Haven't had one of these in a while... I think it's time for another SHOWERTIME SPECULATION! To be honest, though, this is my second thought, but it got to be soooo long that I decided to compile it into a single post, with my first and third thoughts in a following post!

Second Thought:

To change the subject entirely, I've been thinking lately about end of the world. It's not something I obsess over a whole lot like a lot of other Christians seem to do, but I just wanted to pitch something out there for all you folks that feed off the sheer fundamentalist conservatism of people like me. Basically this: The Rapture. For those who don't know what that is, exactly, the Book of Revelation in The Bible is dedicated to a vision had by someone named John which is basically a giant prophecy of the end of the world. One of the key things in the book is the "Rapture", during which all true Christians are divinely taken off the planet so that Satan may use the remaining days to work his final evils to take as many humans as possible with him to eternal damnation. (Remember folks, Satan was already crushed and defeated when Jesus died and rose from the dead. The only thing left for Satan to do is take everyone else out with him... He's running one giant suicide bombing.) Without getting too much into it, the only thing holding God back from letting the world fall one final time is the fact that there are good Christians still here. But at some point, enough is going to be enough and He will take us all away and effectively remove the barrier stopping the final fall of mankind.

Okay, now... That was only the background to my thought. See, I'm not what people have started to call "Rapture-Ready". I don't go looking around for it and waking up each day expecting it to happen and I don't obsess over it day in and day out. Sure, it's something I realize will happen sooner or later and maybe not even in my lifetime (though I seriously doubt that) but I don't go around every corner in life expecting it to happen. I've seen people who do that and, to be honest, it irritates me. There are people like my Great-Grandma who were passively ready for the Rapture, which was always comforting somehow, but then there are people who just talk about it constantly and somehow seem to be actively looking for it. I dunno... I don't get it. But I realize this: Revelation says that the Rapture will happen when everyone least expects it. With the state of the world right now, everyone seems to be expecting it. To me, that just seems to scream "not going to happen yet". It'll happen in a time of peace and prosperity when nobody expects it. To get political for a monent, everyone thinks that Obama is going to usher in a new low to the country and everything's going to come apart at the seams and it will be a prime time for a Rapture. While I do think Obama is going to utterly destroy the fabric of this country if he's elected, I don't think it's going to be a time "primed for Rapture", because if he does become President, the last thing to happen is peace and prosperity. We're talking Second Great Depression if he gets in office... Not exactly a peaceful and prosperous time.

That being said, I do sometimes wonder what might happen after a Rapture. Think about it! The single most motivating event to sway people to accept government control is what? A catastrophe. After the Rapture, Satan will work overtime to hurtle the world toward its final demise. Revelation talks of a single, massive, one world government that will be corrupt at its core with the Anti-Christ at its helm, performing feats of wonder to convince the world that he actually is God. In the current state of affairs on this fair planet, a one-world government is not something that will ever happen. Some countries seem to be primed for it, but places like Russia and the United States and China just don't currently seem to be the type of countries to give up their power and submit to a global government. Not yet, anyway. There'll be what the Bible calls a "3 day fire war" (which, back then, I'm sure John didn't know what the heck he was seeing, but we all agree today that he witnessed a nuclear war). Of course, that's after the Rapture. The Rapture seems to be the catalyst for all these things to happen in a rapid chain of events. By referring to the history of our country, we can see that a catastrophic event is all that's needed to spur people to panic and to embrace something that might not be the best course of action. And that leads me to my thought:

What will happen the split second AFTER the Rapture? What will the planet do when millions upon millions of humans vanish in an instant. Think Left Behind series... Normal people doing normal jobs. People cooking, driving cars, flying jets. Poof! Gone! Instant panic. This wouldn't be isolated to a single area, it would be the entire planet. Mass, global panic. But there's going to be an explanation... I can't imagine what that explanation might be, so I enjoy trying to come up with examples. The top of my list, however cliche, since I can honestly think of nothing else, is "alien abduction", "attempt at population control", or "those dumb Christians organized this to freak us all out". It sounds insane, but, seriously, how many people do actually believe in sentient life outside our solar system? Would it really be so far-fetched to think that'd be an explanation for mass disappearances? With the cavalier attitude taken toward human life and the climate of this planet, would it really be so far-fetched to think officials might try to cover it up by saying they chose the least fittest to survive in an effort to save the planet? With the cynic nature of humans today, would it be so crazy to insinuate they'd think we all disappeared voluntarily? Who knows! There might never be an official adopted explanation and it might all be left up to the individual to come to terms with. But! I have a NEW idea for why people may vanish!

