I began memorizing Romans 4 today, and as is my custom, wrote out the entire chapter on separate 3x5 cards. As I was doing so, I found it incredible that Paul talks at length about how Abraham NEVER wavered concerning the promise of God, that he and his offspring would be heirs of the world!
No mention of Hagar, and Abraham's illicit relationship with her at Sarah's bidding. I was struck at God's mercy and the way he blots out our sin, his chosen children's sin, from his gaze and remembers it NO MORE. What an awesome God we serve!
This goes to show that God looks at things so differently than we do--he defies "logic," that is, man's reasoning. History, and all other subjects, must be viewed through HIS lenses. The way God views everything is the ONLY way to view it. And I am so glad he's chosen to view his children as spotless and without blemish.
Be downcast no more, oh my soul, but rejoice and be glad! For our Lord Jesus Christ has looked on us with favor in our distress.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
This is what I'm talking about....
Up From Paulism
By W. James Antle, III on 2.14.11 @ 6:09AM
On the same day Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll of the nation's largest gathering of conservative activists, one of the nation's oldest conservative-libertarian activist groups kicked him off their national advisory board. Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) announced it had severed ties with the twelve-term Texas congressman, who had been on the advisory board for over two decades, over what it described as his "delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement."
Later, Paul triumphed at the at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw poll for the second year in a row. He beat Mitt Romney, the only other candidate with an experienced campaign organization, 30 percent to 23 percent. Paul left the other possible Republican presidential contenders who are favored by either the mainstream media or the conservative movement -- most of whom got fewer votes than libertarian fellow-traveler and former Paul endorser Gary Johnson -- in the dust.
While some individual participants may have been out of the mainstream, CPAC as a whole was hardly fringe. It attracted over 11,000 people, mostly mainline conservative activists. Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Mitch Daniels, and Rick Santorum were among the other possible Republican candidates on hand. This wasn't, as some of the conference's conservative detractors imply, a joint meeting of the Log Cabin Club and the Libertarian National Committee.
Straw polls aren't scientific surveys and thus can't be used to refute Donald Trump's CPAC prediction that Paul has "zero chance" of winning the presidency. But it is a good barometer that at this very early stage the other 2012 aspirants lack either grassroots support or organizational strength -- and in some cases, probably both -- at least in sufficient amounts to overcome Paul's zealous backers.
The straw poll win coupled with the YAF flap shows the dilemma for the movement Paul is trying to lead. On the one hand, it was once unusual to hear Republican leaders not named Ron Paul talking regularly about the Constitution. Now it is commonplace, and not a single Republican contemplating the presidency defends the constitutionality of Obamacare. There is much more mainstream conservative interest in auditing the Federal Reserve, the doctrine of enumerated powers, nullification, and Austrian economics. But deep divisions still remain.
Even at CPAC, there was little obvious comity between Paul's supporters and those who preferred other candidates. About half the crowd booed when the straw poll results were announced. All hell broke loose when Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld appeared with the audience still full of Paulites who had been there to hear the congressman's son Rand, now a freshman Republican senator from Kentucky, speak. They heckled the former vice president and defense secretary. The more traditional Republicans and movement conservatives on hand responded by shouting, "USA, USA!"
One side believed Cheney should present and Rumsfeld should receive an award for defending the Constitution, while the other thought they had a record of undermining it. The Paul supporters at CPAC branded these men "war criminals" while YAF declared that opposing their preferred foreign policy "border[s] on treason." What common ground can there be between these two extremes?
"Paul's supporters have all the lungs and confidence of fourth-century Christians overwhelming the pagans," writes professional Paul-watcher Dave Weigel. But this can sometimes backfire. When they attempted to shout down Orrin Hatch as he explained his support for the bailout, they won him sympathy from the rest of the crowd -- even though most rank-and-file conservatives agree with Paul and disagree with Hatch on the issue.
Yet Rand Paul struck a much different tone. He unapologetically made common cause with the Tea Party: "Is there anybody here from the Tea Party? Are we going to let Washington co-opt the Tea Party? Will you help me fight for and defend the Constitution?"
The younger Paul also invoked Barry Goldwater in reminding the audience that strict constitutionalism was part of the conservative movement's heritage. He cited the following from Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative: "I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible."
Of course, Rand Paul's father also favorably quotes conservative and Republican leaders of days gone by in his speeches, from Robert Taft to Ronald Reagan. But the son made common cause with his GOP contemporaries as well. Just as he has cosponsored legislation with Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, David Vitter of Louisiana, and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, the younger Paul enlisted Oklahoma conservative Tom Coburn in his speech. He even gave a shout out to Maine's moderate Susan Collins. Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats were cast as villains.
While Ron Paul challenged the CPAC crowd by saying that he bet half of them wouldn't support cuts in the defense budget, Rand Paul led with entitlement reform, asking to applause, "Is there anybody here who would like to opt out of Social Security?" Then he emphasized the significance of national defense, calling it "the one primary and most important constitutional thing our government does." But he also referred to Pentagon cuts as the "one compromise we will have to make as conservatives."
