Check Under the Hood, Sir?

More pics --
Photos: Man finds pit bull under truck hood

Story --
Pit Bull Gets Stuck In Engine Of Truck

................

Observations on Gender and Genesis 3

**************

Something I have been thinking on and putting together for a couple years:


[ESV except where noted]
In the Genesis account of the Adamic exile, it can not be ascertained with the similar certainty that the woman's ingestion would incur the same detrimental consequence as Adam's eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (ftkge)

In Genesis 1:29 God gives to "them" (both genders v27) -- 'God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." ' Yet at Genesis 2:16,17 'the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." '

It is not directly clear from any text that the command or consequence applied to "the woman". So what was the offense? Apostle Paul affirms that: "... Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."(1 Timothy 2:12-14) And for concern about fidelity to Christ, Paul compares: "... as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ."(2 Corinthians 11:2-4)

What exactly was that "cunning deception"?


SERPENT'S TRUTH? or LIE? --

Genesis 3
Genesis 3:1 begins by telling: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast ... ".
[Note: "subtle" and "crafty" are the most common among other synonyms used in translations available at BibleGateway.com]

v1 ... He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
[NOTE: You is plural -- this is the first instance in scripture where 2nd person plural is used. (1:29 looks to be singular to "mankind" as a singular group.)]

{Observation 1: This looks like it was made to appear not as a question about God precluding "all trees" but whether there was "any particular tree"}

vs2,3 ... 2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"
[Note: Eve's reply to the serpent at Genesis 3:3 not only misquotes the command of 2:16,17 by adding the: "... neither shall you touch it ..." but also supplies the inclusive plural "you". The ESV footnotes confirm that "you" in v1-5 is plural. "Ye" is used in the KJV and some other translations to show the distinction from the singular "thou"

vs4,5 ... 4But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."]

[Note: The singular "you" is used in the remaining instances in Genesis 3. Now reread 1-5 with the replacement plurals "ya'll", "ye" or "you both"]

{Observation 2: Due to the ambiguity of whether or not Eve was properly subject to the command and/or consequence of eating ftkge, how can it be determined that the serpent's statement is a lie? I am unaware of any later scripture that affirms outright that the serpent's statement was a lie.
(In Gen 3:1, "crafty" does not appear to require an outright lie. Paul's use of "deceived" without a claim of the serpent lying also appears as proper restraint from "going beyond what is written" as he principled by 1 Corinthians 4:6. Someone of greater exegetical expertise could elucidate on whether or not I am correct in that view)}

{Obsv #3: Many years ago I heard an expression something to the effect that someone could "tell the truth and still be lying". Perhaps the serpent's craftiness is such an instance. I am not sure if the origin is literary, philosophical, or some arcane sardonicism. I have not yet come across illuminary scholarship for the concept. While I have accepted the proposition as generally plausible, I have not deliberated out any systematic particulars. Using "exact phrasing" in a search bar yields fewer than 6 hits. Rephrasing to "lie by telling the truth" produced 74 with Google. Therein are some interesting reads that give anecdotal reference but not much for in-depth analysis.}

vs6,7 ... 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. ... and made themselves loincloths.

[Obvs #4: On the surface, the woman's reasoning and reach for the fruit does not contradict the provision of God from Genesis 2:9; popular sermonizing from 1 John 2:16 notwithstanding.

{Obvs #5: The text does not reveal any consequence for only the woman eating of the ftkge. It was after they both had ate that they had eyes opened and knew of nakedness.}

That raises some questions about the nature of that experience, manner of nakedness and how that relates to the knowledge of good and evil.

Again: What was the offense? As Paul affirms: "... it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."(1 Timothy 2:12-14)[NIV]

SIN AND CONSEQUENCES --

vs8-11 ... 8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" 10And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." 11He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" 12The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." 13Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

{Obvs #6: God directs His inquiry to the man and only addresses the woman by referral through the chain of command. In this first recorded instance of God conversing with a woman, she admits to eating but the relevant inquiry was about feeding to the man. As noted above, God delivered the command and notice of its consequence to the man. To confirm, we but have to reference the clear declaration of text. No corresponding declaration confirms actual applicability to the woman. To reach a conclusion requires assumptive reasonings from ambiguity, other scripture and/or cultural explanations.}

[Annotation I. -- on the narrative vs14-19: The pronouncements of God to the three parties include language of both rendered sentencing of judgment and matter of fact description of consequences. The serpent and the woman have both while Adam receives only a description of consequences. The behaviors of the serpent and woman evoke God's personal intervention as with: "I will put enmity ..." and "I will surely multiply ..." However, Adam is only shown the consequences of his culpability -- "Because you ..." and a "... cursed is the ground because of you ..."
Is that significant subtlety or a present day semantic overlay on original culture where it would be merely a distinction without a difference?]

vs14,15
... 14The LORD God said to the serpent,
"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
[Note: According to footnote, "offspring" is the translation used for the original Hebrew "seed".]