The Large Hadron Collider! Yep! Sounds crazy (crazier than the Rapture itself?), but it could be just as plausible as anything else. Think of it! A giant particle accelerator designed to recreate the Big Bang. Nobody knows what will happen, and some has even postulated that it'll destroy the fabric of reality or at the very least create tiny black holes that rip the planet apart. The sky's the limit for something like this, really. But, to be honest, I don't care. I don't think anything will happen... We might learn something, but come on. This is science in the realm of trying to prove that God doesn't exist. Do you really think something positive will come from it? It reeks of RMS Titanic: "God Himself cannot sink this ship." "Oops, we hit an iceberg in that one-chance-in-a-million way that would actually sink the ship." But it gives me a new idea to add to my list of Rapture explanations, granted it'll only apply until that moment when they actually activate it, but that really would be the ultimate explanation. "3, 2, 1... LHC ACTIVATE!" Millions of people vanish. "Oops." Yep, it's crazy, and I'll probably get stuck up on Fundies Say The Darndest Things again, but oh well. The fact is, there's going to have to be an explanation for the Rapture.

Now, as a side thought, since the LHC was my main thought, I've always wondered how people will react to everyone vanishing. I mean, to me, if millions of people disappeared, I know I'm going to think "OH MY GOSH I GOT LEFT BEHIND" and I'll know for a fact that Christianity was right all along. It's not like a bunch of people vanishing is going to make me go "Hmm, now why did that happen." I'm going to know exactly what happened. (Of course, I pray I don't get left behind!) Which always begs the question: What are non-Christians going to think? The ones who don't know about the whole Rapture thing are going to be absolutely clueless, but what about people who have Christian friends and they are at least vaguely aware of the Rapture idea? I have lots of friends who are either not Christians or have fallen away and are no longer interested in being a Christian and it grieves me to no end that there's a very good chance that when all is said and done, I'll never see them again. These are people who know I'm a Christian and I've talked to them about it and it's become clear to both of us that they aren't in a state of mind to accept Christian ideas and I'm never going to forsake them, so we just accept the differences. The best thing I can do right now is try to live a good Christian life as an example to them... Granted, I do very poorly, so I'm not sure how much of a positive example I am. But at this point, it seems to me that no ground is going to be made unless there's some sort of proof for them. My friends are very intelligent and scientifically minded, and those are the hardest to convince that there is an Intelligent Design to the universe. At this point, they need proof. They're already acutely aware of what Christianity promises, but that's not enough for them.

So I always wonder... What if their Christian friends one day aren't able to be found? What if my friends someday hear about the countless missing people and I'm part of those they never hear from again? Would they then be able to make the connection and have the proof they need to take that final step? It'll be so vastly more difficult to be a Christian in those final days, but it will be entirely possible. The Rapture is the opened flood-gates to end of times, and a final warning call that people need to wake up. But like in the days of Noah and the Great Flood, the citizens of the Earth had years upon years to change their ways. They saw Noah diligently building his giant ship and they all mocked him... Until they all died. There are going to be some people who go through the Rapture and still not make the connection, whether because they're uninformed of what just happened, or because they willingly turn. I can't help but wonder how many people I know will go through the Rapture and go "FINALLY! Those dastardly conservatives are out of our way!" or go "Ohh maaan, he was right all along." At this point, I think a Rapture or something huge like that is the only way to shake my non-Christian friends hard enough to really think about it. But, you know, by then, it'll be too late for me to be there. But, like I said, they're all smart people... I'm sure they'll be able to find a Bible.

And then there'll always be those Christians who were only Christians in name and got left behind. There'll be people who study Christianity, but aren't actually Christians... I'm sure there'll be learned people who can help start up new churches in those final days, but man, will it be so vastly more difficult to be a Christian in the final days. Americans have it so easy, compared to what will happen and what is happening elsewhere. But I'll be cheering you on from where ever I'll be after I'm taken away!

(How's that for a showertime speculation?)

In the immortal words of Strong Bad: Wha-hoah, Dan.

You know what else you can do when you're bored? Check out the Wordpress.com Stats on your blog. Yes, I know this blog's hosted at rivenwolf.net, but there's a plug-in that interfaces with the statistics backend at Wordpress.com and offers quite an array of methods to see who's reading what, when and why. I check it almost every day! And I'm about to show you why this is a fun thing to do.

