Here We Go!

I have to admit, I can't believe it took this long for someone to try this. There was a fictional book about someone finding Jesus' bones that a friend of mine read years ago and told me he enjoyed. It is the ultimate publicity stunt!

Are these the bones of Jesus? Of course not. No Archeologist worth his salt says so. No reconstruction of the past history could make it plausable. Only the ignorant or the dogmatic would entertain such ideas. And yet, there it is.

Part of me says the guy who thought this ruse up should be struck by lightening for blasphemy. But, part of me, I must confess, smiles. He may be blasphemous, but he is also shrewd. Remember, it was our Lord who pointed out that the citizens of this fallen world are more wise in dealing with the "mammon of unrighteousness" (money) than are the children of the Kingdom.

Thoughts?

Oscar is an Alien

Last night, I took in the last 40 minutes or so of the Oscar Awards. I was fortunate enough to miss Al Gore, but not Melissa Ethredge. She won an oscar for a song, and got up and thanked "my wife and her four children." Hmmm.... Is this supposed to sound normal to the human ear? Where did those four children come from?

It is not chic to question gay marriage, I know. I wonder if Hollywood knows just how disconnected they are from the majority of Americans? Most people watching, I am certain, be they Christian or not, hearing that proclamation by one women for her "wife" thought, "That's wierd."

May the Lord bless Melissa and her . . . friend . . . with life, health, peace, and joy. I too am a sinner so I do not look down on them. But I know this: turning from their sin to God will remove their guilt and give them the joy they are looking for.

And, for the record: women can't have wives.

Lieberman Chimes In

Joe Lieberman wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Here is the last paragraph:

We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril.

For the entire article, click here.

Your thoughts?

Thanks To The Aussies Who Made This Sign

and also thank God for the internet, because you know the New York Times would never show us this.

Abdel Kareem Nabil --Free Speech Hero

This man, Abdel Kareem Nabil, is 22 year old. He has been sentenced to 4 years in jail in his native Egypt. His crime? Blogging.

His blog was critical of Islam and its violent tendencies. He now has lost his freedom. To read about it, click here.

Some of what he wrote: "Muslims revealed their true ugly face and appeared to all the world that they are full of brutality, barbarism and inhumanity,"

This was written in response to a 2005 attack on Egyptian Christians by an angry Muslim mob.

Do you surf the net? Do you read blogs? Do you frequent Youtube? Why not search for voices from the world. Voices like Kareem's. They are able to speak out from Egypt, and Iran, and Iraq, and Turkey, and Pakistan, and China, and on and on. We live in an age that allows the oppressed to have a voice. But is anyone listening?

Are you?

Blazing Hot Movie!

Great.

not for little kids. You see it?

Putting Things in Perspective

(I got this from Margies blog). Great perspective. That's a lot of dead humans. Where are their champions? I'm sure that Washington won't care until and unless it can get someone elected or defeated. Fiddling while Rome burns . . .

She's Absolutely Right

I'm not sure how often I've agreed with Hillary Clinton on public policy declarations, but I agree with her today: The Confederate Flag in South Carolina should come off of the state house property. She said so here. Of course, the media loves her, so if she were to say that Kleenex should be used to clean jewelry, I'm sure it would make the headlines.

But in this case, she is right (as she was about the Iraq war until that became less of a vote getter).

I lived in South Carolina when the flag was flying over the State House, not just on the grounds. What an afront to honor! The Confederate state is not soverign over the State of South Carolina and should not have the flag flying over it.

By the way, the flag is no longer flying over the state house. Some trivia about that issue: the flag was put up there by then Democratic governor, and later democratic senator Fritz Hollings as a way to protest civil rights progress. The flag was removed by order of Governor David Beasley, a republican. I am sad to say that it cost him his job. He was not re-elected. Why not? Because white Christians of South Carolina refused to stand in solidarity with Blacks on this issue. Shame on them, I say.

The flags that fly over the State House now are the American Flag and the South Carolina Flag. that is how it should be, for those are the sovereign authorities which oversee South Carolina. The confederate flag was removed from above the state house, but political pressure kept it on the grounds as a historical artifact.

Isn't He Sweet!

Ricky Martin, singing a song that mentioned President Bush (why there is such a song I can't imagine) gave Bush the finger during the performance. Click here for story. It is so "in style" to kick the president now. Good for you, Ricky. You are so brave, taking your stand against Bush. Why, by doing so you are . . . piling on?

Ricky's antics show neither courage nor taste. Interesting. But I won't be losing sleep.

You know, I bet he wins a grammy for this!

Thoughts?

Oh No! Bad News for The House! Better Hurry

The congress is going to hate it if this is true! They better hope not! If it is, things could start to get better in Iraq before they have a chance to completely screw it up! Hurry, Congress, Hurry. Get the troops home before they win. We must stop Bush!