{Obvs #7: I have heard lessons in the past that advocated that the use of "seed" in v15 was evidence of creation and inspiration; that God understood long before science learned of the female ovum. Supposedly, only males were thought to have "seed" which were sown into a womb that was merely soil-like with susceptibility to the vagaries of fertility.}

{Obvs #8: The text in v15 suggests that the serpent had personal longevity concurrent with the continuity of numerous human progeny. The serpent would continue to live in addition to having offspring. Humans only had generations of offspring with limited life-spans that would eventually lead to a young seed defeating an ancient life form.}

16To the woman he said,
"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you."

{Obvs #9: The announced repercussions to the woman are entirely domestic in focus. She is not expelled from the garden. She is not personally cursed or given any overtly cursed circumstances. She alone is given adjustments in domestic administration. Any doctrine of general applicability for later women must be inferred or derived from reasoning elsewhere.}

17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return."

{Obvs #10: In v17 God addresses Adam with the singular "you". Accepting the text as written clearly indicates that it was Adam alone under Divine command and any proscription against the woman eating of ftkge was conveyed secondhand. The woman ate in disregard to her own understanding. Argument can be made for or against the proposition that such disregard is an offense against belief and that would be a sin which could make her a sinner. No such ambiguity exists in determining that in persuading Adam to eat she sinned and was thereby a sinner.}

{Obvs #11: While these verses are often used as proof text to justify the gender biased division of labor, it does not very well support the notion of males as "breadwinner". Cultural, pragmatic and negotiable prerogatives may hold sway, but there is nothing obligatory from this text holding Adam or "Men" to any "bread-sharing" requirement.
*Comment 1; Ironically, it is purported that females throughout the world are most often the ones to suffer and toil.*}

22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" 23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

{Obvs #12: Nothing here confirms whether the woman came to know good and evil. Eve was not driven out of the garden; but we see in ch4 that Eve is with Adam. Divinely imposed desire for her husband and his rule over her was apparently sufficient to compel her exit.}


I have not finished addressing
all the thought trails that arise.
This is a treatment that I have
pondered on what forum might
be apropos for refinements and
discourse. Recent comments lend
to the decision for submitting here
without other collaboration or counsel.

Read in this manner of observing the nuances and actual rendering of the text raises some interesting considerations ...

G1

............................

Hoplophobia Symposium

*******
Alan Korwin
Eyewitness Report
Duquesne University 2008 Gun-Control Symposium

============
The National Symposium on Handgun Violence was held at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, on April 9, 2008. Ten of the leading gun-control advocates in the nation were scheduled for a coordinated review of “reasonable” limits on the right to keep and bear arms, led by Jim Brady himself, ... and a host of others. News of the event and its surprise ending (covered at the end of this report) has not made national headlines.

A courageous decision was made to provide “balance,” which meant the organizers eventually found me ... . They got me last-minute non-stop tickets from Phoenix, a room ... , and 15 minutes at the podium. Ten against one. Hah. I had them outnumbered.

I’ve been studying persuasion skills for a long while now, and here was an acid test. Was it possible to address an audience like this and not get booed off stage? Could I manage civil discourse with the participants at the luncheon beforehand, maintain composure through the staging, and end up sociable at the afterglow dinner at a fine restaurant?

It’s my belief that the words exist in the universe to convince anyone of anything true, regardless of their predispositions. The trick is in finding those words, in the moment, and delivering them in a way that works, with the proper aplomb. You may not always find the words, but the words are always there. Think of it this way. What would Jesus say. The words are there. Could I find enough of them?

2¶ (skipped)

Metal detectors were installed at the entrance, a precaution we were told, because five athletes were shot on campus several years ago (none fatal thank God), which was a motivator for the conference in the first place. I’ve seen this before -- pro-rights gun conferences, walk right in. Anti-rights conferences, bristling with armed security and pat downs. What’s wrong with that picture?

I counted at least 14 crisply uniformed campus police, bearing 9 millimeter semis with a pair of double-stack extra mags on their duty belts. We had some great conversations, though the other speakers seemed to avoid these people. I had them laughing about all the guns in this anti-gun conference. ...

