gid

May 01, 2007

Zephaniah 3:17

The Lord your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing.
Posted by gid at 02:18 PM | Comments (5)

January 26, 2007

door to door evangelism

Sharon over at sit with me awhile has some thoughts on door to door evangelism. Pop on over and have a read.
Posted by gid at 03:06 PM | Comments (2)

December 10, 2006

thoughts

I find myself ever more in the pursuit of finding God's love. Whether in the mundane, tragic, ghastly, simple, remote, or busy events of life his love is ever present. At times it is hard to find, but it is there. Sometimes it is loud and evident and other times eerily quite. But the God who in geneses, broke on the scene with quite walks with us in Eden and who in Mathew came to us with peace on earth and good will toward men, is here on this planet pouring out his love and mercies. I'm not entirely sure why God has pursed me with such love and blessings, but as a Christian it is my privileged obligation to whole heartedly focus on his love. This pursuit of his love is something I have missed my whole Christian life, but is now something I refuse to put down. God is love and they will know we are of him because of our love. Not our persuasive words, are clean theology, our inclusive clamor, no they will know we are his because we love.

You see the reason I am not living a life that is drenched in the realization of God's love is because as a fallen creature I am inherently self focused-- pursuing the things of this earth. With that misdirected thought process I miss the love of God at most every step; until of course during those times self focus God reaches through in a lovingly overbearing way and shows me anew his loving kindness, which then I am forced to ponder his goodness. At those times my heart sees his provision and I instinctively praise him. But because we do not set our minds to pursue his love we lose the vision of his love within days.

Our highest calling from Christ is to love the Lord our God with all our heart mind and spirit. But who are we loving? We are loving Love. Yes love. God is love. That is who he is in all his great unspeakable glory. All of who He is can be wrapped up in one seemingly simple word: Love.

With that said may I restart the process of fulfilling Christ's greatest command. "Love the Lord with all your heart with all your mind and all your soul."

I wrote this to myself on February 04th 2006. I thankfully found it tonight, just when I needed it.

Again, my comments are still down..... Someone remind me to get with my host about it.... :-)

Posted by gid at 11:55 PM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2006

Celebrating Ezzo week

TulipGirl is blogging about Ezzo week. Please stop by her blog and take a few minutes to read some of her posts. Here are two links (1 2)

This reading is not just for new parents. Make sure you know who Ezzo is so that when he and his books are brought up in conversations at church you will be able to speak intelligently about topics such as Failure to Thrive, Loss of Milk Production, Lies about Family beds (remember they use to call SIDs "Crib Death" for a reason), Cry it out, and Gary Ezzo's 2 Excommunications

Back when I went to school up at Ravencrest one of the guest speakers had a saying that still resonates with me to this day. He said: "Rules without relationship leads to rebellion". One of my biggest beefs with Ezzo is that he focuses on the rules and behavior and thus lets the relationship take the backseat. Remember that God says "...with loving-kindness I have drawn you" Jeremiah 31:3b. One easy question that we should ask while rearing our kids is: Am I drawing my kids into a relationship with me and by proxy into relationship with God, through loving-kindness? I think ultimately you could ask yourself: Am I parenting my children the way that God parents me?

Though, the problem with my last question is that a lot of Christians are so busy punishing, chastising, disciplining, and belittling themselves that they don't have a clue how God parents them. All they know is what their legalism tells them, not what God in his word has told them. Yes, it ain't pretty.

Posted by gid at 03:49 PM | Comments (2)

June 17, 2006

Scientology

The truth about Scientology that ole Tom would not want you to know.
Posted by gid at 10:20 AM | Comments (2)

April 27, 2006

It says I am a Reformed Evangelical

You scored as Reformed Evangelical. You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die.

Fundamentalist

82%

Reformed Evangelical

82%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

64%

Neo orthodox

57%

Emergent/Postmodern

57%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

36%

Classical Liberal

36%

Roman Catholic

21%

Modern Liberal

4%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Hat Tip to Daniel over at In the Lion's Den for the link to the quiz.

Posted by gid at 01:38 PM | Comments (3)

March 24, 2006

What the HECK!

Take the time to read the letter below the fold. What a load of garbage, and the fact that they actually got 10,000 clergy members to sign it is a complete outrage. Really!

Here is a little quote:

We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.