Rand also put himself convincingly to the right of the Republican leadership. "They're talking about cutting $35 billion," he said. "We spend $35 billion in five days. We add $35 billion to the debt in nine days. It's not enough, and we will not stop the ruin in our country unless we think more boldly." Just as Reagan once called for a platform painted in "bold colors, not pale pastels."
When it comes to the substance of his positions on the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, and foreign aid to Israel, Rand Paul is still his father's son. But just as in his CPAC speech, he is trying to speak in tones less jarring to Republican ears, bringing his father's supporters and more traditional conservatives together.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Sad but Unsurprising...
Study: Many college students not learning to think critically
Sara Rimer, The Hechinger Report | The Hechinger Report
last updated: January 17, 2011 04:52:23 PM
Posted on Tue, Jan. 18, 2011
NEW YORK — An unprecedented study that followed several thousand undergraduates through four years of college found that large numbers didn't learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education.
Many of the students graduated without knowing how to sift fact from opinion, make a clear written argument or objectively review conflicting reports of a situation or event, according to New York University sociologist Richard Arum, lead author of the study. The students, for example, couldn't determine the cause of an increase in neighborhood crime or how best to respond without being swayed by emotional testimony and political spin.
Arum, whose book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses" (University of Chicago Press) comes out this month, followed 2,322 traditional-age students from the fall of 2005 to the spring of 2009 and examined testing data and student surveys at a broad range of 24 U.S. colleges and universities, from the highly selective to the less selective.
Forty-five percent of students made no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college, according to the study. After four years, 36 percent showed no significant gains in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.
Combining the hours spent studying and in class, students devoted less than a fifth of their time each week to academic pursuits. By contrast, students spent 51 percent of their time — or 85 hours a week — socializing or in extracurricular activities.
The study also showed that students who studied alone made more significant gains in learning than those who studied in groups.
"I'm not surprised at the results," said Stephen G. Emerson, the president of Haverford College in Pennsylvania. "Our very best students don't study in groups. They might work in groups in lab projects. But when they study, they study by themselves."
The study marks one of the first times a cohort of undergraduates has been followed over four years to examine whether they're learning specific skills. It provides a portrait of the complex set of factors, from the quality of secondary school preparation to the academic demands on campus, which determine learning. It comes amid President Barack Obama's call for more college graduates by 2020 and is likely to shine a spotlight on the quality of the education they receive.
"These findings are extremely valuable for those of us deeply concerned about the state of undergraduate learning and student intellectual engagement," said Brian D. Casey, the president of DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind. "They will surely shape discussions about curriculum and campus life for years to come."
Some educators note that a weakened economy and a need to work while in school may be partly responsible for the reduced focus on academics, while others caution against using the study to blame students for not applying themselves.
Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard's Graduate School of Education known for his theory of multiple intelligences, said the study underscores the need for higher education to push students harder.
"No one concerned with education can be pleased with the findings of this study," Gardner said. "I think that higher education in general is not demanding enough of students — academics are simply of less importance than they were a generation ago."
But the solution, in Gardner's view, shouldn't be to introduce high-stakes tests to measure learning in college because, "The cure is likely to be worse than the disease."
Arum concluded that while students at highly selective schools made more gains than those at less selective schools, there are even greater disparities within institutions.
"In all these 24 colleges and universities, you have pockets of kids that are working hard and learning at very high rates," Arum said. "There is this variation across colleges, but even greater variation within colleges in how much kids are applying themselves and learning."
For that reason, Arum added, he hopes his data will encourage colleges and universities to look within for ways to improve teaching and learning.
Arum co-authored the book with Josipa Roksa, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. The study, conducted with Esther Cho, a researcher with the Social Science Research Council, showed that students learned more when asked to do more.
Students who majored in the traditional liberal arts — including the social sciences, humanities, natural sciences and mathematics — showed significantly greater gains over time than other students in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills.
Students majoring in business, education, social work and communications showed the least gains in learning. However, the authors note that their findings don't preclude the possibility that such students "are developing subject-specific or occupationally relevant skills."
Greater gains in liberal arts subjects are at least partly the result of faculty requiring higher levels of reading and writing, as well as students spending more time studying, the study's authors found. Students who took courses heavy on both reading (more than 40 pages a week) and writing (more than 20 pages in a semester) showed higher rates of learning.
That's welcome news to liberal arts advocates.
"We do teach analytical reading and writing," said Ellen Fitzpatrick, a history professor at the University of New Hampshire.
The study used data from the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a 90-minute essay-type test that attempts to measure what liberal arts colleges teach and that more than 400 colleges and universities have used since 2002. The test is voluntary and includes real world problem-solving tasks, such as determining the cause of an airplane crash, that require reading and analyzing documents from newspaper articles to government reports.
