Best day of my life

Tonight someone asked me how I am doing on a scale from one to ten, with ten being the best I could be. I answered that I was a three or a four right now, but then qualified that by saying that physically I was probably doing better now than for most of the last eight years, though mentally I am still coming out of a low point. I then briefly mentioned my battles with grief, ADD, depression, and, worst of all, medications, which brought the low point.

A little while ago--it is now about 11:30 PM--I was thinking on that self-assessment. Truthfully, I was feeling apologetic, guilty, for saying something below five, even if it fit. That had me then thinking on what was a ten. Easily the best day of my life so far was the day of Cheryl's and my wedding. Remembering that I was struck in a whole new way by what the Church's wedding day, the day that we are collectively joined with Christ, will be like. What has always been rather abstract and nebulous now has a new reality for me. I think that I can now look forward expectantly to the final best day of my life like I have been looking back to my first wedding day and forward to my next one that God has promised.

Making sex small

In a small way sex is just a physical, fun thing. But when you make sex small you damage the larger part of it.

Human beings are beings with three parts that are intertwined into one. Most things that we do involve all three of these parts to one degree or another, even if only indirectly. When we are tired, for example, our minds become sluggish and our emotions nearer the surface, and it can be harder to interact with our spirit. (A human being's mentality includes, in turn, three parts--intellect, emotions, and will--and I am including all three when referring to the mental.) What we eat affects all of our being. Drugs that we take do the same, some of them even being able to directly affect us spiritually. Coming at this from another direction, actions and thoughts are widely admitted to be affected by the spirit. These things are changed by spiritual experiences. Christians, Hindus, Pagans, and others can all agree that that there is connection between these parts of a human being.

Strength, health, and stability are founded in different parts of a whole being in balance. Strengthen one arm and not the other and you will have trouble lifting and carrying heavier objects, and doing so safely. Strengthen one leg and not the other and running will be difficult; if it is bad enough you will limp! Conversely, damage one limb and the other will not be able to carry the load. When we emphasize any one of our three parts over the others, or ignore one part, then we will not be strong, healthy, or balanced.

Sexual interaction with another is not an exception to these principles. Just as when we reduce eating to fun only--say, eating lots of yummy donuts--we eventually reduce our mental and spiritual capacities, when we reduce sex to being only something that is physically fun we will damage ourselves mentally and spiritually (and possibly physically). By cheapening something so intimate we reduce our ability to be intimate with others mentally and spiritually. By using sex immaturely and irresponsibly we reduce our ability to relate to others maturely and responsibly; life becomes about the short term and not the long term, the shallow and not the deep. By emphasizing the physical at the cost of the mental and spiritual we build up the one and weaken the others.

By making sex small, limiting it to only one place in our lives, we damage and displace the other parts. Imagine that, having heard that the egg yolk is the most important part of the egg for a chicken to develop, you decide to make things easy by just having an egg yolk in order to get a chicken. This way you don't need as much space. You grab a small cup, just big enough for the yolk. Now picture carefully lining up the egg with the cup and pushing it into the cup. Yuck! what a mess! The protective shell is gone and the white, which provides protective cushioning, water, and some nutrients, is all over the place. But, hey, you have the yolk, right? Well, even if that yolk could still, by some miracle, grow into a chicken, it would be a stunted, poorly developed chicken.

Entering into sexual relations quickly, easily, and lightly, limiting them to being fun, cheapens their role in a relationship, and cheapens the entire relationship, making it easy to move on when things get difficult, stealing from you the deepest most satisfying parts of a relationship. Even if you make it through some difficulties, without those deep parts the relationship is still eventually doomed, because there will be more difficulties, the worst of which may be boredom; many relationships whither away from this, rather than suddenly breaking. Many easy, broken relationships undermines self-worth, and from there the chain reaction continues.

Sex should be part of, really an extension of, a deep relationship, one that encompasses will, intellect, and emotion. There needs to be commitment to the other and the relationship, a resolve to stick with it for better and for worse, forsaking all others, and until death parts the two. The intellect needs to be engaged by committing to know each other's character, desires, history, strengths and weaknesses. Emotion, easy to engage at the start, needs to be nurtured and controlled, shaped first toward the other above all else on earth. The spirit needs to be engaged, as well. God needs to be first in the life of both, with both seeking Him together in Word, prayer, worship, and service. Of course in the physical there needs to be commitment to the other, and there sex needs to be just one of many physical interactions. Relationships (interactions with other people) need balance; all things within a relationship should be in their proper place and in balance, taking into account how all a human's parts work together.