We're All Going To Die

The death rate is holding steady at 100%. So, it is safe to assume that you and I will . . . . well, you know. With this in mind, have you done something of eternal value today? Have you remembered what is important in life today? Have you built up someone you loved today? Have you stopped wasting time on that thing you do that never helps anyway? Spend each day in light of eternity. There are many who look back and say "What was I doing?" IT doesn't have to be you.

What we do here matters to God. That is what makes every moment precious and every day a gift.

Just a friendly reminder.

Psalm 90:12 12 So teach us to number our days, That we may present to You a heart of wisdom.

(Sam and the Ninja discuss issues of death and cremation in their latest, greatest podcast. Click to find it here.)

The Global Power Grab

I guess it never really mattered what science said or says. My research so far has shown that many scientists have very real data-based doubts regarding the nature of co2 and it's effect on the globe. Some say that Bush and oil companies are behind these doubts, but I have found that to be highly unlikely. Why? Because the money behind finding global warming to be man made so far outweighs what any oil company or anyone does it is not even comparable. Furthermore, many scientists who have been accused are making public statements that they are being misrepresented and challenging people to check the facts. the pressure to produce pro-co2-is-evil-for-the-temperature-of-the-world-and-it-is-made-by-man research is incredible. if you want the research money, you will come up with this conclusion. That's how it works.

Unfortunately, there are many scientists who are being smeared and squelched. Paid for bias might be true in some cases, but in may it can be proven that their accusers lie when saying they are bought off (the tidy thing about money is it can be traced, or not). Men whose reputations are without stain, whose data is published, who critiques are plain for all to see, scientists from MIT, from major universities throughout the world, etc. And many are claiming that they themselves have seen the politics that is forcing the scientific world to silence them.

But it doesn't matter. no one is listening. Why not? Power. That's the answer. politicians know when to jump. REad this:


Global leaders reach climate deal

John McCain
The climate debate is over, said US presidential candidate John McCain
A meeting in Washington of global political leaders has reached a new agreement on tackling climate change.

Delegates agreed that developing countries will have to face targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as well as rich countries.

The informal meeting also agreed that a global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions.

The non-binding declaration is seen as vital in influencing a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, correspondents say.

The forum's closing statement said man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt". for the rest of the story click here.

It is plain for all to see. Here are politicians, not scientists, declaring the debate over. And now they want policy. Policy always gives power to someone. Who do you think the policy makers will give it to? And, what researcher who wants a job, a nice house and big money will dare oppose? The ones that do are being oppressed by the machine.

Here's some interesting facts I dug up while searching.

> The temperature of the globe is not conclusively proven to be caused by CO2. indeed, two graphs in the UN report, if placed upon one another show that CO2 rises just after the temperature goes up, not before, casting doubt on the causes.

> CO2 is not polution. It is a natural safe product of exhaling and oxidation. Essentially, it is plant food.

> CO2 is produced naturally in very large amounts in several ways. In our divided world it is hard to find people agreeing on what those amounts are, since that information would cast great doubt on the effects of man-made co2 on the atmosphere. There is enough confusion out there, and that is probably the intent of many. However, it should be noted that volcanos put out millions of tons of CO2 as well us tons of sulfer dioxide (so much so that in 2004, and msnbc report pointed out that mt st helen was the number 1 poluter in Washington state, due to the sulfur emissions). Forest fires far out distance cars, as can be guessed, at producing co2. underwater volcanic activity, earth quakes, methane from cows, all produce great amounts of co2. This isn't necessarily bad. whether co2 is harmful to the earth is still a debated topic among scientists who publish their data (though not among journalists). One interesting fact about co2 from a geologist at the energy department at penn state: when a tree dies, as it decays, it realeses all the co2 into the atmosphere that it absorbed during its life.

> America has more forest land now than it did in 1776. this is not a major deal, but deforestation in America does not increase co2 levels in the atmosphere (though it does in some other countries that don't care for the land as we do).

> changes in the temperature of the sun, many scientists think, is a better explanation for global temperature increase. this is a cyclical change, of course.

> before the measured global warming period discussed today, the earth had an era that was a centuries-long global cooling period, though this is rarely mentioned in journalist reports and left out of many scientific data sheets used by journalists and government agencies. Why this matters? Because we are dealing with many years and patterns of cooling and warming that go on for thousands of years.

> Ice in the Antarctic is increasing at an alarming rate, just as ice is decreasing in the arctic. In fact, historical data shows that the amount of snow on a mountain or ice in a particular region varies greatly. the problem is that measuring such things is difficult for the change is so slow that centuries are needed to see patterns.

