Various thoughts on Christianity

Various people look at Christianity from different lens. One viewpoint focuses on personal righteousness, a perspective that believes in salvation through grace, but focuses on becoming a good and holy person nonetheless. Your typical Baptist has this viewpoint. Critics say that this viewpoint negates the whole love aspect - being kind to others and being careful not to judge sinners. Another viewpoint is that which focuses on the love aspect - loving and serving others and not judging others. Critics say that this view of Christianity may tend to neglect the aspect of personal righteousness.

I do think that a complete picture of Christianity - that is, a view of who Jesus is (hopefully) has all these aspects. It focuses on becoming more like Christ. That involves being free from sin but also serving others. Proclaiming God's truth yet not being quick to judge. James 1:27 says this

Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

I believe that an accurate depiction of Jesus makes us uncomfortable in one way or another. If Jesus doesn't make us nervous, then maybe we need to rethink our depiction of him.

Sometimes it's hard to know where the line is. How do we love the sinner without condoning his/her behavior? How do we dine with sinners without falling into sin ourselves?

I often hear of Jesus' message being portrayed as that of a man speaking truth to power. And I think this aspect of the message is true and is overlooked by many. This isn't an easy message for many to hear. But for many, it is an easy message, especially if you aren't rich and powerful. It is easy for us to say "Watch out you rich, you powerful, Jesus is coming!" In other words, watch out, you other people. And it's not just true in this case. We always think that others truly need to incorporate the message that Jesus is preaching. We focus on the parts of Jesus that makes him easier to digest, whether it be his call for personal righteousness, or him challenging the rich, the establishment. But he has a message for all of us. I believe that Jesus, in one way or another, challenges us, not just the other people.

On "Happy Holidays" and "Merry Christmas"

This topic has probably already been beaten to death, but I wanted to add my two cents. First of all, do I think stores should be afraid to say "Merry Christmas"? No, not really. I don't think most people care. I could be wrong, but I think it is people who actually celebrate Christmas who are afraid of offending people who have caused the change, rather than anybody being offended.

However, these places are private businesses. They have the right to say whatever they want.


I wanted to bring this up because we often talk about how Christmas is being silenced, or how there is a "War on Christmas". But in cases like this, we aren't being silenced. We have our freedom of speech and businesses have theirs.

I think as Christians we should be slow to bring out the persecution card. We have it so much better than those in other countries who participate in underground Bible studies and where missionaries have to be undercover.

Things are different in a public institution, where actual oppression can take place. These institutions, such as public schools, I believe can focus too much on the establishment clause of the First Amendment and not the free exercise clause.

But even in these cases I think we should be slow to bring out the martyr card. I just don't think a "woe is me" attitude is flattering for Christians, as with any other group that may see themselves as victims. I think Christians should fight for religious freedom and stand up when they see somebody's religious expression being silenced, but I think we just sometimes need to do it with a different attitude. We should focus on the freedom aspect and not the persecution aspect - but I admit I don't know where the line is.

I'm just not buying what they're selling

Let's look at who Jesus was and what he valued. In many ways he embodied what is the "conservative morality". He echoed the Old Testaments views on the family and had absolute standards of sexual morality (not saying liberals don't view these things as important, I am just speaking in terms of emphasis). And despite what many people say, I do believe that Jesus affirmed the two-fold path of "one man, one woman" or celibacy.

But Jesus also echoed many things that liberals consider important. Love your enemy. Love the sinners. Turn the other cheek. Help the poor and needy.

I want to focus on the last bit. Liberals have embraced the idea of helping the less fortunate, and that is very commendable. Christians in general seem to focus on keeping the letters of the law but forgetting the points of mercy and justice. In some aspects, the liberals have embraced the proper attitude concerning the poor. It's about giving people what they need, not what they deserve. Conservatives tend to focus on the work ethic aspect and whether or not somebody deserves to be helped.

But I still disagree with liberals on one important thing, the vital thing when it comes to the political. That thing is the role of government. For many of the Christian left, the government is the primary means for carrying out the work of God's kingdom.

I disagree with this method for philosophical and utilitarian reasons. Concerning the philosophical, Christianity is a spiritual viewpoint focused on free will, and it is about relationships. We enter into a relationship with Christ out of our free will. Think about evangelism. Trying to force conversions is self-defeating. Also, Jesus' mission did not concern the political. Granted, he had a certain goal at the time, but he didn't really irritate the political establishment by himself. It took the religious leaders to motivate his execution.

In addition, the Bible focuses on voluntary giving. Also, Jesus ministered to the spiritual as well as the physical. That's something not easily done by government services.

In my own opinion, I just believe charity is more effective than government programs. The giver has an opportunity to willfully choose to do something for other people, and the receiver sees the gift as just that, and not an entitlement.

I am not saying there is no room for government programs. And reasonable people can disagree on where government should get involved. But the Christian left have to reason and defend their position that government involvement is a given. I think when we look to the words of Jesus and try to further his kingdom, we should be focusing on the sphere of life outside government.

How to have a college football national championship

Tune into ESPN or listen to sports radio and almost every time college football is discussed, the term "playoffs" soon surfaces.

For a while, I wasn't on board with a playoff system. I thought the season would simply be too long. Too much work and too much risk of injuries. But, something I think very few people realize is that there are playoffs in college football. Division-II and Division-III, even Division-IAA (now called Division I FCS) all have playoffs. 16 teams, 4 games for the top 2 teams. Why not Division-IA (or Division I FBS)? Not only that, high school football as playoffs. My high school's division had 32 teams, 5 games. How can one say that a playoff is too taxing for college football's top division when even high schoolers seem capable of handling it?

So if we decide playoffs are the best way, the question is who and how many?

Option 1) The best 8 or 16 teams get in, regardless of conference. The BCS or AP would select who they are.

Option 2) Playoffs are composed of the conference champs, period.

Option 3) Playoffs are composed of the conference champs and a few wild card picks. This is how the playoffs work for any major sport. Division/conference leaders get in automatically, and the best teams left get picked. A variation of this would be that only the champs of the BCS conferences got in, and the rest are at-large (similar to the BCS bowl system now).


The problem I have with Option 1 is that it still allows a high degree of subjectivity in football. The polls and even the BCS rankings are very subjective. I prefer either option 2 or 3 because it allows everyone a shot regardless of the conference. Yes, some conferences are weaker, but if that is the case, it would be proven in the playoffs. Who cares if, say Michigan or Georgia is better than Hawaii? The point is, they aren't better than the best team in their own respective conference, and the whole point of the playoffs is to determine the best team overall.

The problem with option 3 is it still leaves room for some subjectivity. Oklahoman columnist Berry Tramel points this out in his blog:

If the NCAA would adopt my playoff plan — an 11-team playoff, with only conference champions involved — think how great would be not just the playoff, but the regular season. That’s the problem with all the 16-team or 8-team playoffs. When you bring in the wild cards and at-large berths, you’ve got just as big a mess as we’ve got now, and you’ve watered down the regular season.

I agree with Tramel, and think that a tournament solely composed of the conference champs would be the best. The top 5 teams would get a first round bye. You would get 4 rounds, a total of 10 games.

7 facts about yours truly

I was tagged by Lee to share 7 facts about myself. Give him a visit sometime. He's a pretty fascinating person.

1. I've been married for four years to my wonderful wife.

2. I was raised by my grandparents for 12 years.

3. I once met "Big Country" Bryant Reeves at a family reunion.

4. I used to play with Bible action figures as a kid. I had David and Goliath, Samson and Delilah, Jonah and a big whale he could fit in, all the famous Bible people. I also had Jesus, but I pretty much left him alone. I didn't want to do anything blasphemous.

5. As a kid, I watched way too much TV and didn't read nearly enough books.

6. I played football for a year in high school. I was a pretty small kid. Most small kids are at least fast. I was not.

7. Seeing my baby boy laughing for the first time brought tears to my eyes.

I'm supposed to tag 7 people, but I will just do those that typically or may do these: I will tag those who typically do these: Josh, The Pachyderm, Neil, and John Kaiser.

Still missing an important point: Possible breakthrough in stem-cell research

An article from Wired states that

In an unprecedented feat of biological alchemy, researchers have turned human skin cells into stem cells that hold the same medical promise as the controversial embryonic stem cells.

Scientists believe stem cell research will be able to cure numerous diseases and regenerate failing bodies. The new technique, however, doesn't require the destruction of embryos, or use human eggs or cloning. Thus, it sweeps aside the ethical objections to stem-cell research.

I think this is great, because there are ethical questions involved when using embryonic stem cells.

However, some people are still missing an important point when it comes to stem-cell research. Ethical dilemmas are not the only reason to question government funding of medical research. To support stem-cell research does not automatically mean one must support government funding, though most people think the two are synonymous. I don't want to get into a detailed list of pros and cons for government funding right now, but I think it is a question that we should at least consider.

