Pain seems to make the day last forever, but it never leaves you time to get anything accomplished.
I always seem to be fighting with the chronic pain I have, which seems to leave little or no time to accomplish even the things I am capable of. I was thinking about this as I struggle through the day, wishing I could accomplish something while at the same time just trying to hold off being overwhelmed by it. It's an odd situation we put ourselves in, we force ourselves to be task oriented, or outcome driven, and we never expect that to be taken away from us. Yet at the same time the fragility of our bodies leaves us vulnerable to injuries which can leave us incapable of doing the simple things we once took for granted, and should this happen it takes considerable rewiring of the way we think to avoid a number of mental conditions which arise from it. Of course I speak primarily of depression, but often our previously programmed thoughts can lead to other feelings like that of inadequacy, low self esteem, and burdening of family.
It's a tough thing trying to to come to terms with both the pain and the feelings of inadequacy it evokes, but maybe that itself is an accomplishment to be recognized? Then again maybe I'm just grasping at straws, but you take what's in arms reach when you feel like you're drowning.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
A trip through the headlines.
Today I noticed 2 striking headlines coming out of the Middle East, which seemed to me to explain each other.
1. NATO Afghanistan airstrike kills 27 civilians.
2.Car bomb kills 6 in Pakistan.
In Headline 1 it states how the Afghan cabinet (whom I might point out would not be where they are without western involvement) condemned the deaths as "Unjustifiable". Yet at the same time that civilian deaths are tragic, when you fight an enemy that uses civilians as cover and camouflage what else would you really expect to happen? Which brings me to the second headline. This screams of civilian deaths, however accidental deaths of civilians seems to affect these Governments more than the threat caused by these cowardly terrorists who dress in civilian clothes and are absolutely willingly to kill innocent people.
Here's my dilemma; does the Afghan cabinet not realize that NATO does not want to kill civilians, or are they simply making political noise to appease the masses? Do they not realize that insurgents dress as civilians? Have they forgotten that NATO is there to help them abolish the oppressive regime they were living under? Are their flipping turbans wrapped too tight?? (Ok I know they don't all wear turbans, but I'm at a loss to the mentality that directs their anger against those trying to help, RATHER than them all rallying to fight these murderous, cowardly sons of goats with everything they have!)
Voltaire said "So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men" AND "it is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
Maybe it's time for the Middle east to wake up.
1. NATO Afghanistan airstrike kills 27 civilians.
2.Car bomb kills 6 in Pakistan.
In Headline 1 it states how the Afghan cabinet (whom I might point out would not be where they are without western involvement) condemned the deaths as "Unjustifiable". Yet at the same time that civilian deaths are tragic, when you fight an enemy that uses civilians as cover and camouflage what else would you really expect to happen? Which brings me to the second headline. This screams of civilian deaths, however accidental deaths of civilians seems to affect these Governments more than the threat caused by these cowardly terrorists who dress in civilian clothes and are absolutely willingly to kill innocent people.
Here's my dilemma; does the Afghan cabinet not realize that NATO does not want to kill civilians, or are they simply making political noise to appease the masses? Do they not realize that insurgents dress as civilians? Have they forgotten that NATO is there to help them abolish the oppressive regime they were living under? Are their flipping turbans wrapped too tight?? (Ok I know they don't all wear turbans, but I'm at a loss to the mentality that directs their anger against those trying to help, RATHER than them all rallying to fight these murderous, cowardly sons of goats with everything they have!)
Voltaire said "So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men" AND "it is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
Maybe it's time for the Middle east to wake up.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Britney Spears "Womanizer"; playing the blame game?
I guess I question the motivation behind this song simply because of the apparent hypocrisy it conveys. I have to say that this song and it's music video do nothing to promote respect for women, but to the contrary they actually degrade women to as little as objects for the use of men (the definition of a womanizer is a man who has numerous casual sexual encounters with multiple women - *paraphrased). This video is about how she won't fall for someone "like that", yet she dresses (or undresses) and acts in a manner that encourages just this action from a man. So really who is the womanizer? Is it the man who responds to the enticement, or the woman that encourages the behaviour?
If you don't demand respect by appropriate actions, you shouldn't be surprised when you don't get it. Unfortunately this undermines efforts of women throughout the ages who have worked tirelessly to advance the status of women without the use of sexuality, but based on a woman's abilities.