> WE have been measuring the earth's temperature since 1880. All other measurements are extrapolated data based on studies of physical evidence in the earth. That does not discount it, but it does show that an earth this old is not easy to measure by the humans hanging around on it these last hundred years.

These are summary statements. There is much data and many voices and much for me still to learn and I will keep at it. Something that has been helpful to me is to ignore journalists when they report science and look for data beneath stories.

One thing I am certain of: The jury is still out on whether man has any significant effect on the temperature of the planet. INdeed, the hints that have come out of the UN report (it hasn't even come out yet in its final form, and the journalistic world speaks of it as if it has)include claims that there is nothing man can do to reverse the trend of a warming globe. some say it is "too late". I say, if we can't effect it in the future, why are we so sure we effected it in the past?

Another item of note: underdeveloped countries far outweigh Western nations in the Northern Hemisphere for amount of CO2, and non-co2 polutants, that are pumped into the atmosphere. That wasn't the case in the 1800's of course, but it is now. For this reason, policy that holds the west to different standards than the southern hemisphere and Asia and Eastern Europe is not only unjust, but runs the risk of punishing the peoples of the earth, by crippling the better economies of the earth, which will do nothing to help the poor, as third world nations have a way of starving their own people, while Western nations try desparately to continually fill the gap.

I'm still in a learning mode, but I know this. Making sweeping change in policy based on the theory that man-made co2 is heating up the globe is foolish. people who think their government is protecting them by such measures are tricked. This is a power-grab, plain and simple.

It is so easy for politicians to jump on the bandwagon now. AT heart, politicians in a democracy are cowards, choosing as habit whatever they think wins public opinion, willing to leave true conviction behind. I guess that is a necessary evil to have a free people. people elect, so politicians put their fingers in the wind to see which way the people are blowing. but they are also agents, with less than innocent agendas at times. they will influence public opinion as they see fit if it suits their purpose. Global warming is not a moral issue to them, it is a vehicle to gain power. the people are sheep, easily led.

my friends, don't discount the dissenting voices. listen to them. check their data. you might be surprised.

more to come.

Check Out This Cool Podcast

I have been working on a podcast with a friend and fellow pastor where we talk about theological issues and cultural issues and whatever comes into our small minds. It's pretty cool. We are just getting to the point where the technical system is running smoothly. The lastest addition? An intro and an outro, complete with real live theme music, and a celebrity radio voice from the largest Christian radio station in the northeast doing our introduction.

So, click here, then, click on the cats, and check out episode 7. If you don't use itunes, you can click in the post where it says and play the mp3. Hope you like it. let me know what you think.

Thanks For Helping

Thanks to the following people for helping me raise $520 to help improve the lives of kinds with Muscular Dystrophy:

Juliana Hoye
Rich & Barb Bowser
Susan Edgington
Richard & Melinda Knappenberger
Tom Scherf
Don and Autumn Seyler
Michael Greiner
Paul Farinelli
Steve and Sharon Remis
Marjorie Soloski
Charis Miller
Hannah Miller

A Girl Like Me

What are your thoughts on this?

What The?

I intended to give my thoughts here, but I have changed my mind. I want to hear yours first.

Anna Nicole Smith is dead. Yes, the one who married the old guy and then got his money, then it was taken away, then it went to court again . . . the one who did the playboy thing . . . the one who did the model thing . . . the one who has the baby whom three men claim to be the father of . . . the one who you didn't think much about until she died, and now it's wall-to-wall Anna.

What are your thoughts on this whole Anna thing, death, media hype, all that?

Some Seemingly Good News

I know it's a small thing, but just when I wondered where we could find some common ground, I found this little story:

AGHDAD (Reuters) -
Iraq's government said on Tuesday it would close its borders with
Syria and
Iran and extend the hours of a night curfew in Baghdad under a U.S.- backed security plan to rein in violence in the capital.
To read more, go here.

there is consensus that the best thing for Iraq is for it to be self-governed --so much for the Islamic radicals who say we want to take over the world! And here is a small but hopeful sign: Iraq is willing to oppose it's neighbor --read, "Islamic"-- nations in order to bring more stability to their own nation. May God bless their efforts.

We Need Solutions, Not Vitriolic Anger

Check out this news story:


Iran on course for nuclear bomb, EU told
By Daniel Dombey and Fidelius Schmid in Brussels
Published: February 12 2007 22:18 | Last updated: February 13 2007 13:51

Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.

In an admission of the international community’s failure to hold back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the document – compiled by the staff of Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief – says the atomic programme has been delayed only by technical limitations rather than diplomatic pressure. “Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have not so far succeeded,” it states.

(for the rest of this story, click here)


So much arguing, so much political posturing. If only everyone would stop promoting their individual agendas and focus on our common concerns! In the US, the politicians all fight, the media all fights, the bloggers all fight, the news shows all fight, the professors all fight, and on and on. In the UN, there is so much beurocracy, so much politics so much tomfoolery. The EU, same deal. And we are all fiddling while Rome is burning.