Meet "Fundies Say the Darndest Things". It appears to be a sort of database where people can post things that we fundamentalist Christians have to say, make fun of it, and rate how fundamental it is. (Of course, to this place, the more fundamental something is rated, the more insane you are, 5 being the most fundamental.) On my statistics page, I noticed that my old post "The Stray 450", made in February 2006 and referenced to in one of my latest posts as being a time where I had just begun to take a step into speaking my mind and telling things like it is when I wasn't prepared for the consequences. Basically, I wasn't expecting everyone to skin me alive for what I said. Nowadays, I think it's the greatest thing in the world! Anyway... Back on track:

I noticed an influx on traffic for that post, so I decided to check out my statistics page. You know what I found? Referrals from FSTDT.com... A particular page on that site, to be exact. Apparently, somebody read my post about what to do when you're bored, saw the link to "The Stray 450" and decided to post it to this site designed to make fun of people like me! Here, check it out for yourself... It's gaining quite a following, if I do say so myself. I even have a current rating of 4.97 out of 5. (Like I said, the higher the score, the more fundamentalist the quote is.) I'm famous! First I was tossed up onto 4chan because I decided to take a shot at Firefox 3 (which, I admit, is far less important than Christian principles) and now I'm being posted on a site meant to make fun of me because I decided to call someone out for being wrong. This is AWESOME!

Now, I'm warning you... Most of the comments are very scathing remarks with no moderation and, as such, are full of very nasty words. Isn't it amazing how those kinds of people simply cannot get their point across without whipping out vulgar language and personal attacks? It's like they have no philosophical counterpoints to what I'm saying, so they just resort to the most basic forms of attack. Pitiful... Pitiful, but entirely expected. One of the comments went out of the way to say that it was a shame that I'm so fundamental, because it seems I'm a fairly articulate and very intelligent person. Well, thank you! In response to this comment, I will now attempt to clarify my standings after 2 years of experience with relaying what I believe.

In these 2 years, I have not changed my stance one iota. I solidly believe in the literal 24-hour day Creation with 6 days of work and 1 day of rest that would be the basis of our long standing traditional 7-day week. Please see my post explaining why I believe in the literal interpretation of Creation, and I would like you to read a comment on that post, as well... The one by one of my good friends Richard Pratt. That belief has not changed, nor will it ever. Now... Here's where evolution is 100% diametrically opposed to Creation:

Death.

To evolve, you have to have death... Survival of the fittest? Your species lives on for millions of years, slowly growing new abilities while old ones get discarded. Right? You know I'm right... That's not in dispute. Now... Evolution is the perfect opposite of Creation for this simple reason: Death. According to scriptures, death was a result of human sins, period. There was no death before... Nothing had to die before humans went against God's specific instructions and the first death was when He Himself killed the animals to make clothing for Adam and Eve. The first sacrifice required for atonement. Something innocent has to die in your place to cover for your sins or you're lost. This was something practiced by righteous humans for thousands of years... Until Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself for us all in one final blow to Satan and sin. With that act, he paid for us all, past, present and future... All we have to do is recognize what he did, believe in him, be baptized, and go forth and spread the word. Atonement for our sins is now a gift that we only have to accept.

Now, with that background... What happens when you throw evolution into the mix? Well... Creatures evolve over the millennia. They're born, they die, they progress... If you believe evolution was instrumental in the beginning of life, whether you think it started with the Big Bang or the hand of God, death had to be present. If the planet was being created over the course of millions of years, things had to die. If you want to postulate that things didn't necessarily HAVE to die, then you're just nuts... If you think the Earth is overpopulated now? How overpopulated do you think it would have been if, over the course of millions of years, NOTHING died? Oh my... Yes. Evolution requires death. It's the spur that supposedly pushes creatures to develop new abilities. They don't WANT to die off, so they evolve. Now... If death was present before Adam and Eve sinned, and the Bible says death is a consequence of sin... Erm. I think we have a problem. That's no punishment, especially if Adam and Eve were going to die anyway due to the mechanics of evolution. The first death would not have been the first sacrifice (the one where God killed the animals to clothe them), and justice would not have been served when Jesus Christ offered himself in place of all of us. It simply wouldn't have worked since death was just a natural course of Creation, if you believe evolution was involved.

