Hey there peoples! I apologize that it's been so long since my last posting. I typically only have time to do this on the weekends, and things have been absolute insanity this past month. But I'm back, I'm posting, and I should have plenty of rantings to make up this month to you guys.

Well, I can't rant and not talk about Iraq. Let's get down to business. There's so much to talk about. First things first, I must say I'm a little frustrated. Why are politicians treating this $87 billion like a political football, as if Bush were asking for this money just to tick off Democrats? Granted, that is a lot of money, but let's not ignore what it's for. Two-thirds of that is going towards defense. That means we need that money to buy more weapons for our troops, pay their reimbursements, and buy body armor and shielded hum-vees. In other words, delaying this money is only hurting our troops (the ones those yahoos care so much about). The remaining third goes towards rebuilding Iraq. That is, creating economic revival, restoring more of the public services (such as fire protection), and helping the people work towards standing on their own feet (in other words, showing the world that we really are liberators, and not conquerors or occupiers). And that money can't be used to pay off any of the debts Saddam accumulated while in office (to Europe and Russia, no less . . . I wonder if they'll show their compassion for the Iraqi people and let those debts slide . . .). Short of rebuilding their economy, if Iraq is to repay any debts, their oil money is going to go towards it. That's right, this war, which was all about the oil apparently, will yield NO oil for the US. Do you think the press is going to be sharing that fact with us any time soon? But the bottom line is, if we don't use that money in Iraq, our troops will be in even more danger, and we will be doing a great injustice to the Iraqi people.

Now I know that some people have some objections to this. Yes, it's a lot of money, and yes, I'm sure we could find some very good uses for it at home. But what kind of people would we be if we said, "Nuts to our commitments and obligations abroad. Let's spend that money on ourselves and to hell with the rest of the world!" Besides, that money is very needed. And at least the Bush administration is upfront about it all with us. When this thing started, they said, "We will pay what this costs and be in there until it is finished." Such a high price? Let's look at Bosnia. Clinton said that troops would be there for about a year, and that costs would be relatively low. We still have troops in Bosnia, and the accumulated cost of that entire episode has so far reached $60 billion. Does anyone mention that? Do many people realize that? If we're going to make something work, we can't just put a modicum of effor and funding into it. We have to give it everything it needs to work.

So, I suppose at this point I should also mention that WMD report that David Kay just released. People are trumpeting it as the "proof" that Bush was "lying" about WMDs, that there never were any in Iraq, and that we launched an unjustified war.

Hogwash.

First, David Kay made it clear in his report that it was just a "snapshot", in his own words, of what had happened so far. He has been looking into this for barely three months (my, we are such an impatient people). Anybody who uses what he said in that report as the end all of this entire thing is just ignoring reality. And what did he say in the report? No, he didn't discover any warheads or missles or bombs or anything of that nature. What he did find, though, was that Iraq had obtained strains of a deadly botulinum to be weaponized, and that it had been running a weapons program past the beginning of the US invasion. Now, for those without good recall, the terms of the UN resolutions had always been not just that Saddam not have any weapons, but also that any program designed towards pursuing such weapons was a violation. Like it or not, Saddam Hussein did not have clean hands on this WMD issue, no matter what the scoffers say.

So where are the weapons? A good question to be sure, but just to be clear, not having found them so far does not mean they did not exist. Anyone who claims that we rushed into war is being ridiculous. For more than a year, we made it clear we were readying the hammer to bring down upon Saddam if he didn't comply with the UN. Bush went before the UN several times, he went before the Congress, he went before the people, saying for so long that action needed to be taken, lest Saddam be allowed to just ignore his crimes without consequence. We gave ample time for Saddam to realize that conflict was coming, and Saddam of all people would realize this, since he knew better than anyone that inspectors were not going to see his stashes. So, given all of that time, is it unreasonable to assume that he maybe, just maybe, hid the weapons for a time when he would return after the US troops were gone? I mean, Syria, right over the border, was friendly with Iraq. It all could have gone there. We found Saddam's troops burying MiGs (not an easy task, mind you). Is it not possible that the weapons are sitting under the sand somewhere in Iraq, just waiting to be dug up by Saddam loyalists when the time is right? We haven't found the weapons yet? Doesn't matter. We've found enough, and until it is proved the weapons never existed, we need to continue the search.