IF only we could give all these leaders in America and the world a day off from worrying about self-promotion and politics to just deal with the fact that Iran might soon have a Nuke. And this isn't for America I beg this either, but for the world. If Iran gets a nuke, most likely, America will be safe and sound. Their president isn't showing the kind of patience needed to hit us. He's more likely to try to usher in the "chaos" he says is needed for the "12th Imam" to be revealed as the savior of the world, as he has been saying. That Nuke could land anywhere (not even where he aims it, by the way --this technology IS rocket science, and there's no telling where an Iranian missile will fly). Before millions are dead in Israel, or Turkey, or India, or whereever that thing lands, will those in charge do anything?

last year, stern warning after stern warning was issued from the UN, from the EU, and from the USA. The leader of Iran gave the Bronx Cheer to the world, and he showed that everyone was bluffing.

Pray for peace in our world. There are evil men. they will not have peace. We must make them powerless or there will be war. Pray for peace and mercy. It is normally the poor of the world who suffer most when evil men come to power. Ahmadinijad is an evil man, on par with nothing we understand in American nor European politics.

Pray for peace. God is the ferocious, and uncontrollable factor not being figured upon. Let's call on Him for He is good.

On Whose Shoulders She Stands

Here is a picture of the new president of Harvard. She is the first woman to serve in such manner. I forgot her name since I read the story! oops. Anyway, she is. Good for her.


But do you know who the first person to be president of Harvard was? His name was Henry Dunster. He was asked to start a school, originally called Cambridge, but then changed to Harvard. He was an effective public speaker, a great student of the Bible, knowledgeable of Greek, Latin, and what was known at the time as "the oriental languages." He was also a puritan.

Do you know why he was fired from the job? Here's a multiple choice. If I get 5 people taking a shot at the answer, I'll tell you if you are right. If not, I'll post the answer tomorrow.

one rule: NO PEAKING! NO LOOKING THIS UP ON THE NET! IT'LL TAKE ALL THE FUN AWAY. Educated guesses only!

A. Changed his mind on the doctrine of Baptism of infants.
B. Morally inappropriate behavior with a domestic servant from the nearby town.
C. Refused to support Jonathan Edwards' ministry after hearing "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."
D. Opposed the Salem witch trials.
E. Was asked to resign due to age and fading health, but refused, saying, "Whom God hath appointed, God will sustain."
F. Neglected the spiritual duties of Church attendance during tenure as president of college
G. Spoke out for just treatment of savage peoples (now called Native Americans)

One Hint: this is what he said in his defense after being removed:
"I conceived then, and so do still, that I spake the truth in the feare of God, and dare not deny the same or go from it until the Lord otherwise teach me."

Not My Dream Ride

One Question: How?

I wish I knew.

Here are their rides!

Alright, here they are, just as ordered.

Not in order shown: The funky italian sports car for Andy. Julie gets the bronco. Julie gets the toyota landcruiser. Wizard gets his monster truck (girl optional). Wizard gets his paid for honda civic. Mike H gets his 1967 Coronet.

interesting picks, y'all.

Anyone else?

Addition: Alison's ride is a tricked out Dodge Magnum

My Ideal Ride

If I could pick from any car in the world, this is it. 2007, 4x4, toyota tundra with the extra cab. This is a man-car! (Let the sissy men of the world lust after tiny little beamers and benz's!).

Quality, power, function, comfort. This is it. This is my car. Of course, I'm about 40 grand short of my goal if I want to buy it. Maybe I could steal one? (kidding).

You dream ride?

From a Young and Beautiful Rose

My Daugther, Mandy, posted this to her blog today:

This is for the Ladies
Have you ever played the game Bigger and Better? Everybody is given an object, and a certain amount of time to trade that object for something bigger or better. Once the time is up, whoever has the biggest or best object in the group wins.

The issue of love or romance has been heavily laid on my heart. Not just for me, but for some of my very best friends. Boys seem to like to make us cry, don't they? I don't know about you, but I've noticed a bit of a shortage of good, Christian men our age. Now I'm not going to turn this into a male-bashing time, I know we girls have our faults too. But I also know this Valentines Day can become a time for a lot of us nice, Christian girls to feel lonely or depressed. And it occurred to me today that... there's nothing wrong with that! We're not "losers" because we desire to have someone that loves God and won't break our hearts. It occurred to me that perhaps God placed this desire in our hearts because He wants to fill it. Maybe the reason God hasn't brought someone for us is that He's got something bigger and better planned. The Bible says in Romans that "God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him." He's got our romances in His hands. And hasn't He written the most beautiful love stories? Jacob and Rachel, Hosea and Gomer, Rahab and the spy, Esther and the king, even Christ and His Bride.