*3¶

The university asked me here, I told them, so you could have some measure of balance, so you could see that this conference is only half the equation. I’m here, ... , to make sure you keep in mind that Guns Save Lives too. Guns Stop Crime ... . Guns Protect You. Look how many guns there are in this room. You know why they’re there -- because guns have a purpose, a social utility that’s important and should not be overlooked.

Their emotions had been played upon all afternoon, so I continued the trend. I told of a woman awakened to find a knife-wielding, ski-masked intruder in her home, and how she had to shoot him while crouched behind her bed, after having called 911. She had to keep firing until the big guy finally collapsed. The police arrived only nine minutes later. You could hear a pin drop.

Would you deny this woman her right to live, by taking her gun away? Isn’t the message, “If it saves one life...”? Do you have the moral authority, or a sense of self righteousness that says she must die because you think guns are bad? I pressed on.

*5¶

It’s easy, I told them, to imagine a gun-free world. It’s very easy. Guns are a relatively new invention -- just go back in time a little ways. What do you get? Genghis Kahn, Attila the Hun, Julius Caesar, and my favorite, Xena the Warrior Princess (again, no laughs). They wiped out entire towns, raped plundered and pillaged, all without guns. When they came to town, that’s when you really needed a gun -- and not just a six shooter.

Which leads to a counterintuitive truth. We’re safer now than we were then when there were no guns. The ability to effectively project force keeps us safer. You couldn’t ride the highways back then, now you can. For all the crime you hear about, things aren’t all that bad.

*7¶

It was getting near time to close. I asked for show of hands: “How many of you really really hate guns?” At last, some audience heckle energy, and a few shouts with a lot of raised hands. One guy stood up to spew how much he hates guns. I luckily found the words again, and told him I’ll stay afterwards and we can talk as long as you like (he didn’t stay, but I would have enjoyed testing my mettle against a died-in-the-wool gun bigot like that).

I waited till they settled back down. Softly, slowly, I breathed into the microphone, “It’s not good to hate.”

Some nervous squirming and some snickers from those who suspected I had prepared that remark in advance. Hey, I prepared all my remarks, it took me days. I used this as a lead-in for my message about hoplophobia, the morbid fear of guns.

There’s a lot of hate and anger in the anti-rights movement (I mostly avoided saying anti-gun anything, it was all about anti rights and pro rights). A lot of the anti-rights debate is actually a medical issue, not a policy debate. I tried to get everyone in touch with the hatred in their hearts, the hoplophobic undercurrents. People who suffer from this pernicious phobia are deserving of sympathy, and in need of treatment. I don’t think they liked that. But they heard it. Now they can just wander around in denial (a symptom of the condition by the way).
[enphasis added]
Several ¶s summary & info follows to end
===============

"hoplophobia" --
"anti-rights movement" --
"victim disarmament"
Nuthin' like readin' to xpand the vocabulary -

I make a regular check on the End the War on Freedom blog. A link there to this and other vocabulary enriching reads.

G1
..............

p.s. oh yeah, V. Tech 1 yr. memorial was news today

Matt Foley: Motivational Speaker -- Better'n Livin' Room Elephants

OK folks.
Clear out the elephants.
Put away the Bible study film strip projector.
Call the kids downstairs.
Turn off the phone ringer.
Find a comfy spot on the sofa.
Dessert will be served afterward.

Here now is Matt Foley, renowned motivational speaker --

Quote: Father (before Matt comes on):
His name is Matt Foley.
Now, he's been down in the basement
drinking coffee for about the last 4 hours.




===========
'You kids are probably saying to yourself, "Now, I'm gonna go out, and I'm gonna get the world by the tail and wrap it around pull it down and put it in my pocket!" Well, I'm here to tell you that you're probably gonna find out, as you go out there, that you're not gonna amount to JACK SQUAT!" You're gonna end up eating a steady diet of government cheese and living in a van down by the river!'
===========

The full sketch with some set up back story is available
from a link at the bottom of the Wiki entry for:
Matt Foley

enjoy :)
............

Satchmo and Shadows

This art presentation by Raymond Crowe is
coreographed to Armstrong's rendition of
"What a Wonderful World" --

David Letterman-Raymond Crowe-Hand Shadows-Feb-21-2008
( vid is a bit darker than original TV screen )




Sweet ...
---------------

For another --
Check:
Satchmo & Danny Kaye March In the Saints | End the War on Freedom

Cool duet with Danny Kaye, a great actor, from the golden age of movie making

.................

Scatological Eschatology I: I Kings 14:10 revisited

I Kings 14:10 revisited*

Euphemism illiterate? No.
Euphemistically challenged? Maybe sometimes.
There was an email exchange with daughter where I attempted to convey a bit of wry affection. Maybe I should have known that there is innuendo that exceeds paternal connotations in the rhetorical query: "Who's your daddy?"