The study's authors also found that large numbers of students didn't enroll in courses requiring substantial work. In a typical semester, a third of students took no courses with more than 40 pages of reading per week. Half didn't take a single course in which they wrote more than 20 pages over the semester.
The findings show that colleges need to be acutely aware of how instruction relates to the learning of critical-thinking and related skills, said Daniel J. Bradley, the president of Indiana State University and one of 71 college presidents who recently signed a pledge to improve student learning.
"We haven't spent enough time making sure we are indeed teaching — and students are learning — these skills," Bradley said.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Hello New Year...
I was just getting on my friend for not blogging the entire month of January, and OH MY WORD my blog doesn't have a January post either!!! *gasp* Well, since it's too late to remedy that, I figure I'd best blog before February is too far gone...
Frankly I am surprised at myself for even thinking of blogging--especially around this time! For those of you who don't know, I work at H&R Block during tax season (which is right now, for those of you who are completely out of it haha). AND, this is their BUSIEST two weeks out of the entire year!! However, when I need to blog, I blog. So here I am :)
I have nothing amazing to say--nothing spectacular or off record incredible. But life is like that. I am trying to be realistic here. Perhaps you were expecting some of my new year's resolutions. I could put some down, sure. But I was just thinking (uh oh) what are these things called "new year's resolutions" or "new year's goals"? For some it's a way to prick themselves into action--get them moving. For others it's just "what you do" and they write out their list, only to lose it within their next pile of junk. But really, why goals--and for many, only at the beginning of each year?
I have a couple questions on this subject. Number one, if goals are so awesome and amazing, how come we wait an entire year to make a list of them!? I am speaking generally here of course (I know you list freaks are out there---don't try to deny it!). And my second questions is, why even MAKE goals. I see where this is going, and it's the nature of man. Again. But that's ok--it's a subject I would do well to dwell on!
We make goals because we want something more than what we have. Most of our natures desire something BETTER than what we have: a better lifestyle, body, health--you name it! And yet that same nature fights against this desire, making us creatures of the moment, ease, and convenience, rather than FIGHTING our flesh. We make goals for several reason, I grant you, but I contend that the main reason most people make goals is to make themselves feel better about themselves.
The thing is, we want everything INSTANTLY! Patience is definitely out of style. So making goals is easy--sitting there and making a lovely list on lovely paper in stylish hand writing. But for most of us, when it really comes down to business, we turn to the "easy" little things that give us satisfaction in the moment, but at the end of the day only make us feel sick with how much time we wasted.
I am definitely not trying to bash new year's resolutions or say that no one should ever do them etc etc. But it seems to me that new year's goals have become not only fashionable, but fanciful. Goals are amazing and everyone should have them, but how about you make some NOW. If you didn't make some on New Year's Eve, and think inspiring thoughts while you watched the ball drop, who cares? What matters is to honor God in this life with EVERYTHING we do--and goals can definitely be one of them :)
I know this was sort of random--I just wrote it on the spot. Thanks for riding through it with me, and as always, I hope I caused some thoughts to go through your head. I love thinking, and I love getting others to think as well.
Sooo HAPPY THINKING! :)
Frankly I am surprised at myself for even thinking of blogging--especially around this time! For those of you who don't know, I work at H&R Block during tax season (which is right now, for those of you who are completely out of it haha). AND, this is their BUSIEST two weeks out of the entire year!! However, when I need to blog, I blog. So here I am :)
I have nothing amazing to say--nothing spectacular or off record incredible. But life is like that. I am trying to be realistic here. Perhaps you were expecting some of my new year's resolutions. I could put some down, sure. But I was just thinking (uh oh) what are these things called "new year's resolutions" or "new year's goals"? For some it's a way to prick themselves into action--get them moving. For others it's just "what you do" and they write out their list, only to lose it within their next pile of junk. But really, why goals--and for many, only at the beginning of each year?
I have a couple questions on this subject. Number one, if goals are so awesome and amazing, how come we wait an entire year to make a list of them!? I am speaking generally here of course (I know you list freaks are out there---don't try to deny it!). And my second questions is, why even MAKE goals. I see where this is going, and it's the nature of man. Again. But that's ok--it's a subject I would do well to dwell on!
We make goals because we want something more than what we have. Most of our natures desire something BETTER than what we have: a better lifestyle, body, health--you name it! And yet that same nature fights against this desire, making us creatures of the moment, ease, and convenience, rather than FIGHTING our flesh. We make goals for several reason, I grant you, but I contend that the main reason most people make goals is to make themselves feel better about themselves.
The thing is, we want everything INSTANTLY! Patience is definitely out of style. So making goals is easy--sitting there and making a lovely list on lovely paper in stylish hand writing. But for most of us, when it really comes down to business, we turn to the "easy" little things that give us satisfaction in the moment, but at the end of the day only make us feel sick with how much time we wasted.
