Yesterday I went for a hike on the Potowatomi at Pickney State Recreation Area in Michigan. Great hike. It was the 50th anniversary of the trail and I drove out expecting about a 5 mile hike. When I arrived at park head quarters they were not sure where it started, after a while I was directed to the Boy Scout camp, Camp Munhacke. Once there I registered and was told the walk was 8 miles.
I am not in great shape these days, so I was a little concerned. I figured as long as I took my time I would be fine so I walked slow. The hike ended up being 9.5 miles (about) and it took me 6.5 hours to complete it. This is less than 1.5 mph, but, I did complete the hike without having a stroke, so I am pretty proud of myself. When I first got sick, there was a time when I couldn't walk up three flights of stairs without resting on each landing. Yes, this pace is about 1/2 of a normal 3mph pace, but, at least I can do it.
Along the route about 100 Boy Scouts and their leaders passed me because I was moving so slow. Almost all of them had their back packs adjusted wrong. How do I know? There should be almost no weight on the shoulder straps.
Badly adjusted packs make a hike miserable. It is important to learn how to adjust your pack.
Modern backpacks are designed with padded hip belts, but, even un-padded hip belts reduce the shoulder load. I was wearing a hydration pack with lunch and a few emergency supplies in it. I tightened the waist belt, loosened the shoulder straps and allowed my legs to carry the weight of the pack instead of my shoulders and back.
Here is how you adjust your pack. You can do this loaded or unloaded, I actually suggest having about 20 pounds in the pack.
Hoist your pack onto your back. If you don't know how, get someone to show you. This involves lifting it up onto your knee and then kind of swinging it onto your back.
Now tighten the waist or hip belt slightly, making sure the belt is actually around your waist and the hip pads, if equipped, are on your hip bones.
If the pack has adjustable straps, the straps should attach to the pack slightly above your shoulders.
If the pack has adjustable attachment points for the hip belt, adjust the hip belt and the shoulder straps so that the pack sits as low on the hip belt as possible, with the hip belt tight on your hips and the top of the shoulder straps slightly above your shoulders.
If the pack can't be adjusted so that the shoulder straps, when the hip belt is tight around your waist, are slightly above your shoulders the pack is the wrong size.
Packs come in different sizes based on torso length, the distance from the top of the shoulders to the hips. I need a big pack, about 25 inches. My internal pack is 19 inches and my Jansport external pack, my favorite pack, is sized correctly. I use my internal frame pack occasionally when I have light loads to carry.
When carrying your pack no weight should be resting on your shoulders.
There is a chest strap, commonly called a sternum strap. That strap keeps the shoulder straps from falling off of your shoulders because there is no weight on your shoulders.
When there is weight on your shoulders, you will learn forward and this destroys your walking ergonomics.
Learn how to adjust your pack. It will make your trip much more enjoyable.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
Cost of LED Bulbs and Return on Investment
I like LED bulbs. A while back I decided I should put together a spread sheet to figure out the return on investment on LED bulbs.
It isn't hard, put in the total amount of your electrical bill, enter the number of KWh you purchased for that amount of money and then divide the cost by the KWh, then divide KWh by 1,000 to get your actual cost of electricity per watt hour. EC.
Now, we can enter some equations to calculate the total cost of each of the bulb styles, incandescent, fluorescent and LED. These are not difficult calculations. We need typical bulb life, bulb cost, electricity cost and bulb wattage. Once we enter the formulas in a spread sheet we can change the values and see how things "compute".
EC = Electricity Cost
BL = Bulb Life
BW = Bulb Wattage
BC = Bulb Cost
Suppose we have an incandescent bulb and we enter 1,000 into a cell for Bulb Life. In another cell we enter 25,000 for the LED bulb life. For total bulb cost we divide LED BL (LED Bulb Life) by I BL (Incandescent Bulb Life) and then multiply that number by I BC (Incandescent Bulb Cost). in this case it takes 25 incandescent bulbs to replace an LED bulb at a cost of $0.25 so the total cost for the Incandescent bulbs is $8.25.
(25,000 / 1000) * $0.25) = $8.25
(LED BL / I BL) * I BC = Sub-Total I BC
Now we multiply the wattage of the bulb by the LED BL, (LED Bulb Life), by the EC (Electricity Cost) and add the cost of the bulb to determine Total Bulb Cost.