Awkward ... is one word ...
Sorry.
I am not immune from occasional outbreaks of "DOH!!".
----------------

Thanks to Google and Wiki, I could confirm what I thought was the meaning of "write your name in the snow". [ see link below ]
I wasn't sure.
Was it maybe like making "snow angels"?
Uhhh ... Not exactly.
.
.
But yeah, the euphemism could sub, in a contemporary translation, for the ones targeted in the eschatological outcome of Household Jeroboam as told in the prophesy recorded at 1 Kings 14:10 --

Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam **him that can write his name in the snow**, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone. (Sub = **him that pisseth against the wall** KJV)

[Google the "pisseth" phrase and get numerous hits. Many appear to be responses to a YouTube sermon/rant which shows up in top Google results.]
-----------------------

Some background -
The euphemism "him that pisseth against the wall" is found in 6 verses, 3 of which are attributed as direct quotes to the Word of God. ( 1 Kings 14:10, 21:21, 2 Kings 9:8 )

The KJV (pisseth) and the 21stCentKJV (urinates) are the only versions, at BibleGateway.com, that translate the euphemism. Other versions (even ASV and YLT) translate by interpreting the meaning as "male" or some variant thereof.
The YLT curiously translates the expression as "those sitting on the wall".
Holman footnotes "Jeroboam's males" with "Jeroboam's one who urinates against the walls".

Translations contemporary with KJV, such as the Geneva and Bishop's bibles, also translate "him that pisseth against the wall". Other English or foreign language comparisons are not attempted here with the limited proximate resources and scholarship.
---------------------

Those specified for elimination were only those with "circumciseable appendages". I don't have sufficient scholarship to conjecture on whether or not such eschatology of a bloodline's extermination would be inclusive of all, not yet standing, infants or pre-borns. There is more back-story in the text not able to be addressed here, yet there are no clues, let alone an explicit account, about the impact on "those without circumciseable appendages".
Were they relieved from the oppression and abuses of brutish louts? Were they left destitute for want of menfolk provisions? Were they vulnerable, absent masculine protections? Were they slaughtered? Were they ostracized or supported?

Maybe I missed something. The scripture seems to treat the 2nd gender as an afterthought. Well, maybe it isn't scripture but derived credenda. When I hear lessons on circumcision, covenant, baptism etc., where and how females relate within covenant community is glossed over. That leaves me with an inexplicable transitional gap. Do women in sermon audience simply zone out or just politely befuddle their brow?

I recently watched a PBS documentary entitled: "The Jewish Americans". There was a reminder, in the section on feminism and activism, of the Jewish man's prayer: "Thank God I'm not a woman!". A cursory look at Google hits indicates that the benediction may be nuanced as other than churlish misogyny. Modern sensibilities probably grade it: "insensitive at best".
-------------------

Something Better Here:
.
One Google result for "write his name in the snow" landed me at a page under the "Humor" section of the **Sunshine for Women** site -- Spare Parts
The joke is descriptive without being graphic but I guess that even Smiley Joel is not ready to use this for a "something funny" intro to one of his sermons.

*revisited - previous blog: What was Said How in 1 Kings 14:10
[Link to Jared Coleman's blog article still active as of 3/10/08]

G1

........................

Good Gun Quotes

Somewhere and whence, I ran across the stat about how doctors' mistakes kill multiple more people annually than guns, yet doctors are not subject to anti-doctor campaigns that match anti-gun hysteria.

I make regular net stop at -
End the War on Freedom | Links and Commentary from my Crypto-Anarcho-Libertarian Perspective

Recent entry links to a LewRockwell.com article --

If You’re Going to Lock and Load, You Should Talk the Talk by Greg Perry

A few choice quotes from that article and one previous (link in article) =

==============
*Never say "gun control" but instead, say "victim disarmament." I've seen the visceral effect this has on our enemies in public. It's as if somebody punched them in the stomach when they realize they've lost the moral high ground. – L. Neil Smith