The problem with our culture is that we assume all things good and true must be funded by government. We think the arts are important, well, let's use tax money to fund the arts! We want to support our farmers; well, make sure they get subsidies! Ethanol can increase fuel efficiency, well, by all means, give lots of money to car or oil companies to research the issue! Like baseball, well, let's give billionaires some money so they will build a stadium in this city! Think faith-based initiatives are great, well, we better throw tax dollars at them!

The idea that government is a type of benefactor is so pervasive in our minds that we think anything that needs to be done in society should be done so through laws and tax dollars. And that's unfortunate, because I believe government corrupts so many things. People complain that we should fund stem-cell research because we shouldn't let politics corrupt science, but that is exactly what happens when you fund the research.

Some people prefer a "broader view" of government. But I prefer a "separate spheres" approach. Now, I don't mean that are values shouldn't inform how we interact in politics as one can take that statement to mean. What I mean is that we shouldn't be so quick to ensure that government infests every area of our lives. So many good and pure things happen outside the reach of government. Sure, we must ensure that we have a just society and that everyone is treated equally under the law. At the same time, however, many revolutionary things, Jesus' mission for one, happened outside, and in spite of, and even contrary to, the realm of government. Other institutions, such as the family, the church, and charities, are the ones that truly change lives.

A conflict of rights?

Sigrid Fry-Revere from the Cato-blog says the following:

I believe abortion is morally wrong, but I also believe that in a conflict between mother and fetus, a woman’s right must always take precedence. A human being’s rights under the law increase with maturity. That has been the tradition under Anglo-American law as well as world wide for most of history. To suggest that a fetus has the same rights as a mature adult individual borders on the perverse. A woman’s rights should never be placed second to the needs of her fetus. To do so is to treat women first and foremost as communally owned vessels for bringing forth life and only second as autonomous individuals.

I take a couple issues with this.

First of all, I disagree that age affects right to life. She rightly asserts that the rights of individuals, on the whole, increase with age. Adults can do more things, whether it be vote, make major purchases, drink, etc... Children's lives can be essentially run by their parents. But the right to be free from harm should always be a constant. While parents can choose how they raise their kids and what philosophies to teach them, parents never have the right to harm their children. I understand that Fry-Revere does not believe a fetus qualifies as a human, but her argument concerning age and rights does not hold water here.

Secondly, one has to consider exactly what rights are being trumped. Many pro-lifers, such as myself, do agree that if the fetus poses an imminent risk to the mother, abortion is not immoral. However, Fry-Revere is weighing the right to life vs. the right not to be inconvenienced.

The author does say one statement I agree with, however. The idea of each state deciding whether abortion is legal or not does sound appealing, after all it is better than the current situation. But philosophically, I don't know if it is that sound. She states

Abortion should no more be a question for local politics than slavery.

Unfortunately, she goes in the wrong direction from there.

The media's view of the American Dad, real and ideal

Who says you can't learn anything from Hollywood?

Watching TV and movies we see a portrayal of the average dad. This may provide insight into how many dads are viewed and/or what makes the ideal father.

In most TV shows the husband/dad is portrayed as a bumbling idiot. Look at King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, and The Simpsons. The dad is usually incompetent and inconsiderate of his wife's feelings. He is always the one that screws everything up. That is just how it is.

It seems to be different in the movies, however, and perhaps that is because of the style of storytelling that tends to work towards a resolution, both in events and character; whereas a TV show things tend to stay the same. At the beginning, the dad is someone to tied up into his work, ignores his family, and tends to pursue money as opposed to higher ideals. Let's look at the movies RV and the modern version of The Shaggy Dog.

In RV, the dad is having problems with his job, and he isn't exactly commanding respect from his kids. He finally faces a dilemma near the end of the movie, in which he has a choice of commercial success or staying true to his values.

In The Shaggy Dog, the dad is similar, but more extreme. He is pursuing success in his job, but all the while somewhat neglecting his wife, and he is not involved in his son and daughter's lives whatsoever. The son is pretending to play football to make his dad happy, while secretly practicing for a play. The dad, Tim Allen's character, is at odds with his daughter concerning a clash of values. When the dad transforms into a dog, however, he gets a sneak peek into his children's lives. He transforms from a workaholic dad to a great family man who shares the values of his daughter.

I think in movies and TV we may get a glimpse of the American Dad archetype (I suppose this could be any dad, but I really just watch American TV and movies). (I hope archetype is the right word, correct me if not) In the movies, he is a workaholic father and may only be involved in the children's lives to the extent that he urges them to get good grades or, in the case of a son, be a man's man and play football or the like. His primary concern is his career, and the family is really secondary.

Interestingly enough, the TV representation in some sense, is the opposite. Instead of being ambitious and successful, he has little motivation at all. We don't see this so much in the Raymond character, but in King of Queens, The Simpsons. But the attitude towards the family is still not overwhelmingly positive. It is primarily one of indifference, although not the degree of neglect seen in the movies.

These are just observations I've made. In TV, there's not really much redemption concerning the father character; the father character is not motivated to be an active father, and he realizes that, and he accepts that, and the family accepts that. Movies are more positive, however, we see how some fathers are, but we also get a glimpse of how fathers should be. Men need to take note of these characters. Society wants fathers that are not tied up in their job, who love their wives, who are involved in their children's lives beyond the disciplinarian role, and who shares values that aren't compromised by the outside world. I think God wants the same thing. I would add this though. At the same time, I believe the wife/mother has a responsibility to ensure that the dad is still respected, even if he is not perfect. But the overall message is clear; be there for your family, don't just be the breadwinner.

A vet's day post, a day late

Perspective, I believe, is one of the keys to living a somewhat content and grumble-free life.

My boss was telling me this story. He occasionally has to travel to Hawaii. He has been there 50-something times over his career. He's sick of going. He was complaining about the trip...to someone who was in Iraq. The soldier was kind enough, but his elaboration about his trip changed my boss's perspective.

At Starbucks the other day, some guy was yelling at the barista because his order was wrong. If the worst thing that happens to you that day is that you have the wrong kind of milk in your coffee drink, you live a blessed and/or fortunate life.

And I'm no different. I get consumed by the everyday worries of life. I have bills to pay, projects for the house, etc... I get upset when my teams lose, but again, if that's the worst of my problems, I am in good shape.

One of the greatest days of my life was when my son was born. I saw him the very second he stepped into this world. When he graduates, when he gets married, when he has his own babies, I will always look back to the day I saw him, and he saw the world, for the very first time.

But some people don't see that day. They are off on the other side of the world while their baby is born. All wonder if they will live to see their child. Some don't.

Many of us don't have to spend 13 to 15 months away from our family. For many of us, imminent death is not at the front of our minds. For many of us, we don't sleep in a foxhole. Many of us have the luxury of being there when our babies are born.

All it takes is a little perspective to see that our lives really aren't that bad. We have it pretty good and we have had to sacrifice so very little. Other's have and are making that sacrifice.

This isn't about the nobility or lack thereof of the current war, or any war in particular. The point is, people are willing to die for us.

To all the veterans and current soldiers, Thank you.

The Universe

Sometimes I enjoy getting into a good debate. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'm in the mood to talk about serious topics, whether it be political, theological, whatever... Unfortunately, I seem to be in a bit of a bind. I do one of my few posts about TV shows, then I am criticized for watching too much TV. Go figure. I suppose everything is a topic for debate. I just feel that the topics I post on are subject for debate. At the same time, however, a blog is somewhat like a safe haven, where I post about whatever I feel like talking about; but when I am criticized personally based on my selection of topics, then that "safe haven" aspect goes away. I guess that's what irks me.

Speaking of TV, right now I am watching a special on the History channel called "The Universe." It touches a little bit on the topic of religion and science in regards to the origin of the universe.

So here's a question. Are religion and science meant to be mutually exclusive? I've heard the theory that science explains the what, religion explains the why? Or are science and religion really compatible, is it just religionists who put God in a box, or scientists who are pure materialists that make it not seem to be the case?

I'm more of a fan of the physical sciences, as opposed to the biological. Concerning evolution and such, I'm not opposed to the idea of any evolutionary mechanisms being involved in nature. And evolution can be a vague term. If I am asked, "Do you believe in evolution", I'm not even sure what I am being asked. Macro-evolution? Micro-evolution? Sometimes I think Christians are focused on the idea of defeating evolution, when not all aspects of evolution necessarily contradict the Bible.

There seems to be less of a conflict when it comes to the physical sciences. It seems that the origin of the universe as a whole does not really conflict with a divine Creator. In fact, the idea of the Big Bang seems to fit along just nicely.

Is it natural to believe in a divine Creator? At first glance, the idea of a universe that came on its own is no easier to swallow than a universe that sprang from a Creator. The natural question is, if God created the universe, who created God? I would say nobody, and I don't think that is an intellectual cop out. Here's why.

I have two options:
1) The universe, which has certain rules (conservation of energy, things always tend towards choas) came out of nothing.
2) Something outside the universe which is not bound by our same rules created the universe.