When you believe evolution was an instrument in Creation, you strip out the very core of Christianity! That humans are sinners, that death and suffering is only in the world because we sinned, and that Jesus Christ died for us to pay for the sins, and that he defeated death due to his perfection and raised Himself from the dead since it had no power over him... After all, if death is the result of sin, then how can a sinless man die? But if evolution, which requires death, had been an instrument of Creation, then Jesus Christ's death would have been for absolutely nothing... It would not have been an atonement for sin. That goes against the very foundation of the entirety of Christianity, and if you believe evolution for even the slightest reasons, you undermine the entire doctrine of the Bible and have absolutely NOTHING to stand on.

That is why I called them heretics. A heretic, according to the Dictionary, is a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. A little all-encompassing, of course, but the principle is the same. A heretic is someone who says they're a Christian, but believes something that completely negates the entire reason for Jesus Christ's purpose, which, in turn, is the entire reason for the Christian religion. If you get rid of Jesus Christ and what he did, then you HAVE no Christian religion. Evolutionists know this... Unfortunately, some Christians are too poorly educated in the ways of the world to realize this for themselves. They want to fit in and they accept fallacies like evolution when they have no idea just how disastrous it is. They might not be doing it on purpose, but the result is the same: They're heretics. It's not a curse word... It's not something that should be flung around lightly, either. It was a buzzword to the Catholic church when they realized we Protestants were deviating from their doctrine, but it's the perfect word to use for any Christian who believes evolution was a part of Creation.

How's that for articulating my point? I know it probably won't sway the funny folks over at FSTDT, but maybe it'll influence someone who's having doubts. I don't know... I just felt like I should further explain where I was coming from. Plus, if I may address the selfish nature in me, I do very much enjoy it when people point at me and call me names for going against what the world offers as explanations to philosophical issues. I think the greatest thing in the world is being made fun of for standing up, believing in Jesus Christ and Christianity, and then telling the world that what they're doing is WRONG and that they need to understand why it's wrong so they can change. Remember Matthew 5:10 - 16:

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Don't give in... You know you're doing the right thing when you make people angry. In fact, I can't help but feel insulted that I don't have a perfect 5 on their fancy little "Fundamentalist-o-meter", heheh...

Here's a question for all you Christians out there. (Or anyone, really, but I have a good idea what non-Christians would say in response to my question... Just keep reading and you'll see what I mean.)

The topic? Lies. Question? Are there good lies?

Now, I know every Christian's first thought is: Of course there are no GOOD lies! A white lie, so to speak, is still a lie. A lie is something that is in opposition to the truth. Now, here's an illustration: Let's say that you're good at repairing cars, but you don't like to make a habit of letting people bring their cars over for you to fix. You can do it, but you don't want to. It's just a personal hobby of yours. But you have a friend whose car has died and he needs someone to look at it and he asks you for help. You say: "Sure! Bring it over, it's no problem." But deep inside, you really hate the idea of people dropping off their cars for you to fix because they think they can get it done for free (or at least far cheaper). When you agreed to have a look at the car, against your secret thoughts and wishes, you're lying... Right? It IS a problem. You DON'T want to fix it, but you're going to be nice because it's a friend of yours, so you tell him it's okay.

Here's the part where I say I know what non-Christians would say: There's a global mentality out there that likes to believe that you can do whatever you want and say whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. If you lie to purposely mislead someone with a malicious intent, or you lie to keep something hidden from someone who needs to be informed of what's happened... That's bad. But if you lie to be nice to someone, then that's okay, because you're not hurting someone. According to them, telling someone it's okay to bring a car over to be fixed, when you are actually thinking otherwise, is okay to do because it's not actually hurting someone else in the process. In fact, you could say it's an attempt to keep the relationship. After all, friends help friends!

Personally, I subscribe to the idea of not beating around the bush. I tell things like it is. I see something, I'll form an opinion, and I'll let you know what my opinion is if you ask. You made a new website that I like? Ask me and I'll tell you I like it. You took a photograph of some flowers that you think is really great, but I think the composition is wrong? Ask me and I'll tell you that I think the composition is wrong. Introduce me to a new friend of yours and then ask me what I think? If I don't think the friend is a good choice, I'll let you know! I see no sense in hiding opinions just to make people feel good or just to maintain a relationship... Friendly, romantic, or otherwise. It makes everyone involved think they're getting to know the person, but what they know are simply lies so that person can fit in a little more easily. For example, let's say that you think homosexuality is wrong. It's a conviction that you (and a lot of other people) have, but it's not exactly a popular one to society in general. As a result, to fit in, you give the appearance of not caring one way or the other. In essence: You lie about yourself in an attempt to fit in. It's misleading, it's dangerous, and it only causes problems farther down the line.

