Boy it has been a while since I updated this blog.
Anyway, I am not about three weeks done radiation. About four weeks are left to go.
Anyway, while going for radiation I have come to meet several other cancer survivors who need prayer.
Several have gone through the trial of chemotherapy. I am so thankful I have not had to undergo chemo yet.
I have met a survivor who had lung cancer 10 years ago and has survived (that is rare I think). Now she has a tumor in another location (forgot where).
I saw one man in a hospital bed waiting for radiation. My guess is that he is terminal and taking radiation for pain relief.
I've seen several women who appear younger than myself with no hair. I presume these are going through chemotherapy and radiation.
Many are transporting themselves down and back from radiation. I am thankful for the support of my wife who accompanies me on my trips (except when she has to work).
I am doing quite well. I get tired and try to take a walk daily to counteract this. Other than that, no real issues.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Radiation Likely in my Future (2.0)
Sometimes the wheels of progress grind very rapidly.
Yesterday I had my Dr. appointment with my radiologist following my third consecutive 0.1 reading.
Today I had the pre-radiation markup session.
Radiation officially begins Tuesday March 18 at 9:30 am. After hopefully a wonderful ski day at Sugarbush Monday March 17 where I will take advantage of $17. lift tickets.
Woo-hoo. It will be done by the time my Red Sox tickets kick in.
Yesterday I had my Dr. appointment with my radiologist following my third consecutive 0.1 reading.
Today I had the pre-radiation markup session.
Radiation officially begins Tuesday March 18 at 9:30 am. After hopefully a wonderful ski day at Sugarbush Monday March 17 where I will take advantage of $17. lift tickets.
Woo-hoo. It will be done by the time my Red Sox tickets kick in.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
I am a heretic 3.0. I (sort of) like the Catholic Church
I was exposed to disagreement very early on as a Christian.
I came to Christ as a freshman at Eastman School of Music in a college dorm room. Soon after I hooked up with the chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.
When I returned home, I decided to hook up with the most radical Christian church that I knew of in the Rumford area, one "Church of Good News" headed by Rev. Larry Shaw.
The problem was that my IVCF was comprised primarily of calvinist reformed type while the Church of Good News was most definitely Pentecostal.
In my Pentecostal Church I learned that the IVCF types were folks who denied the power of God and believed in greasy grace (eternal security). From my IVCF friends I learned that my Pentecostal church was into error, hyperfaith, and works salvation. All that I could figure out was that they obviously disagreed with each other.
Since then I have encountered disagreements on subjects like the second coming of Christ, baptism, whether drinking alcohol in moderation is morally evil, Christian rock, what version of the Bible is correct.. and the list goes on. I have figured out the following realities.
* There are folks who know the Bible more than I do and who are more spiritual than myself who disagree with other folks who know the Bible more than I do who are more spiritual than myself.
* There are a vast number of areas of disagreement where these folks above can disagree agree on. Therefore, the probability that an average Christian like myself can get all of these areas of disagreement correct is negligible.
* Since I am a Christian nonetheless, it is probably not a priority to God that I get all of these areas correct. Therefore I should focus on other things in my life other than areas where Christians disagree on.
I have learned that Catholics disagree with Protestants on a whole number of other issues (purgatory, Mary, the saints,..) that we agree with ourselves on. But this is what I don't understand.
I have figured out (and have learned) that the areas where us Protestants disagree with each other are (mostly) "nonessential". A "nonessential" is a point of belief where you can still have eternal life and be wrong. I furthermore have a classification of "unimportant" which is a "nonessential" point of belief that furthermore will not mess you up and cause you grief if you are wrong. To differentiate, I view the whole eternal security issue I encountered my first year as a Christian as nonessential and mostly unimportant (extremes of belief either way might become important). Hyperfaith might be nonessential, but it is important. You could die if you don't call a doctor when you have a heart attack, believing instead that God will heal you.
Here is what I don't understand though. Why are the disagreements between us Protestants on issues that are mostly nonessential and unimportant, while disagreements with the Catholics all of a sudden are essential and important. If a Catholic asks the Virgin Mary to pray to the Lord for prayer request 'A', why would being wrong on this point deny the Catholic eternal life particularly when possibly being wrong on the second coming holds no eternal consequences to me. I am not even convinced this issue is all that important, particularly if you believe (as I do) that prayers that go to God the Father through the saints are just routed to the Father directly.
All of the literature that I have seen from Protestants that expose the evil of Catholicism seem to have the underlying assumption that all of these issues are "essential". But I have yet to read a logical explanation of why this is the case while at the same time our disagreements are "nonessential".
(Actually I have read one source that claimed that "faith alone" is an essential, and that Catholics by disagreeing with "faith alone" are a non-Christian sect. Now if you are talking about "faith alone" as in how you initially come to Christ, I agree that one becomes a Christian on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ, not on the basis of "how good I am". The Bible is clear on this. But I think Catholics agree with this also. Therefore, it seems to me that "faith alone" really deals with how faith and works relate to each other after one becomes a Christian. If this is the point of disagreement (and I think it is), Protestants disagree with each other on how they work together (see Lordship salvation controversy); thus I fail to see whereas this is essential.
Most other sources I have read like Chick tracts just seem to assume that the pope is the AntiChrist and the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon..or is it the other way around.)
Until I read something that clearly and convincingly makes this case, I guess I will remain a Protestant heretic and continue to view these disagreements as "nonessential" and (mostly) "unimportant".
I came to Christ as a freshman at Eastman School of Music in a college dorm room. Soon after I hooked up with the chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.
When I returned home, I decided to hook up with the most radical Christian church that I knew of in the Rumford area, one "Church of Good News" headed by Rev. Larry Shaw.
The problem was that my IVCF was comprised primarily of calvinist reformed type while the Church of Good News was most definitely Pentecostal.
In my Pentecostal Church I learned that the IVCF types were folks who denied the power of God and believed in greasy grace (eternal security). From my IVCF friends I learned that my Pentecostal church was into error, hyperfaith, and works salvation. All that I could figure out was that they obviously disagreed with each other.
Since then I have encountered disagreements on subjects like the second coming of Christ, baptism, whether drinking alcohol in moderation is morally evil, Christian rock, what version of the Bible is correct.. and the list goes on. I have figured out the following realities.
* There are folks who know the Bible more than I do and who are more spiritual than myself who disagree with other folks who know the Bible more than I do who are more spiritual than myself.
* There are a vast number of areas of disagreement where these folks above can disagree agree on. Therefore, the probability that an average Christian like myself can get all of these areas of disagreement correct is negligible.
* Since I am a Christian nonetheless, it is probably not a priority to God that I get all of these areas correct. Therefore I should focus on other things in my life other than areas where Christians disagree on.
I have learned that Catholics disagree with Protestants on a whole number of other issues (purgatory, Mary, the saints,..) that we agree with ourselves on. But this is what I don't understand.
I have figured out (and have learned) that the areas where us Protestants disagree with each other are (mostly) "nonessential". A "nonessential" is a point of belief where you can still have eternal life and be wrong. I furthermore have a classification of "unimportant" which is a "nonessential" point of belief that furthermore will not mess you up and cause you grief if you are wrong. To differentiate, I view the whole eternal security issue I encountered my first year as a Christian as nonessential and mostly unimportant (extremes of belief either way might become important). Hyperfaith might be nonessential, but it is important. You could die if you don't call a doctor when you have a heart attack, believing instead that God will heal you.
Here is what I don't understand though. Why are the disagreements between us Protestants on issues that are mostly nonessential and unimportant, while disagreements with the Catholics all of a sudden are essential and important. If a Catholic asks the Virgin Mary to pray to the Lord for prayer request 'A', why would being wrong on this point deny the Catholic eternal life particularly when possibly being wrong on the second coming holds no eternal consequences to me. I am not even convinced this issue is all that important, particularly if you believe (as I do) that prayers that go to God the Father through the saints are just routed to the Father directly.
All of the literature that I have seen from Protestants that expose the evil of Catholicism seem to have the underlying assumption that all of these issues are "essential". But I have yet to read a logical explanation of why this is the case while at the same time our disagreements are "nonessential".
(Actually I have read one source that claimed that "faith alone" is an essential, and that Catholics by disagreeing with "faith alone" are a non-Christian sect. Now if you are talking about "faith alone" as in how you initially come to Christ, I agree that one becomes a Christian on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ, not on the basis of "how good I am". The Bible is clear on this. But I think Catholics agree with this also. Therefore, it seems to me that "faith alone" really deals with how faith and works relate to each other after one becomes a Christian. If this is the point of disagreement (and I think it is), Protestants disagree with each other on how they work together (see Lordship salvation controversy); thus I fail to see whereas this is essential.
Most other sources I have read like Chick tracts just seem to assume that the pope is the AntiChrist and the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon..or is it the other way around.)
Until I read something that clearly and convincingly makes this case, I guess I will remain a Protestant heretic and continue to view these disagreements as "nonessential" and (mostly) "unimportant".
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Pray for Lifeline and her husband Rob
On the prostate cancer forum I occasionally read posts from people that just make me bawl.
One such person is a woman who goes by the name of screen name of "lifeline". She has a husband "Rob" (not me) with very advanced prostate cancer. When I read her posts I just don't know what to say. It just makes me bawl.