((LED BL * BW) * EC) + Sub-Total I BC) = Total I BC
Now we can change the bulb life times and the bulb costs to compare total costs.
Suppose we say a fluorescent bulb costs $0.50, lasts 6,000 hours, an LED bulb costs $7.50 and lasts 25,000 hours, the fluorescent bulb costs about $11.00 more over the life of the bulb.
The problem with LED bulbs is that they do not always last as long as advertised.
If the LED costs $20.00 and lasts 10,000 hours the LED bulb is about $10.00 more expensive than the fluorescent. If the fluorescent lasts 12,500 hours the fluorescent is about $12.00 cheaper. If the LED lasts 25,000 hours and costs $20, the fluorescent is about $3.00 cheaper over the life of the bulbs. If the fluorescent lasts 6,000 hours the fluorescent is about $2.00 cheaper.
Plug in your own numbers, how much you pay for bulbs and electricity, what kinds of wattage you use and you will figure out what the costs are depending on bulb life and cost and electricity cost.
For me, after crunching the numbers, the break even is about $8.00 apiece for LED bulbs so if an LED bulb runs more than about $8.00 it isn't going to provide any savings for me over a fluorescent bulb.
You can crunch the numbers yourself and figure out what your specific numbers are.
Recently, in my area, Ikea lowered the cost of 60 watt equivalent bulbs to $7.50. I figure someone ran the same numbers I did and came up with some numbers similar to mine.
On the other hand, LED bulbs at Home Depot are still too expensive, which means either other manufacturers or Home Depot are too stupid to set practical price points for bulbs.
EDIT: Home Depot currently has Cree 60 watt equivalent LED bulbs for $7.97, which is my price point. Check prices everywhere, you might find better deals.
It isn't hard, put in the total amount of your electrical bill, enter the number of KWh you purchased for that amount of money and then divide the cost by the KWh, then divide KWh by 1,000 to get your actual cost of electricity per watt hour. EC.
Now, we can enter some equations to calculate the total cost of each of the bulb styles, incandescent, fluorescent and LED. These are not difficult calculations. We need typical bulb life, bulb cost, electricity cost and bulb wattage. Once we enter the formulas in a spread sheet we can change the values and see how things "compute".
EC = Electricity Cost
BL = Bulb Life
BW = Bulb Wattage
BC = Bulb Cost
Suppose we have an incandescent bulb and we enter 1,000 into a cell for Bulb Life. In another cell we enter 25,000 for the LED bulb life. For total bulb cost we divide LED BL (LED Bulb Life) by I BL (Incandescent Bulb Life) and then multiply that number by I BC (Incandescent Bulb Cost). in this case it takes 25 incandescent bulbs to replace an LED bulb at a cost of $0.25 so the total cost for the Incandescent bulbs is $8.25.
(25,000 / 1000) * $0.25) = $8.25
(LED BL / I BL) * I BC = Sub-Total I BC
Now we multiply the wattage of the bulb by the LED BL, (LED Bulb Life), by the EC (Electricity Cost) and add the cost of the bulb to determine Total Bulb Cost.
((LED BL * BW) * EC) + Sub-Total I BC) = Total I BC
Now we can change the bulb life times and the bulb costs to compare total costs.
Suppose we say a fluorescent bulb costs $0.50, lasts 6,000 hours, an LED bulb costs $7.50 and lasts 25,000 hours, the fluorescent bulb costs about $11.00 more over the life of the bulb.
The problem with LED bulbs is that they do not always last as long as advertised.
If the LED costs $20.00 and lasts 10,000 hours the LED bulb is about $10.00 more expensive than the fluorescent. If the fluorescent lasts 12,500 hours the fluorescent is about $12.00 cheaper. If the LED lasts 25,000 hours and costs $20, the fluorescent is about $3.00 cheaper over the life of the bulbs. If the fluorescent lasts 6,000 hours the fluorescent is about $2.00 cheaper.
Plug in your own numbers, how much you pay for bulbs and electricity, what kinds of wattage you use and you will figure out what the costs are depending on bulb life and cost and electricity cost.
For me, after crunching the numbers, the break even is about $8.00 apiece for LED bulbs so if an LED bulb runs more than about $8.00 it isn't going to provide any savings for me over a fluorescent bulb.