Compromise

I have heard it said that one of the things wrong right now in the US is that there is not enough compromise. It is true that compromise sometimes may need to be part of governing a country, but there are many things that can not be compromised on. I'm sure you are familiar with the saying that you can't be a little bit pregnant, right? There are many things like that: either they are or they aren't. Either we follow the Constitution or we don't. Either we allow innocent future taxpayers to be killed or we don't. Either the law applies to all people or it doesn't. And so on. (Now there are, of course, differences in the degree to which one is doing something, but that is another topic.) Further, we can not make up for violating some parts of the Constitution by being especially zealous of others, or violating some people's by protecting others, and we can not make up for killing some babies by feeding others. Either we purpose to act morally or we don't. Morality is a state of heart, not a balance sheet of good and bad actions. This applies to nations as well as individuals.

Peace and love and Battlestar Galactica

NOTE: this entry contains spoilers about the end of Battlestar Galactica.

Over the last week I have watched the last eight episodes of Battlestar Galactica, the TV series that ended March 20. The episodes have been sitting unwatched on my DVR all this time. Partly that has been because I have not been watching all that much TV, having trouble focusing to watch much, but I have stirred myself to watch them in order to clear room on the hard drive. Another reason has been that I missed recording the second of the last ten episodes ("A Disquiet Follows My Soul"). That kind of stalled me out since I hated missing part of the story.

One other thing has been lurking...I felt incomplete. Cheryl and I watched the first two seasons together. It was one of our shows. When the third season started I recorded the episodes but could not watch them for some time because Cheryl was not there to watch them with me. When I finally did watch them it was often difficult; I found myself missing her even more, and talking to her when interesting things happened. There were other shows that could give me some trouble like that--sometimes Criminal Minds, The Closer, Monk, or NCIS (the first two with interesting things that I know she would have liked, the latter two because of character developments that I know we would have discussed, as well as because of characters who had lost a wife)--but none as bad as BSG. BSG had all those interesting plot twists, character developments...and the urgency...the depth and breadth of human experience. To watch it has been like a roller coaster ride. When you ride a great roller coaster with your best friend, when you go back and ride it alone the experience is almost indescribably diminished.

As I have watched these last episodes this week, ending with the last two hours tonight, I have still felt some of that diminishment, but I have been able enjoy them, relish them. Still I have missed Cheryl, but I have not felt so incomplete, so unhealed. And the end...the end with the laughter and the tears...was appropriate in its bittersweetness. The loss and the pain, the fresh start, the surprises, the completion and the open endedness, the love and the happiness. I got Helo and Sharon, Baltar (a Baltar who discovered courage, sacrifice, and love) and Caprica Six, an end to the war, Galactica winning her last fight, and more. I might have preferred a few things different--another miracle for Laura so she and Bill could be together, Lee and Kara together, the ships not destroyed, maybe not have it be our earth and the survivors spread out, but rather someplace new and a continuation of civilization. It was okay, though, it all worked...it was fitting...it was bittersweet. And now it is over, and I can close that chapter, let it go, and move on.

Don't believe everything that you read or hear, Part 1

"Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge says he successfully countered an effort by senior Bush administration officials to raise the nation's terror alert level in the days before the 2004 presidential vote." Ridge says this in his new book. However, the woman who chaired the meeting at which this was said to have happened tells a somewhat different, and more believable, story: Frances Townsend: Tom Ridge has it wrong.

Why do I believe her? First off, as Ms. Townsend points out, raising the threat level probably would have been perceived as political, producing a negative effect, rather than positive, for Bush. People realized this, making it a non-issue for those in the meeting. Someone in the comments to the later news article misunderstands what Townsend said in the interview, saying that she contradicted herself about politics being discussed in the meeting. First she said, "Not only do I not think that it – that politics played any part in it at all – it was never discussed.... There was no discussion of politics whatsoever." Later she says, "not only was there no discussion in those meetings, the discussions on the margins...there was concern if the intelligence supported raising the threat level it might actually be to the detriment of President Bush because people might perceive it being political."This last was incorrectly interpreted as taking place in the meeting in question, but any discussion of politics was between participants in a series of meetings outside of those meetings. If Ridge was right, and there were politics involved in what the threat level was set at, it would have influenced it to be lower, not higher.

Second, I don't see what Ms. Townsend has to gain by disputing this claim by Tom Ridge. Ridge, on the other hand, has a book to sell, and possibly a reputation for independence to support.