Lord please touch Lifeline and her husband Rob. Surround them with your love and comfort. Please.
One such person is a woman who goes by the name of screen name of "lifeline". She has a husband "Rob" (not me) with very advanced prostate cancer. When I read her posts I just don't know what to say. It just makes me bawl.
Lord please touch Lifeline and her husband Rob. Surround them with your love and comfort. Please.
Friday, March 7, 2008
My Heros
There are a couple of forums that I follow. One baseball (for the Red Sox), a couple Christian, and one a support forum for prostate cancer survivors.
On the prostate cancer forum, I have been priviliged to meet two guys that I consider my heros. They both have web sites at Caring Bridge.
The first is Tony Crispino. Tony (or TC-LasVegas) joined the forum a little after me and had post-op statistics a little more serious than myself (one higher gleason grade..somewhat more advanced out of the prostate (stage T-3B) than mine. He has had radiation therapy and is undergoing hormone therapy. His psa now is undetectable, and I pray that it stays this way.
He is such an encouragement to everyone on the forum. Always, always positive. He has recently taken over a volunteer moderator position on the forum. His mother has just passed away from cancer. She is in a better place. Pray for comfort for Tony.
The second is Walter Whited. Walter (or War-Eagle) has more advanced prostate cancer. He has been the hormone therapy route and now I think is (or will be starting) chemo.
Walter is also such an encouragement to everyone on the forum. Never complaining about himself, his concern is for the others there.
Both Walter and Tony are definite Christians. Tony is Catholic. I am not sure what Walter is (maybe Baptist but I dunno). It don't matter. Funny thing when a bunch of guys are all fighting a serious disease, we could give two hoots about the name on the outside of the church door.
There are other guys on Healing Well that are also my heros, but just want a special tribute to these two.
On the prostate cancer forum, I have been priviliged to meet two guys that I consider my heros. They both have web sites at Caring Bridge.
The first is Tony Crispino. Tony (or TC-LasVegas) joined the forum a little after me and had post-op statistics a little more serious than myself (one higher gleason grade..somewhat more advanced out of the prostate (stage T-3B) than mine. He has had radiation therapy and is undergoing hormone therapy. His psa now is undetectable, and I pray that it stays this way.
He is such an encouragement to everyone on the forum. Always, always positive. He has recently taken over a volunteer moderator position on the forum. His mother has just passed away from cancer. She is in a better place. Pray for comfort for Tony.
The second is Walter Whited. Walter (or War-Eagle) has more advanced prostate cancer. He has been the hormone therapy route and now I think is (or will be starting) chemo.
Walter is also such an encouragement to everyone on the forum. Never complaining about himself, his concern is for the others there.
Both Walter and Tony are definite Christians. Tony is Catholic. I am not sure what Walter is (maybe Baptist but I dunno). It don't matter. Funny thing when a bunch of guys are all fighting a serious disease, we could give two hoots about the name on the outside of the church door.
There are other guys on Healing Well that are also my heros, but just want a special tribute to these two.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Vermont Primary Comes and Goes
Well our little Vermont primary that nobody cares about (actually this year they did care a little about) has come and gone. I proudly walked into the Sheldon school and gave Ron Paul some love. I flirted with Mike Huckabee, but in the end I decided to vote my consistent pro-life convictions (which means a very conservative approach to war..I like the Catholic notion of a "just war").
As far as the general election goes, here is where I am at.
If the Dem. nominee is Hillary, I will vote against her with every ounce of strength that I have. That means a no-brainer vote for McCain. I consider the family Clinton and the family Soprano moral equivalents.
If the Dem. nominee is Obama, I will probably wait until close to election day to decide. The only way I could vote for Obama is if I conclude that killing soldiers is a much higher moral issue than killing babies (which is very much doubtful but I put it out there as a possibility).
However, my conscience against killing soldiers might prohibit me from voting for McCain. So that would mean the possibility of an alternative party.
So the factors that I will think about until November are:
* Between now and November, have I found a good reason for voting against Obama.
* Is there an alternative candidate out there that I really like. In other words, has either the Libertarian or Constitution party nominated someone half-way serious instead of a bozo (Ron Paul as a Libertarian would be great).
* How do I view the current status in Iraq. There is no doubt (to me anyway) that this was a blunder of the first degree. However now that we are there, is it (a) a hopeless quagmire (b) a winnable conflict that we are very close to winning (remember even though it was a mistake imho, it does not mean that once we are in the war I am not pulling for success..it is not as though we are on the side of moral evil there..contrary to what the left believes). I go back and forth between the two views.
As far as the general election goes, here is where I am at.
If the Dem. nominee is Hillary, I will vote against her with every ounce of strength that I have. That means a no-brainer vote for McCain. I consider the family Clinton and the family Soprano moral equivalents.
If the Dem. nominee is Obama, I will probably wait until close to election day to decide. The only way I could vote for Obama is if I conclude that killing soldiers is a much higher moral issue than killing babies (which is very much doubtful but I put it out there as a possibility).
However, my conscience against killing soldiers might prohibit me from voting for McCain. So that would mean the possibility of an alternative party.
So the factors that I will think about until November are:
* Between now and November, have I found a good reason for voting against Obama.
* Is there an alternative candidate out there that I really like. In other words, has either the Libertarian or Constitution party nominated someone half-way serious instead of a bozo (Ron Paul as a Libertarian would be great).
* How do I view the current status in Iraq. There is no doubt (to me anyway) that this was a blunder of the first degree. However now that we are there, is it (a) a hopeless quagmire (b) a winnable conflict that we are very close to winning (remember even though it was a mistake imho, it does not mean that once we are in the war I am not pulling for success..it is not as though we are on the side of moral evil there..contrary to what the left believes). I go back and forth between the two views.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The Gift of Knowing Your Eternal Destiny
I admit it. I'm a wimp.
Almost two years ago, I was facing a prostate cancer biopsy. My urologist told me it would be nothing to worry about..it just felt like rubber band snaps against the prostate..and that I would do fine without a local.
However, twelve needles being injected into my prostate hardly seemed to be a transparent procedure. The night before my biopsy I was up all night reading and researching the procedure over the internet. I convinced myself I was going to die in agony from this procedure.
The next day I walked into the doctor's office and asked for lidocaine. When I was told that this urologist did not offer it, much to the dismay of my wife, I walked out.
I ended up getting a second opinion from a doctor who did offer lidocaine. Come to find out that with the local, the procedure was not all that terrible..the worst part was the instrument up the anus (I feel sorry for urologists having to deal with people's butts all day for a living..yuck).
Now having prostate cancer, particularly the type that escaped the prostate bounds (fortunately hopefully still locally) I have found myself reflecting on death and dying. Now I know my prognosis is good, but even if I am cured of cancer, all this cure represents is a delay of the inevitable for 10-40 years or so.
I am convinced that the biggest blessing one can have this side of the grave is the gift of knowing your eternal destiny. This knowledge makes all of the difference even when thinking about the prospect of death.
Now on a scale of 1-10, I have been a reasonably well-behaved person. I don't have a prison record, I support my family, and I don't lose my temper all that easily. So in a scale of "goodness" I might have some optimism I might be in the top 50% (but maybe the middle 33%).
But gosh, I would hate to have my confidence in my eternal destiny based on how well behaved I have or have not been. For starters, I live with myself and I know how I fall short. How good would I have to be anyway to have eternal life? Certainly I have not been as good as Mother Theresa or Billy Graham or many of the saints of the ages. And when I compare my life with the one perfect life that has been lived on earth, I certainly fall far short.
Now I can turn to the Bible and promises found within it. For example John 3:16 says "that whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life". Now this is better because it indicates that my eternal destiny is not based on how well I behave but somehow based on "believing on Him." So I am set free from worrying about somehow being good enough for eternal life.
But how do I know that I am believing on Him? What if I think and profess that I am believing on Him but really am not? After all, didn't Jesus say that many will say to Him "Lord, Lord.." but He will respond "Depart from me I never knew you". Were these folks believing on him? Or more accurately, did these folks think they were believing on Him only to find out (too late) they really were not. What if I think that I have faith but really do not.
So then I can look back on my life and reflect on how I came to start believing. I can remember that dorm room at Eastman School of Music when I prayed with another student to ask Jesus Christ into life and transform my life. And I can look upon the events that transpired shortly after this point as evidence that yest indeed my life was transformed.
But that was then and this is now. How do I know this event is still valid today. Certainly I have not renounced what Jesus did in my life that day. But could I somehow drifted away from it as the writer of Hebrews warns us about. Now maybe I could put stock in the theology that it is impossible for a genuine Christian to lose his salvation. But what if this theology is wrong (a good number of Christians don't buy into it). Is basing ones assurance of salvation on a particular theology, particularly one that is not universally agreed upon, a good idea.
What I need is more of an assurance of my eternal destiny than one that is based on (1) how "good" I am, (2) head knowledge of Biblical promises, (3) a certain theology, or (4) a historical event. I have become convinced that the best assurance I can have of knowing my eternal destiny is one that God pours into my soul. This is a gift that God gives.
Then I can reflect on what God has done in my life including how it all began and praise Him because His presence is still real in my life and He is with me today. As important as the starting point is, I think the finishing point is even more important, and Jesus is real today.
Then I can look in the Bible and see the promises of God and praise God that He is faithful because He is with me today.
