Monday, April 27, 2009
Blogging break
The Lord is leading me to take a blogging break. Not that I lack blog article ideas, just that I need to focus on some other issues for a short season. I do plan on covering a tomato/gardening experiment soon, but that'll be it for an undetermined length of time.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Jehovah's Witnesses, you missed a verse
Jehovah's Witnesses, you forgot to change a verse in your "bible":
Can you see that Jesus equated Himself with Jehovah, since He Himself did that kind deed for the man? And that the man understood the message and told everyone that Jesus Himself did the deed?
Witnesses, your view of Jehovah is so very different than mine that I think we can both agree that you and I have a different Jehovah. You have a history of changing your bible to line up with your beliefs (for example, see these scans of a 1961 New World Translation: scan 1* scan 2 scan 3 scan 4).
* By the way, I didn't misspell Jehovah in that first scan, my friend did.
Ironically, you accuse the trinitarian translators of changing the texts to suit their theology. How silly. How ironic.
If they really were dinking around with the text, wouldn't you think Colossians 1:15 would have been the first target? I would.
That's why I believe the trinitarian translators, and NOT the Jehovah's Witness translators, are the more believable ones. They saw the difficulties that Colossians 1:15 would cause if they translated it the way it appeared in the Greek text, and yet they kept it the same. They trusted the real Jehovah that He would guide us even with Colossians 1:15 in their. They're the more honest ones. Nearly every trinitarian translator has kept the word "firstborn," because they are all being faithful to the original Greek text. If they were really interested in promoting a myth of three god worship, that text would have to go, and yet they have kept it there. Changing key words is unacceptable for trinitarian translators but apparently is acceptable for Jehovah's Witness translators.
Given that we have two different Jehovahs, you realize of course that if you're serving the wrong Jehovah you are going to be destroyed. You realize that, don't you? It is that serious.
Anyway, you have a more severe problem than just having the wrong Jehovah. You believe that you are a good person. You believe you have basically kept the Ten Commandments. If that is the case, go here and claim your prize. That is a legitimate offer to anyone who can prove they have kept the Ten Commandments.
So go and claim your prize :-)
But on catching sight of Jesus from a distance he ran and did obeisance to him, and, when he had cried out with a loud voice, he said: “What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I put you under oath by God not to torment me.” For he had been telling it: “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit.” (...) However, he did not let him, but said to him: “Go home to your relatives, and report to them all the things Jehovah has done for you and the mercy he had on you.” And he went away and started to proclaim in the De·cap´o·lis all the things Jesus did for him, and all the people began to wonder. (Mark 5:6-8, 19-20 in the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation)
Can you see that Jesus equated Himself with Jehovah, since He Himself did that kind deed for the man? And that the man understood the message and told everyone that Jesus Himself did the deed?
Witnesses, your view of Jehovah is so very different than mine that I think we can both agree that you and I have a different Jehovah. You have a history of changing your bible to line up with your beliefs (for example, see these scans of a 1961 New World Translation: scan 1* scan 2 scan 3 scan 4).
* By the way, I didn't misspell Jehovah in that first scan, my friend did.
Ironically, you accuse the trinitarian translators of changing the texts to suit their theology. How silly. How ironic.
If they really were dinking around with the text, wouldn't you think Colossians 1:15 would have been the first target? I would.
That's why I believe the trinitarian translators, and NOT the Jehovah's Witness translators, are the more believable ones. They saw the difficulties that Colossians 1:15 would cause if they translated it the way it appeared in the Greek text, and yet they kept it the same. They trusted the real Jehovah that He would guide us even with Colossians 1:15 in their. They're the more honest ones. Nearly every trinitarian translator has kept the word "firstborn," because they are all being faithful to the original Greek text. If they were really interested in promoting a myth of three god worship, that text would have to go, and yet they have kept it there. Changing key words is unacceptable for trinitarian translators but apparently is acceptable for Jehovah's Witness translators.
Given that we have two different Jehovahs, you realize of course that if you're serving the wrong Jehovah you are going to be destroyed. You realize that, don't you? It is that serious.
Anyway, you have a more severe problem than just having the wrong Jehovah. You believe that you are a good person. You believe you have basically kept the Ten Commandments. If that is the case, go here and claim your prize. That is a legitimate offer to anyone who can prove they have kept the Ten Commandments.
So go and claim your prize :-)
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Fundamentalists, Repent! Hmmmm...
I just found something that made me smile at FundamentalistsRepent.com. They begin:
I guess that classifies me as a Fundamentalist, though I have some issue being called that because the group who is typically labeled "Fundamentalist" does some un-Biblical things themselves, but anyway... the important part that made me smile was next:
The problem is this: How do you know if one's doctrines are truly Christ-like if they are not precisely as Christ spoke them? If they are someone else's ideas of what Christlikeness should be, then they should be called "Boblike" or "Cindylike" or "Johnlike," but to call their doctrines "Christlike" is simply not true, and it actually made me laugh out loud.
Now I think I know what they're actually trying to say; I think they're trying to say that to take the Bible literally means you have to come to some conclusions that seem unloving. But the point of reference is their own opinions -- they, not God, have to become the judge of what is actually loving or unloving.
This cannot be. Let the Bible interpret the Bible, as I did in my last post.
Fundamentalism is a style of Christian belief that begins with the position that the Bible is inerrant and literally true. This is not only an erroneous approach to scripture, it also leads to numerous difficulties of doctrine.
I guess that classifies me as a Fundamentalist, though I have some issue being called that because the group who is typically labeled "Fundamentalist" does some un-Biblical things themselves, but anyway... the important part that made me smile was next:
In the essays herein, Fundamentalists are called to reconsider their approach to the Bible, and the nature of doctrines shaped by what is demonstrably an un-Christlike view of life, of God, and of human nature.
The problem is this: How do you know if one's doctrines are truly Christ-like if they are not precisely as Christ spoke them? If they are someone else's ideas of what Christlikeness should be, then they should be called "Boblike" or "Cindylike" or "Johnlike," but to call their doctrines "Christlike" is simply not true, and it actually made me laugh out loud.
Now I think I know what they're actually trying to say; I think they're trying to say that to take the Bible literally means you have to come to some conclusions that seem unloving. But the point of reference is their own opinions -- they, not God, have to become the judge of what is actually loving or unloving.
This cannot be. Let the Bible interpret the Bible, as I did in my last post.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Go up, you baldhead!
Boy, this scripture really puts the fear of God in me:
While the commentators have given some interesting (and doubtful) interpretations of this verse, the most reasonable and helpful comment I've seen is why the boys used the term "Go up... go up..." It was most likely a reference to Elija, who was Elisha's mentor, who went up into the sky to be with King Jesus, rather than die. Possibly these boys were expressing their desire that he leave the earth and never come back. Might as well wish him dead.
Secondly, it must be noted that it was God, not Elisha, who actually sent the bears. Elisha did not send them.
Finally, the best interpretation of this verse came earlier in the Bible as a solemn warning to the parents of Israel:
This Scripture really puts the fear of God in me. DO NOT MOCK GOD OR GOD'S ANOINTED. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7).
[Elisha] went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. (2 Kings 2:23-24 ESV)
While the commentators have given some interesting (and doubtful) interpretations of this verse, the most reasonable and helpful comment I've seen is why the boys used the term "Go up... go up..." It was most likely a reference to Elija, who was Elisha's mentor, who went up into the sky to be with King Jesus, rather than die. Possibly these boys were expressing their desire that he leave the earth and never come back. Might as well wish him dead.
Secondly, it must be noted that it was God, not Elisha, who actually sent the bears. Elisha did not send them.