Third, I can see a scenario where politics was involved, but politics between departments, not involving the electorate. Or, I could see it as professional caution or paranoia, since the two that wanted to raise the threat level--Ashcroft and Rumsfeld--were quite likely to be blamed if something did happen and the threat level had not been raised.

Fourth, Bush has been blamed for so many things that it is easy to blame him or something and be believed. One of the best ways to be listened to is to blame Bush for something. The press automatically assumes Bush was wrong and the person laying the blame is a hero. And all the brainless ones out there follow right along....

Health-care struggle is about freedom

In Health-care struggle is about freedom Star Parker brings up some worthwhile objections to the socialist leadership and their claims:

...Mr. Obama [has] reduced his opposition to liars.

And why, according to the president, are dissenters supposedly making all this stuff up? Because, he told his audience, they want to "discourage people from meeting … a core ethical and moral obligation ... that we look out for one another … that I am my brother's keeper. …"

So those whose fight for individual freedom are immoral and our moral champions are those who want to extend the heavy hand of government.

Forgive me if sermons about morality are a little hard to swallow from a man who supports partial-birth abortion, who just announced his intent to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

[...]

About 100,000 Americans participate in private, voluntary Christian communities, which take care of their own health care independent of government and insurance companies. They are called health-care sharing ministries.

[...]

These ministries share pooled funds of around $80 million annually to take care of each other, driven only by guidelines of biblical principles to "Bear one another's burden, and thus fulfill the law of Christ."

[...]

Health-care sharing ministries is one particularly beautiful example of how faithful Americans take care of themselves when allowed to be free. But there are many others.

[...]

But, Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have slammed the door on all this. They only want to hear about more government. Not less.

The problem isn't that dissenting Americans are immoral. It's that Democrat leadership has a problem with individual freedom.

Shared via AddThis

It is also ironic that the ones that are often saying that the govt should not legislate morality are now saying that we need socialized medicine because it is the moral thing to do. On top of that, here they are involving religion. It is disgusting how they holler about separation of church and state when the church would interfere with their plans, but when they can use religion to advance their plans there they are. (Why do people let them get away with it?) This time, however, it is appropriate that religious leaders are involved, because this health-care issue involves the issue of freedom of religion.

How is this so? First, as others have mentioned, there is the issue of abortion. God abhors shedding innocent blood (Prov 6:16-19). He hates it so much that a nation that practices this will be judged harshly (Is 59 & Jer 22, for example). If an unborn human being is not an innocent human being, I don't know what is. The socialists claim that abortion will not be a part of there plan, but don't believe it. That claim flies in the face of their own statements in other venues, their reluctance to specifically prohibit it, and the record of their past actions. Anyone who believes that access abortion services should be a right is sooner or later going to make that part of nationalized medicine. Doing so forces on us all the blood-guilt of ending innocent life, and violates one of the core precepts of Christianity and Judaism, if not other religions.

This also violates the principles of our Founding Fathers who, I feel, made pretty clear the order of priority for such things. "Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," were not put in that order because it sounded best, but because they must come in that order. Without life there can not be liberty, nor can there be the pursuit of happiness. Without liberty there can not be the pursuit of happiness. So logic supports the order. But I digress.

Second, the Word of God says pure religion is taking care of those in need.

But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. (1 Tim 5:4)

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)

Please pay attention to who is to look after those who are in need. The word "oneself" denotes that individuals are to do these things. While I will not deny that there is a societal onus in the Bible, it is an onus on the individuals of society to choose to act morally. If my ability to choose to act morally is taken away from me, then my ability to practice my religion is taken away from me. If the Federal govt takes my money from me for the purpose of caring for others, and then takes care of them so that they do not have need, then I no longer am able to choose to act in this way and my ability to practice my religion is limited.

Why is it important, though, for people to do this individually? Some reasons:

1. The ultimate purpose of Christianity is for people to be like Christ. Christ cared for others, and did so individually, as well as in groups.
2. Caring for others individually develops compassion, one of God's essential characteristics, and something that He desires to see in us.
3. People are better and more effectively served, cared for, and loved individually and by people who want to do so, rather than just for a paycheck or because they have to.
4. Freedom is an essential value of both Christianity and our Founding Fathers. Freedom is inherently individual. The Soviet Union may have been sovereign, and therefore "free," but no one ever truthfully described the Soviet Union as the "land of the free." The United States, however, where people were individually free could (at least at one time) accurately be described as the "land of the free."
5. Individually caring for others, even in such a way as the health-care sharing ministries, develops relationships, which in turn enriches people. The more connected, internally, any organization (including nations) is the stronger that organization is.