As far as how good I may or may not be..who cares. That is not the point.
As cancer has forced me to reflect more upon my life and eventual death, God has been giving this gift to me and I thank Him for it.
Almost two years ago, I was facing a prostate cancer biopsy. My urologist told me it would be nothing to worry about..it just felt like rubber band snaps against the prostate..and that I would do fine without a local.
However, twelve needles being injected into my prostate hardly seemed to be a transparent procedure. The night before my biopsy I was up all night reading and researching the procedure over the internet. I convinced myself I was going to die in agony from this procedure.
The next day I walked into the doctor's office and asked for lidocaine. When I was told that this urologist did not offer it, much to the dismay of my wife, I walked out.
I ended up getting a second opinion from a doctor who did offer lidocaine. Come to find out that with the local, the procedure was not all that terrible..the worst part was the instrument up the anus (I feel sorry for urologists having to deal with people's butts all day for a living..yuck).
Now having prostate cancer, particularly the type that escaped the prostate bounds (fortunately hopefully still locally) I have found myself reflecting on death and dying. Now I know my prognosis is good, but even if I am cured of cancer, all this cure represents is a delay of the inevitable for 10-40 years or so.
I am convinced that the biggest blessing one can have this side of the grave is the gift of knowing your eternal destiny. This knowledge makes all of the difference even when thinking about the prospect of death.
Now on a scale of 1-10, I have been a reasonably well-behaved person. I don't have a prison record, I support my family, and I don't lose my temper all that easily. So in a scale of "goodness" I might have some optimism I might be in the top 50% (but maybe the middle 33%).
But gosh, I would hate to have my confidence in my eternal destiny based on how well behaved I have or have not been. For starters, I live with myself and I know how I fall short. How good would I have to be anyway to have eternal life? Certainly I have not been as good as Mother Theresa or Billy Graham or many of the saints of the ages. And when I compare my life with the one perfect life that has been lived on earth, I certainly fall far short.
Now I can turn to the Bible and promises found within it. For example John 3:16 says "that whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life". Now this is better because it indicates that my eternal destiny is not based on how well I behave but somehow based on "believing on Him." So I am set free from worrying about somehow being good enough for eternal life.
But how do I know that I am believing on Him? What if I think and profess that I am believing on Him but really am not? After all, didn't Jesus say that many will say to Him "Lord, Lord.." but He will respond "Depart from me I never knew you". Were these folks believing on him? Or more accurately, did these folks think they were believing on Him only to find out (too late) they really were not. What if I think that I have faith but really do not.
So then I can look back on my life and reflect on how I came to start believing. I can remember that dorm room at Eastman School of Music when I prayed with another student to ask Jesus Christ into life and transform my life. And I can look upon the events that transpired shortly after this point as evidence that yest indeed my life was transformed.
But that was then and this is now. How do I know this event is still valid today. Certainly I have not renounced what Jesus did in my life that day. But could I somehow drifted away from it as the writer of Hebrews warns us about. Now maybe I could put stock in the theology that it is impossible for a genuine Christian to lose his salvation. But what if this theology is wrong (a good number of Christians don't buy into it). Is basing ones assurance of salvation on a particular theology, particularly one that is not universally agreed upon, a good idea.
What I need is more of an assurance of my eternal destiny than one that is based on (1) how "good" I am, (2) head knowledge of Biblical promises, (3) a certain theology, or (4) a historical event. I have become convinced that the best assurance I can have of knowing my eternal destiny is one that God pours into my soul. This is a gift that God gives.
Then I can reflect on what God has done in my life including how it all began and praise Him because His presence is still real in my life and He is with me today. As important as the starting point is, I think the finishing point is even more important, and Jesus is real today.
Then I can look in the Bible and see the promises of God and praise God that He is faithful because He is with me today.
As far as how good I may or may not be..who cares. That is not the point.
As cancer has forced me to reflect more upon my life and eventual death, God has been giving this gift to me and I thank Him for it.
Friday, February 29, 2008
I am a heretic 2.0. I (sort of) like the Catholic Church (and EWTN)
I have never been a big one for television. We have Dish Network at home with 4,356,297 channels (well maybe not that much) and sometimes my wife and I will flip through all of them and conclude..Yuck..there is absolutely nothing on. More often than not I will then let her watch something on Hallmark channel while I am upstairs playing the piano, on the computer, or sleeping in my big reclining chair with the dog.
The shows that I sort of like are "The Amazing Race", "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader", and lately I've sort of been fascinated with "American Idol". Sometimes there is a movie on that sounds interesting. Oh..the news and sports of course. Oh forgot..this year we got NESN so the Red Sox will be on my agenda.
Of course when you are in the hospital (as I was two years ago with prostate cancer surgery), watching TV is all there is when you don't have visitors. In the two days following my surgery I was sort of in and out on pain killers and all that, and really didn't have the attention span to watch any television show that would command me paying attention. I just wanted something nice and peaceful that seemed to minister to me. That is when I found EWTN.
Now I can't remember that much about what I watched. I do remember a couple of funny looking priests and nuns who seemed nice and even funny at times. I watched quite a few masses. Now I will admit that Catholics seem to do church differently than I am used to, but it was fascinating to watch something different. Their church (or mass) seems to center around the communion service.
Now I know some Protestants are critical of Catholics because they believe that somehow their communion elements are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, but I honestly fail to see what is so terrible in this belief. I guess it all revolves around how literally you take the "is" in "This is my body..this is my blood". At any rate I can not open my Bible and convince myself that they are definitely wrong in this. Besides, I knew an elderly couple at my first Pentecostal church in Rumford Maine that believed the same thing (or near it) anyway. I look at it this way, at least the communion service is meaningful to Catholics.
Oh and there was this elderly couple that had shows on Catholic saints. Now I know that Protestants are critical of Catholics because of their saints, but I don't see what is so terrible about showing honor to those great in the faith who have gone on before. At least a good Catholic has some sense of being tied to their past and knowing who those who are great in the faith are.
But anyway, that TV show seemed to make an impression on me for some reason, maybe I learned something.
I remember once of flipping it when the discussion turned to indulgences. That seemed a little wierd to me. But other than that, I can't remember hearing anything that seemed all that terrible on it. On and there were some talk shows that I seemed to enjoy. In a couple of days the Red Sox were signing Matsuzaka, and my interest flipped to following that story. But I have watched EWTN a little since (if I am up and flipping through the tube). Of the 3-4 Christian networks on my tube, I like EWTN the best..the others seem contrived and cheesy mostly. Plus I have never heard EWTN begging me for money; and I highly doubt whether they will use the contributions that are sent to the network for heated doghouses for the priest's pets.
So I guess I am also a Protestant heretic in that I actually like watching EWTN (sometime anyway). In fact you can listen to it over the internet, and I think I will do that now (haven't done it in a while).
Anyway, I have an idea on how this series will go. I think I will talk first about what we (or me anyway) should agree with the Catholics on..what (in my little mind) are the fundamental differences (I think it all reduces to one difference)..plus one difference that I personally have great difficulty with (that you might find surprising). Then I will talk about the differences that in my mind are overrated to some extent. Oh..also in my little study..I came across some groups in Christian history that I did not know much about and ended up really liking. I might diverge into those a couple of times.
Oh and this will not be "All Catholic all the time". I do have other interests.
The shows that I sort of like are "The Amazing Race", "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader", and lately I've sort of been fascinated with "American Idol". Sometimes there is a movie on that sounds interesting. Oh..the news and sports of course. Oh forgot..this year we got NESN so the Red Sox will be on my agenda.
Of course when you are in the hospital (as I was two years ago with prostate cancer surgery), watching TV is all there is when you don't have visitors. In the two days following my surgery I was sort of in and out on pain killers and all that, and really didn't have the attention span to watch any television show that would command me paying attention. I just wanted something nice and peaceful that seemed to minister to me. That is when I found EWTN.
Now I can't remember that much about what I watched. I do remember a couple of funny looking priests and nuns who seemed nice and even funny at times. I watched quite a few masses. Now I will admit that Catholics seem to do church differently than I am used to, but it was fascinating to watch something different. Their church (or mass) seems to center around the communion service.
Now I know some Protestants are critical of Catholics because they believe that somehow their communion elements are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, but I honestly fail to see what is so terrible in this belief. I guess it all revolves around how literally you take the "is" in "This is my body..this is my blood". At any rate I can not open my Bible and convince myself that they are definitely wrong in this. Besides, I knew an elderly couple at my first Pentecostal church in Rumford Maine that believed the same thing (or near it) anyway. I look at it this way, at least the communion service is meaningful to Catholics.
Oh and there was this elderly couple that had shows on Catholic saints. Now I know that Protestants are critical of Catholics because of their saints, but I don't see what is so terrible about showing honor to those great in the faith who have gone on before. At least a good Catholic has some sense of being tied to their past and knowing who those who are great in the faith are.
But anyway, that TV show seemed to make an impression on me for some reason, maybe I learned something.
I remember once of flipping it when the discussion turned to indulgences. That seemed a little wierd to me. But other than that, I can't remember hearing anything that seemed all that terrible on it. On and there were some talk shows that I seemed to enjoy. In a couple of days the Red Sox were signing Matsuzaka, and my interest flipped to following that story. But I have watched EWTN a little since (if I am up and flipping through the tube). Of the 3-4 Christian networks on my tube, I like EWTN the best..the others seem contrived and cheesy mostly. Plus I have never heard EWTN begging me for money; and I highly doubt whether they will use the contributions that are sent to the network for heated doghouses for the priest's pets.