Finally, the best interpretation of this verse came earlier in the Bible as a solemn warning to the parents of Israel:
Then if you walk contrary to me and will not listen to me, I will continue striking you, sevenfold for your sins. And I will let loose the wild beasts against you, which shall bereave you of your children and destroy your livestock and make you few in number, so that your roads shall be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 ESV)
This Scripture really puts the fear of God in me. DO NOT MOCK GOD OR GOD'S ANOINTED. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7).
Remember, O Lord, how your servants are mocked,
and how I bear in my heart the insults of all the many nations,
with which your enemies mock, O Lord,
with which they mock the footsteps of your anointed. (Psalm 89:50-51 ESV)
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:31 ESV)
World is awash in porn
Another brilliant quote from you-know-who:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28 ESV)
One of the main reasons that the world and the church are awash in lust and pornography, fornication, adultery, masturbation, exhibitionism, homosexuality, bestiality, rape, and endless sexual innuendo in all media—one of the reasons we are awash in all this is that our lives are intellectually and emotionally disconnected from infinite, soul-staggering grandeur. Inside and outside the church we are drowning in a sea of triviality, pettiness, banality, and silliness. Television is trivial. Radio is trivial. Conversation is trivial. Education is trivial. Christian books are trivial. Worship styles are trivial. It is inevitable that the human heart, which was made to be staggered with terrifyingly joyous dread and peace by an infinitely untouchable, embracing God—it is inevitable that such a heart, drowning in the all-pervasive, blurry boredom of banal entertainment, will reach for the best buzz that life can give: sex. (Source, emphasis added)
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28 ESV)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Christianity a crutch? Yes, period.
Matthew 5:3-4
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Back in 1978 I spoke in Aspen, Colorado, to a gathering of Inter-Varsity students and people off the street. At the end of my talk one of the students asked a very common question. He said, "Isn't Christianity a crutch for people who can't make it on their own?"
My answer was very simple. I said, "Yes." Period.
What's Bad About a Crutch?
I can't remember how the conversation went from there. So let me just pick it up here. My return question would be, "Why is the thought that Christianity is a crutch considered to be a valid criticism of Christianity?" People don't usually look at a crutch and say, "That's bad. It's just a crutch." People don't in general think that crutches are bad things. Why does a crutch become a bad thing when it's Christianity?
I think the answer that most critics would give is this: if Christianity is a crutch, then it's only good for cripples. But we don't like to see ourselves as cripples. And so it is offensive to our self-sufficiency to label Christianity as a crutch.
But Jesus said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17). In other words, the only people who will ever come to get what Jesus has to give are sick people, people who know that they are spiritually and morally and very often physically crippled.
Everybody Has a Creed
Everybody has a creed. All people believe in something and shape their lives around it. Even agnostics believe very strongly that you ought not believe anything very strongly (which is why it is so hard to be a consistent agnostic). We all have a creed that we live by, whether we can articulate it or not.
What is the creed behind the conviction that if Christianity is a crutch, it is undesirable and unworthy of acceptance? I think the answer is this: the creed behind this criticism of Christianity is the confidence that we are not cripples, and that real joy and fulfillment in life are to be found in the pursuit of self-reliance, self-confidence, self-determination, and self-esteem.
Any Messiah who comes along and proposes to replace self-reliance with childlike God-reliance, and self-confidence with submissive God-confidence, and self-determination with sovereign grace, and self-esteem with magnificent mercy for the unworthy—that Messiah is going to be a threat to the religion of self-admiration. That religion has dominated the world ever since Adam and Eve fell in love with the image of their own independent potential when they it saw reflected back to them in the eye of the serpent: "You will not die; you will be like God."
From another outstanding Piper sermon: Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit Who Mourn
Also, check out The Goal of God's Love May Not Be What You Think It Is: "Does anyone go to the Grand Canyon to increase their Self-Esteem?"
And a recent show on G3 radio called Self-Esteem vs. the Gospel. I enjoyed this one.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Don't blindly follow the church fathers
Freddie Knapp wrote, "Most of the Church fathers (for example Iraeneus and Clement) were known heretics. (...) The church was corrupt in Paul's day, so appealing to what a heretic believed in 150 AD is really weightless."
Great quote. Many of the oldest Christians who immediately followed Paul are great Christians and deserve our attention, but they're still human and fallible. And as Freddie pointed out, even those in Paul's time were corrupt.
Follow the church fathers as far as they followed Christ, no further.
Great quote. Many of the oldest Christians who immediately followed Paul are great Christians and deserve our attention, but they're still human and fallible. And as Freddie pointed out, even those in Paul's time were corrupt.
Follow the church fathers as far as they followed Christ, no further.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Steps preventing small business adoption of Linux
I've been thinking very hard about how to get into the small-to-medium business (SMB) market with some fresh software alternatives. Microsoft has a HUGE chunk of this business with their Small Business Server.
They seem to be excelling in this market for three reasons: relatively low cost of startup (comparatively speaking), a comprehensive suite of software that small businesses need, and a high degree of integration. Microsoft's comprehensive suite of software is well-integrated, combined into a (relatively) seamless package, means that a small business owner can hire a single IT consultant.
And the package scales nicely; with enough money, Active Directory and Exchange can scale up to thousands of users.
If one is to compete with Microsoft in this arena, he would need to do the following:
1. Identify top point solutions that can compete well with the Microsoft point solutions. For example, Zimbra looks like an excellent Exchange alternative.
2. Install them into a test environment.
3. Integrate them, and make note of changes needed to make integration possible.
4. Write scripts and web interfaces which make those necessary changes. For example, if the domain name for your test environment is Example.com and the DNS server is 1.2.3.4, these would need to be changed on a per-customer basis. The web interface would ask for this domain name and then change it in each application (Zimbra, etc.). Respect any hand-coded changes.
5. Use one interface to make all system-wide changes, for a seamless appearance to the IT administrator.
6. Package it all up.
7. Advertise, advertise, advertise!
8. Sell support services.
There's probably a few other meta-steps, and of course countless micro-steps, but this should be enough of an overview.
For scalability, three things:
1. Use OpenVZ to containerize/separate each application (such as Zimbra) into individual virtual machines. The overhead for OpenVZ is FAR less than VMware or Xen. This lets you move the virtual machines around the enterprise later. For instance, if the Zimbra server is using too much CPU, simply buy another machine, install Linux+OpenVZ, then migrate your virtual machine over to it. It would be hard to make scalability simpler than that.
If you do this, create many small virtual machines, separating out as many applications as possible into individual VMs (OpenVZ can handle it). This way you can separate individual applications as-needed. Exchange does this, with its differing roles; you can (relatively) easily scale Exchange up to hundreds of servers by splitting the roles on to different servers.
2. Add extra redundant servers right at the front; for example, when you create a DNS server, create a primary server in one virtual machine and a secondary in another, even though both would be running on the same host server. That way, when you're ready to scale outward, simply move one of the DNS servers to a new host server and you're back in business. Set up as many redundant servers as possible (database, email, etc.) with this end in mind.
3. Integrate a terminal server, which not only gives nice scalability but also solves some other problems as well: Desktop costs, security, etc.
Over time, this company would want to offer more virtual machines, such as VoIP, firewalling, blogging, CRM, ERP, etc. Or maybe these would be integrated up-front to give an edge over Microsoft. One wouldn't want to bite off too much at first though.
This would be a very ambitious project, but I think that a project manager and a few software developers could get it started in their spare time. A project like this may take up to a year before the first release, but the long-term potential income is interesting, with things like Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). By hosting some of the virtual machines in a cloud such as Amazon's EC2, you can rent services to small businesses and let them skip housing the server locally. You can offer backup, monitoring and security services as well. Enterprise-level phone support would of course be needed, and could put some Linux aficionados or consultants to work. This company could also sell its own consultant services for further integration, scalability and development.