I am definitely not trying to bash new year's resolutions or say that no one should ever do them etc etc. But it seems to me that new year's goals have become not only fashionable, but fanciful. Goals are amazing and everyone should have them, but how about you make some NOW. If you didn't make some on New Year's Eve, and think inspiring thoughts while you watched the ball drop, who cares? What matters is to honor God in this life with EVERYTHING we do--and goals can definitely be one of them :)
I know this was sort of random--I just wrote it on the spot. Thanks for riding through it with me, and as always, I hope I caused some thoughts to go through your head. I love thinking, and I love getting others to think as well.
Sooo HAPPY THINKING! :)
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
What do women want?
Dennis Prager finishes 2-part column on greatest desires of each gender
Posted: December 28, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
Monday, December 27, 2010
By Dennis Prager
In my previous column, I offered an answer to the question: What do men want?
I made the case that what men most want from the woman they love is to be admired.
If my answer is correct, and if we presume that the natures of men and women are complementary (a presumption many men and women understandably doubt given how often men and women do not get along), what women most want must be related to that which men most want.
I believe it is.
What a woman most wants is to be loved by a man she admires.
I am well aware that to say this today is akin to announcing that the sun revolves around the Earth. For half a century, we have been told that what women most want is professional success and equality. And to the extent that a modern "liberated" woman does admit to wanting a man to love, she will say that she wants a "partner" who is her "equal." And girls and women have been told – or, more accurately, have had drummed into them – that equality means that both sexes are essentially the same (except for the physical differences) and therefore want the same things. Equality and sameness have been rendered synonymous. That is why she cannot say – and ideally wouldn't even admit to herself – that she wants a man to admire; that would be "sexist," as it would imply an unequal relationship.
The notion that a woman most wants a man, admirable or not, has been scoffed at. This was encapsulated by the famous feminist slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Even feminism that did not agree with the fish-bicycle metaphor communicated to young women that an "authentic" woman would not have as her greatest desire to bond with a man.
Today, feminism holds less appeal for young women than it did for the previous generation, but "equality" remains the liberal god of the day. That renders my theory – that a woman wants to be cherished by a man she admires – politically incorrect in the extreme.
It is problematic enough to say that a woman most wants a man. But that pales compared to the claim that she most wants a man whom she admires. That seems to affirm gender inequality. The image it conjures up is of a woman looking up to her man as if he were some sort of lord and she his serf.
Yet, any woman who believes that she is married to an admirable man would laugh at such a dismissal. Admiring one's husband doesn't render a woman a serf. It renders her fortunate.
The truth is that almost nothing – including job success – elevates a woman in her own eyes as much as being loved by a husband whom she admires. That is why when married women get together, they don't talk about their jobs nearly as much as men do. They talk, among other things, about their man if they are proud of him, and complain about him if they are not. Even most feminists are happiest when married to a man they admire.
And what is it that women most admire in a man? From decades of talking to women on the radio and, of course, from simply living life, I have concluded that an admirable man is one who has three qualities: strength, integrity and ambition.
All three are needed. Strength without integrity is machismo. Integrity without strength or without ambition is a milquetoast. And ambition without integrity is a successful crook.
(Column continues below)
Women are drawn to strong men. Though many men, when asked the secret to their long marriage, answer, "I learned to always say, 'Yes, Dear,'" the truth is that most women are not attracted to "Yes, Dear" men who always give in to a woman's whim. They are attracted to a man who exhibits strength in the outer world and at home as husband and father.
But that strength must come with integrity. If it doesn't, he is a strong bad man. And while more than a few women fall for bad men (precisely because of the power of masculine strength to attract women), most women do not want such a man over the long run.
And ambition does not mean that he is necessarily rich, but that he is a hard worker who wants to improve himself; plenty of men who earn relatively little are admired and loved by their wives. That is why a major "turn-off" to most women is a husband who sits and watches television all night (let alone all day).
The beauty of all this is that it all comes together for men, for women and for society.
Women get what they want most: to be married to and loved by a man they admire. Men then attain what they want most: to be admired by the woman they love. And society gets the thing it most needs: admirable men.
Unfortunately, none of this is taught at college.
Monday, December 27, 2010
I Want to Believe This!!! :)
Chocolate better cure for common cold than echinacea
* From: NewsCore
* December 22, 2010 12:35AM
PEOPLE who buy echinacea to stave off a common cold are wasting their money and should buy chocolate instead, two separate scientific studies have claimed.
Echinacea, which is believed to minimise the impact of a common cold, was studied by scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health.
They found the over-the-counter herbal treatment only slightly delayed cold symptoms
In tests of 719 people, aged between 12 and 80, volunteers were randomly given either no pill, a pill they knew contained echinacea, or a pill that could have been echinacea or a placebo.
Those who received echinacea saw the duration of their cold reduced by seven to 10 hours.
"Trends were in the direction of benefit, amounting to an average half-day reduction in the duration of a weeklong cold or an approximate 10 percent reduction in overall severity," said Bruce Barrett, the lead researcher, writing in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
"However, this dose regimen did not make a large impact on the course of the common cold, compared either to blinded placebo or to no pills," he concluded.