The thing that disturbs me the most about this video is really the message it sends out to men that tend to "prey" on women, and by this I mean the ones who don't require consent to fulfill their desires. This song and video just scream conflicting messages that could be very dangerous in the long run for women.
There is also a number of relational problems I see arising from the mentalities I see on both sides of this song and video. Foremost is the possibility for long term productive and fruitful (meaning mutual love and respect) relationships. Let me analogize for a moment; if I see a commercial for my favorite restaurant I may want to go out and have a meal, but it doesn't make me feel like going out and buying the establishment. (You know, the whole "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free".) This promotes a fragile shallow relationship which is easily broken by the next "commercial" that offers something different.
I haven't even come close to touching on all the issues I saw in this song/video, but I can break it down to simply saying that you have to "*honestly" respect yourself if you want others to have respect for you.
Bob
(* I used honestly here to accentuate the fact that we must all be aware of our own faults and self evaluate ourselves critically to become a person worthy of respect for ourselves through moral actions and attitudes. We cannot expect that we should receive respect just because we are alive, because respect is really not a human right but a privilege we enjoy when we we contribute positively to society.)
If you don't demand respect by appropriate actions, you shouldn't be surprised when you don't get it. Unfortunately this undermines efforts of women throughout the ages who have worked tirelessly to advance the status of women without the use of sexuality, but based on a woman's abilities.
The thing that disturbs me the most about this video is really the message it sends out to men that tend to "prey" on women, and by this I mean the ones who don't require consent to fulfill their desires. This song and video just scream conflicting messages that could be very dangerous in the long run for women.
There is also a number of relational problems I see arising from the mentalities I see on both sides of this song and video. Foremost is the possibility for long term productive and fruitful (meaning mutual love and respect) relationships. Let me analogize for a moment; if I see a commercial for my favorite restaurant I may want to go out and have a meal, but it doesn't make me feel like going out and buying the establishment. (You know, the whole "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free".) This promotes a fragile shallow relationship which is easily broken by the next "commercial" that offers something different.
I haven't even come close to touching on all the issues I saw in this song/video, but I can break it down to simply saying that you have to "*honestly" respect yourself if you want others to have respect for you.
Bob
(* I used honestly here to accentuate the fact that we must all be aware of our own faults and self evaluate ourselves critically to become a person worthy of respect for ourselves through moral actions and attitudes. We cannot expect that we should receive respect just because we are alive, because respect is really not a human right but a privilege we enjoy when we we contribute positively to society.)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Once again Quebec holds back progress in Canada.
I'm not going to mince words; I think the Bloc has no place in federal politics. PERIOD! There is no place on a Federal stage for a Provincial party to be elected. If you want to sit in the House of Commons I think there has to be a simple understanding that you must run candidates in all provinces of the Country.
Honestly what can the Bloc accomplish in the House that any one of the Federal party candidates from their area couldn't? There are local members of a legitimate federal party that could represent them not only as adequately, but more effectively with the support of a national party behind them.
I personally think it's a travesty of democracy to have to kiss Quebec's behind with it's own "special" party because they somehow think they are more deserving, more entitled or simply better than everyone else in Canada.
Hey Quebec... Grow up.
Bob
Honestly what can the Bloc accomplish in the House that any one of the Federal party candidates from their area couldn't? There are local members of a legitimate federal party that could represent them not only as adequately, but more effectively with the support of a national party behind them.
I personally think it's a travesty of democracy to have to kiss Quebec's behind with it's own "special" party because they somehow think they are more deserving, more entitled or simply better than everyone else in Canada.
Hey Quebec... Grow up.
Bob
Friday, August 01, 2008
With record profits for "Big Oil", how can they claim competition over collusion?
With record profits being recorded by companies like Exxon raking in 11.7 Billion dollars profit, Shell right behind at 11.5 Billion and 2 other major companies in the states (BP and conico) also raking in 9 and 7 billion dollars respectively.
So let's think about this for a second; In a competitive market place costs are driven down by companies "competing" for business by giving the consumer a better deal than the next company, on the other hand we have the collusive market place where companies form alliances and strategies to control the market place and increase profits. So with how on earth can big oil explain the consequences of collusion (big profits) of as being competitive?
The only competition I see, is the one between big oil companies for the dollar sitting in YOUR pocket.