I've got a few irons in the fire, but this may be an interesting project. All of the pieces seem to be there, someone just needs to be the first to integrate them all.
UPDATE: After much searching, I discovered an open source company called DataSync who is doing many of these things. Since it's open source, I can just jump in and contribute. I wonder how much I can contribute?
They seem to be excelling in this market for three reasons: relatively low cost of startup (comparatively speaking), a comprehensive suite of software that small businesses need, and a high degree of integration. Microsoft's comprehensive suite of software is well-integrated, combined into a (relatively) seamless package, means that a small business owner can hire a single IT consultant.
And the package scales nicely; with enough money, Active Directory and Exchange can scale up to thousands of users.
If one is to compete with Microsoft in this arena, he would need to do the following:
1. Identify top point solutions that can compete well with the Microsoft point solutions. For example, Zimbra looks like an excellent Exchange alternative.
2. Install them into a test environment.
3. Integrate them, and make note of changes needed to make integration possible.
4. Write scripts and web interfaces which make those necessary changes. For example, if the domain name for your test environment is Example.com and the DNS server is 1.2.3.4, these would need to be changed on a per-customer basis. The web interface would ask for this domain name and then change it in each application (Zimbra, etc.). Respect any hand-coded changes.
5. Use one interface to make all system-wide changes, for a seamless appearance to the IT administrator.
6. Package it all up.
7. Advertise, advertise, advertise!
8. Sell support services.
There's probably a few other meta-steps, and of course countless micro-steps, but this should be enough of an overview.
For scalability, three things:
1. Use OpenVZ to containerize/separate each application (such as Zimbra) into individual virtual machines. The overhead for OpenVZ is FAR less than VMware or Xen. This lets you move the virtual machines around the enterprise later. For instance, if the Zimbra server is using too much CPU, simply buy another machine, install Linux+OpenVZ, then migrate your virtual machine over to it. It would be hard to make scalability simpler than that.
If you do this, create many small virtual machines, separating out as many applications as possible into individual VMs (OpenVZ can handle it). This way you can separate individual applications as-needed. Exchange does this, with its differing roles; you can (relatively) easily scale Exchange up to hundreds of servers by splitting the roles on to different servers.
2. Add extra redundant servers right at the front; for example, when you create a DNS server, create a primary server in one virtual machine and a secondary in another, even though both would be running on the same host server. That way, when you're ready to scale outward, simply move one of the DNS servers to a new host server and you're back in business. Set up as many redundant servers as possible (database, email, etc.) with this end in mind.
3. Integrate a terminal server, which not only gives nice scalability but also solves some other problems as well: Desktop costs, security, etc.
Over time, this company would want to offer more virtual machines, such as VoIP, firewalling, blogging, CRM, ERP, etc. Or maybe these would be integrated up-front to give an edge over Microsoft. One wouldn't want to bite off too much at first though.
This would be a very ambitious project, but I think that a project manager and a few software developers could get it started in their spare time. A project like this may take up to a year before the first release, but the long-term potential income is interesting, with things like Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). By hosting some of the virtual machines in a cloud such as Amazon's EC2, you can rent services to small businesses and let them skip housing the server locally. You can offer backup, monitoring and security services as well. Enterprise-level phone support would of course be needed, and could put some Linux aficionados or consultants to work. This company could also sell its own consultant services for further integration, scalability and development.
I've got a few irons in the fire, but this may be an interesting project. All of the pieces seem to be there, someone just needs to be the first to integrate them all.
UPDATE: After much searching, I discovered an open source company called DataSync who is doing many of these things. Since it's open source, I can just jump in and contribute. I wonder how much I can contribute?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Interesting post by Charice
Charice dropped an interesting post on her blog yesterday, I was very encouraged to see that she is able to meditate upon God's Word during this time of pregnant difficulty in her life.
Oh by the way, I don't know if I told everyone but she is pregnant again :-)
Oh by the way, I don't know if I told everyone but she is pregnant again :-)
Sunday, February 8, 2009
No post-modern atheists
Atheists are very strong in their opinion that there is NO God. Not Christian, not Muslim, not Hindu, NOTHING. They are unbending in this conviction.
I'll bet there are no post-modern atheists; post-modernism says that all opinions are valid. (By contrast, the Bible seems to indicate that even though all opinions are not valid, all opinions deserve to be heard. This is because all people are God's image-bearers and as such they deserve our respect.)
What do you think?
I'll bet there are no post-modern atheists; post-modernism says that all opinions are valid. (By contrast, the Bible seems to indicate that even though all opinions are not valid, all opinions deserve to be heard. This is because all people are God's image-bearers and as such they deserve our respect.)
What do you think?
Friday, February 6, 2009
Brrrr... cold in Florida
Tonight as I was taking out the trash, I noticed something you don't see very often here in north Florida: Ice. I saw ice on the trash lids. I noticed it this morning as well, so it's been there all day as far as I know.
As I write this, it is 34 degrees and a hard freeze warning is in effect. We've had several of them in the last month. I believe this morning it was in the twenties.
So much for global warming... If it gets any colder, I'm moving to Florida... I've heard it's warm there LOL
As I write this, it is 34 degrees and a hard freeze warning is in effect. We've had several of them in the last month. I believe this morning it was in the twenties.
So much for global warming... If it gets any colder, I'm moving to Florida... I've heard it's warm there LOL
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Calvinist Non-Debate with Arminian Author Roger Olson
A few weeks ago I wrote that I'd get a chance to talk with the famous Arminian professor and author Roger Olson. To give you an idea of the scope of this interview, it'd be like the radio show for a local high school football team interviewing the offensive manager for the Steelers. Roger is BIG NEWS, we are not.
Interestingly, though we disagree on a sensitive subject (which usually gets people angry), we didn't debate. We had an hour-long discussion about how to discuss Arminian/Calvinist theology (and other doctrines like Semi-Pelageanism or Hyper-Calvinism, etc.) without disobeying Jesus' words:
It was a GREAT show. I loved doing it. Please have a listen: Gospel, Gifts and Grace - The Clash of Calvinists and Arminians
We showed an unbelieving world that even people who vastly disagree can still love each other. Wonderful!
Interestingly, though we disagree on a sensitive subject (which usually gets people angry), we didn't debate. We had an hour-long discussion about how to discuss Arminian/Calvinist theology (and other doctrines like Semi-Pelageanism or Hyper-Calvinism, etc.) without disobeying Jesus' words:
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35 ESV)
It was a GREAT show. I loved doing it. Please have a listen: Gospel, Gifts and Grace - The Clash of Calvinists and Arminians
We showed an unbelieving world that even people who vastly disagree can still love each other. Wonderful!
UPDATE: Abortion is human sacrifice
This is an update on Sunday's article on abortion.
Some of you who read Sunday's post may think, "What a jerk! This guy has no clue just how difficult it can be to face an unwanted pregnancy. How insensitive."
First, I will admit that it was a hasty post. I didn't put much time into it. And I deeply apologize, it probably seemed insensitive, because it probably WAS insensitive. I can be insensitive at times.
Now that I've had time to think about it, I confess that you are indeed right; Indeed, I cannot know how difficult it must be, but I can speculate: NINE months of torturous living; headaches, back pain, swelling, misshapen figure, weight gain, swollen ankles, cravings, nausea, constipation, constant prodding of your body, all climaxing into several weeks of sharp, painful contractions, diarrhea, hot sweats, painful weight gain, followed by many hours of terrible pain in labor, IVs, spinal taps, difficult body posture, excruciating final labor. Or possible C-section surgery, or even threat to your life.