In the UK, scientists at a British-based drugs company called SEEK, working with experts at Hull Cough Clinic, said that a naturally-occurring substance in cocoa - theobromine - has been shown to prevent the key features of a persistent cough.
Seek was developing a medication based on theobromine, which is found in significant quantities in cocoa-based products and which it says "has been shown to inhibit the inappropriate firing of the vagus nerve, which is a key feature of persistent cough.”
Professor Alyn Morice from the clinic, said, "Due to the drawbacks of current opioid drugs such as codeine, we are in desperate need of a non-opioid treatment with a drastically improved side effect profile for patients."
Monday, December 20, 2010
Austria: Judge Rules That Yodeling Offends Muslims
Tevet 8, 5771, 15 December 10 05:12
by Elad Benari
(Israelnationalnews.com) It seems as though in Austria, the popular yodel is an insult to Muslims.
An Austrian court has recently fined a citizen for yodeling while mowing his lawn, according to a report in The Kronen Zeitung newspaper.
The citizen, 63-year-old Helmut G., was told by the court that his yodeling offended his next-door Muslim neighbors, who accused him of trying to mock and imitate the call of the Muezzin.
In Muslim tradition, the Muezzin is the chosen person at a mosque who leads the call to prayer at Friday services and the five daily times for prayer from one of the mosque's minarets.
The yodel is a song which is sung with an extended note which rapidly and repeatedly changes in pitch and makes a high-low-high-low sound. Developed in the Central Alps as a method of communication between alpine mountaineers or between alpine villages, the yodel later became part of the region's traditional lore and musical expression. The technique is used in many cultures throughout the world and Austria is one of the countries where it is most popular.
Unfortunately for Helmut G., his neighbors were in the middle of a prayer when he started to yodel. The Kronen Zeitung reported that he was fined 800 Euros after judges ruled that he could have tried to offend his neighbors and ridicule their belief.
Helmut G. clarified that “It was not my intention to imitate or insult them. I simply started to yodel a few tunes because I was in such a good mood.”
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The Most Astounding Event in History...
As the time to celebrate Jesus' birth draws near yet again this holiday season, I sat down to tea and Tabletalk magazine (an old Tabletalk mind you, but still Tabletalk none the less) and stumbled across a moving and significant article on the true meaning of what we call CHRISTMAS. Yes, this subject has been hashed and re-hashed over and over again, but what is the TRUE meaning of Christmas? Why do we even celebrate it as Christians? I loved this article by RC Sproul Jr on how the past has made the future glorious! But I will say no more--read for yourself :) I couldn't find it anywhere online at all, so now it's on here for the online world to see! May it be the better for it... Praise God for sending his Son in the form of a baby to a virgin in Bethlehem.
THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTMAS FUTURE
by RC SPROUL JR
I must have been 10 years old when the anxiety hit me. I sat amidst the crumpled paper when it dawned on me, "It doesn't get any better than this." As I surveyed my gifts, however, I knew--the descent had already begun. Like a subtle heresy, clothes had slowly begun to creep into the mix. There were plenty of toys, new diversions that I was eager to get to. The joy of anticipation, however, was tempered by the clothes and the dreadful realization that next year there would be more clothes. The year after that still more clothes. Perhaps even--God help me--underwear. The spirit of Christmas future was haunting me.
I had adopted the creed of Sally Brown, Charlie's younger sister. Surveying her lengthy and demanding wish list to Santa Claus, Charlie Brown, the round-headed sage, chastised his sister for her greed. Her response? "All I want is what's coming to me, all I want is my fair share." Lucy van Pelt complained that she never got what she wanted: real estate. I wanted children's things, and I wanted to stay a child.
While I suffered from greed, my understanding of Christmas wasn't exclusively materialistic. I understood that we were celebrating an event. I understood that center-stage of the Christmas pageant was not the North Pole but the little town of Bethlehem.
It was an awe-inspiring thing to see how the world changed each Christmas season. In my small world of home, school, and television, the change was ubiquitous. All this because of what happened in a stable halfway across the world nearly two millenia ago.
Of course when the original event occurred, the world did not change. Those in the know were very few. All the world was busy tending to the business of keeping Caesar happy through the census. Jesus chose tax time to arrive, and only a few people noticed. The shepherds were tending to their flocks with care when they heard the Good News. The magi sought the child, following a star. It's the ultimate in dramatic irony. All Israel awaited a mighty king to restore their glory and throw off the shackles of Rome. What they got was a baby, long promised but unnoticed. That Christmas they received not a toy soldier but clothes, swaddling clothes enshrouding a tiny little newborn.
We, the audience of the future, know what happened. We know what became of that baby. This season, Advent, we look backward to that time before Christ so that we can experience looking forward to His birth. In the Advent season we seek to recreate the joy of anticipation.