But what do we do now? When we know that God is in control but we still feel lonely or heartbroken? What did God say to Paul when he asked for a trial to be removed from his life? He said, "My grace is sufficient for you". His grace is sufficient for us! That means, he allows us to go through certain things, knowing it will hurt, and providing us with enough grace to get us through.

I know that there are lots of girls who are sad about the boy issue. Either because someone has already broken their heart, or they just haven't dated because there doesn't seem to be anyone out there who's worth their time! Or because there is someone, but he doesn't pay attention to them. I want you to know that I know exactly how you feel. I invite you to fall in love with Jesus this Valentines Day, and let God prepare something that is bigger and better than anything you could possibly imagine. (Eph 3:20)

"Yet those who wait for the Lord will gain new strenth;
They will mount up with wings like eagles,
They will run and not get tired,
They will walk and not becomr weary."
Isaiah 40:31

My Best Post Ever

This post is great. If you read it, and re-read it if you have to in order to get what he is saying, it might change a part of your life. This is a transcript of a talk given by C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism." That is a term he coined (and I wrongly mentioned it in another post as "bolshivism" --my bad), that describes what he saw in his day as the declining state of public discourse in England. If only he knew what a prophet he was, for we are in full blown Bulverism mode today.

C.S. Lewis, more than any other person I know of, has taught me how to think. I'm not saying I'm the best thinker in the world, but I will say, I'd be even more of a moron if it weren't for Lewis. I found him in college, when I sure needed help thinking.

All that to say that this essay will be worth your time to read, not because of what I wrote, but because of Lewis. Print it. Read it two or three times if you have to. I think you'll enjoy it. It is my pleasure to share it with you.
----------------------

“Bulverism”

It is a disastrous discovery, as Emerson says somewhere, that we exist. I mean, it is disastrous when instead of merely attending to a rose we are forced to think of ourselves looking at the rose, with a certain type of mind and a certain type of eyes. It is disastrous because, if you are not very careful, the color of the rose gets attributed to our optic nerves and its scent to our noses, and in the end there is no rose left. The professional philosophers have been bothered about this universal black-out for over two hundred years, and the world has not much listened to them. But the same disaster is now occurring on a level we can all understand.

We have recently “discovered that we exist” in two new senses. The Freudians have discovered that we exist as bundles of complexes. The Marxians have discovered that we exist as members of some economic class. In the old days it was supposed that if a thing seemed obviously true to a hundred men, then it was probably true in fact. Nowadays the Freudian will tell you to go and analyze the hundred: you will find that they all think Elizabeth [I] a great queen because they all have a mother-complex. Their thoughts are psychologically tainted at the source. And the Marxist will tell you to go and examine the economic interests of the hundred; you will find that they all think freedom a good thing because they are all members of the bourgeoisie whose prosperity is increased by a policy of laissez-faire. Their thoughts are “ideologically tainted” at the source.

Now this is obviously great fun; but it has not always been noticed that there is a bill to pay for it. There are two questions that people who say this kind of thing ought to be asked. The first is, are all thoughts thus tainted at the source, or only some? The second is, does the taint invalidate the tainted thought - in the sense of making it untrue - or not?

If they say that all thoughts are thus tainted, then, of course, we must remind them that Freudianism and Marxism are as much systems of thought as Christian theology or philosophical idealism. The Freudian and Marxian are in the same boat with all the rest of us, and cannot criticize us from outside. They have sawn off the branch they were sitting on. If, on the other hand, they say that the taint need not invalidate their thinking, then neither need it invalidate ours. In which case they have saved their own branch, but also saved ours along with it.

The only line they can really take is to say that some thoughts are tainted and others are not - which has the advantage (if Freudians and Marxians regard it as an advantage) of being what every sane man has always believed. But if that is so, we must then ask how you find out which are tainted and which are not. It is no earthly use saying that those are tainted which agree with the secret wishes of the thinker. Some of the things I should like to believe must in fact be true; it is impossible to arrange a universe which contradicts everyone’s wishes, in every respect, at every moment. Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant - but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method [Note: This essay was written in 1941.] is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism.” Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third - “Oh, you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

I find the fruits of his discovery almost everywhere. Thus I see my religion dismissed on the grounds that “the comfortable parson had every reason for assuring the nineteenth century worker that poverty would be rewarded in another world.” Well, no doubt he had. On the assumption that Christianity is an error, I can see clearly enough that some people would still have a motive for inculcating it. I see it so easily that I can, of course, play the game the other way round, by saying that “the modern man has every reason for trying to convince himself that there are no eternal sanctions behind the morality he is rejecting.” For Bulverism is a truly democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long, and that it give no unfair advantage to the small and offensive minority who reason. But of course it gets us not one inch nearer to deciding whether, as a matter of fact, the Christian religion is true or false. That question remains to be discussed on quite different grounds - a matter of philosophical and historical argument. However it were decided, the improper motives of some people, both for believing it and for disbelieving it, would remain just as they are.