You can crunch the numbers yourself and figure out what your specific numbers are.
Recently, in my area, Ikea lowered the cost of 60 watt equivalent bulbs to $7.50. I figure someone ran the same numbers I did and came up with some numbers similar to mine.
On the other hand, LED bulbs at Home Depot are still too expensive, which means either other manufacturers or Home Depot are too stupid to set practical price points for bulbs.
EDIT: Home Depot currently has Cree 60 watt equivalent LED bulbs for $7.97, which is my price point. Check prices everywhere, you might find better deals.
Tuesday, April 01, 2014
Romans 1:27, examining the translation
Anyone interested in better understanding scripture is going to study the crap out of it with the Holy Spirit, so, my suggestion is to focus on the Holy Spirit and ignore what people, including me, have to say.
That said, most people are really twisted when they interpret what the Bible tells them. In the first place, they hand defining the words they read over to people. Does God define the word AND the same way people do? The ways of God are not the ways of people, so, don't depend on what your second grade teacher taught you for your salvation. Check everything with God.
Someone asked me about Romans 1:26-7,
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:27
Being the kind of guy I am, I do not take anyone's word, except the Holy Ghost, for anything. I am not saying that the Holy Ghost gave me this specific interpretation, but, I am suggesting that not everything is translated exactly as God would have liked it to be. If we look at the individual words we can see there was some interpretation of how the Greek was translated into English. This is pretty common, and when we include how word definitions have changed since King James had the Bible translated it becomes even more important to pray for understanding over every single word of the Bible.
So 1:27 tells us mano-e-mano is a bad thing, right? I don't think so. In fact, I translate it (in context with 1:26) a little more like this:
"also Men misusing women, inflamed in lust, with (encouraging) each other to take them (women) immorally and straying from that which is (commonly) seen"
Huh? What? You mean, maybe Paul was continuing on with the previous passage and discussing how women are misused and wasn't discussing men misusing each other? WTF?
Yep, I think this particular passage is mis-translated big time. In Judaism a Rabbi would often suck the blood off an infant boy's penis during a circumcision. With all the issues about transmittable diseases and gay politics that is frowned on these days, but, Rabbinical Scholars determined this kind of contact, non-lustful, was permissible and even required at times.
What about when we add in the lust stuff? Yes and no, lot of disagreement among scholars every where.
I am no Greek scholar, but, I remember reading about this translation and controversy before. I am not confident this passage is correctly translated. It is not as straight forward as some would make it appear. It is discussing unnatural lusts, and men working together to achieve unnatural lusts, but, I think the exact nature of the immorality is not as clear cut as it sounds. Since the context of the previous passage seems to be about misusing women, in some vile and unnatural way I'm not sure how the translators jump to the conclusion that men are using each other unnaturally as opposed to encouraging each other to use women unnaturally. It may even be talking about "menage de trois".
Leviticus 18:22 is a better passage against men having intercourse. The only contact strictly forbidden in the Bible, between males, is intercourse. Anyhow, in my opinion, this passage is not quite as clear cut as it appears.
For your own direction I would suggest prayer and listening to the Holy Ghost. Trusting our salvation to people is never a good idea, even trusting your salvation to me would be a bad idea. Prayer and focus on the Holy Spirit is the only way to Christ and Christ is the way. :-)
That said, most people are really twisted when they interpret what the Bible tells them. In the first place, they hand defining the words they read over to people. Does God define the word AND the same way people do? The ways of God are not the ways of people, so, don't depend on what your second grade teacher taught you for your salvation. Check everything with God.