Here's another:

To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

Let me interpret what they just said: If you don't believe in evolution you are not using your mind and in effect rejecting God.

Again, what the heck.

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible -- the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark -- convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Posted by gid at 10:23 AM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2006

Isaiah 55:9

Isaiah 55:9
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (N.I.V)
Posted by gid at 09:25 AM | Comments (0)

February 24, 2006

December 12, 2005

Let me be honest

Joel-Osteen.jpg

My dad every year tends to give us self-help books for Christmas. I think it tends to conjure up a bit of angst on the part of all of us kids for one reason or the other. I would bet just about all the money in the world that I am the only one of my siblings that actually reads the books he gives. The main reason I read the books is not because I want to "get better", but because I want to honor my dad and respect him in the position God has placed him in. Yes, I realize that I am 30+ years old, but I still feel God has placed him in my life and that part of honoring the position Christ has placed him in is to accept his leadership.

All of that said my parents were passing through on Saturday and dad gave me one of my Christmas presents early. He gave me Joel Osteen's book Daily Readings from Your Best Life. I have to admit that I am not excited about it at all, but as usual I am going to read it. The problem is that I am so cynical about the whole Christian 7 step books. I have really begun to dislike popular Christian fad books. You know, the let me chop it up and feed it to you on a rubber baby spoon kind of Christian books.

Well, since this is a devotional book Leslie and I are going to read it together. Last night was our first night. It was pretty good. The first devotion had to do with Hebrews 11 and faith. He used the Hebrews faith passage to talk about following God by faith to wherever He has called us. His point was God either puts a drive in our heart like Abrahams father to go to Canaan (promise land) or a direct call in our lives like he did with Abraham. The problem is that like Abrahams father, we get comfortable at some point in our journey and settle in a land that is nice but not everything God has intended for us. Olsteen's call was for us to continue the journey we started. That we should take the land He has given us, and that we should not grow complacent with what God has already blessed us with.

All in all it was a good read. Leslie and I had some interesting discussions afterwards. But truthfully, there is something about books like this that rub me the wrong way. Dad says it is my inner negative self talk that has conditioned me to fight positive influence in my life. There is probably some truth to his point. I think part of my legalistic sensibilities just stops me from drinking in God's grace and blessings in my life. Am I the only one or am I just over thinking it?

Posted by gid at 03:09 PM | Comments (2)

November 30, 2005

speaking in tongues

Daniel over at In the Lion's Den did a little post about the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board forbidding missionaries from speaking in tongues. Southern Baptist or not, I would be interested in hearing some of your comments on it. If you have a chance, then jump on over toDaniel's site and leave your two cents.

fyi....I'm turning off comments on this one.

Posted by gid at 10:39 PM | Comments (0)

November 21, 2005

hanging out where the goldfish are edible

It was our turn to help out with children's church this past Sunday. Leslie was with Elliot in the crawlers and I was with John David in the 3 year old's (give or take 6 months) class. In an effort to help us find our spiritual gifts and to develop a heart for the childrens ministry our church has all the members take turns helping with children's church. I'm certain what my primary (if there is such a thing as a primary) spiritual gift is, and I can tell you emphatically it has nothing to do with helping out with 12 three year olds for an hour. To be honest it probably has to do with me being lazy, but 12 three year olds require a level of energy that I am just not capable of mustering up.

The first time I realized that the hour was going to be a long time was after I had read three books, played legos (check out this link) for a while, and resolved four or five tug-o-war\toy disputes only to look up and see that 20 minutes had passed. Luckily they have this thing, which is oddly missing in the adult service called "snack time". I'm considering going before the next meeting of the session to get the scoop on what happened to snack time. Well, after a little song\prayer snack time began. It kept them occupied for another 10 minutes or more.

I guess I am totally out of the loop because I did not know the words to the snack time prayer song. The funny thing is that another parent happened to walk in right before the song prayer began and jumped right in. I think John David and I were just amused by all the little kids folding their hands and singing. To be quite honest I kind of felt like I did the time or two when I visited a catholic church. You know, not sure when to stand, sit or kneel. Yea, it is kind of an odd feeling to have in a PCA church.

Well, it was while they were eating their goldfish and fruit drops that I pulled out my camera. I'm going to have to keep the camera in mind going forward because as soon as I pulled it out they totally became mesmerized by it. I had to hold the camera way above my head in order to get them all in the shot, so I was not able to get a really good shot. John David is at the top right.