People know me, though... The people I've met online know that I'm going to tell you exactly what I think about an issue, even if it steps on people's toes. I would expect nothing less in return. If I ask you a question about something, I would much rather hear your unbridled, ravaging and scathing opinion on something than hear you lie about it just to make me happy. If I think there's a problem, I'm going to flat out tell you exactly what the problem is. That's just my nature. If I make people uncontrollably upset at me and make them not want anything to do with me anymore? That's par for the course. I would rather be me and have a few friends who like me for what I am than have a bunch of friends who don't know me at all. In addition to all of this, I think it promotes a sense of trust, if you can believe it. By showing people that you're not afraid of telling them what they don't want to hear you make your praises all the more wholesome, because then they KNOW you're not just trying to get on their good side.

Now, people would think that doing something like helping someone out against your own is just the polite thing to do. Someone needs help, you don't want to do it, but you say you'll do it anyway. I guess there's somewhat of a fine line here... Between actually saying that it's no problem when it is, and just buckling down and doing something good when you don't feel like it. But I'm shooting for the scenario where people ask you do you something, you agree, and then they ask if you're sure and you say it's no problem (when it is). I'm shooting for the scenario where someone shows you an accomplishment that they're proud of and ask if you're impressed... And you say you are when you are, in fact, NOT impressed in the least bit. Of course, you need to apply some discretion here... If a child shows you a scribble drawing that they worked so incredibly hard on, you might not exactly be impressed with the quality picture itself, but you're still going to be impressed with their talents... You get the idea. (I hope.)

But that's my question... Is it wrong to tell someone something that isn't true to make them feel good? To be nice? To fit in? Is it lying when you do that? The Bible specifically says lying is wrong and not to do it under any circumstances because it's just... Wrong. It's backwards. It's untruthful. It paints the wrong pictures and leads people to believe something that isn't true. Is it being polite or is it lying?

Well, I've really been going on about how amazing Sunshine is as a movie, and after doing some reading on it like one does when they like something, I've come across posts saying how anti-religion it is, or how anti-religion it's supposed to be and stuff like that... I guess I could see how it could be construed that way, and I want to explain what I believe. Of course, doing that, there will be major spoilers, so I will put that behind a link for those of you who plan on watching. And when I mean "major spoilers", I mean... I'm going to give away the entire story, so don't read if you want to be surprised!

(more...)

Stay tuned for more updates that may or may not occur.

So someone on Digg managed to unearth some Christian tracts about how homosexuality is wrong. Yeah... I'll bet you know the general response to that, and so did I. But what gets me is people who quote the Bible out of context in an effort to prove that it's somehow not... Actually... I'm not sure what their intention is. To disprove the Bible in their own shallow little way, I guess. But someone quoted the part of scripture where the men (God in disguise) visited Lot in the city and all the creepy weirdos tried to get Lot to send the men out so they could have "fun", and that Lot offered his daughters in their place. Blaaah. Very creepy, icky story. But, yes... That's what was quoted, and the guy was all "yeah, the Bible sure is moral... It must be okay to give your girls to homos." Good ol' context.

Let me just paste here what I replied with. I'm sure it'll get moderated into oblivion on Digg:

You "experts" of the Bible are anything but... Anyone who's read any form of literature would know that things have context. If you would read the ENTIRE story, you'd realize that Lot WAS an arrogant moron who was given the choice to live in that city full of weirdos because he wanted to graze his cattle in the best land. The city was going to be destroyed, so Abraham begged the visiting men (God in disguise) to spare Lot, so they went into the city to get him. Lot, in turn, begged the men to visit his house. Let's completely forget that Lot made a horrible choice so he could make more money, and that, yes, offering his daughters was a sick thing to do. Lot is never supposed to be a "good guy", but more an example that greed blinds you and makes you do some pretty nasty things.

But let's take quotes completely out of context so we can twist the intended meaning. That's like quoting the part where Frodo claims the Ring as his own in Mount Doom and saying he's the bad guy because of it. If you read the ENTIRE story, you'd know he'd not do that if he was in his right mind. But yeah... This is Digg. This place thrives on taking quotes out of context to prove a shallow point, doesn't it?