Someone asked me about Romans 1:26-7,
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:27
| KJV word | Strongs | Greek Word | Word Translation |
| And | g5037 | τέ | also |
| likewise | g3668 | ὁμοίως | same |
| also | g2532 | καί | and |
| the men, | g730 | ἄρρην | masculine |
| leaving | g863 | ἀφίημι | send away |
| the natural | g5446 | φυσικός | natural |
| use | g5540 | χρῆσις | useful |
| of the woman, | g2338 | θῆλυς | female |
| burned | g1572 | ἐκκαίω | inflame |
| in | g1722 | ἐν | in |
| their | g846 | αὐτός | this |
| lust | g3715 | ὄρεξις | desire |
| one toward another; | g1519 | εἰς | in |
| ↑ | g240 | ἀλλήλων | each other |
| men | g730 | ἄρρην | masculine |
| with | g1722 | ἐν en | in |
| men | g730 | ἄρρην | masculine |
| working | g2716 | κατεργάζομαι | achieve through labor |
| that which is unseemly, | g808 | ἀσχημοσύνη | nakedness, indecency |
| and | g2532 | καί | also |
| receiving | g618 | ἀπολαμβάνω | grasping |
| in | g1722 | ἐν en | and |
| themselves | g1438 | ἑαυτοῦ | himself or herself |
| that recompence | g489 | ἀντιμισθία | compensation |
| of their | g846 | αὐτός | this |
| error | g4106 | πλάνη | straying |
| which | g3739 | ὅς | who, which, that |
| was meet. | g1163 | δεῖ | seen |
Being the kind of guy I am, I do not take anyone's word, except the Holy Ghost, for anything. I am not saying that the Holy Ghost gave me this specific interpretation, but, I am suggesting that not everything is translated exactly as God would have liked it to be. If we look at the individual words we can see there was some interpretation of how the Greek was translated into English. This is pretty common, and when we include how word definitions have changed since King James had the Bible translated it becomes even more important to pray for understanding over every single word of the Bible.
So 1:27 tells us mano-e-mano is a bad thing, right? I don't think so. In fact, I translate it (in context with 1:26) a little more like this:
"also Men misusing women, inflamed in lust, with (encouraging) each other to take them (women) immorally and straying from that which is (commonly) seen"
Huh? What? You mean, maybe Paul was continuing on with the previous passage and discussing how women are misused and wasn't discussing men misusing each other? WTF?
Yep, I think this particular passage is mis-translated big time. In Judaism a Rabbi would often suck the blood off an infant boy's penis during a circumcision. With all the issues about transmittable diseases and gay politics that is frowned on these days, but, Rabbinical Scholars determined this kind of contact, non-lustful, was permissible and even required at times.
What about when we add in the lust stuff? Yes and no, lot of disagreement among scholars every where.
I am no Greek scholar, but, I remember reading about this translation and controversy before. I am not confident this passage is correctly translated. It is not as straight forward as some would make it appear. It is discussing unnatural lusts, and men working together to achieve unnatural lusts, but, I think the exact nature of the immorality is not as clear cut as it sounds. Since the context of the previous passage seems to be about misusing women, in some vile and unnatural way I'm not sure how the translators jump to the conclusion that men are using each other unnaturally as opposed to encouraging each other to use women unnaturally. It may even be talking about "menage de trois".
Leviticus 18:22 is a better passage against men having intercourse. The only contact strictly forbidden in the Bible, between males, is intercourse. Anyhow, in my opinion, this passage is not quite as clear cut as it appears.
For your own direction I would suggest prayer and listening to the Holy Ghost. Trusting our salvation to people is never a good idea, even trusting your salvation to me would be a bad idea. Prayer and focus on the Holy Spirit is the only way to Christ and Christ is the way. :-)
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Judgment and Salvation
Luke 6:46-49
The other day I was talking to someone and I mentioned that I believed there would probably be more Gay people in Heaven than christians. The person was really surprised and asked me why I would say that.
I explained that most Gay people knew they were sinning. Like Paul, they do that which is not allowed (Romans 7:15) and, Like Paul, may repent even as they sin.
Judgmental christians who rebuke those they believe are sinning without benefit of the Holy Spirit disobey Christ who told us "Judge Not" (Matt 7:1) and who also told us "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30) and "And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me." (John 8:16).
In addition Christ tells us: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (John 14:21)
In Luke 6:46-49 Christ tells us: "46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? 47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great."
We have Gay people doing something repeatedly, like Paul, that they know the Bible tells them is a sin and so they may repent.
We have "christians" who judge without benefit of the Holy Ghost, breaking the commandment of Christ to Judge Not, and who believe they are righteous and so do not repent.
Who enters into Heaven? The repent sinner or the self righteous and unrepentant christian?
How do we know the difference between the self righteous christian and a Christian following Christ? Christ tells us in John 5:30-31,
"31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true." The Holy Ghost witnesses with those whose witness is directed by the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost is not witnessing with the person judging, the person is breaking the commandment of Christ not to judge.