So I guess I am also a Protestant heretic in that I actually like watching EWTN (sometime anyway). In fact you can listen to it over the internet, and I think I will do that now (haven't done it in a while).
Anyway, I have an idea on how this series will go. I think I will talk first about what we (or me anyway) should agree with the Catholics on..what (in my little mind) are the fundamental differences (I think it all reduces to one difference)..plus one difference that I personally have great difficulty with (that you might find surprising). Then I will talk about the differences that in my mind are overrated to some extent. Oh..also in my little study..I came across some groups in Christian history that I did not know much about and ended up really liking. I might diverge into those a couple of times.
Oh and this will not be "All Catholic all the time". I do have other interests.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
0.1 Again
Some things in life are clear cut and nonnegoatiable. I believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified dead and buried, and rose on the third day. That is just the way it is. Oh..and that the Red Sox are the greatest baseball team ever and that the NY Yankees are scum and evil. That is also just the way that it is.
Some other things in life are ambiguous. A third consecutive 0.1 on my PSA test is one of them.
When I had my last radiologist second opinion (given my stage of cancer) I finally pulled the question "What would you do". He said wait until my next psa test and see what it yields.
Some of the possible results had clear cut answers
* A rise above 0.1: Definitely go for radiation therapy.
* Decline back to 0: Wait
He hemmed and hawed though when I asked him about a third consecutive 0.1; but he finally answered that he would go for the radiation therapy..given the high stakes.
That was good for me.
Of course my most recent PSA was a 0.1. But I have not changed my mind..my thinking is clearcut..do what the radiologist would do.
My next radiologist appointment is March 12.
Some other things in life are ambiguous. A third consecutive 0.1 on my PSA test is one of them.
When I had my last radiologist second opinion (given my stage of cancer) I finally pulled the question "What would you do". He said wait until my next psa test and see what it yields.
Some of the possible results had clear cut answers
* A rise above 0.1: Definitely go for radiation therapy.
* Decline back to 0: Wait
He hemmed and hawed though when I asked him about a third consecutive 0.1; but he finally answered that he would go for the radiation therapy..given the high stakes.
That was good for me.
Of course my most recent PSA was a 0.1. But I have not changed my mind..my thinking is clearcut..do what the radiologist would do.
My next radiologist appointment is March 12.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Woohoo: YouTube works on my new computer
Every three years or so, I get a new laptop from work.
My current laptop couldn't have come soon enough. There were severe memory problems. When I had too much stuff running on it, programs would just abnormally terminate on memory. Now this is probably mostly my fault because I am lazy and leave stuff open instead of closing it. But still.
Also some stuff just did not work on my old computer. Amongst them was the ability to play videos on YouTube.
You see I am cheap. I just don't see whereas I should pay good money to buy classical music when I can find it for free. One secret that I have found is that I can find good classical music on YouTube.
One thing that I have found was videos from last years Van Cliburn amateur competition (I competed in it on 2004). They can be found here. Check out the entries by the winner Drew Mays. They are wonderful.
Also check out the videos from the Boston Amateur piano competetion here (where I competed last year). The ones by Christopher Sith (the winner) and Rupert Egerton-Smith (the runner up) are excellent.
I would like to put videos of my playing on YouTube some time. Maybe use the piano at the Methodist church or the St. Albans school.
My current laptop couldn't have come soon enough. There were severe memory problems. When I had too much stuff running on it, programs would just abnormally terminate on memory. Now this is probably mostly my fault because I am lazy and leave stuff open instead of closing it. But still.
Also some stuff just did not work on my old computer. Amongst them was the ability to play videos on YouTube.
You see I am cheap. I just don't see whereas I should pay good money to buy classical music when I can find it for free. One secret that I have found is that I can find good classical music on YouTube.
One thing that I have found was videos from last years Van Cliburn amateur competition (I competed in it on 2004). They can be found here. Check out the entries by the winner Drew Mays. They are wonderful.
Also check out the videos from the Boston Amateur piano competetion here (where I competed last year). The ones by Christopher Sith (the winner) and Rupert Egerton-Smith (the runner up) are excellent.
I would like to put videos of my playing on YouTube some time. Maybe use the piano at the Methodist church or the St. Albans school.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
I am a heretic. I (sort of) like the Catholic Church.
Around two years ago my wife and I got it in our minds that we might be moving soon. My daughter was soon to graduate from high school, and we felt that after graduation there might be a window of opportunity to move if it seemed to make sense.
Now as it turned out my daughter attended University of Vermont and moving would make absolutely no sense as I would be forfeiting in state tuition. Anyway, since my prostate cancer surgery, I am a little less inclined to move. Now my prognosis is good now, but it could change at any time. If in fact I only have 5-15 or so more years left (who knows I might have that anyway) I don't want two of those years tied up in moving. I would like to simplify my life, not make it any more complex.
Anyway, one day a silly thought came into my mind. I had the thought that since my conversion to Jesus Christ in college, that all of my church experience had been in the Charismatic / Pentecostal tradition of Christianity (primarily Assemblies of God). This was because the first church that I associated with after Christ was the Church of Good News in Rumford Maine. Had it been the Baptist church across the river in Mexico (or down the river in Peru..love these names) my Christian life would have a different orientation. Or had I remained in the Methodist church of my parents, the orientation would be different still.
Anyway, I thought that if we were to move locations, I might be open to changing my tradition. (Even though I am Charismatic / Pentecostal..I am sort of the cautious type in this..and some parts of their theology I have some reservations about). But to what? I knew quite a bit about the Pentecostal / Charismatic tradition (from experience), quite a bit about the Methodist tradition (from my upbringing), and some about the Baptist tradition (from my piano teacher and grandparents). Beyond that point however, I was ignorant.
But I decided if I were to change traditions, I would do it right. I would first educate myself on the various traditions out there in ChristianityLand and then make an informed decision. I would not base it on transient stuff Christians often make such a decision on like the pastor or the program or the friendliness of the church.
Now many Christians I know would never have included the Catholic denomination in this list of traditions worthy of studying. However, these Christians never knew the LaPlante family in Rumford, Maine. However, having known them, they are the primary reason I just never could became a rabid anti-Catholic (well maybe a mild one when I lived in NY state). I guess I just could never reconcile the Catholics being the antichrist and the pope the whore of Babylon (or is it vice versa) with the obvious Christian testimony of the LaPlante family. Given a choice between some folk's opinions and people I know and respect, I will side with people I know and respect any day of the week thank you.
Besides I knew enough about Catholicism to know that they claimed to have started it all (what with St. Peter being the first pope supposedly). So I figured that any group that claimed to be my spiritual ancestor and the origin of Christianity was worthy of investigation.
One day I decided to google "evangelical catholic" and came across this web site and this one. Eventually I found this one. I found them all fascinating. This was the first time I had really read about Catholics from Catholic sources. I began to entertain the following questions:
* My understandanding of the Catholic Church was entirely through Protestant sources. Was my understanding correct? If I was misinformed, was it intentional? Disclaimer: in my current church I have never heard one thing negative about the Catholic Church. Now we don't preoccupy ourselves with the other churches in Franklin county, but to the extent that other churches are mentioned, it is almost always positively (I remember a wonderful sermon our pastor preached on St. Patrick a while back).
* I knew of people who were raised Catholic but came to Christ through our church and others like it. But here were folks who made seemingly informed decisions to leave their Evangelical church for the Catholic church. And to my surprise they did not spiritually die. In fact they seemed to thrive spiritually. What's up with that?
* They seemed to have at least some valid points when they were critical of Protestants. Yes 30,000 denominations seems to be a tad exaggerated. But the bigger issue is whether denominations is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church. This amongst other points seemed to be valid concerns.
* Maybe the differences between our traditions is not as great as we make them out to be. I mean these guys did appear to be evangelical and Catholic.
And finally the unthinkable one:
What was God speaking though this? Is this all because He is leading me to (sometime anyway) go through the mother of all tradition changes? Assemblies of God to Catholic seemed very wild..but strangely not impossible. But..any move of this magnitidue must be very well thought out and very reasoned. Who knows, maybe this denomination is the whore of Babylon and this whole line of thinking is simply satanic deception.
Anyway..this seems like a good juncture to hang it up for the evening and continue at another time. I think I will stay on this topic a while. Hillary, Obama, and McCain are getting boring.
Now as it turned out my daughter attended University of Vermont and moving would make absolutely no sense as I would be forfeiting in state tuition. Anyway, since my prostate cancer surgery, I am a little less inclined to move. Now my prognosis is good now, but it could change at any time. If in fact I only have 5-15 or so more years left (who knows I might have that anyway) I don't want two of those years tied up in moving. I would like to simplify my life, not make it any more complex.
Anyway, one day a silly thought came into my mind. I had the thought that since my conversion to Jesus Christ in college, that all of my church experience had been in the Charismatic / Pentecostal tradition of Christianity (primarily Assemblies of God). This was because the first church that I associated with after Christ was the Church of Good News in Rumford Maine. Had it been the Baptist church across the river in Mexico (or down the river in Peru..love these names) my Christian life would have a different orientation. Or had I remained in the Methodist church of my parents, the orientation would be different still.