*** Why do You Carry A Gun?

*Because a cop is too heavy.
*Because I think it is sociopathic to outsource my self-defense to others. – Bill Buppert
*Because cops do. [You’ll get the expected follow-up question:] But isn’t a cop's job dangerous? A cop's job is dangerous because living is dangerous. If you haven't noticed I'm as much alive as the average cop. – Peter W. Wickham, Jr.
*Because I think my wife would rather bail me out of jail than have to identify my corpse in a morgue. – James Robert Rodgers
```````````````````````

* "Why didn’t I shoot only once? There's no additional paperwork for shooting someone twice!" ~ Firearms Instructor P.O.J.D., MOS debriefing after a shooting.
* "Why did I shoot him 7 times? Because 6 times wouldn’t have been enough and 8 would have been too many." ~ Massad Ayoob

*An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a victim.
*A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

*Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs safer.
*If guns cause crime, why do we want policemen to have them?
============

Read on ...
Many more good quotes and reading and links from those sites.

G1

...............................

Lyrics and Music II: Classic Band Spring Tour

A 60's band still viable, not the Stones ...

They transcend generation and genre ...

One of their innovations was a fusion
with classical music by including symphony
orchestras in many productions ...

Their success is untouched by scandal ...

They are ...
The Moody Blues -- on tour in the USA
during March and April.

Like the Stones, they are aging. One of the core members has retired due to health. The predominant tour sites appear to be smaller capacity venues which suggests a diminishing market.

So this may be an opportunity to see a live performance before they eventually retire. You don't have to be a boomer to appreciate the show. One would have to be really in thrall of some other genre not to enjoy one of their shows.

I won't be bidding on Hannah Montana seats or searching for a deal on a Streisand performance. I rarely get to a concert for artists I admire. Every few years I forget about how I didn't like overpaying for admittance, concessions and souvenirs the last time I went to a concert.
So it has been awhile. My interest is rekindled to seriously consider purchasing tickets, if they are not sold out.

There is a lot to appreciate about these guys. More info on Wiki of course.
+++++++++++++++

Justin Hayward has been a key member of the group and done outstanding solo work.

He did "Moving Mountains" which is the title for the lyrics featured on my previous blog. The album of same title was produced in '85. There might be some site for other players beside "RealPlayer" that I didn't find in search. I haven't set up RealPlayer so I couldn't check the audio at --
Sojourn - Moving Mountains

As to considering the piece as potential for hymn adaptation, I happened to also read some more from
Frank Viola's Q&A page :

===========
"... how come you never discuss the so-called "Christian" holidays like Christmas and Easter which have pagan roots?"

...
...
"I am aware of the history behind when Christians began celebrating the birth of Christ and His resurrection, and whenever I hear it, I find myself yawning. Our spiritual forefathers chose to compete with the pagans by redeeming certain days for Jesus Christ that had traditionally been kept sacred by their heathen neighbors.

It is my understanding that the Christians chose those same days to honor their Lord instead of going along with the pagan celebrations. It was a testimony against paganism and a way to "redeem the days." I find nothing wrong with this at all. It is not dissimilar to when Martin Luther and William Booth took bar tunes created by pagans, and redeemed them by setting Christian lyrics to them. Do you realize that many of the classic hymns that we Christians sing routinely were originally put to pagan tunes long ago? Again, I personally see no problem with this. [emphasis added]

Consequently, to think that a certain day or musical tune holds some type of ritualistic evil is superstitious at best. What is more, this sort of thinking is actually pagan.
... "
=============

"Moving Mountains" is a beautiful song.
The tune might need to be arranged to
fit a singing group.
The lyrics might use some rephrasing and adaptation

Bonus from Hayward's earlier solo album:

Songwriter -- Raised On Love


Enjoy

G1
.....................

Lyrics and Music I : Something for a Hymn?

**********

The lyrics below have a hymnal quality to them.
The tune is also quite uplifting.
Title and artist are not well known beyond a following founded in limited exposure.
One would have to be familiar with the work to guess the
artist even if the title might be ferreted from the stanzas.

==> My question: Could these lyrics be suitable as hymn?
OR in alternative: Is there any part objectionable for such use
or just as personal (or preteristic) encouragement?

===========
The cool of the evening
The strange unknown of the night
The warmth of the morning
The graceful bird in it's flight
Well don't be afraid of the world
Let me take you by the hand
We can move mountains

The gift of tomorrow
The friends we've left far behind
The ones we remember
Their love will live in our minds
Well don't turn around
Don't look back
Let me take you by the hand
We can move mountains

Cause the sands of time
Are on our side
Put your hand in mine
Let our fortunes ride
We'll sail away
On a wave of love
Let the four winds blow
From heaven above

The wind on the water seems
To whisper soft in my ear
The call of the ocean
Across the waves I can hear
Don't be afraid of the world
Let me take you by the hand
We can move mountains