The Spirit of Christmas future haunted Ebenezer Scrooge with the ultimate burden. He gave Scrooge a glimpse of what was to come. Down toward the grave the bony hand pointed mutely. That spirit was a false prophet. Because of Christmas past, Christmas future points no bony hand toward a grave but a living hand skyward. The Advent is coming again.
Christmas future is not about clothes or toys. It is not about secrets and subtle portents in the stars. It is not about a darling sweet baby. The Christmas which is to come will not be hearkened with angels singing in an our-of-the-way pasture. Like the shepherds we will all look heavenward, and we will be sore afraid. When He comes again all the world will know. He is coming again, this time in judgment. The mightiest of warriors, He will bear the sword, and not in vain.
But we, who are His sheep, who know His voice, look to that great day with great anticipation. We will be as children again, His children. He will remove all our burdens. He will wipe away every tear.
And we will receive no new clothes. For when He comes, we no longer need to stand clothed in His righteousness. When He comes in glory we too will be glorified, our sanctification complete. Like Adam before us, we will stand before Him, naked and unashamed. We will see Him as He is, and we will be like Him.
Never again will we look backward with anticipation. We will look forward, moving onward and upward. And each day we will be astounded to realize that it does get better than this, every day perfect, yet every day better than the last, on into eternity.
On that glorious day, wisdom is given to all. Not just three wise men but all men everywhere, sheep and goats, will bow the knee, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. I was a foolish 10-year old, for there is every reason to look forward to Christmas. When we look to Christmas future, our joy outshines the reborn Scrooge. God bless us, one and all.
THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTMAS FUTURE
by RC SPROUL JR
I must have been 10 years old when the anxiety hit me. I sat amidst the crumpled paper when it dawned on me, "It doesn't get any better than this." As I surveyed my gifts, however, I knew--the descent had already begun. Like a subtle heresy, clothes had slowly begun to creep into the mix. There were plenty of toys, new diversions that I was eager to get to. The joy of anticipation, however, was tempered by the clothes and the dreadful realization that next year there would be more clothes. The year after that still more clothes. Perhaps even--God help me--underwear. The spirit of Christmas future was haunting me.
I had adopted the creed of Sally Brown, Charlie's younger sister. Surveying her lengthy and demanding wish list to Santa Claus, Charlie Brown, the round-headed sage, chastised his sister for her greed. Her response? "All I want is what's coming to me, all I want is my fair share." Lucy van Pelt complained that she never got what she wanted: real estate. I wanted children's things, and I wanted to stay a child.
While I suffered from greed, my understanding of Christmas wasn't exclusively materialistic. I understood that we were celebrating an event. I understood that center-stage of the Christmas pageant was not the North Pole but the little town of Bethlehem.
It was an awe-inspiring thing to see how the world changed each Christmas season. In my small world of home, school, and television, the change was ubiquitous. All this because of what happened in a stable halfway across the world nearly two millenia ago.
Of course when the original event occurred, the world did not change. Those in the know were very few. All the world was busy tending to the business of keeping Caesar happy through the census. Jesus chose tax time to arrive, and only a few people noticed. The shepherds were tending to their flocks with care when they heard the Good News. The magi sought the child, following a star. It's the ultimate in dramatic irony. All Israel awaited a mighty king to restore their glory and throw off the shackles of Rome. What they got was a baby, long promised but unnoticed. That Christmas they received not a toy soldier but clothes, swaddling clothes enshrouding a tiny little newborn.
We, the audience of the future, know what happened. We know what became of that baby. This season, Advent, we look backward to that time before Christ so that we can experience looking forward to His birth. In the Advent season we seek to recreate the joy of anticipation.
The Spirit of Christmas future haunted Ebenezer Scrooge with the ultimate burden. He gave Scrooge a glimpse of what was to come. Down toward the grave the bony hand pointed mutely. That spirit was a false prophet. Because of Christmas past, Christmas future points no bony hand toward a grave but a living hand skyward. The Advent is coming again.
Christmas future is not about clothes or toys. It is not about secrets and subtle portents in the stars. It is not about a darling sweet baby. The Christmas which is to come will not be hearkened with angels singing in an our-of-the-way pasture. Like the shepherds we will all look heavenward, and we will be sore afraid. When He comes again all the world will know. He is coming again, this time in judgment. The mightiest of warriors, He will bear the sword, and not in vain.
But we, who are His sheep, who know His voice, look to that great day with great anticipation. We will be as children again, His children. He will remove all our burdens. He will wipe away every tear.
And we will receive no new clothes. For when He comes, we no longer need to stand clothed in His righteousness. When He comes in glory we too will be glorified, our sanctification complete. Like Adam before us, we will stand before Him, naked and unashamed. We will see Him as He is, and we will be like Him.
Never again will we look backward with anticipation. We will look forward, moving onward and upward. And each day we will be astounded to realize that it does get better than this, every day perfect, yet every day better than the last, on into eternity.