Time for these Government watchdogs to pull their heads from where they are firmly planted (where the sun don't shine), and come down hard for the consumer they are supposed to be there to protect!
Sincerely (from me to the Government),
Bob
So let's think about this for a second; In a competitive market place costs are driven down by companies "competing" for business by giving the consumer a better deal than the next company, on the other hand we have the collusive market place where companies form alliances and strategies to control the market place and increase profits. So with how on earth can big oil explain the consequences of collusion (big profits) of as being competitive?
The only competition I see, is the one between big oil companies for the dollar sitting in YOUR pocket.
Time for these Government watchdogs to pull their heads from where they are firmly planted (where the sun don't shine), and come down hard for the consumer they are supposed to be there to protect!
Sincerely (from me to the Government),
Bob
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The Order of Canada now means murder is acceptable.
With the Order of Canada being awarded to Henry Morgentaler, Canada has not only condoned the murder of innocent children but by the award it says that Canada believes that this is something to strive for.
This award is even worse than if it had been posthumously awarded to Adolf Hitler! The problem is that Morgentaler's efforts will kill far more people than Hitler could ever have imagined to. I see Morgentaler's beliefs and actions as even more heinous than the Nazi leader because of his fight to kill those that have absolutely no way to fight back for themselves.
In a nutshell, that's the way I see it.
This award is even worse than if it had been posthumously awarded to Adolf Hitler! The problem is that Morgentaler's efforts will kill far more people than Hitler could ever have imagined to. I see Morgentaler's beliefs and actions as even more heinous than the Nazi leader because of his fight to kill those that have absolutely no way to fight back for themselves.
In a nutshell, that's the way I see it.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
"Worst Neighborhood in Canada" strikes again.
In a place that has made itself infamous with the problems of substance abuse (and all the crimes that follow it), we have people who say they encourage healthy lifestyles and yet through their actions promote the opposite. This is yet another black eye for the "Worst Neighborhood in Canada".
What bothers me the most in this situation is that the people that are supposed to be in charge and helping inner city kids overcome an unhealthy lifestyle where the ones perpetuating the usage of alcohol and tobacco (and I hesitate to not to say drugs, because logically in a party situation with high risk individuals this would not be a very broad leap, especially in Jamaica. But as there is no evidence, I shall apply the benefit of the doubt here as it does nothing to diminish the scope of inappropriateness of the known situation.).
Here's the issue, The North Central Family Centre's mission states: "Our Mission is to carry out works for the encouragement and empowerment of the inner city community by offering a variety of programs. Our programs and services will promote positive and healthy changes in our community." From what I understand all of the children enrolled in the marathon program were required to sign a contract abstaining from drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Now I've heard the justification that "the contract ended after the race", but wouldn't anyone that truly wanted to help these kids live healthy lives off of the dependence from any type of substances continue that contract on principle? What I'm trying to say is that if you TRULY wanted to help these kids live a lifestyle free of dependence, why would you EVER supply any of them to high risk individuals? Ii makes me feel the need to ask how this in any way fulfills their motto of "Empowering Youth, Families and the Community"? Why wouldn't you continue the contract even after the race, and if a deadline is required make it after you've returned home? Even on principle this contract should have been enforced by the chaperone's until the children were no longer THEIR RESPONSIBILITY!
I believe the Centre needs to take measures to re-establish it's credibility in the community which they propose they are there to help, and I feel this action is obviously the dismissal of the chaperone's involved, and further after the ridiculous decision of the Board of directors not to accept their resignation that these Board members ALSO need to step down and let others with a higher standard of values step in and take over.
Obviously this was not entirely an altruistic undertaking for these people, and it makes you wonder why they are doing it if their beliefs don't really match up with their stated philosophy........ Money maybe?
Ever more the cynic,
Bob
What bothers me the most in this situation is that the people that are supposed to be in charge and helping inner city kids overcome an unhealthy lifestyle where the ones perpetuating the usage of alcohol and tobacco (and I hesitate to not to say drugs, because logically in a party situation with high risk individuals this would not be a very broad leap, especially in Jamaica. But as there is no evidence, I shall apply the benefit of the doubt here as it does nothing to diminish the scope of inappropriateness of the known situation.).