Cause the sands of time
Are on our side
Put your hand in mine
Let our fortunes ride
We'll sail away
On a wave of love
Let the four winds blow
From heaven above
==============

If any care to guess ...
enter initials for title and artist ...

[follow up in later blog]
G1

......................

Ferguson Does Cruise Scientology Video

***************

Host Craig Ferguson of The Late Late Show reenacts the wide-spread Tom Cruise Scientology video:



................

World's Shortest Political Quiz

*******

Found at End the War on Freedom ::



===============

Can I answer with other than a "YES" or "NO"?

Like : "maybe", "depends ...", or "sometimes"?

....................

THERE HAVE TO BE RULES!

*******
[I might have abridged the following post by a few sentences and perhaps the 4th to last paragraph. That just didn't seem to work. I hope you find the full read worth it](emphasis added)

=============
"There have to be rules!"

Okay, here they are:

Rule #1: People with red hair get to take whatever they want from
anyone who doesn't have red hair.
Rule #2: No one is allowed to listen to music which doesn't have at
least three instruments and more than four chords in it.
Rule #3: People who wear falling-down pants will be shot on sight.
Rule #4: No one is allowed to say anything bad about me.

There, now we have rules, so we can all feel safe now and live in
peace.

What's the matter, you don't like my rules? Oh, so you didn't just
mean you wanted any old rules; you mean you want CERTAIN rules.
Maybe something along the lines of "Don't go around robbing or
murdering people." (I kind of like that one myself.)

But wait a second. Who are YOU to say that my rules aren't good
enough? I'm the (self-appointed) rule-maker around here; who are
YOU to decide that my rules are stupid? You think YOU can decide
for yourself which rules you have to follow?! What are you, some
sort of ANARCHIST?!?!

Of course, you (and all people on earth) DO have not only the
right, but the moral obligation to decide which "rules" you should
and shouldn't obey. (Or, as the radical extremist Thomas Jefferson
put it, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it,
he is OBLIGATED to do so.") We don't look kindly on the people who
just followed the rules of people like Stalin, Mao and Hitler, do
we? No, we insist that as human beings, it was their obligation to
DISOBEY the rules, when the rules went contrary to humanity and
justice.

"The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at
any time what I think right." [Henry David Thoreau]

But how does that fit the idea that "There have to be rules!"? The
statement obviously implies a centralized rule-maker, to which we
all must be subservient, in order to avoid the supposed chaos and
mayhem which would otherwise ensue. But if each of us has not only
the right, but the DUTY, to judge right and wrong for himself, and
to do what we believe to be right, what's the point of having
someone else making up "rules"?

And WHO should make these "rules"? If we're so scared that, without
a centralized rule-maker, our neighbors would be assaulting,
robbing, and murdering us, why do we think that those same
neighbors--actually, the WORST among them--should be put into
positions of power where they can make up "rules," and impose them
on the rest of us by force? If people are evil, why on earth would
you expect them to make good "rules"? And since it's pretty darn
obvious that politicians are MORE malicious, devious, corrupt, and
evil than the general public, how silly is it to insist that
society depends upon THEM making up and imposing rules on the rest
of us? "There will be chaos unless the biggest crook in town tells
us all what to do!" Yeah, that makes loads of sense.

Frankly, it's a self-contradictory, insane "solution" that EVERY
statist--everyone who believes in "government," however limited--
MUST believe in: that as mere mortal individuals, human beings will
be selfish, violent and vicious, but when put into positions of
great power, will suddenly be benign, wise, and just.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not
safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of
these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their
appointed agents also belong to the human race?" [Frederic Bastiat]

"If man is not fit to govern himself, how can he be fit to govern
someone else?" [James Madison]

What makes such a notion even more looney is how obviously and
constantly history shows the exact opposite: people who are
imagined to have the right to rule (i.e., those in "government")
commit assault, robbery, and murder on a scale far beyond what
"private" crooks and thugs every(sic) have, or ever could. (And,
incidentally, they usually commit their atrocities "by the rules"--
rules which they made up.)

"But we neeeeeeeeeeeed rules!" People who say that desperately want
an absolutely impossible magic trick: for an imperfect, often
careless, sometimes malicious human race to create a perfect,
compassionate, benign system of controlling everyone. They want
something ABOVE all of us imperfect humans, to keep us in line. But
what is that "something" made up of? Aliens? A giant pink
armadillo? The tooth fairy? No, it's made up of a bunch of
imperfect humans--in fact, about the LEAST perfect humans around.

The truth, though it should be painfully obvious to anyone who
opens his mind and thinks about it for two seconds, scares the heck
out of most people: on this planet, imperfect people is all we
have. And since you're a person, NOTHING (on this planet, at least)
is above you--no "authority," no "rule," no Constitution, no
legislation, NOTHING. You don't know everything, and your judgment