On that glorious day, wisdom is given to all. Not just three wise men but all men everywhere, sheep and goats, will bow the knee, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. I was a foolish 10-year old, for there is every reason to look forward to Christmas. When we look to Christmas future, our joy outshines the reborn Scrooge. God bless us, one and all.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
When healing meets marketing: The perfect storm
By Jon Rappoport
DECEMBER 5, 2010. About ten years ago, I decided that the medical cartel could become the most dangerous of all power groups on the planet. I have not changed my mind.
My decision is based on looking up the road 40 or 50 years and inferring what the picture will look like then.
It’s clear to me that drug companies, as they carve up markets and create new markets, are eagerly anticipating the day when every human, from cradle to grave—actually from inside the womb—has the status of Patient.
A person is born a patient and dies a patient. And in between, he receives 40 or 50 key diagnoses of physical and mental diseases/disorders and takes prescribed drug and surgery treatments.
More than that, though, he is stamped with the label, Patient, and he learns that everyone is in the same boat. “We’re all patients, this is a medical world, and it’s normal to be disabled in some way.”
People become proud, yes, proud to be victims. They wear their diagnoses as badges of honor. If you can’t see this trend, you’re not looking.
And universal health care insurance guarantees continuous treatment all the way along the line.
Every medical diagnosis becomes an excuse not to perform, not to excel, not to pursue big goals with large ambition.
Nowhere in the search to gain recognition as a victim do circumstances conspire so well as in the medical arena. It’s perfect. There’s no argument. The doctor told you you have X disease. That’s that. It’s not political. It’s not agenda-driven. It’s science. The proof is laid out on a silver platter. You ARE a victim.
In the coming future, every move a person makes, every step he takes will come under the umbrella of the doctor.
And, again, the main supporter of this system will be the patient himself. That’s how beautiful the marketing is.
In case you’ve been living in a cave for the last 30 years, drug companies and their researchers can invent any vague disease label they want to—and then they can invent five or six sub-categories of the label—and they can set out rules on how to diagnose each sliver of the label—and of course the doctors will make these diagnoses and prescribe drugs. It’s marketing and “healing” at the same time.
Parents who don’t have a clue will submit their children to this system—especially if the government pays for it—and the children will grow up trained to think of themselves as patients/victims…and the only contest will be: who has the most drastic diagnoses and treatments? Who can most proudly wear the badge of honor as Patient?
“Last month, they had to remove my head for five minutes while they fixed my brain.”
“Wow. Well, they put me in a body cast for three months and I couldn’t move, except for my left thumb.”
Cradle to grave.
If you go back and read Huxley’s Brave New World again, you’ll notice the factor of “patient pride.” It isn’t just that the society is controlled, the citizens are idealistic about it.
That’s where the victim industry is heading.
Against it, we have, what?
A little thing called individual freedom. Which includes the right to refuse medical treatment, no matter who prescribes it under what regulations.
People imagine that this right is some arcane matter best debated in medical-ethics journals. It’s an obscure curio.
They couldn’t be more wrong.
As I’ve been writing, the ObamaCare plan contains the seeds of a future in which, by law, the citizen will have less freedom to determine his own medical fate. The walls will gradually close in.
The Founders knew what they were talking about when they warned of the incursion of government and the loss of freedom. At every crossroad, since then, the issue of freedom has resurfaced as the unavoidable key factor.
Well, we’re at one of those crossroads again.
JON RAPPOPORT
Jon is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a unique course for home schools and adults. To inquire: qjrconsulting@gmail.com
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Yes, laugh and sing while your children are being stolen
Exclusive: Drew Zahn says 'Tangled' is hilarious, beautiful and dangerous
Posted: November 28, 2010
7:51 pm Eastern
Monday, November 29, 2010
By Drew Zahn's column
My wife and I argued as we left the theater: she hoping my review of "Tangled" could somehow gloss over the startlingly anti-parent messages in the movie to praise this otherwise funny and beautiful film; while I stuck to critiquing the movie's worldview, regardless of its theatrical qualities.
To my wife's credit, there is much to praise in "Tangled," Disney's 50th animated feature film.
For starters, the movie is very entertaining. Vivid characters, snappy dialogue, witty one-liners, a dashing dose of swashbuckling and one scene in particular that is fall-out-of-your-chair funny make "Tangled" a delightful romp.
And in trademark Disney fashion, animal characters – in this case, the marvelous horse Maximus and Paschal the chameleon – are memorable, endearing and make me wish I was a kid again so I could have an excuse for buying the action figure in my Happy Meal.
The film's songs are reminiscent of a Broadway musical. The animation is crafted with care and beauty. The scenery is magical, and the romance is heart-felt. Disney's 50th is worth that place in the studio's history.
The film's final scene is even a beautiful example of the true nature of love – giving of yourself, even your life, for another.
Man! What's not to like about "Tangled"?
Alas, a lot … if you but stop and analyze the resounding message this movie plants in children's minds.