To me, option 2 seems easier to swallow. Maybe it doesn't to other people. Psalm 19:1-4 says that "The heavens declare the glory of God", so I think God did instill something in us that leads us to look at nature and infer a Creator behind it.

This isn't meant as some course in apologetics. I'm just thinking out loud. My main point is, as far as the science I know, I don't think religion and science necessarily come into conflict. But I don't know if our worldview should be that religion and science are mutually exclusive, or that they truly complement each other.

Love isn't all you need

In my Sunday School class we are going over the Love and Respect series by Emerson Eggerichs. The idea of the series is that it focuses on a key verse on marriage in the Bible from Ephesians 5:33:

Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

As most marriage books/videos do, the series talks about the need for a husband to love his wife, but it also focuses on another key aspect of a successful marriage - that a wife respect her husband.

Women should love their husbands, and husbands respect their wives, but the idea is that women are naturally loving, and men are naturally respectful, so they may not tend to give their spouse exactly what they need.

The idea of what respect looks like is less certain than love, at least to me and many others. Some people, such as myself, believe the husband is the head of the household under Christ, and part of this respect is a recognition of that position. But even if you tend to be more liberal in thought regarding family structure, you could still appreciate the idea of respect, in that a husband wants to be admired and not looked down upon. I think men want to be treated in a way that say, other people at work treat him. I was with a group of guys once at a former church, and one of their complaints about their wives was that at times they talked to the men, they talked to them in a disrespectful way that other men wouldn't dare talk to them.

I just wanted to touch on this idea a little bit. This doesn't mean that women don't deserve respect and men don't deserve love, I just believe this verse just focuses on needs of our spouse we tend to overlook. And respect doesn't mean the man can never be challenged or called out if he does something wrong; people have taken this idea to the extreme and made respect equate with control. At the same time, we are also a love-saturated society. The idea of respect is often not talked about. Love isn't all you need.

Dear writers

Dear writers of Scrubs,

For some reason, every show feels like they have to have an on-again, off-again relationship between two main characters. I think Who's the Boss started this, and was popularized by Friends Ross and Rachel. Consequently, so many sitcoms feel that they have to pursue this formula. Some shows still do this well, like The Office's Jim and Pam. But those two have a chemistry; there is absolutely none with J.D. and Elliot. They are more like best friends. Having two co-stars get involved is okay, but they have to click in order to have a real relationship. I feel like Scrubs is simply putting the two together because they happen to work at the same place. It's predictable. Why not do something totally out of the norm, like people not getting together solely because they are two young costars on the show?

And what is up with people only dating those they work with? Why does a doctor have to date another doctor? What about the pizza girl/guy? I'm just not sure if the majority of America dates and marries the person they work with. And why does every member of the family have to work the same occupation? Alias did this to the extreme. Sydney, of the CIA, has a dad who is in the CIA, and has a mom who used to work the CIA (but ended up being a double agent), she had an unknown half-sister who works for some foreign intelligence group, whose dad happened to work for the CIA, and Sydney marries a guy who works for the CIA, whose dad used to work for the CIA...this is getting ridiculous.... I work on software. If everytime I had a conversation with my wife, sister, sister's husband, long-lost brother, secret father of mine, and it involved whether or not C++ or Java is a better programming language, I would move to the forest.

Dear writers of The Office,
You are about to suffer from Steve Urkel syndrome. Family Matters used to be a somewhat heartwarming show spotlighted on a variety of characters (not that it was really a great show to begin with). They had the nerdy guy who everyone liked, and, in typically fashion of writers who milk things for all they are worth, basically turned it into the Steve Urkel show. You are doing the same with Steve Carr\ell's character, Michael Scott. Instead of the show staying true to its origins, a comedy with somewhat real people in a documentary type scenario, the show has become a "what crazy things will Michael do in this episode?" You have a great cast, use them.

Dear producers of The Next Great American Band,
Kudos to having a long overdue show on actual bands who write their own stuff and cover something other than Destiny's Child. But, c'mon, having a critic who is an outspoken British guy, how original.

When being a sports fan, take it one game at a time

Being a fan of any sports team can be a great experience, or it can be painful. But the experience doesn't have to depend on how a team does. Being a good fan depends on how seriously they take their team's success, to some degree.

One aspect of fandom I think is very important is to have the same approach that a coach or player should have: take it one game at a time.

What I mean is that a fan should focus only on the upcoming game and not the big picture of how the team does. I believe that when fans focus on the overall picture - if they will make the playoffs, how good of a bowl game they make, if they'll win a conference/league championship - then the overall fan experience is less enjoyable.

Why do I think this? Let's look at things in college football terms, since that is my favorite sport. If you don't have a team that typically performs all that well, then from the fan's perspective, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Every victory is a joy. Losses are still a disappointment, but they are gotten over more easily.

However, let's say you root for a championship caliber team, Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Oklahoma, Florida, etc... Things change. Fans will believe that the conference championship and a BCS bowl game is theirs to lose. High expectations are set upon the team. Losses are met with people calling for the coach's head. Wins are met with sighs of relief. Even during a victory, fans will analyze the teams performance to see if any weaknesses were exposed that will cause problems later.

So, does this mean we just root for bad teams? No. I think the answer is to keep a short-term mindset even when your team becomes successful. As I said earlier, fans should just look at the value of winning a game, one game at a time. Relish each victory. Don't worry about the postseason. Don't obsess over the fact that your team barely hung on to victory while their pass defense was ripped to shreds; be thankful that they found a way to win.

It's okay to be disappointed after losses, and I think, to even lose a little sleep that night from time to time. But be disappointed because it was a loss, not that the team won't get to go to so and so bowl game or, because they lost this game there is no way they will win the next one.

By approaching games this way, I think fans do a better job in sharing in the emotional highs and lows of the season along with the team.

My apologies to anyone who is not an Oklahoma State fan

Posting about my college team is a tad self-indulgent, because OSU is one of those teams whose fan base consists primarily of locals to Oklahoma and/or alumni, me being at one time the former and now the latter. And OU is winning the battle as far as local fans. But, you have a choice if you want to read this or not.


Why I believe Oklahoma State will do better this season than the last season. OSU just romped Nebraska 45-14 in Nebraska. But the thing OSU fans saw last year is that the team would have a great victory one weekend but not carry the momentum into the next weekend. A great come-from-behind victory last year in Kansas was deflated by a loss to A&M the following weekend at Homecoming. A great victory over Nebraska did nothing to propel the Cowboys at Austin playing Texas. So, based on last year, the victory over Nebraska means swat in predicting future outcomes this season.

However, there are a few factors that makes me think this year's team is different.

1. Better defense. OSU played poorly at the beginning of the season, but they picked things up in the middle of the Texas Tech game, despite the loss to A&M after that. OSU kept a great Nebraska offense to a couple of garbage-time touchdowns.
2. More consistency at quarterback. Bobby Reid, who started last year but is benched this year, is a great athlete and hit great heights as quarterback, but was very inconsistent last year. Zac Robinson, the current QB, has had more consistent production if you neglect his very first starting game at Troy.
3. More overall offensive consistency. Even during the victories last year, it would take some time for the offense to click. Last season, Nebraska jumped to a 17-0 lead before OSU started finally moving the ball. In the Kansas game, OSU came from behind to win, and at Kansas State, they almost had a come from behind victory. This season, OSU's offense is clicking early and jumping out to an early lead.

About Mike Gundy: For those who don't know, Gundy held a passionate, angry press conference when a columnist from the Oklahoman criticized Bobby Reid. In short, I agree with what Gundy did, but I don't agree with the way he did it. I disagree with Gundy in some respects, because I think college athletes are fair game when it comes to both praise and criticism. At the same time, however, Gundy has every right to defend his players in public and say that a column is wrong, although he should be careful not to attack the columnist. I think Gundy was right in talking about the issue publicly, because it was a public column, but he should have waited till he calmed down and collected his thoughts. The news, whether local or ESPN, have shown an amazing amount of bias in showing the negative reactions to his spiel, and not any of the positives from fellow coaches.

Is football just a big chess match?

Colin Cowherd from ESPN radio listed the following 4 things to look for when determining if you have a good coach in football.

1) Team plays better after halftime.
2) Team plays better as the season progresses.
3) Team scores few offensive penalties. Defensive penalties are less importance since they are more reactionary.
4) Team plays fairly consistently. Team does not do awesome one week then totally blow it the next.

The quality of coaching, Colin insists, does not depend on play calling. Or, at the very least, cannot be surmised from the play calling.

I believe those 4 points he mentioned are probably pretty good ones, although 2 and 4 could probably be combined. However, the lack of these qualities could also indicate an inexperienced team, especially on the college level, so that should always be factored in.

So, how important is play-calling? I think people like strong leaders. They like their quarterbacks to shoulder the team, and they like their head coaches to be the mastermind pulling the team's strings. We like to envision football as a big chess match between two head coaches. When a fourth and one is not converted, we may tend to blame the coach for calling the play, not on the players who should have executed properly. So I think we harp on play-calling too much at times.