Yea back to the service. After snack time the dipper changes started. Luckily, due to some insurance reasons only women are allowed to change diapers. Normally I would think about raising Cain because of the inequality issues, but I decided to let this one go. ;-) By the time half of the most critical diapers were changed it was time to start cleaning up. I guess the real problem with the whole morning was that we were suppose to get to a bible story, but just ran out of time. I'm not sure it is a realistic possibility that 12 three year olds would all sit at the same time much less sit and listen to a short bible story. I mean, you are really dealing with a 15 second attention span. Well, maybe a bit longer if you are lucky enough to have one or two daze off into outer space for a bit.

Posted by gid at 02:09 PM | Comments (0)

November 14, 2005

playbook for the reformed

Here's a play straight out of the Calvinistic playbook for lovers: here

I used it on Leslie this morning. She swooned. Okay not exactly swooned, but I did get a good smile out of her.

Posted by gid at 02:29 PM | Comments (0)

October 27, 2005

those poor babies goldfish

Image from

How can you care more about the eye sight of goldfish than you do about unborn children? I just don't get it.

I tracked down this interesting article on abortion statistics in Italy. Here is a quote that I find really surprising.


There do appear to be some subpopulations in which abortion rates are higher: women with children, those with lower levels of education, and housewives.
 

I wonder if abortion is higher for the same subgroups here in the US. It is hard to believe that mothers and housewives would be those who abort the most.

I know I have said it before but I really hate abortion. I wish there was something I could do about it.

Posted by gid at 07:40 PM | Comments (0)

October 20, 2005

Gandhi vs. Christ

The various religions are like different roads converging on the same point. What difference does it make if we follow different routes, provided we arrive at the same destination.
-- Mahatma Gandhi
  I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
-- Christ
Posted by gid at 02:37 PM | Comments (0)

October 10, 2005

Halloween or not......II

Here is a little more reading on Halloween. Be sure to check out the comments as well. Both are pro Halloween. Yeah, the first quote would make you think he was against the holiday but he is not. The second quote is from a blog I don't visit often enough. I like his point -- that something which has bad beginning does not have to have a bad ending. I think his point really speaks to the nature of Christ.

From Baylyblog

From Nowhereville, USA

 
 

He makes some really good points. What does peek my interest, whether rightly or not, is that in his holiday breakout none of his holidays have any religious significance to him. Maybe I am reading a bit too much into it. I guess his "A time to enjoy friends and family through shared traditions" could also encompass any religious traditions.

Like Daniel brought up in his last comment on the Halloween or not…… post I think it is important for me as an evangelical to tie religious meaning to most if not all of my holidays I celebrate. I think it is a natural out flowing of the significance of holidays to God in the Old Testament. I do see a difference in the OT holidays, which all pointed to Christ and our modern day holidays, but where those ties in our holidays are easily made shouldn't they be?

Posted by gid at 02:15 PM | Comments (2)

October 01, 2005

Halloween or not....

There was a point in time where Leslie and I gave out candy and the like at Halloween, but we always kind of questioned whether Halloween was a holiday that we should celebrate as Christians. The last time we did give out candy we has some idiot (I only call them an idiot because it was a hit and run) ran into our mailbox while trying to back out of our drive way, so we decided the next year not to give out candy and for some reason we just never have again.

But, now that we have two little ones we are going to have to settle the issue once and for all. Over at Carol's Storybook she presents Halloween from a perspective I had not heard.

So what do you think, will you be handing out goodies?

Posted by gid at 10:12 PM | Comments (7)

September 07, 2005

new old blog

If you are looking for a new blog to follow then While You Were Away is back. He and his wife are teaching English in China. I followed their blog when they were in China the last time. They will be there for a year, and have just started their teaching stint. He does not allow commenting on his blog for obvious reasons. Check them out.
Posted by gid at 08:21 AM | Comments (0)

August 10, 2005

Parental Rights vs. Public Schools

Here is an extremely disturbing article on how far Ted Kennedy's home state will go to suppress the rights of those parents who feel that public schools should not usurp the their role of teaching personal values to children.