One further way nationalized health-care impinges on my religious liberty is that it reduces my ability to help others. It would do this because of the higher taxes. The more we pay in taxes, the less we have to use to help others. If it is not clear to you that taxes will go up in order to pay for this, then you are either not paying attention, are under-educated (try reading this book: Economics in One Lesson to start off with), or are blind. And this is not just going to individually decrease our ability to help others, it will also decrease our ability as a nation to help others. Because government run help to those in need are inherently less efficient than private organizations (see here for an explanation, or google it), there will be fewer of the same resources going to the people who actually need it.

I agree whole-heartedly with Star Parker that this is a struggle for freedom, and this includes freedom of religion, among others.

Btw, if you have not ever heard of health-care sharing ministries before, maybe you should check them out.

Why the Eighteenth Amendment?

Why does the Eighteenth Amendment exist? And no, I am not referring in any way to the numbering: it is obvious that the next amendment to the U.S. Constitution after the Seventeenth would be the Eighteenth what ever it was about. What I am asking is, why was the prohibition of alcoholic beverages an amendment, making it part of the highest law of the land? Why didn't the temperance folks just get Congress to pass a law prohibiting the manufacture, sale, transportaion, importation, and exportation of alcohol?

Reading several articles about prohibition on the web did not answer this question. I believe, though, that the answer is evident if one reads the U.S. Constitution and thinks about it: Prohibiting the manufacture, sale, transportaion, importation, and exportation of anything was not a power given Congress! It would seem that Congress, recognizing that fact, did the only thing that they could do to satisfy their constituents, which was to propose an amendment to the Constitution granting that power. This was then followed by the legislatures of 36 states ratifying the amendment so that they, too, could satisfy their constituents.

Unfortunately the understanding of the U.S. Constitution on the part of Senators and Congressmen since has gone down hill more and more. This has resulted in Social Security, Medicare, drug restrictions and prohibitions, and many other laws that exceed the authority of the Federal Government. These things should rightfully be the province of the governments of the several states. This includes health care. Our leaders had enough intelligence, wisdom, education, and integrity to do things right in 1917, it is a shame that they do not now.

His Love Never Fails

"Your Love Never Fails" by Chris Quilala of Jesus Culture.

We have been singing this song at church lately. A couple of Sunday mornings ago we were worshipping with this song. I was not doing sound that morning so I was free to worship and listen to God. I was reminded of the father of the prodigal son. If the son had of come home a different time of day, a few days earlier, a week later, or whenever, would the father's greeting have been any different ? If the son came home naked, still with money, with a friend, missing a limb, or some other way different, would the father have been any more or less overjoyed to see him? No! He loved his son. The father in this parable is clearly an archtype of our Father in heaven. The Father's love is true love, that perfect love that casts out fear; that love that is patient, that is kind; that love that does not envy, does not boast, and is not proud; that love that is not rude, is not self-seeking, is not easily angered, and keeps no record of wrongs; that love that does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth and when we come come home; that love that always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres, and never, ever fails. Whether we have been gone in some foreign land, or just for a few minutes 'off the reservation,' He rejoices to see us when we come back to Him, clothing us in righteousness, and giving us His best. God IS Love.

Scripture referred to, quoted, and paraphrased: 1 Cor 13:4-8; 1 John 4:18; Luke 15:11-32.

Destruction

I have come to the conclusion that one of the most destructive forces of nature is a bored, playful, and/or curious cat.

Goose bumps!?

It was with some dismay that I read this commentary by T.D. Jakes this morning.

I want to stress that it was some dismay, not complete dismay, or even much dismay, for Rev. Jakes does not say that he supports Sen. Obama for President. What he does say, though, concerns me, not for what is explicitly stated, but for what may be implied. What he does say, essentially, is that as a black man--excuse me, African American--with an African American son, that he is encouraged and excited by Sen. Obama's apparent impending nomination for President of the United States by the Democratic Party. This is because it demonstrates that his race is not the liability that it once was. Further, it demonstrates that democracy is alive and well, giving opportunity to all. He also says that change has happened, is happening, and hopefully will be happening, and that is a good thing.