Here's the issue, The North Central Family Centre's mission states: "Our Mission is to carry out works for the encouragement and empowerment of the inner city community by offering a variety of programs. Our programs and services will promote positive and healthy changes in our community." From what I understand all of the children enrolled in the marathon program were required to sign a contract abstaining from drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Now I've heard the justification that "the contract ended after the race", but wouldn't anyone that truly wanted to help these kids live healthy lives off of the dependence from any type of substances continue that contract on principle? What I'm trying to say is that if you TRULY wanted to help these kids live a lifestyle free of dependence, why would you EVER supply any of them to high risk individuals? Ii makes me feel the need to ask how this in any way fulfills their motto of "Empowering Youth, Families and the Community"? Why wouldn't you continue the contract even after the race, and if a deadline is required make it after you've returned home? Even on principle this contract should have been enforced by the chaperone's until the children were no longer THEIR RESPONSIBILITY!
I believe the Centre needs to take measures to re-establish it's credibility in the community which they propose they are there to help, and I feel this action is obviously the dismissal of the chaperone's involved, and further after the ridiculous decision of the Board of directors not to accept their resignation that these Board members ALSO need to step down and let others with a higher standard of values step in and take over.
Obviously this was not entirely an altruistic undertaking for these people, and it makes you wonder why they are doing it if their beliefs don't really match up with their stated philosophy........ Money maybe?
Ever more the cynic,
Bob
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
This is 12 years of "Liberal" Canada at it's finest.
Here is a kick in the pants for those intelligent enough to consider human life more important than an animals. In
There is something seriously sick about a society that values the life of an animal over that of a human. Granted; animals are our responsibility to protect as good stewards of our resources, and it is even disgusting that anyone would consider killing a pregnant animal on purpose, HOWEVER after a fine and having hunting privileges revoked it’s case closed. On the other hand I COMPLETELY believe that the murder of a pregnant woman is by FAR more heinous than that of an animal, and the laws of the land should reflect the importance of those human lives.
Trying not to get swallowed up by the stupidity out there,
Bob
__________________________________________________________For more info on this story I have include the lifesite article (and link) below;
In
By Hilary White
The three have pleaded guilty to violating the Wildlife Act after having shot two female deer, one of whom was found to have been pregnant with two fawns. The men have been charged with four counts against the Act, two for killing the two adult females and two more for the unborn fawns.
CanWest News service reports that conservation officers were "horrified" at the incident.
The deer season in
Conservation officer Dave Jevons told CanWest that the case was "emotional," because the hunters appeared to be after the fawns for food or medicine. Some consider foetal fawns a delicacy.
John Hoff, head of Campaign Life Coalition British
The Unborn Victims of Crime bill was condemned recently by the member for
"In our democratic society, we have long decided that revenge is not a proper basis for drafting or adopting our laws," she said.
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Canada Unborn Victims of Crime Act Introduced in Parliament by Conservative MP
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07112104.html
Thursday, July 05, 2007
A summer of loss.
This summer has been a summer of loss for my wife, 2 family members have been killed in Alberta in just over a month.
It started at the end of May when her Nephew died. Her 19 year old nephew had a car accident near Leduc Alberta, and amazingly he survived the crash. What he didn't survive was the semi which hit him when he returned to the highway to look for help. This happened only days before her mother's (his grandma's) birthday, and it turned out that the funeral was held the day she turned 60.
Today we found out that my wife's Step-dad was killed in a 2 car collision yesterday morning. The car accident took place near Leduc Alberta, where a half ton ran a stop sign and collided with his SUV. The aftermath at the scene was brutal. We were able to watch coverage on the Edmonton news and both vehicles were incredibly damaged, but her Step-dad was ejected from his vehicle as he wasn't wearing a seatbelt.
It started at the end of May when her Nephew died. Her 19 year old nephew had a car accident near Leduc Alberta, and amazingly he survived the crash. What he didn't survive was the semi which hit him when he returned to the highway to look for help. This happened only days before her mother's (his grandma's) birthday, and it turned out that the funeral was held the day she turned 60.
Today we found out that my wife's Step-dad was killed in a 2 car collision yesterday morning. The car accident took place near Leduc Alberta, where a half ton ran a stop sign and collided with his SUV. The aftermath at the scene was brutal. We were able to watch coverage on the Edmonton news and both vehicles were incredibly damaged, but her Step-dad was ejected from his vehicle as he wasn't wearing a seatbelt.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Dealing with pain and disability.
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