Well, that's it for Iraq. In other news, it seems that once again Rush Limbaugh is being labeled a racist. That charge just irritates me. Let me be clear: What I don't know about football could fill a stadium. I don't care whether Donovan McNabb is really that great of a quarterback or not. The issue is, Rush accused the NFL spinmeisters of making more of McNabb than he really was because they wanted to see a black player in the limelight. What was racist about that? He said nothing disparaging about McNabb short of him being overrated (and his skills were in no way connected to his race, that would be racist). Limbaugh, if anything, was accusing the NFL media of being racist, and in classic PC-age showmanship, they turned the tables right back on Limbaugh. Ever insinuating that racism helped a non-white person is equivalent to being racist yourself. Yeesh.

And, in non-political news, I have just been very frustrated lately. I will not question a fellow Christian's salvation so long as they hold to the essentials of the faith and their lives show the fruit of the Spirit. But I find doctrine to be very important, even if it isn't an essential. Why? The doctrines we hold have far reaching implications in the way we think about and live out our faith . . . ideas have consequences.

So what's the deal? My mind is just boggled by this idea that those who are not Christians, who have never heard the Gospel, will be saved. I just don't get it. First off, the Bible says we are saved by faith, and that no one is saved except through Jesus' sacrifice, and the atoning work of that sacrifice is imparted to us only by that faith. How can someone who does not have faith in Christ be saved? Such a concept goes completely against the Biblical model of salvation. I've heard people say that if someone sincerely seeks after God to the best of their knowledge, God will save them. I'm sorry, but that doesn't work either. The Bible explicitly says that no one seeks God, that all have turned their back on Him. In other words, if someone is not a Christian, they can't be said to be seeking God sincerely. I've also heard people say that the Gospel will be presented to people after they die, so they may have one last chance to either accept or reject Christ. That is very unbiblical, and removes all traces of free will. Imagine standing in front of the pearly gates, and the glorified Lord Jesus comes before you and says that you must put faith in Him. Even the most hardened, God-hating atheist could not turn down such an offer, staring right into the face of either eternal communion with the sovereign Lord or eternal damnation and complete separation from Him.

Aside from that, look at the consequences. Let's say that those who never have a chance to decide on faith in Jesus are saved. Why would Christ make such a big deal of taking the Good News to the world? Why would the apostles, and Paul especially, make such a big deal of sharing the name of Christ to people who had never heard the name if they were already saved? Would we not be giving an automatic death sentence to people who end up not believing by bringing the Gospel to those who haven't heard it? Would it not serve the kingdom more to just cease all evangelism and preaching of God's name all together? I'm sorry, but ideas have consequences, and the salvation of those who have never heard the Gospel, who have no faith in Christ, just has too many bad implications to it.

Well, I hope that's enough ranting for one day. Stay tuned for more exciting rambling from me, same bat-time, same bat-website. :-)

Hal

Well, I had a half-written post/rant saved, but it looks like it's gone, so you guys get what I remember from it. Shame, it was pretty good too.

On August 28, I watched this ABC special about Martin Luther King Jr., and his famous "I have a dream" speech. It was pretty cool, except I was annoyed that they didn't play the speech straight through. They kept interrupting it with commentary.

But one thing struck me about everything. The civil rights movement . . . it all began in the churches, with Christians. And after a while, they became a dynamic, world changing force. To nearly everyone, and especially Rev. King, it was all about Christ, and answering his call. It was humbling, to say the least. What has happened to the Christian church today? Not only are we so divided on things that we can't fight a concentrated battle, but we seem to lack faith and resilience. So many Christians would rather just sit back, hunker down in the churches, and think, "It's all going to go downhill anyhow, so why fight it?" "I can't help in any of this," "I'm not interested in these kinds of things." Oh, that God would light the churches on fire with the Spirit, not just for saving lost souls, but for restoring a lost society and culture. Really, the two rather go hand in hand. In large part, we'll change the culture and society one heart and mind at a time.

Well, that's about all I can remember of that post.