Thanks Eric

If the link to the artical is no longer valid then you can read the artical below.
Parental Rights vs. Public Schools
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
By Wendy McElroy

David Parker (search) of Lexington, Mass., is scheduled to go on trial on Sept. 21 for asking his son's public school to provide parental notification before discussing homosexuality with the 6-year old.
The actual charge is criminal trespassing. But the real issue is whether parents or schools will control the teaching of values to children.
The conflict began on Jan. 17, when Parker's then-5-year-old son brought home a Diversity Bookbag from kindergarten. Included was Robert Skutch's "Who's In a Family?" that depicts families headed by same-sex couples. Parker had wanted to decide for himself the timing and manner in which his son was introduced to the subject of homosexuality.
(The Bookbag is supposed to be a voluntary program but the Parkers knew nothing about it in advance.)
Parker immediately e-mailed the Estabrook school principal, Joni Jay (search). Parker expressed his belief that gay parents did not constitute "a spiritually healthy family"; he did not wish his son to be taught that a gay family is "a morally equal alternative to other family constructs."
Parker acknowledged the equal rights of gays but objected to "the 'out of the closet' and into the kindergarten classroom mentality." In essence, Parker highlighted the difference between tolerance, which acknowledges someone's right to make a choice, and acceptance, which is the personal validation of that choice.
The conflict moved quickly from the Diversity Bookbag (search) to the more general issue of parental notification. The Parkers wanted to know if sexuality was scheduled to be discussed in class so they could remove their son. They also wanted their son removed from any "spontaneous conversations" about sexuality that involved an adult.
By law, Massachusetts requires schools to notify parents when sexuality is scheduled for discussion. Lexington School Committee chairman Thomas B. Griffiths explained, "We don't view telling a child that there is a family out there with two mommies as teaching about homosexuality." In an e-mail, the Estabrook school principal stated, "I have confirmed … that discussion of differing families, including gay-headed families, is not included in the parental notification policy."
At an April 27 meeting at the school, Parker refused to leave without an assurance that he would receive parental notification. Arrested for criminal trespass, he spent the night in jail.
When asked why he insisted on staying, Parker replied, "I wanted to see how far they [school authorities] would go for [my] asking something simple."
The state now wishes to impose probation upon Parker, along with other restrictions — such as banning him from Lexington school properties without prior written permission from the superintendent of schools. This means he is barred from places to vote, as well as school committee and parent-teacher meetings.
Parker is contesting the charge. Why? After his arraignment, he stated, "I'm just trying to be a good dad." During a May 11 appearance on the FOX News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," Parker expanded on this statement, saying that he wanted his son "to play on the swing set and make mud pies. I don't want him thinking about same-sex unions in kindergarten."
Parker's attorney, Jeffrey Denner, points to a larger issue — "the role of family and what kind of encroachments government can make into children's and people's lives."
Otherwise stated, schools are usurping the parental role of teaching personal values to children. They are not acting as educators but as guardians, "in loco parentis" (in the place of a parent). Some schools clearly consider this function to be their right, even over parental objections. Thus, Estabrook defends its "right" to teach Parker's son to accept same-sex marriages.
Denner hopes to resolve the conflict before trial but he also intends to file a civil suit in federal court against the town of Lexington, the school system and its officials.
Meanwhile, there seems to be a campaign to discredit Parker. The Lexington School Board has reportedly accused Parker of wanting to be arrested to grab "headlines." If true, it is strange that he wasted months on e-mails, faxes and school meetings before making his move. Parker's actions sound more like those of a father with no options left.
The school also claims that Parker's demands would prevent other children from discussing their families or drawing pictures of them.
But this is far from what's been officially requested. According to Neil Tassel, Parker's co-counsel, "the Parkers' proposal was simple: notify them in advance if there is a planned discussion about same-sex issues, and, if an adult becomes involved in a discussion spontaneously begun by a child, then remove their child from the discussion."
School authorities quite reasonably responded that they could not be held responsible for monitoring spontaneous conversations or remarks made in the class. Moreover, they contend that children with gay parents have a right to talk about their families and have their families represented.
At some point in the dialogue, however, reason broke down; police were called. The attacks on Parker have been so intense that Tassel recently found it necessary to write a defense in the local paper denying that his client is a shill for or member of Article 8, a controversial organization opposed to same-sex marriage.
He pointed to Parker's Ph.D. to deflect criticism of his client as an ignorant book burner. To counter the charge that Parker hates gays, Tassel described him as "an exceptionally kind hearted man" whose best friend was gay.
Perhaps Estabrook authorities are trying to divert attention from the real question: Is Parker simply demanding parental notification or not? I think he is.
David Parker cares so deeply that he is willing to go to jail and endure a lengthy court process for the right to be a parent. In a world where a myriad of social problems can be traced back to parental abuse or indifference, it is incredible that Parker is being treated as a criminal and not as the hero he is.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.
Posted by gid at 10:15 AM | Comments (4)