And then there's the costs: Delivery time off from work, painful, exhausting recovery time, who will help out (if you have no husband or faithful boyfriend), who will pay the hospital, the doctors, the pharmacies, the formula, the baby food, the clothing, the late nights, the early mornings, the bigger car, the car seat, lugging twenty-eight pounds of equipment everywhere you go, constant diapering, worrying that someone will harm it...
And then there's the toddler years: Getting into everything, feeding, diapering, clothing it with increasingly-more-expensive clothing (which is rotated in size well before it is worn out), the rebellion, the screaming, the crying, the hitting, having to discipline, getting a bigger house to fit your growing family, feeding it, the added expense of health care, doctor bills, groceries...
I could go on. Elementary years with its bullies and school programs. Teen years with all of its worries and rebellion, "I HATE YOU MOM!" College years with its expenses and concerns. To say nothing if the baby is born handicapped. Oh, the challenges that mothers of handicapped children must be facing! My ponderings on the burdens of childbearing have probably only touched the surface of the iceberg.
NO WONDER A WOMAN WOULD WANT TO ABORT HER BABY!! A quick, $500 procedure can eliminate ALL of that misery before anyone even knows you are pregnant. I can understand the draw and attraction of abortion, believe me I can. My wife is about to have her third child, and I can tell you that the first two weren't cake, and neither will number three be.
But is that all there is to it?
Many people today speak of abortion as though it is cutting out a painful tumor. And if that were all to it, why in the world am I getting so upset about it? It is because a baby in the womb is a life, a human being. The Maker of heaven and earth wrote a book called a Bible, and He uses the same word "baby" for the child in the womb and the child out-of-the-womb. See this five-minute video, which gives a short Biblical defense: It's a Baby!
If you went door-to-door and asked one hundred people this one-question survey: When is it right to take an innocent person's life, the overwhelming answer would be, "never."
NEVER!
Consider this: People just one-hundred years ago were beginning to have the opinions that are common today: There are too many people in the world, children are a drain on an economy's resources, we need to promote some sort of birth control, etc. Have you considered that if they were successful and unrestrained in their campaigns, that there is a significantly good chance that you would not be alive today? YOU are the life they were seeing in their future. Some day, people -- yes, real people -- will come out of wombs and live their lives.
It is NEVER right to take an innocent person's life, no matter HOW painful or costly.
So... what's a woman to do? Where will she go for the support that she will need for (oh my... this is staggering) the next twenty years? (Or fourty, if you consider the burden that grandchildren also can be.)
She goes to God's very promises!
* God promises to provide for His children. Read Habakkuk 3 and Matthew 6:19-34 out loud. Go ahead, read it out loud, I'll wait :-)
* God promises to comfort us in our difficulty. Read 2 Corinthians 1:3-11 out loud.
* Jesus went through difficulties that were not unlike child bearing; see Hebrews 4:15. Indeed, if you had been innocent but drank your loving Father's wrath against you for what someone else did, you would be facing temptations, pains and difficulties far GREATER than child birth.
* God says that children are a blessing, no matter how you feel about them. Read Psalm 127 aloud. It is true that while children are a burden, the blessing does indeed outweigh the pain. I speak for my wife, but she would say the same thing. When I consider that I am raising future men who may become soldiers for the glorious army of King Jesus, I am given strength to press on.
* God says that the pain of childbearing is because we have rebelled against Him, NOT because we are basically good people. Read Genesis 3 aloud.
* When she makes mistakes, God promises to give her His own "goodness" (righteousness) as though she had never made a single mistake in her life. Read 2 Corinthians 5:21 aloud.
* God promises to reward those who faithfully, humbly, and persistently serve their children as Jesus served us. Read Hebrews 11:6 and Matthew 6:19-21 aloud again.
And on and on. God's Word is RICH with promises. I can tell you that He has never failed us, but if you need a stronger testimony, listen to or read the biography, "George Mueller of Bristol, and His Witness to a Prayer-Hearing God." In it, you will read such testimonies as this:
Secondly, she can go to God's people for strength, refuge and support. She should seek to find a GOOD church, one where the pastor practices these nine principles from the Bible. Yes, I am aware there is hurt and hypocrisy inside the church, but generally speaking, the more a church practices those nine principles, the better they are. God's people have become for us like our extended family. We are deeply blessed to have them. If you are in Jacksonville, consider joining us at Grace Covenant Church.
Therefore I plead with you: Do not murder. Do not encourage anyone to murder. Do not lust after someone else, which is as Jesus said, adultery (see Matthew 5:27-28). If you have lusted after someone else, or even hated them in your heart, you will stand before God on Judgment day; not as Father, but as Judge, guilty of adultery and murder (see Jesus' words in Matthew 5:21-22). You know it's wrong to hate, you know it's wrong to lust after what God did not give you through marriage. I urge you, repent and trust in His promises before it is too late!
So to summarize, I'm not taking back what I said Sunday, it is true. Abortion is as human sacrifice to the gods of convenience and fornication. But truth needs to always be a companion with grace, and I made a mistake.
Some of you who read Sunday's post may think, "What a jerk! This guy has no clue just how difficult it can be to face an unwanted pregnancy. How insensitive."
First, I will admit that it was a hasty post. I didn't put much time into it. And I deeply apologize, it probably seemed insensitive, because it probably WAS insensitive. I can be insensitive at times.
Now that I've had time to think about it, I confess that you are indeed right; Indeed, I cannot know how difficult it must be, but I can speculate: NINE months of torturous living; headaches, back pain, swelling, misshapen figure, weight gain, swollen ankles, cravings, nausea, constipation, constant prodding of your body, all climaxing into several weeks of sharp, painful contractions, diarrhea, hot sweats, painful weight gain, followed by many hours of terrible pain in labor, IVs, spinal taps, difficult body posture, excruciating final labor. Or possible C-section surgery, or even threat to your life.
And then there's the costs: Delivery time off from work, painful, exhausting recovery time, who will help out (if you have no husband or faithful boyfriend), who will pay the hospital, the doctors, the pharmacies, the formula, the baby food, the clothing, the late nights, the early mornings, the bigger car, the car seat, lugging twenty-eight pounds of equipment everywhere you go, constant diapering, worrying that someone will harm it...
And then there's the toddler years: Getting into everything, feeding, diapering, clothing it with increasingly-more-expensive clothing (which is rotated in size well before it is worn out), the rebellion, the screaming, the crying, the hitting, having to discipline, getting a bigger house to fit your growing family, feeding it, the added expense of health care, doctor bills, groceries...
I could go on. Elementary years with its bullies and school programs. Teen years with all of its worries and rebellion, "I HATE YOU MOM!" College years with its expenses and concerns. To say nothing if the baby is born handicapped. Oh, the challenges that mothers of handicapped children must be facing! My ponderings on the burdens of childbearing have probably only touched the surface of the iceberg.
NO WONDER A WOMAN WOULD WANT TO ABORT HER BABY!! A quick, $500 procedure can eliminate ALL of that misery before anyone even knows you are pregnant. I can understand the draw and attraction of abortion, believe me I can. My wife is about to have her third child, and I can tell you that the first two weren't cake, and neither will number three be.
But is that all there is to it?
Many people today speak of abortion as though it is cutting out a painful tumor. And if that were all to it, why in the world am I getting so upset about it? It is because a baby in the womb is a life, a human being. The Maker of heaven and earth wrote a book called a Bible, and He uses the same word "baby" for the child in the womb and the child out-of-the-womb. See this five-minute video, which gives a short Biblical defense: It's a Baby!