However, I don't know if we can dismiss the importance of play calling. I'm not talking so much about when a run or pass is called, but an overall play calling philosophy. It is important that a coach utilizes the talent he has. Many people in the area claim that the Denver Broncos performed better when the current coach, Mike Shanahan, took over, simply because he utilized John Elway much more than the previous coach (although there are not a lot of Shanahan fans at the moment). When you have a star quarterback, you want to make the riskier calls and go long more often, and when you have a stud running back, then you want to go for the sure running game.

But I can still see Colin's point in that we often assume that we know what the best calls are, but we aren't in the coaches shoes. We also don't know what is the result of bad play-calling and simply poor execution. But we tend to look at the end result of the game, when the end result is a combination of coaching and players.

Our view of authority - what it means for politics and where it came from

Although I would call myself a limited-government conservative, to me, mainstream conservative somewhat makes sense. Although the term "mainstream conservatism" is somewhat up for grabs, in short, I would define it as this: a view that government should have a say in moral affairs and be more hands-off in economic matters. This is why it makes sense. In general, authority figures have a role in saying what is right and wrong; examples include the church, our parents, schools, etc...

But...I am overlooking something. Let's go back to the parents example. Parents tell us what is right and wrong, but they also provide for us. They nurture us and they try to provide a somewhat safe environment.

So, for some reason, when I think of authority, I immediately think of a type of moral authority, some guide telling me what to do and what not to do. Others, however, may think of a more nurturing, provisional figure. It's not that we neglect on facet of authority, we may just tend to emphasize one side in our minds.

So this makes me think, do our political views come from our view of authority in general? In fact, do our political views have something to do with our family structure, or at least, our view of it?

Think of a conservative's view of government. The government lays down the (moral) law, protects us from bad guys, and tells us to go out and get a job. Sounds like your stereotypical Dad.

Think of a liberal's view of government. Here, the government makes sure we have what we need and is a little more permissive concerning what we do and don't do. Does this sound like a Mom?

Stay with me here. This has nothing to do with if conservatives are manly men and liberals are girly girls or anything like that. I'm just saying that, for some reason, conservatives tend to view their ideal government as some type of father figure, whereas liberals see the government as a more nurturing mother figure.

So do our political views have anything to do with our family structure? Does the dominant parental figure affect our views?

This is just a theory, but I really don't have anything to back it up. I consider myself a cultural conservative, but I didn't have a strong father figure until later in my life. If I asked conservatives and liberals I knew about their family life, I don't know if their stories would indicate any correlation between political views and dominant parental figure.

So how would libertarians figure into the equation. It's hard to say because, unlike conservatives and liberals, their whole philosophy requires more of a compartmentalization between the institution of government and other institutions, so their experience with authority in the family structure may be less likely to affect their view of government. Or, has their experience with familial authority initiated their limited government views in the first place?

But maybe I am limiting my scope and need to expand it to other areas of authority in our life. What about the church? There is a high correlation between religious people and conservative thought, but there is also a growing number of Christian liberals, so who knows?

So am I onto something here, or am I way off?

Thoughts on the college football scene

People have underestimated Ohio State. While Michigan was losing to I-AA schools and Texas was just barely beating Central Florida and Arkansas State, Ohio State was dominating their opponents under the radar. There is too much of a time lag in rankings in the polls. I would have kicked Texas out of the top 10 after the first 1 or 2 weeks.

Les Miles is a better coach than I thought he was.

Because of the way we crown our national champion, people get involved in imaginary contests about which conference is better. We can only surmise that such and such conference is better than the other one just because of a single game between two schools earlier in the season, or maybe there were no games at all. We don't really know if the Big 12 champ is truly better than the PAC-10 champ, so we make a guess based on strength of schedule, which is primarily within one's conference. It doesn't make any sense.

The best way is to have a tournament of 8 teams. Why 8? Because we want to avoid two things:

1) the have's having two or three more games than the have-nots. Let's say a regular season schedule is reduced to 11 games. Bowl-worthy teams would have 12 games. The top 8 would only have 12, 13, or 14 games. If we have a tournament of 16 or 32, we have the top teams getting 4 or 5 more games experience than a team at the bottom.
2) Injuries.

Big 12 notes:

Analysts said that the Big 12 was rich in great quarterbacks, but things have turned out slightly different than expected. No one would expect Oklahoma's Sam Bradford would lead the pack, not only in the Big 12, but in the nation in efficiency. Texas's McCoy is in a bit of a sophomore slump, although the Red River Game looked promising for him. And OSU's Bobby Reid isn't starting for his team anymore.

The Big 12 champ may very well come out of the North this year. Kansas, Colorado, and Missouri are looking good.

Nebraska should have stuck with Frank Solich. He was a 10-3 coach when they fired him, and if I'm not mistaken, he took them to a national championship game. He was fired because Nebraska wasn't THE team in the Big 12 anymore. However, things change in college football. It wasn't just Osborne leaving Nebraska, it was two coaches by the name of Bob Stoops and Mack Brown that changed things in the Big 12. Now, looking from Nebraska's point of view, they believe someone else could take them to the top rung. Callahan came in, and it was known things would be messy, as their would be growing pains with a new type of offense. But Callahan has had time to recruit. They have not been much of a factor in the Big 12, and the idea of them going to a national championship game anytime soon is laughable. As the San Diego Chargers have learned, you don't fire a winning coach.

I just couldn't stay away... On SCHIP

So Bush vetoed SCHIP, so he's a total scumbag right? I mean, who wouldn't want to provide health insurance for kids?

But no issue is as simple as it seems. And sometimes what seems like the obvious, simple solution may provide a short term fix, but will not really address the problem.

So the SCHIP idea works like this: health care is too expensive, so let's have the government cover the costs. It is a noble plan, and I admire the Democrats motives. But, as I said a couple posts back, opposite opinions do not mean opposite goals or motives.

Bush and the Republicans don't hate kids, they just don't think government expansion of health care will truly fix the problem, and they think it can make things even worse. People such as myself believe government expansion will harm the overall quality of health care. And the net result would be more children dying.

When something is too expensive, we must ask why it is too expensive. And liberals may roll their eyes when this conservative says that government is the problem, because it seems that that is the excuse every time. But at least some of the time that is true. As the pachyderm points out:

In Manhattan, an individual cannot purchase health insurance for less than $10,000/year. Clearly, that is a problem with NY laws, which do not permit managed care organisations to charge lower premiums to healthy 25-year-olds than to the elderly or the chronically ill. A 30-year-old, nonsmoking, female resident of SoCal, however, can get basic coverage for approximately $600/year.

What's frustrating about the issue is that so many people look on the surface and see it as the caring Democrats being shut down by the "couldn't care less about children unless they are in the womb" President Bush. I'm not saying there is no worthy debate here, because there is, but it still requires further analysis.

Unlike the strict libertarians, I'm all for the government helping people who cannot help themselves. Not everyone can afford health insurance. But before helping people out, we must examine why such a problem exists in the first place. Cut down spending before asking for more money.

Normal people do this. If I look at my budget and find out I am in the hole every month, I would examine my budget and find out where I could cut costs and if there are any unnecessary expenses. If our family worked like government however, my wife would immediately demand that I get a 2nd job so that we can afford to feed our son.

A short break

I've been on travel the past week so I haven't had time to post. Right now I am busy with a few things. I want to come back soon, I just have to devote time to other things at the moment. I want to make sure that when I do come back I can post at least 2 times a week, which I know isn't very much to some, but I want to at least be consistent.

Using your own conclusions to evaluate others' opinions

Yes, catchy post title I know.

On Neil's blog a user commented

It might make a difference in my opinion [about abortion] if I ever once saw a pro-lifer actually make an argument for adoption; for universal health care and adequate funding for education; even criticize the Bush Administration for planning to defund the S-CHIP program. Since I have yet to read a peep about any of this, I will rest my case on what I have experienced. All too much concern over all those fetuses makes little difference because there seems no concern at all ever expressed for the life of “post-birth” life.

I've addressed this viewpoint somewhat in a previous post, but I'd like to touch more on this again.

The problem the commenter has is that he equates "caring for the born" = "voting Democrat." The reason he does this is, I believe, he uses his own motivations to evaluate the motivations of others.

Here is my response on the blog:

You seem to think that these programs are the best ways to preserve life…I don’t.

I think universal health care harms the overall quality of care and actually puts people’s lives at risk due to long waiting lines. Canada’s supreme court seems to agree.

I think funding for education is adequate, but more revolutionary ideas have to take place in order for education to improve, rather than simply more funding. Many free market advocates are passionate about this issue, they just don’t think it is a matter of more money, but of school choice.

So there are a couple issues with your argument. 1) You assume that conservatives have the opinions they do simply because they don’t care. 2) You support certain programs because they produce supposed results. Let’s call them results A. The problem with this is that you evaluate other people’s political ideals based on results A, rather than the supposed results (results B) in the conservatives mind.

Here is an example:
1) You support universal healthcare because you believe it provides great health care for everyone and saves lives, especially poor kids.

