Long time, no regular post!
Let’s see. Last Saturday, Ben E. and I went canoeing. We planned a 6 hour trip that would take us 9 miles down stream. Our shoving point and stopping point made the water level look promising, while 4 miles and 8 hours later, we were scraping along the creek looking for a landing spot. We found a ‘Deer Camp’, which consisted of about 10 drug camps. Ben did get a Bass out of the trip!
After my mom picked us up and having to hard wire the trailer lights directly to my battery, I dropped Ben off and arrived home around 11:00 that night. Whew! Another story to go into the “What I’m going to tell my kids” book.
I’m currently at 205 lbs. I increased my jumping by about an inch and a half since three or four days ago. I am also at 25 push-ups.
My dad smoked me in two out of three games of basketball.
I’ve decided to start living my life according to a day-planner. Ok, I’m not that rigid (e.g. today was total failure). :) A day-planner does help, though.
I have two religious discussions in procession. Brakes, oil change, and a detailing for my truck are due. My Jeep seats are absolutely rotting in the recent rains. I’m behind in school, although I’m trying to finish early, so needless to say, I’m doing school in the mornings. I’m helping my dad work. I’m exercising in the evenings. We’re going over to Ben E’s house for a 4 family get-together. I’m currently reading “A Mouse and A Motorcycle” to Laura and Clay. I’m personally reading, or supposed to be reading :), “The Complete Idiots Guide to Procrastination” and “World Religions”. I just finished “Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry”. Needless to say, I’ve been busy.
Tomorrow is the last day to help an out-of-town neighbor w/ his animals. Here’s a pic of fish feeding time (look at them coming to the top eating).
11 comments:
Sounds like your busy.
I have never used a day planner so I don't know how usefull they are.
I'm only familiar with "To kill a mokingbird, lthough I have never seen it, I know it's a classic and that it features Robert Duvall. It has no rating.
Assuming one of your religeous discussions is ours, what's the other, if I'm being nosey I apologize.
Good luck and congradulations on the wait thing.
The Grand Sage
We'll, I'm talking with a guy about where to draw the line when being a 'partaker of the things of this world'.
I'm sorry for my slow replies. I'm not a debater, therefor I set my blog up to be in a more informational format, that way I wouldn't be required to reply to all the comments. I will try to reply to some, though.
Thanks for commenting!
Barley
Your welcome for the comments.
The format of your blog was something that I found strange, it seemed sort of like an online journal, but in the beginning you seemed very willing to debate so I continued on under that pretext and assumption of your intent. I got the wrong impression, you have my deepest apologies, this is your blog and I was out of line. Although we did get this staightened out so I guess it worked out for the better. If you will allow me to continue commenting here I will cut back the number of comments, especially those that I wish you to reply to.
I love debating but with so few people willing to debate I usually just end up stating my oppinion and giving advice. It seems that advice is in line with the original purpose of this blog so I will offer a small bit. You probably already know this and it may even be the basis for your debate but when it comes to being a "partaker in the things of this world" the obvious solution is to use the Bible as a guide, that being said there are what's called grey areas where the morality of the situation is very hard to distinguish. Grey areas don't make anyting less sinful but the do pose an interesting new issue. A common and well known example of a grey area is war. In combat situations, aspecially urban combat, soldiers may have to kill enemy combatants that have not yet engaged them in battle. In the civillion world this would be considered murder, just because they are soldiers in a war zone makes this no more or no less of a sin. However many would say it's justified. This is the basis of a grey area, a course of action that is normaly considered wrong but that becomes necessary for the survival of yourself and your comrads(friends, family). As I said Grey zones do not excuse sin but they make the normaly simple concept of right and wrong an incredibly complex issue.
I hope some of that helped and that you accept my appology.
The Grand Sage
Augh! I had this whole comment typed out and lost it due to internet problems! :) ---
Oh, no. I wasn't asking for an apology. I was the main reason for the misunderstanding. I was just explaining that although I make sure of my posts' credibility, I just randomly post posts for informative purposes... sounds like we're two peas in a pod.
Yeah, I agree with you totally. Ever since the Council of Nicia, the idea that there are multiple interpretaions of the Bible has come into being, creating more and more grey areas. So grey, in fact, that Christians today are accepting witchcraft, homosexuals, etc.
The 'killing in battle' issue is something that I've been seriously thinking about. I know that as of right now, anyone who tried to hurt my family is going to regret it, but if I'm called into military service, I'm going to try everything possible to stay out (for political and religious reasons rather than laziness)...thankfully I have flat feet! :)
Would you be interested in starting a blog? I would like to 'follow' you and comment on your stuff.
Barley
I'm glad that there are no hard feelings.
I believe that you are refereing to the first council held at Nicea(there were two) the first was called by Emperor Constantine the Great. This wasn't necessarily the beginning of people re-interpreting the Bible, since major changes would have had to be made so that Constantine could set himself up as the head of the Church instead of Christ. This group which would come to form the Catholic Church tended to simply ammend or make up new Biblical laws to suit them rather than re-interpret them, although there was plenty of that in this group as well. Fortunately I am not a Catholic, and the Missionary Baptists still do not allow homosexuality or witchcraft.