In other news, Miguel Estrada has withdrawn from becoming a federal judge. This really angers me. I did Model UN, and I hated with a passion the people who used the protocol to exert the will of the few on the many, rather than letting the will of the people speak. It's exactly what these Senators are doing. They're essentially saying, "Since we know you won't play the game by our rules, we won't even let you take the ball onto the field." It's sickening. You know what's rich? I forget who, but one of the "filibuster" senators said of all of this, essentially, "This is what happens when the White House won't work with the Congress." Excuse me?! Who isn't working with who here? Do your job and just let the people speak, either these people are wanted as judges or not! Don't let your minority views be shackles to the majority. (This is how I feel about a lot of stuff, like homosexuality or atheism).

But this brings me to an interesting point. Did you know it's illegal for religious groups to meet in homes in Switzerland? In fact, every non-mainline Protestant denomination has been labeled a cult by that State. Craziness. The church in Europe has almost reached the point of the church in the Middle East! We need to pray for the few, true Christians who remain Europe.

Well, there's more, but I'm tired. I hope this will do for now. Until next time, party people!

Hal

Hey ya'll. I told you I'd be back. On a personal note before I start, let me just say this: I've heard of "Let's just be friends" talks, but I didn't even know you could have a "Let's just be acquaintances" talk. Ex-girlfriends . . . go figure.

Anyhow. I must say, I am really disappointed with popular entertainment right now, in a variety of ways. Let's start with movies. This summer's picks have been, well, less than satisfactory. We've had your standard fare of action movies with zero value in terms of writing or acting. Except for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It was bad, but Sean Connery is a good actor, even in awful movies. We've also been given the "Romantic Comedy" selection, which always turn out to be funny in no way, but emphasize a kind of romance that makes me wonder what sewer the writers crawled out of. Heck, even for kids movies, it wasn't a blockbuster summer. Finding Nemo was good, but certainly not of the same caliber as some of Pixar's previous films (at least in terms of writing). As for the next SpyKid's movie, even I would have found this bad when I was 12. And do we really need another version of Freaky Friday? Yeesh.

Television isn't getting much better. I'll admit that I like watching some of the cartoons on WB, like Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon, and X-Men Evolution. Yeah, they're sappy and silly, but that's what makes them fun. But Fox cartoons? Do they think kids have the IQs of balsa wood? Seriously, the shows they have are just plain bad. And what's with all of the cartoons that try to emulate the success of Pokemon or any other anime cartoon, yet come from American artists and writers? Monster Rancher was pretty dumb. Fighting Foodons? Jeez, that show scrapes the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality. This is why I love Cartoon Network. They have the best cartoons, especially the anime. I really love the shows that can successfully combine character development and breathtaking action, while keeping their priorities straight, and yet using both to strengthen one another. Action is fun, but watching characters grow and change is what makes most anime so very satisfying. This is why most of the crappy American cartoons that the networks put out fail; because their characters remain static and never change from episode to episode. Eventually, all of the possibilities are played out and it's just time to put them to rest.

But it doesn't just stop at cartoons. What's up with this "Queer Eye" show? Jeez, I don't know what's more offensive, the in-your-face way they're promoting homosexuality, the stereotypical gay male they're throwing out there, or the way they portray straight men as being unable to face such "earth-shattering" issues as fashion, gourmet cousine, or basic hygiene. Yeesh. Myself and plenty of other straight, single men out there can cook just fine, have very acceptable wardrobes, and can certainly clean up after ourselves. We don't need overly effeminate weirdos watching us shower (seriously, they did this on an episode my sister was watching . . . gross!!!) in order to impress the opposite sex and feel good about ourselves.

I'll stop now before I start going on again about homosexuality. I already did that recently enough, eh? Hope you enjoyed the ranting, and I'll bring you something else to chew on soon enough.

Hal

Oy. I know it's been about 2 weeks since the last entry, but life has been pretty darn full lately. Hopefully, your unsatiable thirst for mindless ranting will be somehow appeased by this.