There are those who believe the Bible gives them the authority to judge, they do so without the benefit of the Holy Ghost, and there are those who are called to servitude in Christ and to spread the Good News of the Forgiveness of Sin through Christ.
People will be rewarded as they deserve, those sinners who repent are forgiven, those sinners who believe that they are righteous do not seek repentance and are not forgiven.
Christ tells us, in Matthew 25, that people will be separated as sheep and goats. In John 10 we are told that Christ's sheep will know his voice. In Matthew 7 Christ tells us that there will be those who believe they are saved, and yet never knew Christ.
Listening is the most important part of any relationship. We have to listen to God. If we don't listen, hear and know God's voice then, on the last days, we won't respond to Christ's call and we will follow the goats out of the presence of God. Even those who believe, and yet do not KNOW Christ, will end up in hell because they didn't know Christ, Christ's voice, and couldn't respond to the call.
So, do I think a repentant sinner ends up in hell while an unrepentant, judgmental and authoritarian pseudo-christian ends up in heaven?
Or, do I think a repentant sinner ends up in heaven while an unrepentant, judgmental and authoritarian pseudo-christian ends up in hell?
I could argue against most sinful behavior, including my own, from twenty different perspectives. Yet, sin is inconsequential for people are saved by faith in the grace of Christ and not by law. Romans 6:14-15: "14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." What constitutes "sin" before God? For this we can depend on the instruction of people who teach a false doctrine OR we can depend on the Holy Ghost who teaches a true doctrine and gives understanding.
Look at whom you have received instruction from. If you depend on instruction of people, if you give people authority over the definition of any word in scripture, your faith is false. If you depend on God and don't open your mouth unless God talks to you your faith is true.
Is anyone perfect? Can anyone always speak nothing but the Holy Ghost? There is one, and one only, and that is Christ. The rest of us struggle between placing our faith in ourselves, other people and God. The truth is, only those (and this includes me) whose faith, whose belief in things unseen, is strong enough will hear Christ on that last day.
Practice listening to the Holy Ghost at all times and remember that it is not the judgment of people, nor the esteem among mankind, that will open the gates of heaven. It is only through faith in the Grace of Christ that we may KNOW our Saviour and enter the gates of Heaven.
So pity those who judge, yet, always be open to the Holy Ghost whose judgment is perfect and who may choose to speak to us through the mouths of people.
The other day I was talking to someone and I mentioned that I believed there would probably be more Gay people in Heaven than christians. The person was really surprised and asked me why I would say that.
I explained that most Gay people knew they were sinning. Like Paul, they do that which is not allowed (Romans 7:15) and, Like Paul, may repent even as they sin.
Judgmental christians who rebuke those they believe are sinning without benefit of the Holy Spirit disobey Christ who told us "Judge Not" (Matt 7:1) and who also told us "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30) and "And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me." (John 8:16).
In addition Christ tells us: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (John 14:21)
In Luke 6:46-49 Christ tells us: "46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? 47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great."
We have Gay people doing something repeatedly, like Paul, that they know the Bible tells them is a sin and so they may repent.
We have "christians" who judge without benefit of the Holy Ghost, breaking the commandment of Christ to Judge Not, and who believe they are righteous and so do not repent.
Who enters into Heaven? The repent sinner or the self righteous and unrepentant christian?
How do we know the difference between the self righteous christian and a Christian following Christ? Christ tells us in John 5:30-31,
"31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true." The Holy Ghost witnesses with those whose witness is directed by the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost is not witnessing with the person judging, the person is breaking the commandment of Christ not to judge.
There are those who believe the Bible gives them the authority to judge, they do so without the benefit of the Holy Ghost, and there are those who are called to servitude in Christ and to spread the Good News of the Forgiveness of Sin through Christ.
People will be rewarded as they deserve, those sinners who repent are forgiven, those sinners who believe that they are righteous do not seek repentance and are not forgiven.
Christ tells us, in Matthew 25, that people will be separated as sheep and goats. In John 10 we are told that Christ's sheep will know his voice. In Matthew 7 Christ tells us that there will be those who believe they are saved, and yet never knew Christ.