Anyway, I thought that if we were to move locations, I might be open to changing my tradition. (Even though I am Charismatic / Pentecostal..I am sort of the cautious type in this..and some parts of their theology I have some reservations about). But to what? I knew quite a bit about the Pentecostal / Charismatic tradition (from experience), quite a bit about the Methodist tradition (from my upbringing), and some about the Baptist tradition (from my piano teacher and grandparents). Beyond that point however, I was ignorant.
But I decided if I were to change traditions, I would do it right. I would first educate myself on the various traditions out there in ChristianityLand and then make an informed decision. I would not base it on transient stuff Christians often make such a decision on like the pastor or the program or the friendliness of the church.
Now many Christians I know would never have included the Catholic denomination in this list of traditions worthy of studying. However, these Christians never knew the LaPlante family in Rumford, Maine. However, having known them, they are the primary reason I just never could became a rabid anti-Catholic (well maybe a mild one when I lived in NY state). I guess I just could never reconcile the Catholics being the antichrist and the pope the whore of Babylon (or is it vice versa) with the obvious Christian testimony of the LaPlante family. Given a choice between some folk's opinions and people I know and respect, I will side with people I know and respect any day of the week thank you.
Besides I knew enough about Catholicism to know that they claimed to have started it all (what with St. Peter being the first pope supposedly). So I figured that any group that claimed to be my spiritual ancestor and the origin of Christianity was worthy of investigation.
One day I decided to google "evangelical catholic" and came across this web site and this one. Eventually I found this one. I found them all fascinating. This was the first time I had really read about Catholics from Catholic sources. I began to entertain the following questions:
* My understandanding of the Catholic Church was entirely through Protestant sources. Was my understanding correct? If I was misinformed, was it intentional? Disclaimer: in my current church I have never heard one thing negative about the Catholic Church. Now we don't preoccupy ourselves with the other churches in Franklin county, but to the extent that other churches are mentioned, it is almost always positively (I remember a wonderful sermon our pastor preached on St. Patrick a while back).
* I knew of people who were raised Catholic but came to Christ through our church and others like it. But here were folks who made seemingly informed decisions to leave their Evangelical church for the Catholic church. And to my surprise they did not spiritually die. In fact they seemed to thrive spiritually. What's up with that?
* They seemed to have at least some valid points when they were critical of Protestants. Yes 30,000 denominations seems to be a tad exaggerated. But the bigger issue is whether denominations is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church. This amongst other points seemed to be valid concerns.
* Maybe the differences between our traditions is not as great as we make them out to be. I mean these guys did appear to be evangelical and Catholic.
And finally the unthinkable one:
What was God speaking though this? Is this all because He is leading me to (sometime anyway) go through the mother of all tradition changes? Assemblies of God to Catholic seemed very wild..but strangely not impossible. But..any move of this magnitidue must be very well thought out and very reasoned. Who knows, maybe this denomination is the whore of Babylon and this whole line of thinking is simply satanic deception.
Anyway..this seems like a good juncture to hang it up for the evening and continue at another time. I think I will stay on this topic a while. Hillary, Obama, and McCain are getting boring.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Swiftboating Obama
I came across this link on the internet. My first reaction is whether Hilary is now trying to swiftboat Obama. I wouldn't put it past her.
For the record I do think that any previous behaviour by a candidate should have an expiration date to it.
I mean I would be in trouble if I ever ran for President and stuff from my age 17-19 time period surfaced. However after age my life was pretty boring.
Oh, somehow this year I screwed up my taxes and owe the feds about 2K. Ouch. That means I owe the state about 500. So today I am an anarchist and want no government. But seriously, I am still going to support Ron Paul when our little primary than nobody cares about happens in 2-3 weeks.
Edit. The political ads have started for both Obama and the wife of Bill. Fortunately in 2 weeks this will pass.
For the record I do think that any previous behaviour by a candidate should have an expiration date to it.
I mean I would be in trouble if I ever ran for President and stuff from my age 17-19 time period surfaced. However after age my life was pretty boring.
Oh, somehow this year I screwed up my taxes and owe the feds about 2K. Ouch. That means I owe the state about 500. So today I am an anarchist and want no government. But seriously, I am still going to support Ron Paul when our little primary than nobody cares about happens in 2-3 weeks.
Edit. The political ads have started for both Obama and the wife of Bill. Fortunately in 2 weeks this will pass.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
McCain 2.0
OK..I was reading this evening where my hero Ann Coulter said that she will be campaigning for Hillary since McCain is the nominee.
I have read this evening that McCain is a RINO that should be expelled from the Republican party.
So for all those who are likeminded with Ann Coulter, below I have a list of Senators ranked from the most liberal Republican Senator to ten points above McCain in 2006 by this organization. You tell me where the cutoff point is. Below this point we are in RINOland and these folks should be expelled. Above this point we have orthodoxy.
Chafee (RI) 24
Conrad (ND) 33 (Dem)
Snowe (Maine) 36
Nelson (Fl) 40 (Dem)
Specter (Penn) 43
Collins (Maine) 48
Voinovich (Ohio) 56
Stevents (Alaska) 64
Lugar (Indiana) 64
Warner (Va) 64
Nelson (Neb) 64 (Dem)
McCain 65 **********************
Cochran (Miss) 67
Coleman (Minn) 68
Bennett (Utah) 72
Alexander (Tenn) 72
Gregg (NH) 72
DeWine (Ohio) 72
Smith (Oregon) 72
Shelby (Alabama) 75
Hagel (Neb) 75
Domenici (NM) 75
I have read this evening that McCain is a RINO that should be expelled from the Republican party.
So for all those who are likeminded with Ann Coulter, below I have a list of Senators ranked from the most liberal Republican Senator to ten points above McCain in 2006 by this organization. You tell me where the cutoff point is. Below this point we are in RINOland and these folks should be expelled. Above this point we have orthodoxy.
Chafee (RI) 24
Conrad (ND) 33 (Dem)
Snowe (Maine) 36
Nelson (Fl) 40 (Dem)
Specter (Penn) 43
Collins (Maine) 48
Voinovich (Ohio) 56
Stevents (Alaska) 64
Lugar (Indiana) 64
Warner (Va) 64
Nelson (Neb) 64 (Dem)
McCain 65 **********************
Cochran (Miss) 67
Coleman (Minn) 68
Bennett (Utah) 72
Alexander (Tenn) 72
Gregg (NH) 72
DeWine (Ohio) 72
Smith (Oregon) 72
Shelby (Alabama) 75
Hagel (Neb) 75
Domenici (NM) 75
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain
In a way I miss Jim Jeffords.
Gentleman Jim always gave the wife and I an excuse to watch the Vermont Senate debates on Vermont Public Television channel 33. The beauty of these debates is that all of the candidates are included. In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates you would have:
* The Vermont Grassroots party: The agenda of this party is the legalization of pot. The funny thing here is that I am sure the Vermont Grassroots party candidate debated stoned. What a hoot.
* The Vermont Natural Law party: Meditation anybody
* The Liberty Union party: Bernie Sanders is a right winger
* The Libertarian Party: Actually these guys were normal and interesting
However when Jim Jeffords ran there would always be one conservative running who would be the vote of conscience. One year there were two, and my wife and I decided to split our votes (my guy won with 6% of the popular vote while her guy only got 1%).
When we lived in Maine we did the same thing with Olympia Snowe (except that you didn't have the gamut of candidates to choose for and the televised debates). One year I voted for a guy you wouldn't want as dogcatcher, but he wasn't Olympia.
And that's the purpose behind these conscience votes. You really don't want that clown you are voting for to get elected (they are obviously not up to the office). You are voting to send a message. If I vote for Ron Paul (or Huckabee) in the Vermont primary that nobody cares about, it is essentially the same type of vote.
And that is legitimate. I would never say that voting for a third party is wasting your vote because you know your guy is going to lose. Otherwise according to the same logic, voting for the 'R' candidate when the opposition is Patrick Leahy is also wasting your vote.
I guess what I am trying to say is this. I understand voting on principle rather than party. I understand that there is a time and a place to vote for a third party candidate as opposed to a candidate of your party who might be only marginally better than the candidate of the other party. I have voted that way myself. Several times.
It is just that I am not sure that now is the time and that McCain is the candidate to do this on.
Now my family remembers with fondness my talk radio stage. When travelling to pick up my kids from school, they remember with fondness listening to either Rush between 12 and 3 or either Sean Hannity or Howie Carr between 3 and 6. Although I don't listen to talk radio as much as I used to (I prefer the Classical Music stations), once and a while I tune in to see what they are up to.
They are now going nuts at the prospect of John McCain being the 'R' nominee. They are saying that there is not a dimes worth of difference between him and Hillary. They rattle off the list of known transgressions (campaign finance, immigration, global warming, etc).
What they don't point out is this.
If I were to hold their favorite (Romney) up to the same standard they impose upon McCain, he should be equally unacceptible if I were to judge on the basis of his record in Massachusetts (see abortion and universal health care for example). Thus they have double standard.