Quite honestly, I'm having major issues at church. I've spent most of the summer trying to become a part of the college/young adult "ministry", but it's just been a mess. The thing is, the core little group of people there have been friends since high school, all live in the area, and so the line between "social event" and "ministry event" tends to be lost on them. I tried to be patient and to just be a part of things, but . . . there is a distinct difference between being along for the ride and being included. Being included means people appreciating your presence, and wanting to interact with you. But those folk . . . not so much. I feel like I'm intruding on a gathering of friends, which I arguably am, the way the "ministry" is set up. I say "ministry" because, well, there's not much ministering going on. It's mostly just a social group for 20-somethings. Whatever happened to the church being all about changing the world around it, rather than just being a support group for whiny people who have trouble fitting into society? ('Course, I say this as an American. God knows the Church is vibrant and alive in other parts of the world)

My problem just is, what do I do? I've always believed that the purpose of being part of a local body of believers (e.g. church) was for Christian fellowship, corporate worship, and organized ministry. When I barely get one out of the three, why bother? I know I can't change it over night by myself. So, what do I do in the meantime? Does God call me to be an agent of change in a church that just doesn't seem to get it? Finding another church doesn't seem to be a choice for the time being. Not that that's a suitable option, but it's not an option all the same.

Heh, well, that was a little more personal than most of my rants so far. I'll probably be back in a few days with something less "Me" oriented. In the meantime, go to www.carm.org for whatever other rants you'd like to see. Trust me, it'll be good fun.

Hal

Howdy folks. I'm a little late this week, but we've got lots to talk about.

*Sigh*. I'm sure everyone's heard about the "incident" in the Episcopalian church. They've elected their first gay bishop. This is such a tragedy. It really wasn't enough that so many "Homosexual churches" were popping up everywhere. It wasn't even enough that many mainline denominations were marrying homosexual couples. Now a mainline denomination is electing a gay man to a very high level of leadership. What is it with Christians who take this "Me too!" kind of attitude with the world. They want so badly to look good in the eyes of the world, to look "enlightened" and "tolerant" and "accepting" that they'll accept everything the world says is appropriate (which is everything), and the Bible be damned. Jeez. A few biblical phrases seem to come to mind. "Wise in their own minds," "having a form of Godliness without any power," and so on.

People just don't get it. The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignoring the text or simply making it say what they want it to say. Paul made it clear that leaders in the church should be beyond reproach. Perfect? Sinless? No, but openly embracing and celebrating sin? That's a big problem.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying homosexuality is any worse than any other sin. But when one openly embraces a sin, that is a huge problem for a professing "Christian." When a sin so defines an entire persona that it is an inextricable part of who they are, that is a big problem.

I don't know what's going to happen in the Episcopal church. The Archbishop sounds like he's trying to smooth things over, telling everyone not to act rashly. But since he's approved of gay ordinations and marriages in the Episcopal church in the past, I doubt he's going to squelch the election of this guy. Ideally, that's what would happen. Plan B would simply be the leadership threatening to excommunicate (or however it works in the Anglican church) the diocese that elected this guy (Is diocese the proper word? I don't know how they district things). But more likely, the Archbishop is going to totter back and forth on this, trying to keep things together, followed by the conservative Anglicans of the world schisming out of frustration with their leadership and their denomination as a whole. I'll fully support them when they do it, but it'd be a terrible thing if it does happen.

Well, my sister is dying for the internet. Stupid dial-up. I guess you'll just have to wait for more angry ranting another time.

Hal

Hey all you party people!

Well, I'm sorry it's been a while since the last post. Hm . . . about a week, eh? Fair enough.

It's been an interesting week, I must say. Have I mentioned that I'm just not suited for working in the corporate world? Oh yeah.

Well, in any case, on to the events of the week.

Anybody follow that news about the Canadian journalist who died in Iran? She's taking pictures of a "facility" that's off limits to international journalists, and gets taken into custody. Two weeks later she dies of a major head blow. The Iranian government's response? "Maybe she fell." Yeesh, don't they sound like the ultimate abusive parents.

In other news, my hometown paper recently printed an article about the "dangers" of violence in video games. Hoo boy. Why do people get so concerned about video game violence? I mean, they'll take their 8 year olds to see "The Matrix," let them watch WWE matches until they're blue in the face, and play with bazooka weilding action figures and toy guns that shoot foam balls and arrows, but video games are suddenly too violent for their children's mental safety? Give me a break!

First off, if video games are going to make children violent, then so are the movies, TV shows, and other toys that stimulate their imaginations and occupy their waking thoughts. Nothing about video games makes them any more dangerous of effective a form of media than the music or whatever else kids or teens take in. I guess objecting to Huck Finn being read at school just became boring.