Race has never mattered to me in how I treat people and I have never subjectively understood why it should. However, I do objectively understand that it does matter to many people, even though it is not right that it should. I understand that the effect of this is negative, profound, pervasive, and even overwhelming. I understand that the effect on the oppressed can tend towards being definitive. As a white man in the USA I can almost certainly never fully understand what it is like to be raised as a black man in this country. But before you jump on me for thinking that I can even think that I could understand one teeny bit try being from a Christian home and going to a public school. as a boy I have felt oppressed because of being different because of faith, though certainly not to the extent of those in Muslim or Communist countries. Still, it did exert a huge negative influence on my life. And, before you tell me that this is so small that it is nothing like it, stop. I once had someone tell me that the grief that I felt over losing a beloved cat was nothing like losing a child, so I could not understand. I have since lost a spouse, and while that is still not the same as losing a child, I have found that it was quite similar to the grief I have felt over losing Kei, just much, much worse. I have found that I was right that I did understand something about it beforehand, it just took imagination (and maybe some masochism) to extrapolate from the smaller to the larger. I believe I can understand what oppression feels like by imagining what I have experienced on a larger, deeper scale.

Here's the thing: it doesn't really matter. When one is a Christian, a follower of Christ, a child of God and a member of His Kingdom, all other identities are to become either subsumed or supplanted underneath. We are new creations and supposed to put off the world and the things of it. Paul wrote in Galatians (3:26-28, NIV) that "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,..." and dare I add, neither black nor white, "...for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The questions that came to me, the questions that I have to ask Rev. Jakes are, In November, will you vote as an African American, or as a Christian? Will you vote your African American heart, or God's heart? Which is more important (to you)? Are you a new creation, or an old one to whom Christianity is a tool?* Where is your hope, in the Lord, in democracy, or, God forbid, Sen. Obama?

What about you that are reading this, will you vote God's heart in November?


*From Modern Black Church Shuns King's Message

The Rev. Raphael Warnock, senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta,
where King preached, says that prosperity preaching is not just a distortion of
Jesus' message but a betrayal of the black church's heritage. The black church
was formed by slaves who saw Jesus' message as a tool for social justice. [Emphasis mine]

"The prophetic voice of the black church is the very reason for its being," Warnock
said. "The only reason that there's such a thing as the black church is because
of the question of freedom, justice and equal access."

I love my cat, ya wanna make sumthin' of it?

Still have not done a lot the last couple of days, but I keep a file of things in progress to post here, so I will dip into that and finish some things. The following, however, is new, and in response to the attitude I run across here and there (way too often) that real men love dogs and hate cats. This is, of course, rubbish. :)

Why loving cats is manlier than loving dogs:

1. They hunt. (Professionally!)
2. They bring home the bacon (and birds, and rabbits, and rats, and mice, and moles, and…).
3. Dogs are armed with teeth…cats are armed to the teeth.
4. When cats play it sharpens their work skills.
5. Cats don’t need to get all hyped up to attack, they’re always interested in pouncing on something.
6. Cats don’t talk their prey to death before pouncing, they get on with it. Cats invented silent but deadly. =D
7. Cats are their own people, not somebody’s “lap dog,” even when they are on your lap. Whoever heard of a “yes” cat?
8. When cats say something it has a purpose. They don’t endlessly whine and yammer on like dogs.
9. Cats are loving and loyal but don’t insist on reminding you of it every five seconds, nor do they have to slobber all over you.
10. It has been said that dogs are like “little furry men” and that cats are like “little furry women”…if this is true then any man who prefers the company of a “little furry man” should probably keep his mouth shut about masculinity.

* * * * * * *

I said to someone that I met a while back that I want to find a woman like my cat. She said, "Ooooh, I don't think that you want to tel any women that." I said, "Let me explain." lol

My cat, Yuri, will often start purring just because I'm in the room. I can come into the room with some laundry, move around putting things away, and I will hear her purring from the other side of the room; she is loud! I can sit next to her, or put my hand on her, and she starts purring. She is like a mini chainsaw (albeit one that doesn't run steady). I am looking for the woman that will "purr" because I am around...and I will "purr" because she is around.

The woman I was talking to said that she understood, and that is how she felt around her fiancee (they have since married).

One of the things that I love about cats is that they purr. It's great! Nothing like it. =)

Been "gone"

Been quite sick the last couple of months, so have not written anything. Starting to get better and came down with a bad cold. At the moment can't talk without coughing, so even when I feel like talking to someone otherwise, I can't. Hmmmm...guess I can write a little. Maybe tomorrow.