Listening is the most important part of any relationship. We have to listen to God. If we don't listen, hear and know God's voice then, on the last days, we won't respond to Christ's call and we will follow the goats out of the presence of God. Even those who believe, and yet do not KNOW Christ, will end up in hell because they didn't know Christ, Christ's voice, and couldn't respond to the call.
So, do I think a repentant sinner ends up in hell while an unrepentant, judgmental and authoritarian pseudo-christian ends up in heaven?
Or, do I think a repentant sinner ends up in heaven while an unrepentant, judgmental and authoritarian pseudo-christian ends up in hell?
I could argue against most sinful behavior, including my own, from twenty different perspectives. Yet, sin is inconsequential for people are saved by faith in the grace of Christ and not by law. Romans 6:14-15: "14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." What constitutes "sin" before God? For this we can depend on the instruction of people who teach a false doctrine OR we can depend on the Holy Ghost who teaches a true doctrine and gives understanding.
Look at whom you have received instruction from. If you depend on instruction of people, if you give people authority over the definition of any word in scripture, your faith is false. If you depend on God and don't open your mouth unless God talks to you your faith is true.
Is anyone perfect? Can anyone always speak nothing but the Holy Ghost? There is one, and one only, and that is Christ. The rest of us struggle between placing our faith in ourselves, other people and God. The truth is, only those (and this includes me) whose faith, whose belief in things unseen, is strong enough will hear Christ on that last day.
Practice listening to the Holy Ghost at all times and remember that it is not the judgment of people, nor the esteem among mankind, that will open the gates of heaven. It is only through faith in the Grace of Christ that we may KNOW our Saviour and enter the gates of Heaven.
So pity those who judge, yet, always be open to the Holy Ghost whose judgment is perfect and who may choose to speak to us through the mouths of people.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Sunday School, Pseudo-Christians and life strategies
All righty then!
Anyone who has bothered to read the drivel I clog the web with knows I can argue against most things from about twenty different view points. For the most part the only argument I have for anything is that I believe people need to focus on applying their rules to themselves instead of applying their rules to others.
I have gay friends and some of them are overjoyed about the death of Fred Phelps. They are every bit as judgmental of him as he was of them. I could argue against Fred Phelps or homosexuality, but, in both cases I think people have a right to free speech and to choose their own life styles.
Last week the church sent out an e-mail about changing the e-mail address, again. About ten years ago the church asked me to put together a web site, so I did. About a year and a half later the site was hijacked by someone else in the church and I was locked out. No one even discussed changing web masters. The guy who took it over put up a web site that linked to an embedded Google map. Some of the more savvy out there are probably grinning right now about the band width issues related to embedding on web pages. Occasionally the site would go down because the church exceeded band width.
Look, when I put up the site I paid for everything out of my pocket and I didn't bother with paying for high band width since the church is small and techno-deficient anyway. Besides, I built the site to be fast, small web pages, not much scripting. The guy who took it over, with a brand new degree in computer science, didn't understand band width.
Fast forward a year or two and the site goes down. Oops, someone forgot to renew the domain. Oh, someone else snatched up the domain and held it for ransom. Total disaster, most people at church didn't notice. (Yes, I transfered registration. I'm not that spiteful)
Who ya gonna call when stuff goes to crap? You guessed it. No, I am not going to fix the site. Ask Joe. (a Freshman college kid with a much better understanding of networking and graphics design than our aforementioned CS grad). Joe put together a nice site, but, the people at church didn't enable e-mail for the domain. In fact, the CS grad and his hooligans disabled the e-mail and forwarders I had set up.
Yeah, some of you are shaking your heads. Brand and domain recognition is marketing 101 in this information age. Now you understand why membership is dwindling, essentially it is dying off. Love my church, love the people, they just don't get it. All of us are like that sometimes, some of us try to correct that using the gift of literacy and the humongo library we call the Internet. Not everyone believes in knowledge though, some people believe they already have all they need.
"All I need is this chair....and what I already know"
So I send out a e-mail, some called a flame and some called a rant, that I considered simple criticism. We need a permanent e-mail address based on the domain (marketing, brand recognition), just set up forwarders and we don't have to keep changing it.
Yeah, the uberknowledgable (sic) powers that maintain ignorance at our institution of judgmental authoritarianism decided on a gmail address in response to my criticism, thereby donating brand recognition of our organization to Google.