By any metric that independently and impartially weighs the record based on a large number of votes (instead of cherry picked ones), McCain falls as a moderate/conservative. Last year McCain scored a 65 on the American Conservative Union rating metric. The year before he scored an 80. His comparables were noted liberals like Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Richard Lugar of Indiana. Not Hillary Clinton of New York and Barak Obama of Illinois (who scored about an 8).
And it is not that the Republican party is dealing from a position of strength here. From any polls that I have read, both Clinton and Obama kick donkey over any Republican candidate not named McCain. At the same time, McCain and both Democratic candidates are virtually tied.
I remember Florida of 2000 where the Ralph Nader voters essentially delivered that state to Bush. I wonder rather these Nader voters wish they could have their votes back.
I am sorry, but if Nader 2.x is where Rush is going, then Rush is wrong on this one.
However, that all having been said, it is entirely possible that I will vote third party this November if there is a third party candidate I like better than McCain. The reason for this is the state I live in. One day I figured out that under the electoral college my vote does not really count. Neither do the votes of 80% of Americans who live in clear red or blue states count.
My vote does not directly decide the Presidential race. My vote only decides what electors Vermont contributes to decide the Presidential race. If Vermont were to send red electors, this race would already be decided in an electoral rout for the Republican party. If this election is close, Vermont will be a decidedly blue state.
Since that is the reality living in Vermont, I figure that I am free to vote for the person I like the most and not worry about a vote for a third party being really a vote for the opponent. So if I really like the Libertarian party candidate (meaning Ron Paul is running as a Libertarian) or Constitution party candidate I would have no qualms about voting for them. It doesn't really matter.
Gentleman Jim always gave the wife and I an excuse to watch the Vermont Senate debates on Vermont Public Television channel 33. The beauty of these debates is that all of the candidates are included. In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates you would have:
* The Vermont Grassroots party: The agenda of this party is the legalization of pot. The funny thing here is that I am sure the Vermont Grassroots party candidate debated stoned. What a hoot.
* The Vermont Natural Law party: Meditation anybody
* The Liberty Union party: Bernie Sanders is a right winger
* The Libertarian Party: Actually these guys were normal and interesting
However when Jim Jeffords ran there would always be one conservative running who would be the vote of conscience. One year there were two, and my wife and I decided to split our votes (my guy won with 6% of the popular vote while her guy only got 1%).
When we lived in Maine we did the same thing with Olympia Snowe (except that you didn't have the gamut of candidates to choose for and the televised debates). One year I voted for a guy you wouldn't want as dogcatcher, but he wasn't Olympia.
And that's the purpose behind these conscience votes. You really don't want that clown you are voting for to get elected (they are obviously not up to the office). You are voting to send a message. If I vote for Ron Paul (or Huckabee) in the Vermont primary that nobody cares about, it is essentially the same type of vote.
And that is legitimate. I would never say that voting for a third party is wasting your vote because you know your guy is going to lose. Otherwise according to the same logic, voting for the 'R' candidate when the opposition is Patrick Leahy is also wasting your vote.
I guess what I am trying to say is this. I understand voting on principle rather than party. I understand that there is a time and a place to vote for a third party candidate as opposed to a candidate of your party who might be only marginally better than the candidate of the other party. I have voted that way myself. Several times.
It is just that I am not sure that now is the time and that McCain is the candidate to do this on.
Now my family remembers with fondness my talk radio stage. When travelling to pick up my kids from school, they remember with fondness listening to either Rush between 12 and 3 or either Sean Hannity or Howie Carr between 3 and 6. Although I don't listen to talk radio as much as I used to (I prefer the Classical Music stations), once and a while I tune in to see what they are up to.
They are now going nuts at the prospect of John McCain being the 'R' nominee. They are saying that there is not a dimes worth of difference between him and Hillary. They rattle off the list of known transgressions (campaign finance, immigration, global warming, etc).
What they don't point out is this.
If I were to hold their favorite (Romney) up to the same standard they impose upon McCain, he should be equally unacceptible if I were to judge on the basis of his record in Massachusetts (see abortion and universal health care for example). Thus they have double standard.
By any metric that independently and impartially weighs the record based on a large number of votes (instead of cherry picked ones), McCain falls as a moderate/conservative. Last year McCain scored a 65 on the American Conservative Union rating metric. The year before he scored an 80. His comparables were noted liberals like Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Richard Lugar of Indiana. Not Hillary Clinton of New York and Barak Obama of Illinois (who scored about an 8).
And it is not that the Republican party is dealing from a position of strength here. From any polls that I have read, both Clinton and Obama kick donkey over any Republican candidate not named McCain. At the same time, McCain and both Democratic candidates are virtually tied.
I remember Florida of 2000 where the Ralph Nader voters essentially delivered that state to Bush. I wonder rather these Nader voters wish they could have their votes back.
I am sorry, but if Nader 2.x is where Rush is going, then Rush is wrong on this one.
However, that all having been said, it is entirely possible that I will vote third party this November if there is a third party candidate I like better than McCain. The reason for this is the state I live in. One day I figured out that under the electoral college my vote does not really count. Neither do the votes of 80% of Americans who live in clear red or blue states count.
My vote does not directly decide the Presidential race. My vote only decides what electors Vermont contributes to decide the Presidential race. If Vermont were to send red electors, this race would already be decided in an electoral rout for the Republican party. If this election is close, Vermont will be a decidedly blue state.
Since that is the reality living in Vermont, I figure that I am free to vote for the person I like the most and not worry about a vote for a third party being really a vote for the opponent. So if I really like the Libertarian party candidate (meaning Ron Paul is running as a Libertarian) or Constitution party candidate I would have no qualms about voting for them. It doesn't really matter.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Bill and Hillary 2.0
Up here in Vermont, we do something that I just don't understand.
We vote for some cabinet level positions. The last election there was a tight race for the position of "Auditor of Accounts". As I recall there was a recount, and in the recount the Democratic challenger defeated the Republican incumbent who was previously ahead by a couple of votes.
Auditor of Accounts?? How in the wide world of sports do I vote for auditor of accounts. How do I know which of the two folks running for this position is the best qualified for it. The fact is that I don't. I don't even know what an "Auditor of Accounts" does. I am not qualified to pick a person for "Auditor of Accounts".
Same thing for Attorney General, Secretary of State, and the other cabinet level positions that perplex me every second November. I leave these positions blank.
The older I grow, I am finding the less I know. This upcoming election is supposed to be about the economy. Now I did have an economics course in college, but thirty years later I must confess I have totally forgotten about it. The only thing I remember is some professor drawing these curves on the blackboard and saying they mean something. So how do I know which of the two folks who want to be my President is best at managing the economy? Guess what, I don't.
Same thing with global warming. Al Gore believes that it is real, that we did it, and we darned well better fix it soon or dire consequences will result. For all I know he is correct. Still there are some scientists who disagree (I don't think the disagreement is whether it is real or not, I think the disagreement is whether this is caused by humans and its severity). And I do remember in the 1960s reading similar dire consequences that would hit the planet in the 1990s over the population explosion. For that matter I remember reading about dire consequences that will happen to the earth and its computers when the year 2000 occurs. Come to think of it I remember watching Pat Robertson on TV in the 70s and being told that Christ will return in the 90s. So I also know that people exaggerate and get things wrong. So who knows. I don't, at least for sure.
The point is that in most of these issues, I may have my tendencies and beliefs, but I don't know for sure. Take Iraq for example. When the war started, I was sitting on the fence. So I decided I was going to watch this and learn. When we kicked butt the first month or so, knocked down the statue of Saddam, and declared that "mission was accomplished", I was all for it. But as we encountered problems mopping up the accomplished mission (and never did find the weapons of mass destruction), I found myself as an opponent to the war. But now that the surge is apparently working, I find myself changing again to "it probably was a mistake to begin with, but at this point it is best to finish the job and do it right than to leave it as a mess". Who knows how I will change again in the future.
However, I do think though that I am at least a fairly decent judge of character. And the older that I grow, the more important character becomes to me.
Which is why the prospect of Bill and Hillary 2.0 is alarming to me. I have been following this campaign at least a little (I do notice that the political adds on Vermont TV have stopped now that the NH primary is history). Watching the smear job and blatant lies that Bill and Hillary are applying to Obama (who at least seems to be a decent human being..even though he does support the deliberate killing of innocent human life) reminds me of everything that I hated during the Clinton era.
Which is why I find myself pulling for Obama in the Democratic primary (even though he is the tougher 'D' nominee IMHO). At least if he gets it, Bill and Hillary 2.0 are history. Now I will never vote for him myself, because of my little thing about killing babies, but I don't especially dislike him, and I don't see myself voting against him (meaning that if I don't care for the Republican either, I have no qualms about voting 3rd party). This is in contrast to his female opponent. If she is the one, no matter who the 'R' is and how much I may dislike him, I will press the 'R' level in November.
We vote for some cabinet level positions. The last election there was a tight race for the position of "Auditor of Accounts". As I recall there was a recount, and in the recount the Democratic challenger defeated the Republican incumbent who was previously ahead by a couple of votes.
Auditor of Accounts?? How in the wide world of sports do I vote for auditor of accounts. How do I know which of the two folks running for this position is the best qualified for it. The fact is that I don't. I don't even know what an "Auditor of Accounts" does. I am not qualified to pick a person for "Auditor of Accounts".