If you're trying to make the Bible sound bad (or even anything else), or you're trying to prove a point with scripture to let you do something? It's wise and just plain all-around common sense to read the scripture you're quoting in context, or you just make yourself look like an idiot. Of course Lot was an arrogant poop... He was not the "good guy" in the story. He's only in this story because Abraham asked that he be saved before the city was destroyed. That doesn't make Lot the starring moral character! On the contrary, he was the man blinded by greed, thinking it was okay to subject his family to that perverse city just so be could be rich. Yes! Lot was a (insert term for idiot here), and he was lucky to have extended family that cared about him or he would've been destroyed along with everyone else.

Update 1

It seems my little post has made quite the ripple in the Digg community. I got a response in a record time of about 2 minutes. Here's what was propositioned:

Yet: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (New International Version) What context should that be taken in? Or is this one pretty clear on it's own?

To which someone responded:

Keep in mind the very same chapter says that married couples that have sex while the wife is on her period should be shunned, I don't think anyone believes that. Yet fundamentalists always quote the passage that is only five or so verses away as fact.

To which someone responded:

If you take that IN context, it's part of the Levitical laws that were laid down for the health and safety of the Israelites -- America isn't exactly the same as the Middle East a few thousand years ago.

To all of which I responded with:

Leviticus is Jewish law and only applies to the world before Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. After that, a new law for Christians was instituted and is contained entirely in the New Testament. While Leviticus is Jewish law only, it does still have some good ideas on health. However, there are a lot of areas in the New Testament that discuss "fornication" and how you should avoid it. Avoiding fornication includes, guess what? Marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, as put forth in 1 Corinthians 7. There are lots of other places that discuss fornication and how it's evil. I'd suggest finding an online Bible (King James Version) and searching for instances of the word. This really isn't the best place for me to be teaching a course on how homosexuality is, indeed, forbidden.

I will, however, give you readers a direct link to the online Bible I searched!

Then, in response to my very first comment, someone wrote (spelling and grammer intact):

"Abraham pleads with God not to destroy Sodom, and God agrees that he would not destroy the city if there were 50 righteous people in it, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even ten righteous people. The Lord's two angels only found one righteous person living in Sodom, Abraham's nephew Lot. Consequently, God destroyed the city."

So god thinks that Lot is righteous person!? I think u should read the entire story.

To which I also responded:

Being a righteous person in the Old Testament was a little different than being righteous in the New Testament, after Christ's death, burial and resurrection, where you could then become a Christian by means entirely different than the Jews were used to. It could be that Lot was the only person in the city who didn't participate in the evils going on there, or it could mean that he was the only one who believed in God. I haven't really been asked this question before, so I'll need to do some research on it. But there's no doubt that Lot made a terrible choice by moving into the city to begin with, and there's no doubt he moved into the valley to begin with because he wanted the best grazing land. But yes... I have read the entire story.

Ah... I think I need some insight into what being righteous meant back before the 10 Commandments and Jewish Law and the post-resurrection way of doing things. I really haven't bothered to, because, well... You don't do things the way they did it in the Old Testament anymore.

This post is about a week late, but I don't really care. I made an interesting discovery while I was in the shower, and I want to write it down somewhere, lest I forget. Seeing as how barely anyone but me reads this, I might as well write it down here, so I can upset everyone who takes this stuff too seriously!

Topic: Christmas Is a Pagan Holiday

You know it is. Everyone knows it is. Everyone, especially lately, Christians and non-Christians alike, has been bringing it up like it's some huge deal. Non-Christians bring it up in an attempt to undermine the Christians who celebrate it, and Christians bring it up in an attempt to explain why they don't celebrate it with everyone else. With all this nonsense about Christmas "taking over" everything else, it's become a big talking point when it comes to trying to crush it. "Well, you know, Christmas was never really about the birth of this Jesus character, so you're just trying to push your religion on to everyone else."

Yeah, yeah, sure, sure... That's the big thing these days: "Christians are pushing their morals on us, so we need to legislate against it and push our morals on them, instead, and make them stop." But that's not the point of this post, really. To all you people making a huge deal out of Christmas' origins, I have this question for you: What do you feel about Halloween?