2) Conservatives don’t support universal healthcare.

3) Therefore…the conclusion is that conservatives don’t want great health care for everyone and wants kids to die.

Now I’ll do the same.
1) I am against gun control because I want innocent people to defend themselves. For instance, I want a woman to defend herself in case she is about to be raped.

2) You support gun control.

3) Therefore…you want women to be raped.

The ultimate source of authority

In Christianity, typically the measure of how conservative or liberal someone is theologically hinges on their viewpoint of the Bible. Theological conservatives tend to believe the Bible literally and believe in it's infallibility, whereas liberals may tend to view the Bible less literally. This is quite a spectrum. Many believe that the Bible is inspired by God, yet view many stories and accounts of miracles as merely symbolic. Others see the Bible as their Holy Book, yet believe it is full of errors since it was written by men.

I don't want to get too much into the debate about the overall veracity or how literal the Bible is. From my own viewpoint, I am pretty conservative, so I believe the Bible completely. I tend not to dismiss elements of stories simply because they contain accounts of the supernatural.

Those who believe that the Bible is completely true view the Bible as the ultimate source of authority. Any other philosophy, whether it be presented by our pastor, a self-help book, the slick-haired man asking for money on TV, it is weighed against Scripture. If things don't line up with the Bible, it is rejected; hopefully, however, it illuminates our understanding of something already found in the Bible. This is, of course, not a perfect process. We are humans, so we can often misunderstand what the Bible says. Nevertheless, we do have a reference source that helps us greatly.

Many people believe the Bible for the most part, but believe that it can or does contain errors since it was written by men. However, when one doubts certain parts of the Bible, how does one know what parts to accept and what parts to reject? That person's internal philosophy ultimately becomes the lens through which the Bible is viewed. Instead of weighing everything against the Bible, they weigh the Bible, and everything else, against their own personal philosophy.

As I said, this is not really an argument that the Bible is completely true, though I believe it is. However, something has to be our ultimate source of authority. If we make evaluations about which parts of the Bible are true, we become our own source of authority.

My increased appreciation for my wife, and other stay-at-home Moms

We decided before Levi was born that my wife would stay at home. We had tried for some time just to live solely on my income so that when she would stay home it would not be a big strain.

So, the baby was sick last week with a viral infection. Once he got over it, my wife got sick. When it is just the husband and wife, either person being sick is not a ton of fun. When my wife was sick in the past, I may have stayed home from work and took her to the doctor.

With a baby, this takes on a whole new dimension. For one, when the newborn is sick, it is not fun to hear him moan in pain from a sore throat; that is about the worst sound you can hear. When the wife is sick, that means I become the stay-at-home mom. I enjoyed my extra time with Levi. At the same time, I realize how much my wife goes through taking care of a newborn. I thought it was rough taking care of him all day for 2 or 3 days, so I can only imagine what my wife goes through doing it all the time. So, my appreciation for what my wife does every day is renewed. To all those stay at home moms, or moms in general, I salute you.

Analysis of my fantasy football draft

A quick note: I haven't been posting nearly as often. Part of it is being busy. I'm doing a little bit of work offsite, and overall I've just had a lot on my plate. Also, the little bit of time during work I am engaged in personal stuff, I've been involved with my fantasy football team that I drafted last weekend. Also, I've had a lack of inspiration due to being so busy. When I'm not busy, all sorts of stuff is going through my head, and the focus for some time has been political/philosophical issues. For some reason, having a child, fantasy football, and work stuff has been filling my head. I will try to post when I have the time, but I'm not making any promises. I know it's nice for readers of a blog to have the blogger post on a consistent basis, but I just can't promise that.

Back to my fantasy football draft, here is an analysis of a few of my picks. There are 15 players and 15 picks per player.

1st round - Travis Henry, RB, Denver Broncos. I think Henry has a lot of potential in an offense in which any running back does pretty well. There are injuries to be concerned about. I had a choice between him and Maroney of the Patriots, and upon reflection, Maroney may have been the better choice, but I think Henry has the bigger upside.
2nd round - Cedric Benson, RB, Da Bears. At this point, there were higher rated players who were quarterbacks. I decided to go for two strong running backs. This is a bit of a gamble, as this is his first year as the premier back.
3rd round - Vince Young, QB, Tennessee Titans. I am a huge Vince Young fan. However, this may not have been the best pick. A good rule in Fantasy Football is to pick either a super-elite QB, or wait until the later rounds as their is not a huge point difference among them. I probably should have picked a very good wide receiver at this point. Nevertheless, having Vince will make FF more fun this year. I root for Vince Young anyway, and when he does well, I have the added bonus of my team doing well.
6th Round - Fred Taylor, RB, Jacksonville Jaguars - I think a good pick for this round. I needed a backup RB, and I thought Fred was pretty good to still be hanging around. He typically has injuries at least once during the year, so that probably gave him a low ranking. For a 3rd RB, however, (I have to start 2), I trust his health enough.
8th Round - Patriots Defense - One of the better defenses, a steal at this round.
15th Round - Josh Scobee, Kicker, JacksonVille Jaguars - I don't know much about this guy, but the fact that I waited until the last round is one of the smartest things I have done.

A few thoughts on the Michael Vick case

1) It's not a racial issue, no matter how much some want it to be. It's about animal cruelty. I don't naively believe that race is never an issue in America, but I don't see sufficient reason to believe people would react any differently if this was a white athlete. To say that this has something to do with race takes away from the significance of the issue at hand. The ones bringing up race are the racially divisive people.

2) Money will not make someone a better person.

3) I'll try to say this without moralizing. I'm glad to see that people have regard for somewhat defenseless creatures (as defenseless as these breed of dogs can be anyway). However, I think our priorities are somewhat misplaced. Is dog torture really more inhumane than say partial birth abortion (I would say any abortion, but I'll take what I can get)? I understand that pro-choicers view fetuses on a lower plane than those outside the womb, but why lower than dogs?

On the existence of miracles

No doubt the Bible is filled with miracles. Many secular scholars reject the existence of miracles, as well as Christian scholars who tend to be more theologically liberal.

Sometimes, the rejection of all/some miracles tends to use circular reasoning. Consider the following statement.

"I don't believe in miracles because they contradict science."

However, miracles are supposed to contradict science, otherwise they are not miracles. By definition, miracles are "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs". So, if miracles are manifestations of a divine power, or an outside source, then the fact that they contradict science is really irrelevant.

So, the person might as well say

"I don't believe in things that contradict science because they contradict science."

Now, I'm not saying everyone who disbelieves miracles suffers from circular reasoning or some lack of cognitive ability. Miracles take faith to believe in, unless someone witnesses a miracle firsthand. Much of secular society disbelieves in miracles for multiple reasons. In short, they believe that God chooses not to interact in our physical environment, or that there is no God. But saying that miracles cannot exist because they contradict science is not really saying anything.

I'm always more perplexed by Christians who don't believe in all/some miracles. I suppose many believe in some miracles to some extent but don't believe in all the miracles documented in the Bible. I'm not quite sure how to know which ones to believe in, because the essential elements of the Christian faith are probably the most fantastical. God coming in human form is a pretty overwhelming.

Now, some Christians may reject some/all miracles in the Bible because they see none happening today. Why was there so much supernatural activity in the past, but not today? I don't completely know the answer. I have a few guesses though.

1) Because of the age we live in, we have access to so much more information than those in Bible times. Consequently, it is easier to have access to divine revelation through human means, so supernatural means are less necessary.

2) God went through a long period of not speaking to the people from the time of the prophets to the time of Christ. Perhaps in the period from the spread of the early church to times around the Second Coming/Tribulation is a sort of dry time for miracles. Maybe miracles abound only around significant events in the spiritual timeline, i.e. escape from Egypt, lifetime of Christ, spread of the early church.

3) Perhaps it has something to do with us. The supernatural is downplayed somewhat in the modern church, so it just doesn't happen that often. However, it seems like the supernatural happened in Bible times when people were not expecting it. For instance, Abraham didn't ask to be contacted by God. People didn't know when Jesus would come and perform miracles. At the same time, maybe our additional knowledge of God's overall plan should increase our expectations.

4) Maybe miracles happen more often than we know. I've always heard stories of amazing things happening with missionaries as far as healing of the sick and encounters with physical manifestations of spiritual entities. However, that doesn't explain why many of us don't see those things today. But then again, maybe miracles were only seen by select people in the Bible.

To Drug War or not to Drug War

Make no mistake, I believe drugs are bad. I believe using drugs for recreation is a sin. However, I'd like to consider philosophical and utilitarian arguments for and against drug legalization.

Philosophical arguments against drug legalization

1) Drugs are not, in fact, a victimless crime. Families and friends are torn apart by someone's drug usage. Drugs may be consumed by the individual, but they are a cancer to society as a whole.

2) Freedom implies someone has free will to make their own choices. Due to the addictive nature of drugs, however, that free will can be severely limited. They may make a choice for their first fix, but they are hooked afterwards.