Same thing for Attorney General, Secretary of State, and the other cabinet level positions that perplex me every second November. I leave these positions blank.
The older I grow, I am finding the less I know. This upcoming election is supposed to be about the economy. Now I did have an economics course in college, but thirty years later I must confess I have totally forgotten about it. The only thing I remember is some professor drawing these curves on the blackboard and saying they mean something. So how do I know which of the two folks who want to be my President is best at managing the economy? Guess what, I don't.
Same thing with global warming. Al Gore believes that it is real, that we did it, and we darned well better fix it soon or dire consequences will result. For all I know he is correct. Still there are some scientists who disagree (I don't think the disagreement is whether it is real or not, I think the disagreement is whether this is caused by humans and its severity). And I do remember in the 1960s reading similar dire consequences that would hit the planet in the 1990s over the population explosion. For that matter I remember reading about dire consequences that will happen to the earth and its computers when the year 2000 occurs. Come to think of it I remember watching Pat Robertson on TV in the 70s and being told that Christ will return in the 90s. So I also know that people exaggerate and get things wrong. So who knows. I don't, at least for sure.
The point is that in most of these issues, I may have my tendencies and beliefs, but I don't know for sure. Take Iraq for example. When the war started, I was sitting on the fence. So I decided I was going to watch this and learn. When we kicked butt the first month or so, knocked down the statue of Saddam, and declared that "mission was accomplished", I was all for it. But as we encountered problems mopping up the accomplished mission (and never did find the weapons of mass destruction), I found myself as an opponent to the war. But now that the surge is apparently working, I find myself changing again to "it probably was a mistake to begin with, but at this point it is best to finish the job and do it right than to leave it as a mess". Who knows how I will change again in the future.
However, I do think though that I am at least a fairly decent judge of character. And the older that I grow, the more important character becomes to me.
Which is why the prospect of Bill and Hillary 2.0 is alarming to me. I have been following this campaign at least a little (I do notice that the political adds on Vermont TV have stopped now that the NH primary is history). Watching the smear job and blatant lies that Bill and Hillary are applying to Obama (who at least seems to be a decent human being..even though he does support the deliberate killing of innocent human life) reminds me of everything that I hated during the Clinton era.
Which is why I find myself pulling for Obama in the Democratic primary (even though he is the tougher 'D' nominee IMHO). At least if he gets it, Bill and Hillary 2.0 are history. Now I will never vote for him myself, because of my little thing about killing babies, but I don't especially dislike him, and I don't see myself voting against him (meaning that if I don't care for the Republican either, I have no qualms about voting 3rd party). This is in contrast to his female opponent. If she is the one, no matter who the 'R' is and how much I may dislike him, I will press the 'R' level in November.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Earth Is Flat
I recently have come across an interesting blog post which views beliefs on evolution, creation, and Biblical literalism as a spectrum. Each position considers the positions to the its left as reading Scripture too literally. Each position considers the positions to its right as compromisers who cede the authority of the Bible to Godless science.
Surprisingly, the young earth creationist view (7 literal days about 10,000 years ago or less) was only position 3 on this spectrum. Position 2 was geocentrism (the universe revolves around the earth). Position 1 is a flat earth.
Well this got my curious mind to wondering whether this author was correct. In other words, if I were to adopt a literalistic interpretation of Scripture on this topic and be logically consistent in this perspective, would I have no other option but to conclude the earth is flat?
My conclusions after studying this matter is that this post is spot on. Biblically speaking the earth is flat. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Let God be found true though every man be found a liar.
Unfortunately I found only one web site that has not compromised on this issue. I will let the Scriptures produced by this web site speak for themselves.
To be fair, I also examined the other side (courtesy from the young earth creationist web sites) that believe the Bible literally teaches a spherical earth, and I found their case surprisingly weak. First of all they claim the phrase "circle of the earth" found in the Bible refutes the flat earth. However, I still remember my 11th grade geometry class, and as I recall a circle was two dimensional while a sphere was three dimensional. So these Scriptures still support a flat earth.
The only other Scripture I found that could support a Spherical earth was Luke 17:31-34, where Jesus used the phrases "In that day..In that night" in reference to His second coming. Since His second coming is a one time event, the only way this could be true would be in a spherical earth where night and day occur simultaneously.
But wait a minute. The Bible also teaches in Matthew 24:26 that not even God the Son knows the date and hour of the second coming. Given this Scripture, Jesus was obviously just covering His bases so to speak and allowing for both possibilities in respect to the second coming.
So the teaching of the Bible is clear. The Earth is flat. However, if one must compromise the plain teaching of the Bible in favor of Godless science, it would seem that the minimal compromises would be found in the geocentric position. Here I found an association of geocentrists with their own web page. And this little discussion also summarizes the clear Biblical support for geocentricism.
I also found that Catholic apologist Robert Sungesis is also a geocentrist through this link (which unfortunately is dead..I actually found this out through a web page that linked to his stuff.
Of course there is one other option that might be (probably is) grossly heretical, but I throw it out here simply as a possibility.
Perhaps God did not intend the Bible to be used as a science textbook. Perhaps he knew that us frail humans would eventually figure out the secrets to the universe by ourselves. Thus perhaps He allowed His word to humans who had incomplete and yes even faulty understanding in the fields of astrology, physics, and biology. And perhaps even this faulty understanding is indirectly reflected in the Bible in passages where God's intent is to convey Spiritual truth about Himself.
Nah..this is blatant heresy. The earth is obviously flat and we live in a geocentric universe.
Where are you on this scale of possibilities for origins. Glad you asked.
I can take each of these eight possibilities and assign them values in two categories: theological probability and scientific probability.
Theologically, if I assume the Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, I would rate 1-6 being equally possible theologically. If I want to believe the earth is flat, gosh-diddly-yarn I can't open my Bible and find a Scripture against. But neither am I convinced that theological evolution is wrong. Only when we get to points 7-8 (no Adam and Eve) do we have a problem because Jesus seemed to disagree with this.
Now if I were to go through the eight options and rate them scientifically (not being a scientist of course) only option 1 would I conclude as definitely impossible. Options 2-3 might be scientifically impossible, but I can't prove this so I will call them improbable with option 2 being more improbable than option 3.
Options 4-6 I feel confident are not scientifically impossible..and option 6 would be most probable scientifically, so that is where I lean. But this issue is not a great bone of contention for me. The only real problem I have here is when this issue is used as a great delimeter of heresy.
Surprisingly, the young earth creationist view (7 literal days about 10,000 years ago or less) was only position 3 on this spectrum. Position 2 was geocentrism (the universe revolves around the earth). Position 1 is a flat earth.
Well this got my curious mind to wondering whether this author was correct. In other words, if I were to adopt a literalistic interpretation of Scripture on this topic and be logically consistent in this perspective, would I have no other option but to conclude the earth is flat?
My conclusions after studying this matter is that this post is spot on. Biblically speaking the earth is flat. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Let God be found true though every man be found a liar.
Unfortunately I found only one web site that has not compromised on this issue. I will let the Scriptures produced by this web site speak for themselves.
To be fair, I also examined the other side (courtesy from the young earth creationist web sites) that believe the Bible literally teaches a spherical earth, and I found their case surprisingly weak. First of all they claim the phrase "circle of the earth" found in the Bible refutes the flat earth. However, I still remember my 11th grade geometry class, and as I recall a circle was two dimensional while a sphere was three dimensional. So these Scriptures still support a flat earth.
The only other Scripture I found that could support a Spherical earth was Luke 17:31-34, where Jesus used the phrases "In that day..In that night" in reference to His second coming. Since His second coming is a one time event, the only way this could be true would be in a spherical earth where night and day occur simultaneously.
But wait a minute. The Bible also teaches in Matthew 24:26 that not even God the Son knows the date and hour of the second coming. Given this Scripture, Jesus was obviously just covering His bases so to speak and allowing for both possibilities in respect to the second coming.
So the teaching of the Bible is clear. The Earth is flat. However, if one must compromise the plain teaching of the Bible in favor of Godless science, it would seem that the minimal compromises would be found in the geocentric position. Here I found an association of geocentrists with their own web page. And this little discussion also summarizes the clear Biblical support for geocentricism.
I also found that Catholic apologist Robert Sungesis is also a geocentrist through this link (which unfortunately is dead..I actually found this out through a web page that linked to his stuff.
Of course there is one other option that might be (probably is) grossly heretical, but I throw it out here simply as a possibility.
Perhaps God did not intend the Bible to be used as a science textbook. Perhaps he knew that us frail humans would eventually figure out the secrets to the universe by ourselves. Thus perhaps He allowed His word to humans who had incomplete and yes even faulty understanding in the fields of astrology, physics, and biology. And perhaps even this faulty understanding is indirectly reflected in the Bible in passages where God's intent is to convey Spiritual truth about Himself.
Nah..this is blatant heresy. The earth is obviously flat and we live in a geocentric universe.
Where are you on this scale of possibilities for origins. Glad you asked.
I can take each of these eight possibilities and assign them values in two categories: theological probability and scientific probability.
Theologically, if I assume the Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, I would rate 1-6 being equally possible theologically. If I want to believe the earth is flat, gosh-diddly-yarn I can't open my Bible and find a Scripture against. But neither am I convinced that theological evolution is wrong. Only when we get to points 7-8 (no Adam and Eve) do we have a problem because Jesus seemed to disagree with this.
