all of our benefits. Doesn’t it make more sense that we would be better off as a race if we didn’t just “look out for number one”?
This is by no means a new philosophy, if you look back to how people helped each other before we became such an “enlightened” society, you would realize that this premise from the past was the foundation for the society we have now but is being quickly eroded by attitudes of self centeredness. Before insurances, government aid and charities it was the church and communities that helped each other through tough times. If it had been the same then as it is now, I have a hard time imagining that we would be as technically advanced as we are. However I don’t think we needed to trade compassion and relationship with each other to gain technology, essentially we can have it all if we only stop thinking of ourselves as more important than anyone else!
Dr Martin Luther King Jr. once said "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Although we are technologically, medically and scientifically advanced, the masses are also becoming more sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid in their thoughts (or lack thereof) and actions (or inactions).
Bob
Simply my comparison came down to how both humans and ants scurry around on their own little missions without a care for or about their comrade. But it gets worse, if we were to continue to compare the two species humans would lose out in the end because we don’t seem to think of anyone but ourselves, where an ant colony’s goal is for the survival of the whole at the cost of the individual.
Now I’m not saying that we should all go out and sacrifice ourselves for each other, because let’s face it, most of humanity doesn’t have even a fraction of the integrity that an act like this would take, even in a scenario where it might be appropriate. What I am saying is that we need to leave our little cocoons of selfishness and laziness and start thinking about others. Where does this leave the individual you might ask (or the “what about me” mentality), when you consider that if we all were to start caring about their neighbors we would have more people than just ourselves looking out for us it would seem to be more to all of our benefits. Doesn’t it make more sense that we would be better off as a race if we didn’t just “look out for number one”?
This is by no means a new philosophy, if you look back to how people helped each other before we became such an “enlightened” society, you would realize that this premise from the past was the foundation for the society we have now but is being quickly eroded by attitudes of self centeredness. Before insurances, government aid and charities it was the church and communities that helped each other through tough times. If it had been the same then as it is now, I have a hard time imagining that we would be as technically advanced as we are. However I don’t think we needed to trade compassion and relationship with each other to gain technology, essentially we can have it all if we only stop thinking of ourselves as more important than anyone else!
Dr Martin Luther King Jr. once said "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Although we are technologically, medically and scientifically advanced, the masses are also becoming more sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid in their thoughts (or lack thereof) and actions (or inactions).
Bob
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