I see Bulverism at work in every political argument. The capitalists must be bad economists because we know why they want capitalism, and equally Communists must be bad economists because we know why they want Communism. Thus, the Bulverists on both sides. In reality, of course, either the doctrines of the capitalists are false, or the doctrines of the Communists, or both; but you can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning - never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology.

Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs. Each side snatches it early as a weapon against the other; but between the two reason itself is discredited. And why should reason not be discredited? It would be easy, in answer, to point to the present state of the world, but the real answer is even more immediate. The forces discrediting reason, themselves depend of reasoning. You must reason even to Bulverize. You are trying to prove that all proofs are invalid. If you fail, you fail. If you succeed, then you fail even more - for the proof that all proofs are invalid must be invalid itself.

The alternative then is either sheer self-contradicting idiocy or else some tenacious belief in our power of reasoning, held in the teeth of all the evidence that Bulverists can bring for a “taint” in this or that human reasoner. I am ready to admit, if you like, that this tenacious belief has something transcendental or mystical about it. What then? Would you rather be a lunatic than a mystic?

So we see there is justification for holding on to our belief in Reason. But can this be done without theism? Does “I know” involve that God exists? Everything I know is an inference from sensation (except the present moment). All our knowledge of the universe beyond our immediate experiences depends on inferences from these experiences. If our inferences do not give a genuine insight into reality, then we can know nothing. A theory cannot be accepted if it does not allow our thinking to be a genuine insight, nor if the fact of our knowledge is not explicable in terms of that theory.

But our thoughts can only be accepted as a genuine insight under certain conditions. All beliefs have causes but a distinction must be drawn between (1) ordinary causes and (2) a special kind of cause called “a reason.” Causes are mindless events which can produce other results than belief. Reasons arise from axioms and inferences and affect only beliefs. Bulverism tries to show that the other man has causes and not reasons and that we have reasons and not causes. A belief which can be accounted for entirely in terms of causes is worthless. This principle must not be abandoned when we consider the beliefs which are the basis of others. Our knowledge depends on our certainty about axioms and inferences. If these are the results of causes, then there is no possibility of knowledge. Either we can know nothing or thought has reasons only, and no causes.

[The remainder of this essay, which was originally read to the Socratic Club before publication in the Socratic Digest, continues in the form of notes taken down by the Secretary of the Club. This explains why it is not all in the first-person, as is the text-proper.] -- I cut out the remainder of this article.mg

Now That's What I'm Talking About!

Just printed out this. Awesome. Can't wait to sink my teeth into it. Real info to dive into, read up on, dispute or verify, etc.

Just starting my search on the truth about . Glad to be getting below the surface rhetoric.

MIT Sceintists Tries To Keep Up With Me!

Okay, I posted before I read this! I pointed out the oppression of scientists who don't toe the party line BEFORE I read Mr. Lindzen's (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT) article in Opinion Journal dot com. Click here if you want to read this from the source

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.





To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.





Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

A Postive Note On The Internet

I was doing my latest global warming research (I'm really just beginning) and found this story. What I find encouraging is all the discussion in the comments sections (indeed, the story writer's point of view seems obvious as almost all quotes go to critics of the critics of "conventional" consensus).

It is good to see that people can communicate from all over. And so much of the communication is coherent! The American people are often so much more winsome in their speech than are the media.

In fact, let me post the list

The following list was taken from this organization. Note the positions these people hold. they all are united in stating that positing global climate change to man-caused CO2 emissions is irresponsible science. These guys are staking their careers and their futures on this. Please do not respond with ad hominen attacks, if you disagree. (i.e., I'd rather not post comments, like, "Bush paid them" or, "financed by oil companies). Instead, only intellectually honest disagreements. These guys put their work on line. read it. dispute it with facts.

Truth is the victim here. I'd like to talk about less volatile things, but I cannot. We must know our times.