I know of a few people, who will remain unnamed, who have lambasted me for bringing up the origins of Halloween, and asking them why in the heck they celebrate it. Their response has always been simply: "Well, I don't celebrate it for those reasons. Nobody does anymore, so it's okay." A bit of flawed logic, if you ask me. What do you celebrate, then? It's Halloween, you dress up as the ugliest nasty you can think of and run around to everyone's houses, decorated with black and orange, with carved pumpkins everywhere. It all had a meaning, so long ago. Everyone I discuss it with knows this fact, and still they say that since they don't celebrate those things, it's okay to have that stuff laying around. I suppose I should have asked if it's okay to have a pentagram painted on your floor, even if you don't actually use it for what it's intended. Let me tell you, if you had a pentagram on your floor, I don't care who you are, but I'm running away as fast as I can... But I'm getting distracted...

If Halloween is okay, why isn't Christmas? Halloween has some pretty dark, evil roots, but it's "okay" to celebrate it, because you're not celebrating it the way it was intended. Okay, so why doesn't that apply to Christmas? Nobody celebrates Christmas for what it was intended to be, so it should be okay, right? Well, from the general hysteria and outcry I've been hearing this year, it would make you think twice. (I mean, I know why it's being attacked. "How dare there be a holiday that publicly expresses Christianity, right? Let's promote free speech and expression for our oppressed homosexuals, but let's not allow those nutty Christians any leeway when it comes to what they believe.")

You can not have it both ways. You can't say Halloween is a harmless day of fun, not at all what it was originally intended to be because nobody does that sort of stuff anymore, and then turn right around and say "oh, Christmas, pfft, you know that was originally intended to be a pagan holiday, right?" Either both Halloween and Christmas are okay now, because modern society doesn't celebrate those holidays for the original reasons anymore, or both Halloween and Christmas are not okay, because they have original meanings that are still there in all the symbols of the holidays, even if modern society is too uneducated to understand them. It has to be one or the other. You can't mix it up. Well, you can... But then you're a hypocrite, and that, of course, is what I have made a sort of habit of pointing out lately. Hypocrisy. And that is why I bothered to write about this!

As one of those crazy, right-wing, conservative Republican Christians, I'm going to say... Both Halloween and Christmas have roots in things that have nothing to do with what we celebrate today, but because we don't celebrate them for the same reasons does not mean the original intentions no longer apply. Pumpkins, christmas trees, ugly costumes, wreaths... The works. They all have meanings and reasons, and you may or may not care, but the meanings and reasons are still there. It's like... Sauron's One Ring. It has a purpose and a reason, and even if you try not to use the ring for the original purpose and reason, it still has the original purpose and reason, and it always comes out. It's like hanging a picture of Satan or a pentagram on your wall, because it's "artistic". You hung it there because you like the look of it (a wild example, of course, because who in their right mind would think either of those things looks nice?!), not because you're worshipping it. But does that mean exposing yourself to that kind of stuff is okay because you're not actually using them in their original capacities? Of course not!

I'm not saying Christmas is bad to celebrate. (I am, however, saying Halloween is bad to celebrate.) But I am saying that, yes, Christmas was originally intended to be a pagan holiday, and the trees and wreaths and other things are symbols that were not intended to by symbols of "Christ's unending love" or anything. You can try to tell people that's what it means, but that's not what it means. The wreath is a symbol of life, granted. But, say, the jack-o'-lantern is the symbol of some guy who's forever locked out of both Heaven and Hell and is doomed to wander the world with his little turnip lantern lit by an ember from Hell. Yeah... That's really something I want sitting out on my porch.

It's all up to you, really. If you want to carve pumpkins and go wandering around at night collecting candy, or hang wreaths all over your house, or place a lovely picture of the guy with horns on your TV, you're very welcome to. I might not agree with you or even want to enter your house, but that's my choice, as well. I'm just sick of people ranting about how Christmas isn't supposed to be a Christian holiday when, with the same breath, they rant about how Halloween is okay because it's no longer celebrated the way it was supposed to be. They can make Halloween mean something else, but Christians can't make Christmas mean something else?

Interesting... Very interesting.

So... I've been thinking. When we first returned to my old church, they were going through some growing pains in regards to what kind of music people wanted during the service. You know the age old fight... do we allow new funky contemporary music or do we stick with old-style hymns and stuff.

I think the whole fight rather disappointed our preacher, and he preached once really blatantly about the subject... about how we shouldn't be fighting over something that isn't essential to salvation. No where in the Bible does it discuss proper music or anything of the sort. I'll admit to that. Since then, he's always brought it up a bit more subtley in his sermons. (I wonder if anyone picks up on it.) Since then, I, personally, have become less aggressive when it comes to music styles. Sure, I can't stand the boring, brainless, three-word, three-minute songs they sing sometimes, but I take it in stride.