3) To say that drugs should be legal because they only hurt the person that takes them (at least directly) may provide a disturbing distinction between victimless sins and other sins. By legalizing drugs, we may be saying "these things are bad, but they aren't as bad as murder, stealing, etc..." I think many people would agree, but they fear that by legalizing drugs, society, as a whole, is approving of them. While the Bible places a lot of importance on the Golden Rule, it provides little or no distinction on the level of sin based on how many people it affects.

4) In the balance of freedom vs. security, the benefits gained for society as a whole outweigh the benefits of being "free" to do crack, heroin, etc...

Philosophical arguments for legalizing recreational drugs

1) (Counterpoint to argument 1 above) It is up to the family structure, the church, and other voluntary organizations to discourage such behavior. Concerning friends and spouses, people have freedoms and responsibilities in choosing who they have relationships with, and drug usage, or the possibility thereof, is something that should be considered.

2) (Partly a counterpoint to argument 3 above) This is the typical libertarian argument. The purpose of government is to keep people safe from other people, not enforce morality, even if that saves someone from their own actions. Someone should have the right to do whatever they want, provided that they do not hurt anyone else. Who am I to say that someone doesn't have the right to participate in recreational drugs? If we truly value freedom, someone should have the right to live their life as they please. Anti-drug laws dwell on a slippery slope, and such laws will work their way into other areas of life, such as cigarettes, consumption of fast food, etc...


Utilitarian arguments against legalizing recreational drugs:

1) Legalizing drugs would make it easier for kids to get a hold of them. A kid would only need to get a hold of someone over 18/21 to get their fix.

2) Drugs impair the individuals ability to function. People couldn't perform their job duties while impaired. People can't drive while high.

Utilitarian arguments for legalizing recreational drugs:

1) Drug enforcement is largely ineffective, as demonstrated by Prohibition against alcohol. We spend tons of money on the drug war with little or no results.

2) Outlawing drugs has increased crime. It has created a black market that inflates drug prices, causing people to steal and murder. Furthermore, it has increased the powers of gangs that profit greatly from the drug trade. The illegal drug market also funds terrorists.

3) Outlawing drugs has reduced our freedoms. People's privacy has been decreased due to drug raids, as police forces on the federal and local level have become more invasive. Innocent citizens have been harmed during the execution of the Drug War.

4) Outlawing drugs is harming the suppliers and consumers of prescription drugs. Doctors are paranoid about prescribing too many pain killers due to the government's watchful eye. In turn, people who genuinely need pain relief suffer. Furthermore, a drug like marijuana may be the most useful in relieving nausea for patients with certain diseases.

5) Enforcing drug laws harm the police force in pursuit of other duties. Police spend resources executing the Drug War, not spending as much time pursuing killers and thieves. Jails are becoming overcrowded. (Note: This argument depends much on someone's philosophical reasoning. This argument presumes that drug usage is on a much lower level than victim-claiming crimes).

6) (Counterpoint to philosophical arguments 1,2 for keeping drugs illegal). While drugs harm free will and hurt people's loved ones and families, again, these arguments presume that keeping drugs illegal will actually decrease drug usage.

7) (Counterpoint to utilitarian argument 2) It is up to private companies to do drug testing. Driving while impaired would still be illegal.

So there you have it. I am not trying to push across a certain point of view. This is something I am pondering, and these are the arguments that come to mind. In short, drugs are so damaging that I think outlawing drugs is worth the tradeoff in freedom. So, philosophical I don't have as much of an issue with keeping drugs illegal. However, I genuinely wonder if the Drug War is indeed effective and is not making things worse.

This chilling thought comes to mind. What if the S.W.A.T. team busts down my door either by mistake or by an "informant" who has a grudge against me. What if my wife or kid gets shot in all the confusion. It is known to happen.

I'm curious what other people's thoughts are and if they have good philosophical/utilitarian arguments for or against the Drug War.

Resources:
Balanced Politics: Legalization of Marijuana? follow link for pro/con articles
The Cato Institute: Against the Drug War
Note: I tried to find an individual link supporting the drug war that was not already on Balanced Politics, but it is harder than I thought.

The exclusivity of Christianity. Is it important?

I have taken part in many discussions concerning the exclusivity of Christianity, that is, believing not only that Christ is the way to heaven, but that he is the only way. A key verse for this belief is "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." "

Now, I believe someone can be a Christian and not necessarily believe that Christ is the only way, but it would lead me to suspect the rest of their doctrine.

There seems to be three primary beliefs in salvation across the religions.

1) Good works get you to heaven.
2) Everyone goes to heaven.
3) Believing that Jesus Christ is the Messiah will get you to heaven.

If I left something out, let me know.

Now, if someone believes Option 3, but believes it is not the only way, then they would probably have to believe in Options 1 or 2. I know there are some Christian universalists who believe that Jesus's sacrifice automatically redeems all mankind. That view isn't necessarily inconsistent, though I disagree with that point of view for biblical reasons, as the scriptures frequently state that some response is needed. John 3:16 and John 1:11-12 being examples.

However, most people who believe Option 3 but do not believe in Christ being the only way typically believe in Options 1 and 3. I've heard many say that they believe in Jesus's sacrifice, but they believe someone can also go to heaven by being a good Buddhist or Muslim or whatever. But, in my view, believing that shows a lack of understanding of why exactly Jesus was our atonement. Christ paid the sacrifice because no one is good enough, whether they be Christian, Hindu, etc... Romans 3:23 states that "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The entire books of Romans and Galatians echo this concept.

When talking about this concept to non-believers, we don't want to present it as an issue of I'm right and you're wrong. It's really an issue of none of us being good enough to meet God's standards.

My main point of this post is that the concept of Christ being the only way is indeed important, simply because it is intertwined so much with belief of salvation in general. Is this belief narrow? Of course. It is an un-PC idea. But that doesn't prevent it from being true.

A couple more thoughts. If there was another way to heaven, why on Earth would Jesus go through the ordeal he did? It's not like he was looking forward to it. Also, if he is not the only way, it would provide much less motivation for evangelism. It carries serious implications for all the missionaries risking their lives in closed countries.

Some say Jesus came to this earth really to provide an example on how to live. That is true, but in a way, that makes it harder for us. Obeying the Mosaic Law is tough. Living the Law in our hearts is even tougher. The Law shows us how we fall short; Jesus does this to an even greater extent.

USC top team of last 10 years, according to ESPN

ESPN.com ranked every 119 Division 1-A college football program over the last 10 years. Not surprisingly, the USC Trojans ranked at the top. It's a pretty good list overall, though I'm surprised to see Florida State and Miami in the top 10. However, I have to remember that this is over the last 10 years, not the last 2.

I was glad to see Texas at number 3, and my beloved Oklahoma State Cowboys were tied at 56 with the Air Force Academy. I hope both my old home team and my new home team improve.

The only thing that bothered me about the rankings is they kept mentioning that USC was "a few seconds away from a third [national championship]." Yes, going to a championship game, even if you don't win, should count for something. But when it comes to the national championship game, or any game for that matter, it is either a win or a loss. In my view, closeness doesn't count.

I'm excited for the next football season. I think my two favorite teams, Texas and Oklahoma State, will improve. I was sad to see Texas implode last year near the end of the season, but they have gotten the OU monkey off their back (not to say it is a guaranteed win, but that the psychological blocks of a 5-year slump should be over), so I see their potential as limitless. Oklahoma State will depend heavily on their quarterback, if he can play consistently.

I am not an OU fan, but I thought they got the shaft, having to forfeit their wins from the 2005 season. They dismissed the crooked players as soon as they found out, so at the most, they should have gotten a warning.

I suppose it is early to talk about college football, but what else am I going to talk about when it comes to sports (other than Michael Vick, Barry Bonds, and the crooked NBA ref)?

Health care and health coverage

Without getting too much into details, I wanted to touch on the subject of health care and health coverage, primarily the fact that the two are different. Many conservatives/libertarians, Cannon, for one, argue that the goal is not to provide increasing coverage to people, but health care in increasing coverage and quantity. Coverage alone does not guarantee access to health care, only a waiting line in many cases.

Conservatives/libertarians argue that getting the government out of health care will make health care cheaper and of higher quality, resulting in fewer people uncovered. Still, the question remains, what about those people, however small or large the group may be, that are not covered? Some libertarians will argue that charity or the doctors themselves will eat up the cost of caring for them, whereas conservatives and more practical libertarians agree that those who truly cannot afford health care would indeed be cared for under government programs. Liberals will argue that it is cheaper to insure those people in the first place, as opposed to paying catastrophic expenses, and it is a valid point. However, many claim that government getting involved in coverage is inherently more intrusive and expansive as opposed to taking care of costs for the poor when they arise.

Anyway, my main point is that coverage and care are two different things. Access to coverage does not equal access to care. The goal should be to increase availability and quality of care, which I believe can be done through less government involvement. And I think we can do so without leaving the poorest in the gutter.