If you went door-to-door and asked one hundred people this one-question survey: When is it right to take an innocent person's life, the overwhelming answer would be, "never."
NEVER!
Consider this: People just one-hundred years ago were beginning to have the opinions that are common today: There are too many people in the world, children are a drain on an economy's resources, we need to promote some sort of birth control, etc. Have you considered that if they were successful and unrestrained in their campaigns, that there is a significantly good chance that you would not be alive today? YOU are the life they were seeing in their future. Some day, people -- yes, real people -- will come out of wombs and live their lives.
It is NEVER right to take an innocent person's life, no matter HOW painful or costly.
So... what's a woman to do? Where will she go for the support that she will need for (oh my... this is staggering) the next twenty years? (Or fourty, if you consider the burden that grandchildren also can be.)
She goes to God's very promises!
* God promises to provide for His children. Read Habakkuk 3 and Matthew 6:19-34 out loud. Go ahead, read it out loud, I'll wait :-)
* God promises to comfort us in our difficulty. Read 2 Corinthians 1:3-11 out loud.
* Jesus went through difficulties that were not unlike child bearing; see Hebrews 4:15. Indeed, if you had been innocent but drank your loving Father's wrath against you for what someone else did, you would be facing temptations, pains and difficulties far GREATER than child birth.
* God says that children are a blessing, no matter how you feel about them. Read Psalm 127 aloud. It is true that while children are a burden, the blessing does indeed outweigh the pain. I speak for my wife, but she would say the same thing. When I consider that I am raising future men who may become soldiers for the glorious army of King Jesus, I am given strength to press on.
* God says that the pain of childbearing is because we have rebelled against Him, NOT because we are basically good people. Read Genesis 3 aloud.
* When she makes mistakes, God promises to give her His own "goodness" (righteousness) as though she had never made a single mistake in her life. Read 2 Corinthians 5:21 aloud.
* God promises to reward those who faithfully, humbly, and persistently serve their children as Jesus served us. Read Hebrews 11:6 and Matthew 6:19-21 aloud again.
And on and on. God's Word is RICH with promises. I can tell you that He has never failed us, but if you need a stronger testimony, listen to or read the biography, "George Mueller of Bristol, and His Witness to a Prayer-Hearing God." In it, you will read such testimonies as this:
One morning the plates and cups and bowls on the table were empty. There was no food in the larder, and no money to buy food. The children were standing waiting for their morning meal, when Mueller said, "Children, you know we must be in time for school." Lifting his hand he said, "Dear Father, we thank Thee for what Thou art going to give us to eat." There was a knock on the door. The baker stood there, and said, "Mr. Mueller, I couldn't sleep last night. Somehow I felt you didn't have bread for breakfast and the Lord wanted me to send you some. So I got up at 2 a.m. and baked some fresh bread, and have brought it." Mueller thanked the man. No sooner had this transpired when there was a second knock at the door. It was the milkman. He announced that his milk cart had broken down right in front of the Orphanage, and he would like to give the children his cans of fresh milk so he could empty his wagon and repair it. No wonder, years later, when Mueller was to travel the world as an evangelist, he would be heralded as "the man who gets things from God!"
Secondly, she can go to God's people for strength, refuge and support. She should seek to find a GOOD church, one where the pastor practices these nine principles from the Bible. Yes, I am aware there is hurt and hypocrisy inside the church, but generally speaking, the more a church practices those nine principles, the better they are. God's people have become for us like our extended family. We are deeply blessed to have them. If you are in Jacksonville, consider joining us at Grace Covenant Church.
Therefore I plead with you: Do not murder. Do not encourage anyone to murder. Do not lust after someone else, which is as Jesus said, adultery (see Matthew 5:27-28). If you have lusted after someone else, or even hated them in your heart, you will stand before God on Judgment day; not as Father, but as Judge, guilty of adultery and murder (see Jesus' words in Matthew 5:21-22). You know it's wrong to hate, you know it's wrong to lust after what God did not give you through marriage. I urge you, repent and trust in His promises before it is too late!
So to summarize, I'm not taking back what I said Sunday, it is true. Abortion is as human sacrifice to the gods of convenience and fornication. But truth needs to always be a companion with grace, and I made a mistake.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Abortion is a human sacrifice
IMPORTANT This article has an update to it. click here.
That's a great quote! Here's another one I like:
Women (and men) who desire free sex and convenience but cannot obtain it take it out on innocent people. Wow. If this is you, there is a Lord of Glory who is very angry, but who is graciously giving you the chance to turn while you still can.
IMPORTANT This article has an update to it. click here.
Abortion is a human sacrifice to the gods of fornication and convenience and an abomination to the Lord of Glory. The salvation from sin that He offers through Jesus Christ His only begotten Son is the only thing that will turn the hearts of the people. (From Joshua Black)
That's a great quote! Here's another one I like:
You desire and do not have, so you murder. (James 4:2 ESV)
Women (and men) who desire free sex and convenience but cannot obtain it take it out on innocent people. Wow. If this is you, there is a Lord of Glory who is very angry, but who is graciously giving you the chance to turn while you still can.
IMPORTANT This article has an update to it. click here.
Friday, January 30, 2009
What a non-Calvinist says, what a Calvinist hears
What a non-Calvinistic Christian says: In order for God to justly judge a person, he MUST retain the power of contrary choice.
What a Calvinistic Christian hears the non-Calvinistic Christian saying: In order for God to justly judge a person, he MUST retain the power to choose that which he hates.
The Calvinistic Christian, though, realizes that the problem is not "Can they?" but "Will they?".
What a Calvinistic Christian hears the non-Calvinistic Christian saying: In order for God to justly judge a person, he MUST retain the power to choose that which he hates.
The Calvinistic Christian, though, realizes that the problem is not "Can they?" but "Will they?".
Tree of the knowledge of good, more thoughts...
To continue a discussion I started yesterday, I was writing tonight to a friend and I said this:
By ordaining that evil come about, God actually gave us a gift. It is by the experience of evil that we can have any appreciation for the goodness of God. Without it, we'd probably be like animals, unaware and uncaring.
How sad.
How much better off I am now that I have a ruler by which to measure the love of God for me. Which of course, causes me to bring praise to His name, because this kind of love is so very glorious!
It also seems as though Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good. Goodness was all around them, but having never experienced the pain of evil, they never knew what good really was in contrast to that painful evil. Had they a heart grasp of the goodness of God, most likely they would have rejected satan. It was only when they bit into the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of GOOD that they could understand goodness through experience. It was the bitter experience of the fall which made them aware, experientially, of goodness. It was through the experience of evil which gave them knowledge of evil that they had a ruling stick by which they could measure good. Without the bitter fall it seems to me they would have been just two ignorant people, unaware of God's real goodness. How sad.
By ordaining that evil come about, God actually gave us a gift. It is by the experience of evil that we can have any appreciation for the goodness of God. Without it, we'd probably be like animals, unaware and uncaring.
How sad.
How much better off I am now that I have a ruler by which to measure the love of God for me. Which of course, causes me to bring praise to His name, because this kind of love is so very glorious!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tree of the Knowledge of Good... oh, and Evil too
You know, I've heard a few pastors explain Genesis 2:9:
The best explanation I've heard of what "knowledge of good and evil" meant is the simplest: By eating the fruit they would rebel and thus have knowledge by the experience of good and evil. They would have an experience of what good was like, and what evil was like, and by experience thus have knowledge of these two states.
Pastors dwell upon the sin act (rightly so!) and how we now know what evil is. But have you heard any pastor dwell upon the phrase, "knowledge of good"? I haven't.