won't ever be perfect, but it's ALL YOU HAVE to distinguish right
from wrong. It is both insane and horribly destructive to try to
surrender your own, personal judgment, in favor of obedience to
some "authority."

"But someone has to be in charge!"

Yes, and it's you. You're in charge. It's up to YOU to decide what
is right, and to decide what to do about it. No one is above you.
Attempting to surrender your own moral judgment over to some
"authority" is not only the ultimate act of cowardice, it is a sign
of insanity--it is an attempt to rid yourself of that which makes
you human: your free will. It is an attempt to shirk your
responsibility to think, to judge, and to act; it is an attempt to
reduce yourself to an unthinking slave, a mere tool of someone else
(usually someone really nasty).

Sadly, people by the billions do it--choosing obedience over
thought--and they do it with pride. And then they wonder why the
outcome is so horrible. Yes, there are "rules" humans should live
by, and most of the time they are in direct conflict with the
"rules" which come from politicians and other pretended
"authorities." If you shirk your personal duty to discover and
judge for YOURSELF what the true, legitimate "rules" are, then you
are a coward of the highest order, and a traitor to humanity.

Have a nice day.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
www.tyrantbook.com
=====================
(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/11/2007)

All entries from March 14, 2007 to present available at:
Larken Rose Anti-State Archive

My reason for recommending consideration:
Rose and others of the "Tax Honesty Movement" exhibit what I consider an intriguing parallel to the "Berean motif". They find that the actual language and construction of relevant law does not obligate to the extent conventionally applied or enforced.

G1

..........................

Genesis 1 Continued -- Beyond OEC and YEC:

***************

How about PC?


In my reading and watching, thoughts occasionally remain lodged in memory, percolate to form ideas and coalesce into a concept.
In the science of radioactive dating, the "... property of K-Ar dating is that a volcano must erupt to reset its clock to zero." (A New Look At An Old Earth By Don Stoner) In another study, fired pottery was used to evaluate magnetic polarity and strength. (I think that was a PBS episode concerning the possible collapse-reverse of Earth's magnetic field)

Now, pardon if draw a coarse analogy --
YEC can rightly count from when the pottery was fired.
OEC looks to figure how long the clay has been lumped.
Does that mean that 6-dayer Baugh can be reconciled with Stoner or Ross? Will footprints in ancient strata or alongside dino tracks be harmonized with red shift and radiometric dating? While both OEC and YEC have many well supported findings, the attempt to stretch those observations and scripture into presupposed worldviews invokes the image of the short bed and narrow covers. (Isaiah 28:20) And would some then use their pet paradigms as a test of faith or fellowship?

Scripture has the apt potter and clay metaphor which has become endearingly incorporated into our hymnal heritage.
If consensus is not found by acknowledging 2 views of a sameness of substantiality, can consensus develop out of another "time" variant of creation?

Can we acknowledge what might be considered as "PEC"? --
Present Earth Creationism.
Or we could call it "PC" for Perpetual Creation. :)
[ Purposeful Concern, Personal Commitment, Providential Care ...]

In the "Contemporary Significance" section beginning at pg92, Walton directs the discussion to "PC" at the pg100 2nd segment with title heading::

Theological problem: We have let culture/science set the parameters of how we view God working in the world.


=========== Page 100:

Actively sustaining the cosmos. Is our view of God too integrated into a scientific worldview, or does he transcend it? In our society, even Christians struggle with how to view God as outside of and distinct from the natural processes or natural "laws" that define our "real" worldview. We find little room for the supernatural, and though we may affirm the existence of miracles, there is little that we identify as miraculous. ..."

[Existence itself is miraculous.]
.
Page 101:
... We more easily think of God having set up natural laws to sustain the universe, but Bube's view is more comparable to Carson's third option[g1 note: a controlled universe as opposed to open or closed (philosophical options excerpted at pg100)]. Here is his thesis:

"The universe exists moment by moment only because of the creative and preserving power of God, The emphasis of the ... thesis is that everything that happens in the world is possible only because God is active at all times in maintaining and guiding the world. In a sense, then, this is a radically different perspective from the traditional one that pictures God as having created the world and its laws at some point in the past, after which they later became essentially self-sustaining except for God's occasional intervention to cause something special."

The theological term for this is providence, and it refers to the way God acts through all so-called natural processes, whether in creation, nature, or history. ... Bube finds that even though people are not necessarily reluctant to accept this view, they often fail to grasp its implications. So, for instance, he asks focus groups, "What would happen to the world and us if God should suddenly 'turn himself off?'" While some reply that "nothing would happen" or that there might be gradual deterioration, others opine that values like morality or love would disappear. Bube contends, however, that such responses assume that the world is far too independent of God or that he is too far removed from its operation." He suggests that the results would be far more dramatic.