When I hit Sunday School one of my classmates suggested I had been ranting. I disagreed and explained it was criticism. Nothing heated, just a quick exchange.
The sermon had been on service. How Christians are supposed to be servants. A lot of Christians believe they have been endowed by the creator with a judgmental authortarianism that gives them the power to rebuke everyone for the speck in the eye of the sinner without needing to address the wooden box over their own heads, since Christ forgave them.
Actually, a lot of people (as in the gay Fred Phelps bashers mentioned earlier) do the same stuff without the benefit of Christian salvation. I see it as, pretty much, a human condition.
Our teacher mentioned how many had been serving in the church for years and never had any recognition. I interjected my 2 cents and explained that I appreciated the way she had been teaching the class for the many years I had been attending. I believed she served by helping people grow in Christ as opposed to being a judgmental authoritarian demanding adherence to a specific doctrine. This, I believe, is a primary difference between the pseudo-christian and the true Christian.
This led to a discussion about correction and once again I donated my 2 cents. Proverbs tells us, rebuke a wise man and he will love you, rebuke a fool and he will hate you. This invited a discussion where some people are actually wrong in their rebuke. Imagine that, Christians being wrong when they rebuke someone.
I explained, what God had explained to me, that when someone who rebukes us and is wrong, we can accept the rebuke as wrong and still love the person by accepting the rebuke as a genuine attempt to help us become better people. I used the guy who said my e-mail was a rant as an example, I think he is wrong, but, I love him because he has genuinely tried to help me become a better person.
This is a different way of looking at schtuff, but, it is one I have been using for many, many years.
Three lessons here for anyone looking for a moral to the story.
1: Sure, you can argue against someone's lifestyle from 20 different perspectives and there is nothing wrong with that. What we should be doing is applying our own rules to our lives. We can share those rules, but, we should not be demanding others adhere to our rules. Not even our rules about being accepting and tolerant. Insisting people be tolerant is showing intolerance.
2: Try to serve by helping people learn rather than being a judgmental authoritarian forcing people to accept a specific doctrine. (yeah, this sounds similar to the first. The first is "apply your rules to yourself" the second is "help others, don't try to force them")
3: When people criticize us, right or wrong, consider the critique. If right we have learned and become better. If wrong we have learned that the critic cares about us and is trying to help us become a better person.
Is that last one always true? Is a critic always loving and trying to help us become a better person? No, some are assholes trying to make us feel bad (a good example is the player I dated recently). Does believing that some people are scum improve our lives? I don't think so, I think believing the best about people and rejoicing in love is better than accepting or believing that the vast majority are total and complete scumbags.
Sure, being open, trusting, giving people the opportunity to hurt us through deliberate and demented acts can be difficult. People can hurt us, especially when we believe they care. Some people enjoy going out of their way to lead us down a path just to jerk that path out from under us. We can protect ourselves by living in a plastic bubble (or a cage, a prison, of our own construction).
I would rather be open to what life has to offer and rejoice in love so I choose to believe my critics are sharing love.
Anyone who has bothered to read the drivel I clog the web with knows I can argue against most things from about twenty different view points. For the most part the only argument I have for anything is that I believe people need to focus on applying their rules to themselves instead of applying their rules to others.
I have gay friends and some of them are overjoyed about the death of Fred Phelps. They are every bit as judgmental of him as he was of them. I could argue against Fred Phelps or homosexuality, but, in both cases I think people have a right to free speech and to choose their own life styles.
Last week the church sent out an e-mail about changing the e-mail address, again. About ten years ago the church asked me to put together a web site, so I did. About a year and a half later the site was hijacked by someone else in the church and I was locked out. No one even discussed changing web masters. The guy who took it over put up a web site that linked to an embedded Google map. Some of the more savvy out there are probably grinning right now about the band width issues related to embedding on web pages. Occasionally the site would go down because the church exceeded band width.
Look, when I put up the site I paid for everything out of my pocket and I didn't bother with paying for high band width since the church is small and techno-deficient anyway. Besides, I built the site to be fast, small web pages, not much scripting. The guy who took it over, with a brand new degree in computer science, didn't understand band width.