I might be willing to go to war, depending on the reason we were fighting and who was leading us. I wouldn't lift a finger, much less get shot at, for Obama's goals. I have thought quite a bit about this subject myself and if your interested might be able to offer a new point of view. Are you interested?
I have considered starting a blog, but only since I started commenting on here. Do you have any suggestions or pointers?
Thanks
The Grand Sage
Yes, please do. I really need some insight on the fighting issue.
Blogger is simple, easy, private, can be edited visually or w/ html, 100% ad free. I've looked into EVERYTHING. Blogger Beta (current version) tops 'em all. I'm looking into Facebook more deeply b/c of friends, but I will still hold to Blogger for info purposes.
Barley
The Old Testament law makes the provision for self defense, I don't think that you are having a problem with this area but it's a good place to start, also God commanded the Children of Israel to fight several wars. In the Declaration of Independence there is a passage that reads "But when a lang train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evences a design that reduces them under absolute despotism, it is there right, it is their duty, to throw off such governments and provide new gaurds for their future security". At face value this seems to only refer to governments but in fact it refers to all those who try to oppress or harm the people in any way. A good way to sum it up is if there is something wrong those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action. If you are a carpenter in the right position to clobber a murdere in the head with a hammer or if your a soldier in the position to stop an enemy advance, anyone in the position do do something about the problem. After considering all this I adopted a philosiphy that I refer to as situational morality or the ends justify the means as some have put it. This does not suspend Biblical morality. To explain this first consider the morality of killing someone even for a good cause, the fact is you still killed them, now consider the morality of doing nothing. An innocent person may be murdered because you did nothing, this concept more or less applies to all situations. Now I realize that many Pentacostales believe that they can lose their salvation if they sin enough(that isn't completely accurat but it provides a general concept of their beleif) but I think you would say a single sin isn't going to remove your salvation, especially if you beleive in the equality of sin, you would have to adopt sin as a lifestyle before you would lose your salvation. Am I correct in this observation? You realy have to decide for yourself which is the lesser evil so to speek. Whether or not killing to protect someone else is sinful is an almost infintely complex debate, however I personaly think it's never wrong to save someones life or protect my religeous freedom. Another thing that's led me to my conclusions is that as long as this world stands there will be fighting and in a violent situation there are two kinds of people, those who fight and those who have to be protected, I would rather be helpful and protect my loved ones as the former than be a burden as the later. Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary actions. Did any of that help? Do you have any differing oppinions? I would like to hear them if you do. What's your take on the situation?
Thanks for the blog pointers. I will continue to consider starting a blog but things are starting to get busy with back to school preperations so I don't have as much time as I would like right now. I'm going to UACCB, it's a great school you should look into going there when you finish school.
The Grand Sage
Yes, your last comment was helpful. Thanks.
I've thought about that, but I just can't get over some of these thoughts:
1. You're taking the life of someone's son.
2.The pat answer being to turn the other cheek.
3.In the New Testament God never told anyone to hurt another.
4. Is it our place to play God and say who lives and who doesn't.
It may just be a circumstancial issue.
That's great you're going to UACCB. You're lucky, you can transfer credits with Lyon. You can't do that in a lot of schools.
Barley
I'm glad it was helpful, even though you still seem completely undecided. Are you adopting a pacifistic stand? That would seem out of line with some of your other comments. I would appreciate it if you would clear that up for me. I don't want to say something hat you would find completely offensive.
Thanks,
The Grand Sage
Oh, don't worry about offending me.
No, I'm not pacifist (as of now), nor do I believe in taking it upon myself to enforce justice. I'm stuck right thar' in the middle.
You were dead on when you said that American's are "the most unobservant people on the face of the earth". Bravo!
Barley
Ah! I see. The proverbial middle ground. However, many would argue that in this situation there is no middle ground, and to some extent they are correct, you are either a pacifist or you are willing to commit acts of violence. That's as far as their correctness goes. In this case the middle ground is being neither agressive nor passive. You will do every thing in your power to resolve things without violence but when when push comes to shove you will fight. Am I correct or have you figured it out that far yet?. Some people never work out their feelings on this issue. There is a television show that Iwatched once (or maybe a few times) in which a small group of highly skilled soldiers fought and defeated around 500 soldiers without killing anyone, although this aproach nearly got them killed as well. They were fighting to re-establish the peace that they had fought for and won once before, only to have it shatered by their enemies. Their desire for peace led them to hate bloodshed and they actively attempted to avoid it in spite of the fact that they were fighting. Of course no real life battle can be completely free of casualties, but on a smaller scale it is very possible. This may not help any more than my last observations on this subject but it is a new aproach and I felt it was worth mentioning.
You said you didn't believe in "taking it upon yourself to enforce justice". Defending yourself and your country (specificaly in the case of invasion) isn't justice in any sense of the word, it's simple defense. Many people who would ordinarily never go to war would readily fight to protect their homes and loved ones. In one of your past comments you asked it was "our place to play Gad and say who lives and who dies?" well the answer is no. It is not our place but the thing is shooting someone dosn't automaticaly kill them. Everything is subject to god's will, If it is His specific will that they live then it dosen't matter how many times we shoot them they will live. In this way it is copletely impossible to play God. All those who die are allowed to die, for whatever reason.
The Grand Sage
Post a Comment