Now if I were to go through the eight options and rate them scientifically (not being a scientist of course) only option 1 would I conclude as definitely impossible. Options 2-3 might be scientifically impossible, but I can't prove this so I will call them improbable with option 2 being more improbable than option 3.
Options 4-6 I feel confident are not scientifically impossible..and option 6 would be most probable scientifically, so that is where I lean. But this issue is not a great bone of contention for me. The only real problem I have here is when this issue is used as a great delimeter of heresy.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Cheap Skiing
Stupidity is travelling to Vermont and spending $79 per day per person for a lift ticket at Stowe Resort.
The absolute most that one should spend for skiing is $40 for a Vermont Resident pass at Jay peak.
Now I am ch.. er. frugal and over the years have studied how to ski cheaply in Vermont. These are some of the bargains I have taken advantage of.
When I was younger and skied every Saturday I would buy the family bash badges at Smuggs and then we would ski for half price which was between $25-$30 a pop. But even after this, I was always on the lookout for "really good deals". These are some of the good deals I have taken advantages of.
* At Smuggs my buddy Steve Dempsey used to arrange group passes for $15 a pop.
* Killington used to have Vermont ski free days for $20 a pop
* There used to be Refuse to Abuse days at the school where we got in for $15 at Killington and Sugarbush
* Bolton Valley has $10 lift tickets the week before Christmas
* At Sugarbush you can ski for $14 on February 14 and for $17 on March 17.
* Sugarbush had Warren Miller days where you could ski for $5.50 or something like that.
This year we are living off the 2 for one passes that you get for filling your tank at Mobil. Actually you only need three $16.00 fill-ups and you get a two for one pass. We have picked up a two for one pass at a rate of one per week, which is more than I ever will use.
Of course Stowe doesn't honor the two for one passes. They are too busy soaking the flatlanders for $79 per ticket. That is why I don't ski Stowe.
Anyway, yesterday I paid a little more than I like ($102 plus a couple bucks) and got three tickets at Jay Peak for myself, my son at Northeastern, and his girlfriend. We purchased 2 under the 2 for one for $62 and one more expensive Vermonters pass for $40.
I would grade the ski day a B+ for me personally. The weather was a little colder than what I prefer, but it was still not freeze your glutumus maximus off type of cold. There was a fresh 6" or so of powder on the slopes from overnight which made the skiing great for Stephen but unfortunately for me made skiing "The Jet" a little more difficult than I prefer.
Still there were no lift lines to speak of, and this old man skied 13 runs before tiring at about 2:00 in the afternoon. This was my third ski trip of the season..the first two being the $10 ski tickets at Bolton and a two-for-one deal at Sugarbush. My next ski trip (unless I go earlier with Stephen) I hope will be the $14 day at Sugarbush. However if the weather is really great I might go to Smuggs on a Friday and ski for 1/2 price.
Do not pay $79 for a lift ticket at Stowe.
The absolute most that one should spend for skiing is $40 for a Vermont Resident pass at Jay peak.
Now I am ch.. er. frugal and over the years have studied how to ski cheaply in Vermont. These are some of the bargains I have taken advantage of.
When I was younger and skied every Saturday I would buy the family bash badges at Smuggs and then we would ski for half price which was between $25-$30 a pop. But even after this, I was always on the lookout for "really good deals". These are some of the good deals I have taken advantages of.
* At Smuggs my buddy Steve Dempsey used to arrange group passes for $15 a pop.
* Killington used to have Vermont ski free days for $20 a pop
* There used to be Refuse to Abuse days at the school where we got in for $15 at Killington and Sugarbush
* Bolton Valley has $10 lift tickets the week before Christmas
* At Sugarbush you can ski for $14 on February 14 and for $17 on March 17.
* Sugarbush had Warren Miller days where you could ski for $5.50 or something like that.
This year we are living off the 2 for one passes that you get for filling your tank at Mobil. Actually you only need three $16.00 fill-ups and you get a two for one pass. We have picked up a two for one pass at a rate of one per week, which is more than I ever will use.
Of course Stowe doesn't honor the two for one passes. They are too busy soaking the flatlanders for $79 per ticket. That is why I don't ski Stowe.
Anyway, yesterday I paid a little more than I like ($102 plus a couple bucks) and got three tickets at Jay Peak for myself, my son at Northeastern, and his girlfriend. We purchased 2 under the 2 for one for $62 and one more expensive Vermonters pass for $40.
I would grade the ski day a B+ for me personally. The weather was a little colder than what I prefer, but it was still not freeze your glutumus maximus off type of cold. There was a fresh 6" or so of powder on the slopes from overnight which made the skiing great for Stephen but unfortunately for me made skiing "The Jet" a little more difficult than I prefer.
Still there were no lift lines to speak of, and this old man skied 13 runs before tiring at about 2:00 in the afternoon. This was my third ski trip of the season..the first two being the $10 ski tickets at Bolton and a two-for-one deal at Sugarbush. My next ski trip (unless I go earlier with Stephen) I hope will be the $14 day at Sugarbush. However if the weather is really great I might go to Smuggs on a Friday and ski for 1/2 price.
Do not pay $79 for a lift ticket at Stowe.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Amazing Grace
Now my taste in movies is not complex. Just off the bat, here is a list of some movies I have liked:
* The Simpson's Movie
* Napoleon Dynamite
* Mars Attacks
* The Stupids
* The Shawshank Redemption
* The Green Mile
* The Shining
* The Wizard of Oz
* Psycho (the original Alfred Hitchcock Version)
* North by Northwest
* The Birds
I guess I show a proclivity towards stupidly funny movies, Steven King movies, and Alfred Hitchcock. Nothing too serious please.
Last night I was a movie we rented called Amazing Grace. Now this movie was about the life of William Wilberforce, the man who was responsible for abolishing the slave trade in Great Britain (now I read disturbingly this morning that the bill did not abolish it entirely. For a while it continued illegally. If a slave ship were in danger of being caught, its cargo was just thrown overboard).
What fascinates me is how societies can be morally blind to the great evils of their time. Slavery was such an evil of the 1600s-1800s. If we go ahead in time we find state sanctioned racial discrimination. If we go back in time we would find the evils of witch hunts and inquisitions. As a Protestant believer I have long been aware of the the Spanish inquisition, but one historical detail that I have been unaware of is that our history is just as bad. I spent some time reading over the Internet about the anabaptist believers (the predecessors of the Mennonities) and how they were burned by the Catholics (and John Calvin) and drowned by the reformed (Zwingli). Luther was in no position to directly persecute the anabaptists, but he did support their persecution (he was also an anti-Semite..another moral evil..his writings were used by the Nazi Socialists to justify the holocaust).
Learning all of this was disconcerting to me. If the Protestant reformation was this great move of God that I was taught in Sunday School that it was, how come its leaders had such moral blindness in certain areas. I don't have an answer for that. But even in my life as a child, I have witnessed how Christian folks seemed to be the ones who were the most resistant to ending racial discrimination.
It does seem obvious to me that no society is exempt from its moral blind spots. Otherwise good people can be morally blind to the prevalent evils of their generation.
I can't help but think that somehow that future generations will look back at the present time and shake their heads in amazement and wonder just how come a society that claims to be humane and just sanctions the killing of innocent (unborn) human life.
* The Simpson's Movie
* Napoleon Dynamite
* Mars Attacks
* The Stupids
* The Shawshank Redemption
* The Green Mile
* The Shining
* The Wizard of Oz
* Psycho (the original Alfred Hitchcock Version)
* North by Northwest
* The Birds
I guess I show a proclivity towards stupidly funny movies, Steven King movies, and Alfred Hitchcock. Nothing too serious please.
Last night I was a movie we rented called Amazing Grace. Now this movie was about the life of William Wilberforce, the man who was responsible for abolishing the slave trade in Great Britain (now I read disturbingly this morning that the bill did not abolish it entirely. For a while it continued illegally. If a slave ship were in danger of being caught, its cargo was just thrown overboard).
What fascinates me is how societies can be morally blind to the great evils of their time. Slavery was such an evil of the 1600s-1800s. If we go ahead in time we find state sanctioned racial discrimination. If we go back in time we would find the evils of witch hunts and inquisitions. As a Protestant believer I have long been aware of the the Spanish inquisition, but one historical detail that I have been unaware of is that our history is just as bad. I spent some time reading over the Internet about the anabaptist believers (the predecessors of the Mennonities) and how they were burned by the Catholics (and John Calvin) and drowned by the reformed (Zwingli). Luther was in no position to directly persecute the anabaptists, but he did support their persecution (he was also an anti-Semite..another moral evil..his writings were used by the Nazi Socialists to justify the holocaust).
Learning all of this was disconcerting to me. If the Protestant reformation was this great move of God that I was taught in Sunday School that it was, how come its leaders had such moral blindness in certain areas. I don't have an answer for that. But even in my life as a child, I have witnessed how Christian folks seemed to be the ones who were the most resistant to ending racial discrimination.
It does seem obvious to me that no society is exempt from its moral blind spots. Otherwise good people can be morally blind to the prevalent evils of their generation.
I can't help but think that somehow that future generations will look back at the present time and shake their heads in amazement and wonder just how come a society that claims to be humane and just sanctions the killing of innocent (unborn) human life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)