Apparently, Adam and Eve had no idea what good was like. And that may be why they sinned, too; had they understood just how GOOD God really is, they probably would have told that serpent, "GET OUT OF MY FACE! There is only one being that deserves to be God, and that's God! I don't want to be like Him, only He should be like Him and that's good enough for me!"
So let's see how they became aware of goodness through their experience. Though they had just rebelled against the Most High, and though He would have been just in immediately executing judgment upon them, He let them live. He did NOT immediately cast them into hell; He let them still live, and possibly enjoy Him yet more.
We don't know for sure if they walked in righteousness after they were cast out of the garden, but we do know that at least one of their offspring were godly, which infers that Adam and Eve told Abel about the good God who made them. It is likely that the fall experience scared them from rebelling even further.
Interestingly, God was good to satan, too. He could have immediately cast satan into hell, but instead He let him rule an entire planet for a season. A LONG season. How good is that??
Here is an allusion to the gospel; on what basis could God offer them mercy and give them life? By Christ's sacrifice! Romans 3:21-26, particularly verse 25, show that God did not simply pass over people's sins on no basis. Oh no, there was a cost. There HAD to be a cost in order to give them life, or else God would be seen as an unjust judge (see Romans 3:25).
Secondly, He gave them grain for bread (see Genesis 3:18). Bread must be worked for, unlike in the garden where you could just pick your food off the tree, and it's not as healthy as raw fruits and vegetables, but bread is still food. Given that they deserved to starve for rebelling, God still gave them food. What a kind God!
And the gift of life-giving physical bread alludes to the gift of life-giving spiritual Bread -- Jesus Christ. He called Himself the "Bread of Life" in John 6:35. We don't deserve either the physical bread or the spiritual Bread, and both are kindnesses from God. Fortunately, although we must work by the sweat of our brow for physical bread, we need not (see Isaiah 55:1), cannot (see Ephesians 2:8) and MUST NOT (see Ephesians 2:9) work for the Bread of Life that is Jesus!
Thirdly, though they deserved to be cold and naked, exposed to the wind and rain until they made their own clothes, God Himself sacrificed an innocent animal (see Genesis 3:21) in order to show kindness to them. What a kindness!
And here again we see another allusion to the glorious gospel of King Jesus. Their sin caused them to become aware of their nakedness, and they felt shame at this. The body of an innocent animal was sacrificed in order to cover Adam and Eve's bodies and thus remove the shame. In the Old Testament, the sacrifice of innocent animals is always intended to point us to Christ's sacrifice to come (Hebrews 10:4), and thus we can see the intended picture quite clearly: Through the slaughter of Christ, the innocent lamb, our shame has been removed by His covering us over with the sacrifice of His body (see Hebrews 10, particularly verse 20).
So by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve became aware of God's goodness through: A.) not immediately casting them into hell but giving them more time to enjoy here on earth, B.) giving them food, though they deserved to starve, and C.) giving them clothing though they should have made clothing themselves. Clearly, none of these gifts were as good as they had it in the garden; in the garden they had no threat of death, they didn't have to work hard for their food and they didn't need clothing.
But isn't it good to know that one day, everything will be made right again? With Jesus some day, we will never die. With Jesus we will be given a table, a feast to enjoy. With Jesus we will be clothed in linen, white and pure (see Revelation 19:8). With Jesus we will no doubt walk in the cool of the evening through His new garden.
Had Adam and Eve never eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good, would we humans ever know good such as this? Apparently, no.
I thank God that He ordained that Adam and Eve fall! I'm certain He did this because He wanted to show us just how good He is at rescuing evil creatures. It would not have been possible to display that unless a fall was ordained. Christ's sacrifice would have never been known had they never rebelled. Adam and Eve (and probably me too) would have never known God's goodness.
And by the cross, justice is upheld. It cost God a LOT to give man the knowledge of good. He could not possibly just give man goodness without it also being just. With this in mind, feel the weight of Romans 5:8: "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (ESV)
People are always talking about how Adam and Eve introduced evil to us humans. But I now believe that they also introduced good to us as well.
One more thing needs to be said: The "problem of evil" that atheists charge Christianity with is merely a mirage. They say, "If God is all-powerful and all-good, He could have prevented evil from coming into the universe in the first place. This is a contradiction, therefore He does not exist." Atheists should really be concerned with the "problem of good." If God is just and all-good, how can He express the goodness of His love toward sinful, undeserving creatures without compromising His justice? Answer: The cross!
God allowed wickedness to come into being so that He would be able to be glorified as a loving rescuer by creatures, which causes them to experience everlasting joy. We will enjoy God by considering His majestic redemption act forever and ever! This will cause us to give Him the praise that He deserves, which will in turn give us joy, which will in turn cause us to praise, which will in turn give us joy, which will cause us to praise...
What an amazing infinite loop of the majestic joy-causing gospel. I cannot believe I get to experience this! I cannot believe this God calls me His own! What a Savior!
And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (ESV)
The best explanation I've heard of what "knowledge of good and evil" meant is the simplest: By eating the fruit they would rebel and thus have knowledge by the experience of good and evil. They would have an experience of what good was like, and what evil was like, and by experience thus have knowledge of these two states.
Pastors dwell upon the sin act (rightly so!) and how we now know what evil is. But have you heard any pastor dwell upon the phrase, "knowledge of good"? I haven't.
Apparently, Adam and Eve had no idea what good was like. And that may be why they sinned, too; had they understood just how GOOD God really is, they probably would have told that serpent, "GET OUT OF MY FACE! There is only one being that deserves to be God, and that's God! I don't want to be like Him, only He should be like Him and that's good enough for me!"
So let's see how they became aware of goodness through their experience. Though they had just rebelled against the Most High, and though He would have been just in immediately executing judgment upon them, He let them live. He did NOT immediately cast them into hell; He let them still live, and possibly enjoy Him yet more.
We don't know for sure if they walked in righteousness after they were cast out of the garden, but we do know that at least one of their offspring were godly, which infers that Adam and Eve told Abel about the good God who made them. It is likely that the fall experience scared them from rebelling even further.
Interestingly, God was good to satan, too. He could have immediately cast satan into hell, but instead He let him rule an entire planet for a season. A LONG season. How good is that??
Here is an allusion to the gospel; on what basis could God offer them mercy and give them life? By Christ's sacrifice! Romans 3:21-26, particularly verse 25, show that God did not simply pass over people's sins on no basis. Oh no, there was a cost. There HAD to be a cost in order to give them life, or else God would be seen as an unjust judge (see Romans 3:25).
Secondly, He gave them grain for bread (see Genesis 3:18). Bread must be worked for, unlike in the garden where you could just pick your food off the tree, and it's not as healthy as raw fruits and vegetables, but bread is still food. Given that they deserved to starve for rebelling, God still gave them food. What a kind God!
And the gift of life-giving physical bread alludes to the gift of life-giving spiritual Bread -- Jesus Christ. He called Himself the "Bread of Life" in John 6:35. We don't deserve either the physical bread or the spiritual Bread, and both are kindnesses from God. Fortunately, although we must work by the sweat of our brow for physical bread, we need not (see Isaiah 55:1), cannot (see Ephesians 2:8) and MUST NOT (see Ephesians 2:9) work for the Bread of Life that is Jesus!
Thirdly, though they deserved to be cold and naked, exposed to the wind and rain until they made their own clothes, God Himself sacrificed an innocent animal (see Genesis 3:21) in order to show kindness to them. What a kindness!