However... there's always the subliminal issue of "reverence". WHY do people fight for new, contemporary music? I notice that most (but not all) newer songs seem to talk about you, the singer, and what you're doing for God. "I pledge to do this", and "I'm going to do that", and "I'm giving you this", and "I need to do that". So why do we sing songs in church?

Well, it's "worship", right? That's what most churches call singing time. The way I see it... most contemporary songs aren't talking about God's glory and grace and power, they're talking about how awesome "we" are and what "we've" been doing. It's easy for me to see the words to songs, since our church has a projector. You should try analyzing the words to songs sometime. I'm not saying ALL newer songs are this way, and I've seen some older hymns the same way... but I've just noticed that MOST newer songs are like this.

I'm all for jazzing things up a bit. Personally, the old hymns put me to sleep and I'm not awake during the sermon and I HATE that. I've just never been able to do that. Our church has an early service that still plays strictly old songs by one piano, and it's a real drag. I just can't do it. However, for the later services, you've got the complete other side of the spectrum where it can become just crazy songs. Not nearly as bad as just about every other church I've visited, as I have to keep reminding myself, but it's still a bit out there sometimes.

What I have a problem with are the songs that repeat the same words and/or the same notes over and over again. It's brainless and boring and it hurts to listen to. Anyone can bonk out some tune on a piano, write the words "You are holy" and just repeat it enough times to make it as long as a hymn. Which actually brings me to another point of newer songs.

The lyrics are so completely vague. They always talk about "you" and "him". They barely ever say "God" or "Jesus". The songs could be applied to ANYONE. Sure, we know who we're singing it to, but that doesn't make the song special or dedicated to Him. Try picturing if you can sing a "worship song" to, say... your wife. If it's just some silly love song that can be applied to anyone, then I don't think it belongs in the church. It is, quite literally, a "worship song". The song is worshipping, yes, but it could be worshipping anything you're singing it to. It's nothing special. I don't think those belong in the church.

I can't remember if I ever told you about the song they sang once... it sounded... uhm... like some pop song you'd sing during a "James Bond bed scene". It was so embarrasingly vague and just... steamy sounding. I refused to even sing it in my head. No way I'm singing something that could be in some porn video. I can't remember all the lyrics, but it was talking about breathing and warmth and touching and being close to each other, and... uhm, yeah... I'm not that kind of guy. The icing on the cake was that it never mentioned any names, so it could be sung to anyone and anything. Not... good... But thank God we haven't sung that more than twice and not for a while.

Another thing that comes up when I think of people fighting over music... WHY are you fighting? I guess I kind of got distracted from my "reverence" point. But here we go! I mean, are you arguing over the music because you feel it's not reverent, or because it's not the music YOU like? I'm kind of torn on this, because, naturally, people have songs that THEY like. It's just a natural thing. But are you wanting to sing songs because YOU want to hear it, or because you want to praise God with it? To me, it almost seems as if there's a fine line between enjoying the praising and just plain enjoying the song. I mean, I have favorite contemporary songs that I listen to sometimes. But I admit it's for my listening pleasure.

So, when people don't want to sing a certain song, or want to play a certain kind of music, are they worried that the song isn't properly praising God? Or are they upset that someone doesn't like listening to their favorite song. I'm okay with contemporary songs, myself. As long as it's not too wild. I mean, please... crazy drum solos and heavy beats and stuff, that's usually only for personal enjoyment. You can SAY that it's for God's glory, but is it REALLY? I'm biased here, I admit, because I've heard some scary stuff about the origination of rock music, and how drums beats are anti-harmonious and rather dangerous. For crying out loud, witchdoctors use drums to summon spirts. Specially designed beats and rhythms that witchdoctors turned Christian will pick out in "modern music". That, to me, is really freaky. But that's something else entirely that I'm not quite prepared to talk about. I'm a bit rusty on sources for that.

So, I guess... that problem I see in music isn't necessarily the music (well, unless it gets too wild), but the fact that people seem to get upset because THEY aren't getting what THEY want. I think we need to watch out for that more than anything else. I think a lot of the in-fighting will stop if we concentrate on worrying about singing songs that are specifically reverent to GOD and GOD alone, songs that aren't so vague that they can be sung to your significant other, and songs that aren't outlining everything YOU'VE done for God, instead of what HE'S done for YOU. Come on, it's a time to worship GOD, not yourself! This is basically what I've always had a problem with.

So... it's late... and I started losing my focus, but I hope you've got the point.