I'm Rich!!

According to the Global Rich List, I am the 58,252,719th richest person in the world. I'm in the top 0.97% richest people in the world! That's pretty high! Maybe I should complain less and donate more to the 99.03% of the world that is worse off than me. How'd you do?

Monkeys always make a blog more fun!

Study: Multiple Stab Wounds May Be Harmful To Monkeys

Here's a funny spoof of the Nooma videos by Rob Bell. (I love those video's by the way, but this is funny.

The War

I used to support the war in Iraq. I wasn't for war in general, but I agreed with the rhetoric of the White House and Congress. "If we don't take the battle to them, they'll bring it here." "They hate us and want to destroy us." "9/11 changed everything." "If we leave, then they'll all die." You've heard them all.

While I was never 100% sold on any one of these arguments alone, I felt like they together made a decent case for war.

I no longer feel that way, and the reason isn't some kind of viceral hatred for Bush (although I've been pretty disappointed with him). Rather, I've started thinking about foreign policy and the best approach to it. My conclusion in a nutshell: we need to butt out of things that aren't our business, and pay better attention to the things that are.

Basically, the framers of our constitutional republic never intended for us to go on the OFFENSIVE when it comes to military action. In other words, preemptive war was not a part of what they envisioned. Rather, the military's place was to PROTECT the nation by DEFENDING it against attacks.

Does this mean that we have to wait until we've been hit to hit back? No. It means we have to know that there is an imminent danger of being hit. In that case, we prevent the enemy from hitting us. Knowing that a country hates us and would hit us if they could doesn't justify a war! They have to have three things: capability, desire, and intent.

Our military is not supposed to be used to "spread democracy." If democracy is forced on a conquered people, is it really democracy?

In my view, the military should rarely (if ever) be used in "humanitarian" missions. As much as my heart goes out to the people of Darfur, for instance, and as much as I think our nation can make moves to encourage the violence to end, I do not believe it is within the scope of the military's purpose to solve the problems of other nations, even if those problems are severe. The purpose of the military is strictly to DEFEND the nation. The constitution gives the government no authority to send the military into another country to enforce what we think their policy should be.

So how can we protect our foreign interests and address humanitarian needs in the global community? Diplomacy, trade policies, travel etc. can do wonders. Will those things fix the problems in places like Darfur? Maybe, maybe not. But we must come to the realization in this country that just because we have the ability to force people into submission at the end of a gun doesn't mean we should. When seeing tragdy in the world, our first reaction should NOT be, "Well, let's send our military in there to fix it." It's that kind of thinking that leads to quagmires like Vietnam and Iraq.

Most Americans don't realize that we currently have our military stationed in 130 different countries! And military leaders complain that we don't have enough troops to do everything they have been tasked to do. What if we were only asking the military to do what the military is supposed to do? We would have more than enough troops and we would probably do a better job of defending this nation.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Latest Addiction: Man vs. Wild

So Alissa and I have suddenly become strangely addicted to the Discovery channel's show Man vs. Wild. If you've never watched it, it stars a guy named Bear (ironic) Grylls who is a UK Special Forces trained uber-outdoorsman. The premise of the show is that they abandon him in remote uninhabited (and uninhabitable) areas with nothing but a canteen, knife (sometimes) and flint (sometimes). He has five days to find his way to civilization. He's been in the Rockies, Andes, Alps, several rain forests, the Mojave desert, etc. The dude is amazing! He literally does everything possible in the name of survival. Really ... everything. Think of the most horrendous thing you can imagine doing in the interest of your own survival. He's probably done worse on this show.

Need proof? Prepare yourself and then watch this ...

Did you think that was bad? Try this:

I now have a new way of imagining hell.

Another interesting tidbit from his bio: he seems to have a Christian faith as a driving force in his life, too, although I'm not sure I should advertise that after posting the above clips.

I'm now anti-independence

We have a pool in our new neighborhood that Abbie has gone to several times. Prior to our move, she rarely went swimming because there was no convenient place to take her. But now its more frequent. The first time I took her to the pool, she clung to me tightly the entire time, even when we were in a place where she could touch. If I tried to loosen her grip on me, she would freak out. She loved being in the water, but she had to have me as her security.

Well, after taking her swimming a couple of times, we went and bought her some floaties and a little boogie board with the Disney princesses (her latest fave) on it. Our next trip to the pool was drastically difference. She wouldn't let me get anywhere near her. In face, anytime I tried, she would say in an insistent and perturbed voice, "I CAN DO IT MYSELF." So I would stand away from her watching as she kicked herself around the pool. The fact that her swimming took her from one place to another at a pace that makes glacial movement seem like warp speed didn't matter to her. The above water portion of her would look over at me with a huge smile and bright eyes and proudly proclaim, "Look, Daddy! I'm doing it! I'm swimming!" while the underwater portion of her was kicking frantically.