And here again we see another allusion to the glorious gospel of King Jesus. Their sin caused them to become aware of their nakedness, and they felt shame at this. The body of an innocent animal was sacrificed in order to cover Adam and Eve's bodies and thus remove the shame. In the Old Testament, the sacrifice of innocent animals is always intended to point us to Christ's sacrifice to come (Hebrews 10:4), and thus we can see the intended picture quite clearly: Through the slaughter of Christ, the innocent lamb, our shame has been removed by His covering us over with the sacrifice of His body (see Hebrews 10, particularly verse 20).
So by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve became aware of God's goodness through: A.) not immediately casting them into hell but giving them more time to enjoy here on earth, B.) giving them food, though they deserved to starve, and C.) giving them clothing though they should have made clothing themselves. Clearly, none of these gifts were as good as they had it in the garden; in the garden they had no threat of death, they didn't have to work hard for their food and they didn't need clothing.
But isn't it good to know that one day, everything will be made right again? With Jesus some day, we will never die. With Jesus we will be given a table, a feast to enjoy. With Jesus we will be clothed in linen, white and pure (see Revelation 19:8). With Jesus we will no doubt walk in the cool of the evening through His new garden.
Had Adam and Eve never eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good, would we humans ever know good such as this? Apparently, no.
I thank God that He ordained that Adam and Eve fall! I'm certain He did this because He wanted to show us just how good He is at rescuing evil creatures. It would not have been possible to display that unless a fall was ordained. Christ's sacrifice would have never been known had they never rebelled. Adam and Eve (and probably me too) would have never known God's goodness.
And by the cross, justice is upheld. It cost God a LOT to give man the knowledge of good. He could not possibly just give man goodness without it also being just. With this in mind, feel the weight of Romans 5:8: "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (ESV)
People are always talking about how Adam and Eve introduced evil to us humans. But I now believe that they also introduced good to us as well.
One more thing needs to be said: The "problem of evil" that atheists charge Christianity with is merely a mirage. They say, "If God is all-powerful and all-good, He could have prevented evil from coming into the universe in the first place. This is a contradiction, therefore He does not exist." Atheists should really be concerned with the "problem of good." If God is just and all-good, how can He express the goodness of His love toward sinful, undeserving creatures without compromising His justice? Answer: The cross!
God allowed wickedness to come into being so that He would be able to be glorified as a loving rescuer by creatures, which causes them to experience everlasting joy. We will enjoy God by considering His majestic redemption act forever and ever! This will cause us to give Him the praise that He deserves, which will in turn give us joy, which will in turn cause us to praise, which will in turn give us joy, which will cause us to praise...
What an amazing infinite loop of the majestic joy-causing gospel. I cannot believe I get to experience this! I cannot believe this God calls me His own! What a Savior!
Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 24-25 ESV)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Cheap backup to replace Mozy
OK so the economy has forced me to cut Mozy.com (an otherwise stellar backup company with $5/month all-you-can-eat backups). But I cannot, I repeat, cannot leave my computer not backed up. WAY too much data. So what will I do?
I have an old 80GB SATA drive, and I'll be buying another one in a few days. I attached the SATA drive to the system using a USB-to-SATA adapter. I'll create an encrypted filesystem inside both drives using TrueCrypt.
I'll then copy all of the files to the encrypted partitions residing on both hard drives (one at a time obviously, I only have one SATA adapter). One hard drive will go offsite, to my buddy who always comes to church. I'll have him keep it in his car, in a foam caddy or something. Theft is a concern here, but not a severe concern as the data will be encrypted. Here, convenience is king; I'll be able to swap the offsite hard drive every week and he won't have to remember to do anything except show up to church. Anyway his car is an old beat up piece of junk so I doubt someone will break in :-)
OK so every week I'll be swapping the drives. That gives me weekly protection from fire, theft, flood, hurricane, tornado, and large hard-drive eating birds. But what about daily protection?
Every night I'll have the system sync the contents with the onsite drive using probably RoboCopy (though HoboCopy has some great features which RoboCopy lacks -- for example, the ability to copy locked files).
So I'll get a nightly copy to a separate hard drive, which covers hard drive failure, and a weekly copy to a different part of the city, which covers hard-drive eating birds. It won't require much labor; RoboCopy can be set to automatically run nightly with Task Scheduler, which means I just have to remember to bring the hard drive to church every week. Not bad.
How about costs? The cost of the USB-to-SATA adater was $21, and although it's clumsier than one of the nice new SATA hard drive docks they're selling, it's cheaper, too. And it also can handle good old-fashioned PATA, 1.8" or 2.5" laptop drives, CD drives, whatever. It's got Molex connectors plus an adapter for the new SATA power connector (which in my opinion is WAY too large, but that's a topic for another day).
The first SATA hard drive is a carryover from another computer, so that's free, and the second, a Seagate 250GB SATA drive at CompUSA (yes they're still open in Jacksonville) is $49. Seagate has an amazing 5 year warranty :-)
So for a total of $70 I get daily and weekly offsite backups. Granted, I don't have multiple revisions of files as Mozy does, but that's a possibility if I want to skip RoboCopy and use a better backup program which would give me the option of creating differential/incremental backup files. Since Mozy is just $5/month it'll pay for itself in 14 months.
Oh, and since I recently reinstalled Mozy, and on top of that I also recently added many gigabytes of data to my hard drive, I thought I might be facing an enormous upload, which hurried me along to getting this solution in place. My DSL is slowwww (but cheap!). The computer only has USB 1.1 which means the total copy will take slightly longer than a day, but if it were Mozy I'd be facing a backup taking weeks! (Not joking.)
I might have to buy yet another hard drive if the first drive (75GB) won't cover all my data. Which would mean another $49 and 10 more months before payoff. But perhaps I can just skip some of the content. Most of the hard drive space is made up of music, and I keep two copies: One in the closet and one in the car (and of course, one on the hard drive). I would like to make a complete offsite backup, but I guess I can compromise.
If you're computer-savvy and you'd like to save some blow, consider this method of backup. It'll save your butt if you are attacked by a hard-drive eating bird.
By the way Mozy users, if your computer slows to a crawl like mine did, disable the explorer icon overlay in the Configuration screen. I forget where it is. When I did that I got my computer back :-)
I have an old 80GB SATA drive, and I'll be buying another one in a few days. I attached the SATA drive to the system using a USB-to-SATA adapter. I'll create an encrypted filesystem inside both drives using TrueCrypt.
I'll then copy all of the files to the encrypted partitions residing on both hard drives (one at a time obviously, I only have one SATA adapter). One hard drive will go offsite, to my buddy who always comes to church. I'll have him keep it in his car, in a foam caddy or something. Theft is a concern here, but not a severe concern as the data will be encrypted. Here, convenience is king; I'll be able to swap the offsite hard drive every week and he won't have to remember to do anything except show up to church. Anyway his car is an old beat up piece of junk so I doubt someone will break in :-)
OK so every week I'll be swapping the drives. That gives me weekly protection from fire, theft, flood, hurricane, tornado, and large hard-drive eating birds. But what about daily protection?
Every night I'll have the system sync the contents with the onsite drive using probably RoboCopy (though HoboCopy has some great features which RoboCopy lacks -- for example, the ability to copy locked files).
So I'll get a nightly copy to a separate hard drive, which covers hard drive failure, and a weekly copy to a different part of the city, which covers hard-drive eating birds. It won't require much labor; RoboCopy can be set to automatically run nightly with Task Scheduler, which means I just have to remember to bring the hard drive to church every week. Not bad.
How about costs? The cost of the USB-to-SATA adater was $21, and although it's clumsier than one of the nice new SATA hard drive docks they're selling, it's cheaper, too. And it also can handle good old-fashioned PATA, 1.8" or 2.5" laptop drives, CD drives, whatever. It's got Molex connectors plus an adapter for the new SATA power connector (which in my opinion is WAY too large, but that's a topic for another day).