Make your own all-star band

Lee is back to blogging, and he has a post where you can create your own all-star band, inspired by the previous all-star band the Traveling Wilburys. See his post for more details and rules. My dream band is (not sure about spelling on all):

Bono (U2)
Pete Townshend (The Who)
John Frusciante (Red Hot Chili Peppers)
John Rzeznik (Goo Goo Dolls)
Chris Martin (Coldplay)

I do realize that not every position is covered, as I am not sure any of these guys can play the drums. If I had to have a drummer, it would probably be the guy from Rush.

Be sure to visit Lee and participate.

The cheap and easy way to argue

Over in another blog, the issue of homosexuality is being argued, as in, whether or not the Bible actually condemns it. Dan, being the good man that he is, uses a reasoned argument in the negative, although I disagree with him. However, I worry about poor Dan. He probably puts a bit of time and energy into his arguments. Doesn't he know it would be so much easier if he chalked the conservative Biblical view to homophobia, like another commenter on the blog?

Similarly, in the immigration debate, a few of those who think illegal immigrants should have amnesty or have access to free government services simply cry "racist" to their opponents. They could argue about the costs/benefits associated with deportation, but the former method is so much easier and takes less brainpower.

Of course, the effectiveness of emotional arguments and name calling should be seriously questioned, but sometimes people don't want to change minds, they just want to get an emotional charge out of their self-righteous ramblings.

What is the dividing line?

There has been much discussion on Neil Simpson's blog concerning what various denominations, particularly the liberal ones, believe. I would easily consider myself a conservative Christian, in the sense that I tend to have the mainstream Christian beliefs. More and more denominations tend to become liberal, in the sense that they have a more liberal as opposed to literal interpretation of the Bible, and they have a more liberal view on cultural issues such as homosexuality/transgenderism.

It was discussed on the blog what the dividing points are. Although I don't think anyone came out and explicitly said it, I think many would agree with me that the central issue of Christianity is, of course, Christ. The nature of our belief in Christ is what separates Christianity from other religions/spiritual viewpoints. John states in his first epistle that

" 20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."

There are a wide ranges of beliefs within the body of Christianity, but when people deny that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, but just a good person, or another prophet, those beliefs fall outside the realm of Christianity. This is not an endorsement in any way of all of [theologically] liberal Christians' beliefs. And keep in mind, I am far from a theological scholar. It does appear to me, though, that the Bible continually focuses on belief in Christ as the central point, as stated in John 3:16.

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Some may argue that a belief in the entire Bible is necessary to be a Christian. I don't quite agree, because Jesus says that we should believe in Him, not the Bible. However, it would seem dangerous to question the authority and authenticity of the Bible, because it could make us question the gospels, and the entire story of Jesus. However, when talking to non-believers, I would tend to focus on the story and evidence of Christ's life and resurrection and then let the rest of the Bible fall from there.

I don't want to say anything incorrect here. If I'm missing something major, let me know. Any inputs are welcome.

Bible Translations

One of my friends gave me a NET Bible, which is a fairly new translation of the Bible. I still prefer the NIV, but I really enjoy using the Bible study tools on Bible.org, which is an accompaniment to the NET Bible. The notes inside the physical Bible are minimal, but the online resource has more extensive notes. I've noticed that I prefer notes that focus on what the actual words mean with respect to the original Greek or Hebrew. I have a Life Application Bible that has quite a bit of notes, but lately, I've preferred notes/commentary of a more academic nature.

I also like notes on the Greek/Hebrew as they give transparency to the translation process. I don't think many Bible versions have sinister intent during the translation process, but it is nice to know as much about the original copies of scripture as possible.

In general, I think reading a couple different translations during study time is good, as I have noticed that I sometimes pick up on things that I did not before.

Apparently, there is a group of people who believe that the King James Version is the only acceptable translation, and is, in fact, divinely inspired. Some people call this the King James Only Movement. I've checked out various websites purporting this idea. Some criticisms use circular reasoning, in that they compare other versions against the KJV, and point out that they omit test included in the KJV. I respect their views, but I haven't found any convincing reasoning why one should put faith in the KJV as opposed to other translations. The more serious scholars can also look at earlier biblical text to evaluate a translation.

Yet another political quiz

Speakout.com has a nice quiz on political issues. I prefer this quiz over many others for a couple different reasons.

The same quiz can be used for multiple things, such as your match with various Presidential candidates or your political philosophy. The first part of the quiz has you select what you are looking for. You can simply hit the 'Back' button, select a new gauge, and simply resubmit your questions without re-answering everything.

You can click on questions to get more details. Some of the questions may not be clear, so you can click and find out what they are really asking.

Here is my score

Your Score

You scored the following on the PoliticsMatch questions:

Personal Score 52%
Economic Score 82%


Where You Fit In

Where your Personal score meets your Economic score on the grid below is your political philosophy. Based on the above score, you are a Libertarian Conservative.

I didn't match up closely with any of the presidential candidates. My top two were Sam Brownback at 53% and Ron Paul at 50%. Clinton was at the bottom at 13%

A random rant on taxes, welfare, the rich, etc...

Through my time blogging and just engaging in political thought in my spare time, I am beginning to wonder if arguing about what is "fair" concerning taxes is useless. After all, much of it has to do with subjective opinion. It seems fair to me that someone be able to pass on their inheritance to their children, whereas others believe that it is only fair that they only pass on half their inheritance to their children, and the rest go to the government (or more euphemistically, the people).

I wish I had the luxury of being a pure libertarian, then I could say that any income redistribution is immoral. By doing so, I could easily draw a line in the sand. However, I do believe in using taxes to help those who cannot help themselves. Maybe I'm too much of a softy, but I don't want to see people dying in the gutter. At the same time, I do not see the government as an agent of social change, and I do not think the majority of charity should be done through the arm of government. Like most conservatives, I believe welfare for able-bodied people should be temporary, but I think there can be exceptions for those severely handicapped.

But by having the aforementioned position, it is hard for me to draw a line in the sand in determining just how much we should be taxed. I suppose that is what democracy is for, to figure such things out. However, in our current system, it is not how much we decide "we" should be taxed, but how much other people should be taxed. Now, some of the rich vote to tax more of the rich, what liberals call the "responsible rich". And yes, the rich can afford to pay more. But, for me personally, I have issues voting to tax certain groups outside myself. I don't know if I have any firm philosophical footing to support a flat tax right now, but I do like the idea of everyone chipping in when there is a problem, not one group asking another group to chip in. That bothers me.

Concerning the rich "paying their fair share", let's put aside the philosophy for a second. I believe from an economics standpoint, it can do more harm than good. As JFK said, "An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget-just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits." (Hat tip to Glen) Even if people disagree on what the optimal rate is, we all know that, of course, it is not 100%.

Back to the philosophical side (which I said is probably useless in debate anyway), I personally don't believe people should have many guarantees. I do admit that in theory, I like the idea of universal healthcare. But I simply believe that it won't work, and I believe a host of other countries have demonstrated that it leads to care rationing.

I think we should separate the economic issues of the market and welfare. The market should be regulated to some extent concerning pollution and safety. But it seems like the left's biggest criticism of the market is its ability to provide for the poor. However, if I have to pick my battles, I would rather see a freer market with higher tax rates than a regulated market with lower tax rates. A freer market should produce more wealth anyway. If I was a progressive, I would allow for a free market, but simply tax people more. A loaf of bread costs what a loaf of bread costs. I would rather see the government tax the seller of the bread more than regulate what the loaf of bread costs. Not that I want to see extremely high taxes, but I think the economic right needs to fight the battle for the market, and let democracy sort out the tax rates. Maybe I'm saying something dangerous to economic liberty, but I think we should separate the two issues.

Finally, I prefer a measure of freedom when it comes to economics, as opposed to complete security. The left is correct in that we should not sacrifice civil liberties in our fight against terrorism. They see the importance of freedom with respect to security. The importance may not be that apparent to the right with regards to our physical security, but I think they do realize the importance when it comes to economics.

In summary, many people criticize the right for not caring about the poor. And I'll be honest, there are probably many who don't. But, as someone on the right, I still want to leave enough help so that people aren't starving. At the same time, I believe that charity is a more powerful force than government assistance, and we should still leave room for that. Also, I believe that taxing any group excessively can be counter-productive. I believe that economic liberty is intertwined with personal liberty.

Current top 10 albums

My top 10 albums changes from time to time, based on what I'm listening to. Here is my list for right now.

1. U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
Overall, a complete album experience.


2. U2 - Achtung Baby
This maybe the actual best album of U2's career, but I'm fancying #1 right now.

3. U2 - The Joshua Tree
Almost a perfect album. What makes this album so great is that it contains the songs everyone knowns ("With or Without You", "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For), but the other songs not played on the radio are just as good. U2 is the king of 2nd-tier songs.

4. Belle and Sebastian - The Life Pursuit
I'm probably the only person who listens to this group who is a registered Republican. The wide variety of songs here would make one thing this is a various artists compilation album.