Natural Resources Stewardship Project "Allied Experts"


Expert Position/Organization
Email
Sample Web Sites
1 Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC Professor Emeritus - Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury ; expert on pre-historic global climate patterns
pcopper@laurentian.ca

http://laurentian.ca/geology/faculty/copper.html


2 Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist (soil chemistry, fertility and microbiology), Cobourg, Ontario
paavo.siitam@sympatico.ca

http://plantseatco2.blogspot.com/


3 Dr. Madhav Khandekar Environmental Consultant (extreme weather events), 25 years with Environment Canada in Meteorology, Unionville , Ontario
mkhandekar@rogers.com

http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/IPN_impacts_report_embargoed.pdf and http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Khandekar/india_economic_progress.html


4
Rob Scagel, M.Sc.
Forest microclimate specialist, Principal Consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
phytomet1@shaw.ca

NA


5
Dr. Tad Murty
Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa. Previously Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Past Director of the National Tidal Facility of Australia
NA

http://www.springerlink.com /content/g87327815xg2u1h2/


6 Dr. Garth W. Paltridge Emeritus Professor, Director of the Antarctic CRC and Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia
paltridge@iinet.net.au or G.Paltridge@utas.edu.au

http://fcms.its.utas.edu.au/scieng/iasos/index.asp


7 Dr. R.M. Carter


Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory- James Cook University, Townsville , Queensland , Australia

bob.carter@jcu.edu.au


http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/


8 Dr. Ian Plimer Professor, School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, The Mawson Laboratories, The University of Adelaide , S.A. , Australia
ian.plimer@adelaide.edu.au

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/umfs/biogs/UMFS070b.htm and http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/science/Plimer.doc


9 Dr. Gary D. Sharp Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas , California
gsharp@redshift.com

http://sharpgary.org/


10 Dr. Lee C. Gerhard
Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; Retired Director, Kansas Geological Survey; Noted author and geological expert on climate history.
leeg@sunflower.com

http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/index.htm


11 Dr. Fred Singer President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University , Professor Emeritus of environmental science at University of Virginia
singer@sepp.org

www.sepp.org


12 Dr. David R. Legates Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research and Delaware's State Climatologist
legates@UDel.Edu

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2005/mar/dlegates092305.html


13 Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner Emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University , Stockholm , Sweden ; Sea level specialist
morner@pog.nu

http://globallychanging.blogspot.com/2005/12/prof-nils-axel-mrner-on-rising-sea.html


14 Dr. Richard P. Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
lindzen@wind.mit.edu

www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm , http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 and http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606


15 Dr. Robert Balling Director – Office of Climatology, Arizona State University
robert.balling@asu.edu

geography.asu.edu/balling/


16 Dr. Al Pekarek
Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
a pekarek @stcloudstate.edu

NA


17 Dr. Wibjörn Karlén
Emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University , Sweden
wibjorn.karlen@kultgeog.uu.se

http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Newsletter/NL01W/PDF/climateW01.pdf


18 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze
Climate consultant, official scientific IPCC TAR Reviewer, Germany
p_dietze@t-online.de

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm


19 Hans Erren
Geophysical consultant, The Hague, Netherlands
erren21@zonnet.nl

http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/cooling.htm


20 Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm Former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
H.Labohm@freeler.nl

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Labohm-Cooling.htm


21 Dr. David Wojick, P.E. Independent journalist and policy analyst, specializing in Kyoto issues
dwojick@hughes.net

http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm and http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=216


22 Dr. Art Robinson
Founder – Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
art@oism.org

www.oism.org/pproject/


23 Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser Atmospheric Consultant – previously with Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, California
hughel@attbi.com

NA


24 Dr. Howard C. Hayden Emeritus Professor of Physics – University of Connecticut
corkhayden@attbi.com

NA


25 Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski Physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
jaworo@clor.waw.pl

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm


26 Dr. Richard Courtney Climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K
richardscourtney@aol.com

NA

Copyright 2006, NRSP NRSP background | the NRSP strategy | get involved ! | NRSP people | contact info | home

The New Nazi's

Check out the first lines of this story:

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff
06:09 PM PST on Tuesday, February 6, 2007
By VINCE PATTON, kgw.com
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist. (for the rest of story, click here)

If you don't tow the party line, you get the shaft. There will be backlash. This reminds me of the Roman Church, centuries ago, persecuting scientists for saying the earth wasn't the center of the universe. This climatologist doesn't realize the political machine that is the environmentalist movement, world wide. Global warming is a tool in the hands of the USA-hating U.N. as well as the USA hating environmentalists. This is not about saving the earth, that is a mask. This is about power. Good scientists are being smeared, and crushed for truth. They will rise up.

Here is the most frightening line from the story above:

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.

"Taylor's science interferes with the STATE'S stated goals." What if Taylor is right? That seems to be no concern of the reporter, nor the state. The state wants different answers, so whoever thought he was the top climatologist in the state up till now is wrong. He is not giving the findings that the State wants. This is outrageous. Scientists are taking note, and many are running for the high grass. They have been served notice: Either tow the party line or no grants, no research, no positions for you.

And you know what, most Americans hearing this will shrug and say, "So what?" Fools, a nation of fools. Even worse, many will say, "He should be fired. He's irresponsible." And those very people are not reading his published material, I am certain of it. Is there anyone out there who cares about truth anymore?