My other point is that, despite the fact that video games are no more likely to make kids violent, parents still have a responsibility to protect their kids from things they're just not ready to handle. We all can agree on that. So then, how about the TV? How about the movies? Will parents be responsible about what their kids are taking in? Hey, those video games . . . be responsible. Seriously, these games have a voluntary rating placed right on the cover. Look up what the ratings mean, check out screen shots and reviews of the games, do some research! Don't just pass the blame and expect someone else to clean up the mess. I'll be pretty upset if my favorite hobby gets ruined by a bunch of lazy, irresponsible parents, and I won't be alone.

Well, that's about it. Maybe I'll have something more important (i.e. less nerdy) to rant about next time. Until then, here's a neat news site you should all check out:

www.worldnetdaily.com

Enjoy,
Hal

Greetings technocrats.

Here's the part of things where I share what's on my mind with y'all. Let's get controversial.

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of people spewing off about how President Bush is such a liar. This is a very interesting claim. Sometimes it's in regards to the weapons of mass destruction, other times it's in regards to that nasty little CIA note about African Uranium. Let's look at both of those.

So, Bush is a liar because no weapons of mass destruction have been found. To that I say "yet." Besides, let's think of it another way. We've had people with far more credentials than President Bush talking about all of the nasty weapons that were sitting around in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War. Now, enter George W. Bush. Since nearly the day he entered office, he has made a point of keeping the pressure on Iraq. As soon as things calmed down in Afghanistan, the issue came up in the UN security council about making Saddam come to terms with his crimes. That started quite a while before U.S. troops entered Iraq. In fact, there were several months of debate in this country, Bush flying around the world trying to drum up support for military action, and ultimatums against Saddam (which is rather sad for those poor folk who accused Bush of "rushing" to war, eh?). Now, by this time, Saddam has pretty much known a U.S. led invasion was coming for a good long while. Again, we've had people who should know, and had seen the evidence first hand, telling us for years that Saddam has very bad weapons. He made no serious attempts to deny that. At this point, as I see it, he would have two choices: Use his weapons against the invading forces; or hide them, and make his rival look foolish. Why he chose not to do the first, I couldn't say (for that matter, I guess I can't really prove he didn't use them on our troops). But a recently translated document from Iraqi secret services showed that Saddam, in case of a successful invasion, wanted his closest troops to loot, pillage, and destroy the infrastructure and people to make things difficult and embarrassing for the invaders. Saddam had years to hide or pass off his weapons. He obviously wanted trouble to follow his opponents long after he would leave power. Would it be unreasonable to think that maybe Saddam hid the weapons some place we haven't found them yet? Gave them to terrorists who had already left the country? Given them to another country in exchange for sanctuary?

I don't think so.

Next, the whole Uranium thing. First, Tony Blair made it clear that he stood behind claims that his own intelligence agencies had been finding clues of this. Besides that, in the past, Saddam had been shown to be attempting to acquire Uranium from African nations. Israel had to destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor to keep Iraq from attaining weapons grade radioactive material (experts agreed afterwards that if it hadn't happened, Iraq could have been a nuclear power within 3 years, and that was something like 5 or 7 years ago). So, Bush lied? That is a bit of a zealous overstatement. Going much further than the facts of the situation allow, I'd say.

But then again, what do I know? I'm just a conservative observer of all this.

Hal

Hello everyone.

This is just a little experiment. I thought it might be fun for a while to share my thoughts on things with the world. Well, it will probably be just my few bored friends who read this stuff, but either way.

For the strangers who actually stumble upon this and care to read any of this, here's a little about me: I'm a 20 year old college student at Illinois State University. I've been a Christian for 7 years, and my faith is the center of my life. Consequently, anything you'll read on here will be a product of my very conservative, Christian world-view. Otherwise, I'm mostly a nerd at heart. I watch cartoons in lieu of "real" television. If it's between the horde of "reality" TV shows and cartoons, I don't think there's much of a contest.

Stay tuned, everyone. The fun stuff is yet to come =Þ

Hal



BTW, visit my campus ministry's website, at www.baptistcollegiateministries.org