5. Beck - Sea Change
This album is simply amazing. Nothing like Becks other stuff. Good for those who like bluesy music with a twang.


6. Fiona Apple - Extraordinary Machine
Fiona's least accessible album, but probably her best. It's disappointing that radio chose to play "Oh Sailor" when it's probably the 10th best song on the album.

7. The Innocence Mission - Glow
I'm not sure why, but I tend to think of the early 90s version of the band as a female U2. This band has become more gentle and folksy, which some people like, but I prefer the more rockin' albums like this one.

8. Various Artists - The Empire Records Soundtrack
It seems like cheating to put a compilation album here, but this has a great collection of the non-aggressive 90s alternative bands, such as Better than Ezra, Cranberries, Gin Blossoms, etc...

9. The Elms - Chess Hotel
I reviewed this album in an earlier post.
This is a CCM band that sounds more like something on the classic rock station.

10. Bleach - Again, for the First Time
Bleach is a great Christian punk band that's no longer around. For some reason, bands like these are overshadowed in CCM.

Thoughts on the Democratic Debate

This is the first debate I caught on TV, because my wife was flipping through the channels and wanted to watch. I only saw part of the debate, but here are my random thoughts.

1) I really like this Gravel guy. I like how he went against the grain and called for a replacement of the income tax with a larger sales tax. Even if you don't agree, it's always nice to hear something different.

2) As expected, every other candidate talked about the rich paying their fair share of taxes. I can see their point about capital gains tax being lower than the income tax, and how that doesn't seem right. My response would be lower the income tax, but I have a feeling they have the opposite solution.

However, I would like both sides to quit talking about what is "fair" and using their subjective opinions to when it comes to arguing for lower/higher taxes. Both sides will just talk past each other. Conservatives do contend that lower taxes produce higher revenues. I would like to see Democrats respond to that.

3) I think every candidate harped on the failure of Katrina. It will be a helpful issue to the Democratic nominee, as they will suggest more spending and programs, but it won't exactly hurt the Republican nominee, as it will not be Bush running again.

4) Obama may have responded well to the questions, but I think he was upstaged by the more fiery candidates, such as Kucinich and Clinton. Obama is more of a calm, collected sort of guy, which isn't a good/bad thing necessarily. I just know that he didn't stick out the most in my mind after the debate was over.

5) Republicans need to come up with a good plan to fix healthcare that will resonate with voters. The universal healthcare approach will have massive appeal to voters, so they need to come up with an alternative quickly.

Another advantage of school choice

The Cato Blog makes a good point. There are other ways to achieve racial integration rather than the direct methods struck down by the Supreme Court yesterday. One way is school choice. Imagine a system where poor minority children wouldn't be stuck with their inner-city schools. Such a system would require less government involvement, something many aren't ready for.

The separation of the sacred and secular

I have noticed that in art, particularly in music, there is a strong separation between CCM (Christian Contemporary Music) and secular music. This line is being blurred somewhat, with some crossover artists, but it seems that someone is a "Christian" artist, or they are not.

My question is this, is this a good thing?

The reason I ask is that I am not sure this separation always existed. Da Vinci painted religious themed portraits like The Last Supper, but he wasn't known as a "Christian" artist, and he painted non-religious things as well. People didn't ask "Oh, he painted The Last Supper, is he a Christian artist now?" Classic composers (of whom I know little about) would compose works inspired by their faith, but sometimes they would not be. It seems that there were many classic poets and authors (correct me if I am wrong, as I left all my poetry books at home) would speak on spiritual themes, sometimes they would not. There was not a question of whether they belonged to the Christian genre or not.

This may be a good thing, because much of secular culture is quite distant from Christian values, based on the things they glorify. Maybe as the secular becomes more profane, this distancing is inevitable.

Why would it be a bad thing?

Perhaps it has to do with the overall quality of art. I will be honest, there is much CCM I don't care for right now; much of it seems second-rate. Maybe it's just an issue with me though. But I notice that many great artists are those that are Christian, but not in the "Christian" genre. U2 is the most glaring example. Three of the four members are Christian, and many songs are very spiritual. Another lesser known band is the Innocence Mission that has many spiritual songs as well, and even has an album of hymns. Some of the highest quality CCM bands are now crossing over, or at least have a foot in the mainstream, such as Switchfoot or Skillet.

So, I don't know if my concerns have any foundation. Basically, I have noticed that much great art of the past was influenced by Christianity but was not in a genre separate from everything else. Today, I notice a distinct separation in many cases, and it seems that many times the "Christian" side is inferior, whereas those artists that may have some mainstream involvement are the superior bands. (To be fair though, it is understandable that the creme of the Christian crop would get mainstream attention). At the same time, I know we, as Christians, are called to stand out and not blend in.

As a final note, there seems to be a distinct exception in the genre of country music. Carrie Underwood has a hit called "Jesus, Take the Wheel" but there is not a debate on whether she is a Christian artist. Garth Brooks will have overtly religious songs on his album, but at the same time sing about a woman killing her unfaithful husband (I don't say that to be critical, as I don't think he is glorifying or justifying murder, I am just illustrating the main point of my post). There does not seem to be a big "Christian country" genre. What is so different about country?

Off for about a week

I'll be gone for about a week visiting family, so no posts for a while, which may not be unusual as I sometimes go a week without blogging. Have a good weekend.

Conservatism, liberalism, and the Gray-Haired Old White Man

The concept of a modern day Noah's Ark story found in Evan Almighty had fascinated me. After all, the original account deals with God wiping out the earth because of our sin. The idea of a story about God punishing sinful man, well, it just seems out of place in Hollywood.

Of course, it depends what the sin is. Now, I have not seen the movie, but I've read a brief synopsis in the Washington Post review. This is not an in depth analysis, otherwise I would wait till I saw the movie. But the sin that the movie focuses on is not surprising. The post says...

the movie has a modern theme about saving the environment from corrupt politicians and businessman looking to profit by diminishing green meadows and animal habitats.

Now, of course many people can get on board with this idea. I don't like corrupt politicians and businessmen either.

But corrupt politicians are not the only thing wrong with the world either. For instance, there is the dissolution of families, promiscuous sex, and the marketing of sex on TV. However, I don't think a movie about the bad guys being people who sleep around a lot would catch on as one in which the bad guys are evil businessmen destroying the environment.

This is not to downplay the latter, but the concept of the movie does point out a divide between what bothers liberals and conservatives. Now, this post is not an attempt to invalidate or discredit the beliefs of either side, it is only an attempt at an analysis of what each side values. I would welcome any input from anyone regarding these views.

Liberalism, it seems, has the spark of youthful rebellion. Liberalism is all about challenging the establishment. It is rebelling against the Gray-Haired Old White Man. (I don't say "White" to give this any racial overtones, I am just mentioning it because if you look at most people in power, well, that's what they look like.) Liberals like to leave people alone in their personal lives (again, in theory, I think the DP has done the opposite many times) but focus more on regulating economic activity. Regulating economic activity is essentially telling the Gray-Haired Old White Man what to do.

Also, part of liberalism is the avoidance of being the Gray-Haired Old White Man. Let's take abortion for instance. Saying "No" to some poor woman, maybe a minority, just doesn't have the same zing as saying "No" to the rich and powerful. Telling someone who isn't in power "you can't do that" is so Gray-Haired Old White Man, it's so...conservative.

Conservatives, on the other hand, well, most often they are the Gray-Haired Old White Man, or at least the favored son of the Gray-Haired Old White Man. Perhaps the conservative is the good son who went to college and has a nice job in a skyscraper, and the liberal is the 2nd-born son who dropped out of college and builds houses in Ecuador.


Jesus Himself could be seen as a liberal, in the sense that He also challenged the rich and powerful. He purposely upset the religious establishment, the Pharisees, and he had no qualms about upsetting the governmental authorities, although he had no political ambitions. But Jesus was also set on challenging us as the individual. He not only challenged the Pharisees taking God's name in vain, but he also challenged the woman at the well who had five previous husbands and was living with a guy. He did so out of love, and not a condemning tone, but he still made her feel uncomfortable.

In the political sense, both appeal to government power more than I would like. But I think in a cultural sense, in the sense of what is right and wrong, I think both groups have their strengths. Many conservatives can learn from liberals in regarding those who are oppressed and corruption among the rich and powerful. At the same time, I think liberals need to look more at "conservative" type issues and realize that maybe the fracture of the family structure may be leading to things like poverty and inner-city crime.

Also, sometimes Christianity and our current modern American philosophy may agree. Both scorn the abuse of power by the Gray-Haired Old White Man. But Christianity goes further. It is not just telling Gray-Haired Old White Man, "Hey, quit destroying our earth" or "Hey, quit oppressing the poor!" but it is telling the suave 20-something year old man "Hey, keep it in your pants!" or telling the 30-something housewife "Hey, stick with your husband and work it out, even if you think the guy in the next office truly 'gets you'!" Christianity is not only about exterminating the evil found in the ranks of the rich and powerful, it is looking at ourselves and finding the evil within us.