(Column continues below)
"Tangled" is a retelling of the story of Rapunzel, the girl with unbelievably long hair, locked in a tower until her "prince" can come and rescue her by climbing that hair to reach her.
In this retelling, however, Princess Rapunzel's hair has the power to heal and even reverse aging. As an infant, the king's daughter was kidnapped by a wicked woman in search of eternal youth, a woman who poses as the girl's "mother" and keeps her locked away until her teenage years.
But when Rapunzel reaches those ever-so-challenging teenage years, she yearns to be free of the tower and see the distant lights of the kingdom (from which she was unknowingly kidnapped). Then, while "Mom" is away for a few days, a rogue thief named Ryder chances upon her hidden tower, and the two embark on a forbidden "road trip" to the kingdom.
"Tangled" then revels in a widely assumed, very worldly and yet completely wicked and untrue philosophy on adolescence.
In regards to the teenage Rapunzel sneaking out of the house and going on an parent-unauthorized road trip with a strange but dashing man several years her senior:
"This is part of growing up," Ryder claims. "A little rebellion, a little adventure, that's good. Healthy even."
But what would Mom think?
Ryder has the answer for that too:
"Crush your mother's soul," he says. "Like a grape."
Yeah. That's "good." Um, "healthy" even.
Eventually, Rapunzel learns to see things Ryder's way.
"You were wrong about the world. You were wrong about me," she growls at her mother. "I will never stop fighting you."
Yeah. That's a "good" message for the movie, right? "Healthy" even?
And, of course, Ryder and Rapunzel are proved justified in the girl's rebellion, the mother is shown wicked and the youngsters' little "road trip" proves to be just what the doctor ordered. And it's all OK for the young minds in the audience to be seeped in this spirit of defiance and parent-degradation, because the mother is really the bad guy.
Happily ever after. Walk out of the theater smiling. And then, somehow, be surprised when your children think you're an overprotective know-nothing, assume they're justified in rebellion and do a little bar-hopping, frat-party "road trip" of their own.
Wait. What happened to the happy ending?
Is "Tangled" just describing adolescent life as it is? Or is it part of a wider culture that is prescribing life as it wants to be to loose teens from their parents in order to teach its own values?
I'm the father of four teenagers, and like many parents, I've found that adolescents do begin at about that age to think critically about authority. They question the old rules, they long for and test their independence. Stretching the wings is a necessary part of growing up.
But nowhere does God prescribe rebellion and defiance as a proper path to adulthood. It is not "good" and it is not "healthy." No, contrary to popular belief and Disney brainwashing, children do not have to suddenly become the spawn of Satan (the first rebel, after all) when they turn 13.
One of the greatest rewards I've found in watching the homeschooling community is that its children are often raised by parents who question the entire worldly paradigm of what kids are like and supposed to be, including what they can be like as teenagers. And while every community has its share of rebellious and difficult teens, I have marveled at watching how some young men and women from families that reject the message of "Tangled" grow up in partnership with their parents to be models of respect and independence tempered by Godly submission. They are the best example I have seen to prove rebellion is simply not a mandate.
In the end, even though my wife tried to argue that Ryder's speech came from the lips of a rogue and that the "mother" was ultimately wicked, she eventually conceded the movie left the impression that Ryder was right, leaving me to write but one conclusion to this review: "Tangled" is a great movie with a mangled message.
Content advisory:
* "Tangled" contains no profanity or spoken blasphemies.
* The film has a few kisses and a few veiled comments from Ryder about being handsome or attractive "with the ladies," but otherwise no overt sexual content. The animators, however, seemed enamored with drawing women's busts, as Rapunzel and her mother boast Barbie figures in tight tops.
* The film contains numerous scenes of chasing, shooting crossbows, falling, crashing, swordfighting and getting knocked unconscious with an iron frying pan (which in real life could kill a person, but in "Tangled" doesn't even leave a bruise). There is also a scene where a character is stabbed, though the actual cut is not seen.
* In regards to religious or occult content, one character is frequently depicted as the Roman god Cupid. The healing power of Rapunzel's hair is attributed to "a drop of sunlight" falling on the ground and creating a "magical" flower that heals when it's sung to. The flower heals Rapunzel's pregnant mother, transferring the power to the girl in the womb. Rapunzel then uses the "magic" to heal others. The movie is filled with images of the sun in reference to the life-giving flower, but it is not specifically idolized
KATIE'S NOTES:
The reason I posted this article was not because I am necessarily against the movie Tangled in particular, but because the TITLE of this article caught my eye, and I feel this is a warning that many parents need to heed in the area of all media. There is a strange ignoring of subtle substances in movies among Christians. Many parents seem to throw their rules out the window in regards to everyone else but their own children. I have noticed this not only in movie intake, but in political and other media situations as well. We as Christians MUST be consistent! If I, as a mother, tell my daughter she is not to sass me, then go laugh with her over a movie where the female character is nothing but a sass, what message am I sending?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)