Fast forward a year or two and the site goes down. Oops, someone forgot to renew the domain. Oh, someone else snatched up the domain and held it for ransom. Total disaster, most people at church didn't notice. (Yes, I transfered registration. I'm not that spiteful)
Who ya gonna call when stuff goes to crap? You guessed it. No, I am not going to fix the site. Ask Joe. (a Freshman college kid with a much better understanding of networking and graphics design than our aforementioned CS grad). Joe put together a nice site, but, the people at church didn't enable e-mail for the domain. In fact, the CS grad and his hooligans disabled the e-mail and forwarders I had set up.
Yeah, some of you are shaking your heads. Brand and domain recognition is marketing 101 in this information age. Now you understand why membership is dwindling, essentially it is dying off. Love my church, love the people, they just don't get it. All of us are like that sometimes, some of us try to correct that using the gift of literacy and the humongo library we call the Internet. Not everyone believes in knowledge though, some people believe they already have all they need.
"All I need is this chair....and what I already know"
So I send out a e-mail, some called a flame and some called a rant, that I considered simple criticism. We need a permanent e-mail address based on the domain (marketing, brand recognition), just set up forwarders and we don't have to keep changing it.
Yeah, the uberknowledgable (sic) powers that maintain ignorance at our institution of judgmental authoritarianism decided on a gmail address in response to my criticism, thereby donating brand recognition of our organization to Google.
When I hit Sunday School one of my classmates suggested I had been ranting. I disagreed and explained it was criticism. Nothing heated, just a quick exchange.
The sermon had been on service. How Christians are supposed to be servants. A lot of Christians believe they have been endowed by the creator with a judgmental authortarianism that gives them the power to rebuke everyone for the speck in the eye of the sinner without needing to address the wooden box over their own heads, since Christ forgave them.
Actually, a lot of people (as in the gay Fred Phelps bashers mentioned earlier) do the same stuff without the benefit of Christian salvation. I see it as, pretty much, a human condition.
Our teacher mentioned how many had been serving in the church for years and never had any recognition. I interjected my 2 cents and explained that I appreciated the way she had been teaching the class for the many years I had been attending. I believed she served by helping people grow in Christ as opposed to being a judgmental authoritarian demanding adherence to a specific doctrine. This, I believe, is a primary difference between the pseudo-christian and the true Christian.
This led to a discussion about correction and once again I donated my 2 cents. Proverbs tells us, rebuke a wise man and he will love you, rebuke a fool and he will hate you. This invited a discussion where some people are actually wrong in their rebuke. Imagine that, Christians being wrong when they rebuke someone.
I explained, what God had explained to me, that when someone who rebukes us and is wrong, we can accept the rebuke as wrong and still love the person by accepting the rebuke as a genuine attempt to help us become better people. I used the guy who said my e-mail was a rant as an example, I think he is wrong, but, I love him because he has genuinely tried to help me become a better person.
This is a different way of looking at schtuff, but, it is one I have been using for many, many years.
Three lessons here for anyone looking for a moral to the story.
1: Sure, you can argue against someone's lifestyle from 20 different perspectives and there is nothing wrong with that. What we should be doing is applying our own rules to our lives. We can share those rules, but, we should not be demanding others adhere to our rules. Not even our rules about being accepting and tolerant. Insisting people be tolerant is showing intolerance.
2: Try to serve by helping people learn rather than being a judgmental authoritarian forcing people to accept a specific doctrine. (yeah, this sounds similar to the first. The first is "apply your rules to yourself" the second is "help others, don't try to force them")
3: When people criticize us, right or wrong, consider the critique. If right we have learned and become better. If wrong we have learned that the critic cares about us and is trying to help us become a better person.
Is that last one always true? Is a critic always loving and trying to help us become a better person? No, some are assholes trying to make us feel bad (a good example is the player I dated recently). Does believing that some people are scum improve our lives? I don't think so, I think believing the best about people and rejoicing in love is better than accepting or believing that the vast majority are total and complete scumbags.
Sure, being open, trusting, giving people the opportunity to hurt us through deliberate and demented acts can be difficult. People can hurt us, especially when we believe they care. Some people enjoy going out of their way to lead us down a path just to jerk that path out from under us. We can protect ourselves by living in a plastic bubble (or a cage, a prison, of our own construction).
I would rather be open to what life has to offer and rejoice in love so I choose to believe my critics are sharing love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