I say all of that to say that I'm not too crazy about my daughter getting more independence. I know, she's only four (almost), but swimming is now just one more thing for which I am not needed (at least not in the way I was previously). When she was latched to me in the water, I kept wishing she would let go. Now that she has, I want it back. Those were just long, wet, hugs.

Before long, she'll be riding a bike, spending the night at friends' houses, driving, and ... gulp ... dating. Pardon me while I go cry uncontrollably ...

... Ok, I'm back. My conclusion: independence is bad. I'm not in favor of it. It means that my baby will grow up and need me less. So I tried to set a rule in my house the other day. I said, "Abbie, you cannot grow up any more." She just laughed and said, "Daddy, I'm going to grow up." See, I can't even instruct her anymore. ~sigh~

Does what's in your pants determine who wears the pants?

Today begins a study of gender roles and the Bible that will continue for several weeks.

Why do I feel the need to re-examine this very sensitive issue? Several reasons:

1. Beliefs should always be subject to challenge and re-examination. That's the only way growth happens.
2. I have come to the realization over the past few years that many of the things I was taught about the Bible were either wrong or grossly oversimplified.
3. I see this a an issue of utmost importance for Christianity in modern times.

What makes this issue so important?

1. If the Scriptures do, in fact, place limitations on the role of women in the life of the church, then Christians need to prepare for an increasingly intense reaction to standing by this teaching. To be sure, this reaction has been growing in intensity since the advent of the women's rights movement and will continue to do so. Fear of the reaction should never determine our conclusions, but when our conclusions will elicit intense reactions, we must prepare ourselves.
2. If the Scriptures do NOT place limitations on the role of women, or if we place stricter limits on women than do the Scriptures, then we are crippling God's work in the world. Women have always been more involved than men in church-going. Yet we only allow the men to have full participation, thereby only using less than half of God's workforce to do God's work!
3. Our world, including professed believers, is increasingly uninterested in participating in church life. If our restriction of women is biblically unnecessary, then we place an unnecessary hurdle before those who may otherwise entertain the idea of participating in church life,
4. Women are leaving the COC over this issue.
5. Women in the COC feel unable to answer God's call if it is not a call homemaking, women's ministry, or children's ministry.

Let me be clear that reasons 2-5 are irrelevant if the Bible clearly imposes limitations on women. Let me also be clear that I have NOT yet reached a conclusion on the issue. Therefore, this series will be unlike most posts, as I will be reflecting on my study even when that study has not been concluded. Hopefully your comments will add to the discussion.

Where I'm Coming From

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, allow me to place my comments in a fuller context. I was raised to believe that women were to have no part in leading the church. They certainly could not be ministers, elders, or deacons. The only sound made by women in public worship was in congregational singing. I even remember one church debating whether women should be allowed to speak up from their seat in order to correct or update an announcement! Even in private settings, women could not start songs or lead prayers in the presence of men. Women could not baptize. It was debatable whether Christian women could teach non-Christian men in an evangelistic study. Even chain prayers in youth groups would skip over the women. Women were welcome to teach other women and children. However, the definition of children became ambiguous when 10-12 year olds were baptized. In those situations, the church's male leadership would usually simply either ask a male to teach the class or send the baptized students into a class with a male teacher. Of course, we just wanted to "be safe." But when a more "liberal" church down the would hire a woman to serve as a "Children's Minister," we felt uneasy. We would never do that; it just didn't SOUND right. And, of course, we wanted to "be safe."

I see inconsistencies with our practice, though. A woman could read a scripture in Bible class if the male teacher called on her, but couldn't read a scripture in the service even if a male asked her to. A woman could stand up, walk down her pew to hand a communion tray to someone at the other end of the pew, but she could not stand up and walk down the aisles to hand the tray to someone on a different pew. In a small church with no men capable of leading singing, a man would stand at the front and inaudibly mumble the lyrics to a hymn while a woman sat in the pew and carried the congregation, but if that woman dared stand and face the congregation, she was viewed as stepping out of her role.

Clearly, even if our biblical position was correct, our practice was illogical and inconsistent. So either our position needs to change or our practice needs to. What will it be?

The Plan

I plan to discuss this issue in 6 posts. However, more may be added if there is a specific passage or area of research that I think warrants an individual post.