For even more of the renegade scientists who dared go against the fascist orthodoxy, click here. And no, George Bush isn't paying them, contrary to rumors about others spread by Gore and his minions. Check out the list of scientists on this website, and not token scientists. Experts in their field.

As Christians, we are used to having our views twisted and oppressed by the secular machine. WE can deal with it. We have God. Consequently, we can often spot it when it is being done to others. And it is.

Bryant, "Truth crushed to earth will rise again."

Hats off to Tom Jackson

I know a horrible picture of him, but he must not be too popular. Google images has almost none of ESPN's Tom Jackson.

Not long ago, I pointed out that Dungy's post game comments about his faith went un-responded to. Well, the same was true after the Super Bowl when Dungy said that his Christian faith was more important than the color of his skin as far as history goes (click here to read more). Even though the on the field reporter didn't follow up --and, in this setting, that was okay, really, because there are a lot of people to talk to after a super bowl-- but Tom Jackson on an ESPN post game show, took Dungy seriously, and showed him the respect to respond to his words. Jackson pointed out that Dungy's faith drove him as he said after the game. Thanks Tom, for responding to the man according to what he said, instead of ignoring the "Christian" part as if it were irrelevant.

kids n dogs

 

This picture was from back when global warming was in session. Oh, the good old days! Still in the single digits and below zero hero. C'mon everybody, get those SUV's! We need more global warming!

Hope is Rising

We're up to $245 for helping kids with Muscular Dystryphy. Just about 10 days to go! See info on sidebar on right to help!javascript:void(0)
Publish

UDATE!! THANKS to Susan Eddington and Tom Scherf, we are now up to $315!!! (I feel like Jerry Lewis!). God be praised! Someone is going to be blessed!

You're Kidding, Right?

Okay, I know I said I was trying to not talk about politics so much, but the president's new budget is for 2.9 Trillion dollars!!!! Is he insane? Remember, the government doesn't produce and sell products in order to make their income. They take their money from you and I. He wants to suck 2.9 trillion dollars from our pockets! Does he not understand why the GOP was run out of town? For going along with stuff like this.

And you know what? The Dem's in congress won't bat an eye at that figure. Instead, I bet you, they will complain that he is not spending enough! They'll say the rich are getting off (silly, silly, silly --only proving their ignorance about where these huge amount of tax dollars come from --wait, they're not ignorant, they have their own motives).

Forget the parties, forget the politics. Our government doesn't need that much of our money! Period. Privatise everything and run the bums out of town!

There, I got that off my chest. I feel better.

:)

This Is Awesome!

It appears that a top nuclear scientist in Iran has come up dead. He had a bad day, I suppose. Funny, I feel no remorse. While I'd hope that every soul on earth would find peace with God through Jesus, somehow, it feels like something went right when a nuclear scientist in Iran dies. How did he die? We don't know. Of course, the Iranians say that Israel assassinated him. They might have. But, even if they did, that only makes it cooler. May all who seek to help Iran get nukes take warning. Literally millions of people's lives are on the line. For more, click here.

your thoughts?

Remember the Hurting!

Okay, here's the deal. The Muscular Distrophy Association called me and asked if I could help them out. They said since I'm a pastor and there's lots of people who know me, I might be able to improve the lives of kids with MD. Boy were they wrong! I've been trying to raise money for them for months now and I have only one contributer (me!).

I need your help. People with MD don't always live that long. But that doesn't mean that life isn't as joyous and precious to them as to anyone else. In the middle of February, the MDA foundation is going to come to my place of employment, kidnap me, and hold me for bail. All bail money goes to help kids with MDA.

So far, my bail is set at $40. Why? Because that's all I've raised. I know. Pathetic. So, don't do it for me. Do it for the kids. Click here for more information and to donate.

Okay, Everybody Smile!

There's nothing like a family photo! "Hey, do I look fat in this picture?"

A Sign of the Times

Well, what do you think?

okay, no one commented yet, so I will. We might make the mistake of thinking that because Osama Bin Laden has done great evil, he is disqualified from the kindness of God. However, to think in this way it to think like a Muslim, and that would be error.

Jesus came to die as a ransom for the sinners, the godly for the ungodly. We must be careful not to assume that we ourselves are in some way deserving of the kindness of God, but Osama is not. Osama is not deserving. But then again, neither are you and I.

So, then, God's kindness is torwards this man, Osama. However, Osama, as far as we know, has rejected the goodness of God and refused to place his faith in the Son. If he will turn from his sins and run to Jesus, he will find he is a welcome as Billy Graham in the presence of God.

Check out the Fighters!

HAVE YOU HEARD THE PODCAST? Sam and the Ninja are back! Click here to check out our latest episode. (you'll love it!)

It is Good To Be Alive