We propose here that a full understanding of the nature of the interaction between God and the world permits only one answer. If God were to "turn himself off," everything would cease to exist! Without God there are no laws, no world, no us; to attempt to distinguish between physical and spiritual in this case is impossible. Not only do we rely on God as the Creator at the beginning, as the Source of order and purpose in the world, as the personal Father who gives meaning to love and depth to personal relationships; we rely on God constantly for our very existence. [emphasis added]

Page 102:
I contend that the view proposed by Bube corresponds very closely to the ancient worldview, to the Bible's teaching about God (esp. to Gen. 1), and to the implications of a well-informed theology today, yet we do not live or think this way. Instead, we have juxtaposed God and science so that God is used simply to fill in the gaps that science has left unexplained. This contributes to a constantly shrinking view of God. In contrast, Bube illustrates the totality of our dependence on God using the analogy of a television screen. ..."
.
.
Page 103:
Making something is a one-time act. But "creation" as the Bible understands it is a perpetual activity. As Van Till puts it, "if God were not at this very moment acting in the capacity of Creator, we would not at this very moment even exist." Controlling the operation of something is an ongoing process. Our modern inclination to overemphasize the theology of Genesis in terms of God making things has allowed us to feel satisfied that our interpretation of Genesis is theologically sound. ... Our scientific view of the cosmos has caused us to reduce the "Creator" role to the mere task of forming things. In contrast, Van Till presses the point that a biblical theology of God as Creator identifies him as Originator, Preserver, Governor, and Provider of the Creation. Our modern theology is more inclined to have him make something and be done with it.
.
.
Page 105:
As Christians our theology would be much improved if we could make a slight change in our terminology. Instead of proclaiming that "the cosmos was created by God" (using past tense as if the job is done), we should rather proclaim, "The cosmos is God's creation. We may thus lay claim to the dynamic role of God in a perpetual act of creation. Additionally, we may see Genesis 1 not as "the story of creation" but as the beginning of the "Story of the Creator. [emphasis added]
======================

There is so much in the quotes that I found it hard to trim their length.
Genesis, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) by Dr. John H. Walton


The handicap to objectivity is the rorschach of percipience.

G1

............................

NUGENT NUGGETS

*****************

Nugent Nuggets:


KLRU: Texas Monthly Talks > Ted Nugent
[Broadband Interview Link on this site page]

============= [Excerpt]
I’m Evan Smith, the editor of TEXAS MONTHLY.

The challenge of interviewing him is only slightly greater than the challenge of introducing him. How can anyone possibly do justice to the man in full: the rock star, the NRA poster boy, the bow-hunting naturalist, the Rick Perry pal, the unrepentant enemy of alcohol, drugs, chewing tobacco, bad driving, and, especially, politically correctness—someone who makes Don Imus look like Alan Alda? Then again, the best promotional tool for Ted Nugent is Ted Nugent—ain’t nothing like the real thing— ...

... On the Second Amendment, he’s even more bracingly candid, attacking this spring, in the wake of the tragedy on the Virgina Tech campus, quote, “spineless gun control advocates” who are, quote, “squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off.” “It is their own forced gun-free zone policy,” he wrote in the Waco newspaper, “that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.” ...

=================




.
.
The Official Community of Ted Nugent

.....................................

GOLD FUTURES -- Windfall or Fallout?

******************

Pros and Cons of gold mining in Rosia Montana, Romania


I like PBS. One show I find informative and interesting is --
Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria | Where America Meets the World
.
.
**80% of all gold is used to make jewelry**

**The production of one gold ring generates 20 tons of wastes**
.
The foregoing stats were listed after a segment on:
Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria - Episode 333
The episode previewed an upcoming documentary: Wide Angle . Gold Futures . Intro | PBS

The ancient village of Rosia Montana, Romania has been the focus of Gold and silver mining since the times of the Roman Empire. The populace is mixed for and against a Canadian mining company's excavation plans that bring badly-needed jobs to compete with time-honored rural traditions and elicits concerns about poisoning the environment.

Some in the impoverished community can't wait to leave with their buyout settlement while others refuse to even wear their rings in revulsion to the corporate interlopers. Those accepting relocation have acquired modern housing. Those opposing have formed an opposition group and cite a 2000 environmental catastrophe in a nearby village where a cyanide pit overflowed from flooding to decimate a river and land ecology. The company assures enviro sensitivity and failsafe technology.

The mix of economy and devastation is also shown in another story:
The Ship Breakers Of Bangladesh, Ship Breaking Industry Arrived In Bangladesh By Accident, Literally - CBS News

.............................................