1. The Creation Account
2. The Old Testament
3. Jesus's teachings
4. Paul and the restof the New Testament
5. The Voice of Church History
6. Conclusions and Suggestions

As always, I hope that you will join me in this discussion. I will simply be starting the conversation. This study will be most effective when many of us are willing to comment.

So, to begin the discussion, what are your experiences both positive and negative with women's roles in the church. Also, for any female readers, how do you feel about your role in church life?

Great Websites You May Not Have Heard Of

There are a few websites that I never hear any buzz about but that are truly enjoyable because they offer something unique. Today, I list some of my favorite non-blog websites that you may not have heard of before. I'll be posting some of my favorite blogs in the future (although you can look at my blogroll to see many of them.) Keep in mind, as much as I like YouTube, Drudge Report, etc. I am not including them because everyone knows about them.

1. Digg.com -- Digg is a website that brings together a bunch of links to news and videos. Sure, there are a million of those sites available, but what makes Digg so interesting is that the links are listed as they are ranked by users. In other words, the stories/videos that show up first are the ones that other people like you have found interesting. There are always some stories that never show up on the more generic sites.


2. Pandora.com -- Pandora is a web radio website that lets you determine your own content. Say you're a big fan of Sarah McLachlan. You type her name in, and Pandora plays songs by Sarah and other with a similar musical sound. They do this by using what they call the "Music Genome Project," wherein millions of songs are given labels. The artists with similar labels to Sarah McLachlan get put in the playlist. If a song gets played that you don't like, you just click a button to remove it from the list.


3. Texags.com -- OK, this one might not interest everyone, but its MY blog. Texags is the definitive site for all things A&M, especially athletics. It is a daily stop for me, if for nothing else than to brouse the headlines on the homepage. During football season, the trash talking can get fun in the forums, and the moderators do a good job of keeping it clean.


4. TV Links -- Watch all kinds of recent movies and TV shows online. I suspect there's probably some kind of copywright violation in the things they offer, including some movies still in theaters. But you're not downloading them, they stream to you.


5. Stage 6 -- This is an interesting alternative toYouTube. The big difference is that the videos are MUCH higher quality.

The Man Who Should Be President

I was raised to be a Republican. It was just a part of who we were. I remember in 5th grade giving a speech in front of my school endorsing George Bush, Sr. over Michael Dukakis. Being a Republican was part of my DNA.

In my adult life, I no longer see in the Republican party the things that I was taught to love about them. Small government, lower taxes, emphasis on personal responsibility, financial responsibility, etc. None of these exist in today's Republican Party.

I have also discovered some issues which I have only considered important as an adult. Non-interventionist foreign policy and maintaining national sovereignty are two more conservative principles that the Republicans utterly fail on.

But the problem isn't one of political philosophy. The politicians and the talking heads on TV try to explain it as such, but its not. I'm convinced that neither party sets policies or introduces legislation based on a core political philosophy. Rather, both parties operate based entirely on two things.

First, the Republicrats operate according to the desires of the special interests which fund them. The Dems are owned by socialist-leaning environmental, human rights, unions, etc. The Republicans are owned by corporate interests and fundamentalist Christian interests, among others.

The second factor that determines the activities of the Republicans and Democrats is the Republicans and Democrats. No matter the issue, if one party makes a proposal or takes a position on an issue, it is without exception opposed by the other party. It would stand to reason that, if these groups that were divided only along philosophical grounds, there would be occasional overlapping of conclusions, since different philosophies overlap on occasion. But agreement is NEVER present, thus indicating that political philosophy has nothing at all t0 do with American politics.

In the midst of this jaded cynicism, I see a ray of hope. Although Ron Paul is running for President as a Republican, he doesn't resemble one -- and for all the right reasons! He opposes the war and has from the beginning, opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, wants to eliminate the current tax and monetary systems and drastically shrink the size of government. He also holds membership int he Libertarian Party and was their nominee for President in 1988. He is rarely even approached by special interest lobbyists because he has proven that he can't be bought. He actually operates according to a philosophy which is never compromised -- constitutionalism. In other words, he operates by principle, making him unique in Washington. His approach to legislation is to take the proposed legislation and actually consult the Constitution to see if it allows the federal government to act in such a way. If the Constitution gives permission, he votes Yes; if it doesn't, he votes No. What a novel idea!

I'll probably have more to say about him as time goes by, but for now let me just leave a few points from his website.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

• He has never voted to raise taxes.


• He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.


• He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.


• He has never voted to raise congressional pay.


• He has never taken a government-paid junket.


• He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.


• He voted against the Patriot Act.


• He voted against regulating the Internet.


• He voted against the Iraq war.


• He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.


• He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S.
  treasury every year.


• Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each
  year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

So what do you think? Who's your pick for Pres and why?