The first SATA hard drive is a carryover from another computer, so that's free, and the second, a Seagate 250GB SATA drive at CompUSA (yes they're still open in Jacksonville) is $49. Seagate has an amazing 5 year warranty :-)
So for a total of $70 I get daily and weekly offsite backups. Granted, I don't have multiple revisions of files as Mozy does, but that's a possibility if I want to skip RoboCopy and use a better backup program which would give me the option of creating differential/incremental backup files. Since Mozy is just $5/month it'll pay for itself in 14 months.
Oh, and since I recently reinstalled Mozy, and on top of that I also recently added many gigabytes of data to my hard drive, I thought I might be facing an enormous upload, which hurried me along to getting this solution in place. My DSL is slowwww (but cheap!). The computer only has USB 1.1 which means the total copy will take slightly longer than a day, but if it were Mozy I'd be facing a backup taking weeks! (Not joking.)
I might have to buy yet another hard drive if the first drive (75GB) won't cover all my data. Which would mean another $49 and 10 more months before payoff. But perhaps I can just skip some of the content. Most of the hard drive space is made up of music, and I keep two copies: One in the closet and one in the car (and of course, one on the hard drive). I would like to make a complete offsite backup, but I guess I can compromise.
If you're computer-savvy and you'd like to save some blow, consider this method of backup. It'll save your butt if you are attacked by a hard-drive eating bird.
By the way Mozy users, if your computer slows to a crawl like mine did, disable the explorer icon overlay in the Configuration screen. I forget where it is. When I did that I got my computer back :-)
Revelation 22:19 and John Piper
For some reason, people using Google have been hitting my blog when searching these keywords: Revelation 22:19 John Piper
I have no idea why they're coming to my site, but I guess I'd better give them what they're looking for.
Piper, a preacher who affirms that the Bible teaches that we must persevere to the end to be saved, has not specified his interpretation of Revelation 22:19, but I suppose if he did, it would go something like this: Just as with Hebrews 6, the threats of Scripture are PROOF POSITIVE that God intends to keep the elect until the end. They are always intended to warn the one who is tempted to stray from the Lord, "Don't go there! You may be lost! Don't do it!"
How many countless godly Christians have been rescued by the warnings of Hebrews 6??
If this interpretation surprises you, consider this: people like John Piper do NOT believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved" or "Eternal Security." Oh no. They believe in the classical Calvinistic doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints."
You MUST persevere to the end to be saved.
You WILL persevere to the end and be saved.
You MUST.
You WILL.
You MUST.
You WILL.
Both are true.
This stands in stark contrast with "Once Saved, Always Saved" and "Eternal Security." Perseverance is just that -- PERSEVERANCE. It means that those who are truly born again will PERSEVERE in faith to the end.
Consider this doctrine when you read verses like Hebrews 3:14: "For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end." (ESV) If you hold your confidence firm to the end, you will come to share in Christ. Seems drop-dead simple to me.
"Once Saved, Always Saved" and "Eternal Security" are to me covers for lawlessness. "Oh no," say their proponents, "it's not lawlessness. You still might lose your rewards, and you'll suffer pain in this life." Threats like these did not stir me to repent when I was living in lawlessness for three years. I told myself that I was born again, even while I was plotting to start a porn website! Had I meditated upon Hebrews 3:14 I might have turned sooner, but my "Eternal Security" church had me asleep in the pews!
Here is John Piper's thought on the topic of perseverance: Click here
It's not just John Piper that believes this. Here's the Calvinistic evangelist Paul Washer sharing his thoughts on Revelation 22:19: Click here
I believe this doctrine is classic Calvinism. I believe this doctrine has been distorted over the years into "Eternal Security" or "Once Saved, Always Saved" (also known as OSAS). This distortion is tempting many to believe they are soundly saved when they're going to face God one day as a Judge, not as a Father.
I learned about this doctrine from this website: Click here Please, just take 4 minutes to read it to understand the differences.
Another REALLY GOOD and gripping video on this subject is True and False Conversion by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. A definite must-see.
UPDATE: I feel the above interpretation really holds water when simply comparing Scripture with Scripture: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." (John 6:37 ESV) "and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:19 ESV)
(Both were written by the same author, by the way.)
"...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you..." (Philippians 2:12b-13a ESV)
(These Scriptures plainly tell me that both points are true. You MUST, you WILL persevere. It is seemingly paradoxical situations like these that bring me to enjoy my buddy Derek's blog THEOparadox; he's doing a great job over there.)
I have no idea why they're coming to my site, but I guess I'd better give them what they're looking for.
"and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:19 ESV)
Piper, a preacher who affirms that the Bible teaches that we must persevere to the end to be saved, has not specified his interpretation of Revelation 22:19, but I suppose if he did, it would go something like this: Just as with Hebrews 6, the threats of Scripture are PROOF POSITIVE that God intends to keep the elect until the end. They are always intended to warn the one who is tempted to stray from the Lord, "Don't go there! You may be lost! Don't do it!"
How many countless godly Christians have been rescued by the warnings of Hebrews 6??
If this interpretation surprises you, consider this: people like John Piper do NOT believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved" or "Eternal Security." Oh no. They believe in the classical Calvinistic doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints."
You MUST persevere to the end to be saved.
You WILL persevere to the end and be saved.
You MUST.
You WILL.
You MUST.
You WILL.
Both are true.
This stands in stark contrast with "Once Saved, Always Saved" and "Eternal Security." Perseverance is just that -- PERSEVERANCE. It means that those who are truly born again will PERSEVERE in faith to the end.
Consider this doctrine when you read verses like Hebrews 3:14: "For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end." (ESV) If you hold your confidence firm to the end, you will come to share in Christ. Seems drop-dead simple to me.
"Once Saved, Always Saved" and "Eternal Security" are to me covers for lawlessness. "Oh no," say their proponents, "it's not lawlessness. You still might lose your rewards, and you'll suffer pain in this life." Threats like these did not stir me to repent when I was living in lawlessness for three years. I told myself that I was born again, even while I was plotting to start a porn website! Had I meditated upon Hebrews 3:14 I might have turned sooner, but my "Eternal Security" church had me asleep in the pews!
Here is John Piper's thought on the topic of perseverance: Click here
It's not just John Piper that believes this. Here's the Calvinistic evangelist Paul Washer sharing his thoughts on Revelation 22:19: Click here
I believe this doctrine is classic Calvinism. I believe this doctrine has been distorted over the years into "Eternal Security" or "Once Saved, Always Saved" (also known as OSAS). This distortion is tempting many to believe they are soundly saved when they're going to face God one day as a Judge, not as a Father.
I learned about this doctrine from this website: Click here Please, just take 4 minutes to read it to understand the differences.
Another REALLY GOOD and gripping video on this subject is True and False Conversion by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. A definite must-see.
UPDATE: I feel the above interpretation really holds water when simply comparing Scripture with Scripture: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." (John 6:37 ESV) "and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:19 ESV)
(Both were written by the same author, by the way.)
"...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you..." (Philippians 2:12b-13a ESV)
(These Scriptures plainly tell me that both points are true. You MUST, you WILL persevere. It is seemingly paradoxical situations like these that bring me to enjoy my buddy Derek's blog THEOparadox; he's doing a great job over there.)
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The roles women play in society - the frank truth..
Linkage From My Blog
Just posting on our main blog for those who don't have a link to my (Charice's) personal blog.
Just posting on our main blog for those who don't have a link to my (Charice's) personal blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+1.jpg)