July 26, 2005

old photo

My Aunt Sandy came across this picture and sent it my way via e-mail. She saw where I had mentioned the CBMC conference that my parents were headed to teach. The South East CBMC conference use to be held at Covenant Collage up until the mid 80's or so, and this picture is of me back in 1977 at the age of three standing in front of Covenant College.

Thank for the picture Sandy!

Posted by gid at 09:56 AM | Comments (3)

June 14, 2005

2005 General Assembly

For all those PCAers out there this link might be of interest. The 2005 General Assembly is in ole Chatt this week and the kind folks over at Coptix are hosting a blog. Go check it out.
Posted by gid at 12:28 AM | Comments (2)

May 17, 2005

he called me a fundie

Talk about little things that can make your day.

I'm the head of "one of those Bush-loving Christian fundie families:"

Posted by gid at 11:16 AM | Comments (1)

April 30, 2005

Hugo's Christian Business idea

Okay since I am digging a hole (no pun intended) in regards to google and my bathroom related hits, I have a blog post you need to read. Check out Hugo Fitch's post on a new business idea he has. I have to admit, I would buy into his business idea for at least one roll. Go check it out.
Posted by gid at 03:48 PM | Comments (0)

March 31, 2005

a sick man in a sick world

Schindlers' spiritual advisers said the couple had been at their daughter's besides minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo did not want them in the room.

"And so his heartless cruelty continues until this very last moment," said the Rev. Frank Pavone.

Posted by gid at 11:15 AM | Comments (0)

March 22, 2005

terri's death

Here is a link on death by dehydration from the Catholic Educator's Resource Center.

Excerpt:
"A conscious [cognitively disabled] person would feel it just as you or I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucus membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death."
Update: If you have time, then go over to Palm Tree Pundit and check out her Terri post. It is very good. Make sure to follow the link to Doctor NOS.
Posted by gid at 06:54 AM | Comments (0)

February 03, 2005

gay marriage

I had originally written this as a comment on this blog, but my comment was too long.

For me it all boils down to there being unalienable and alienable rights. Our founding fathers saw this distinction also and created a system of government that protected these non transferable rights, those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think the founders chose life as the first unalienable right to mention in their Declaration of Independence because it is the core right given to us by God. God initiated the institution of marriage as the spring that life would flow from.

Once moving past their declaration of independence the founders set forth to write a Constitution and a Bill of Rights which were intended to be the ideal system for those unalienable rights to flourish. I don?t think the founders ever envisioned that the institution of marriage, which produced the core unalienable right, would be in danger. They would not have seen a need to protect that institution partly because man invents new ways to commit sin (Romans 1:30). If they had seen that the institution that produced life would have been in danger, I have no doubt that it would have been address. Does anyone know if gay marriage has been attempted by any other culture that proceeded the last 500 years? I would be surprised if they did.

As a Christian, and yes I know not all Christian agree with me on this, I have a requirement to stand for what Christ stands for, marriage being one of those things. Out side of that fact common sense requires that I look ahead to see what the side effect of gay marriage would be. One of those side effects would be polygamy. Both issues have to be addressed at the same time. I know that the gay lobby calls it a red herring to bring in polygamy, but the red herring is theirs. Both issues are involved here and have to be address.

This post was one of my favorite posts because we were able to carry on a great discussion about a hot topic. I am not sure about Texas marriage laws but maybe one day they will have more content.

Posted by gid at 05:23 PM | Comments (15)

August 25, 2004

aborting my marriage

Salon.com had an article that is worth the read (I think). I?m not total sure what my feelings were after reading it. I think I was just left with the impression of how sad and wrong life can go and to think that for a lot of people they just have no hope.
Oh yea, you have to watch a little commercial to read the article, but it is worth it.

Also, I am probably not the only one following this story but it really makes me angry, especially after reading the artical on aborting my marriage. If you are not familiar with the Women on Waves ship then you might want to read up on it. Here are some links about it:
BBC
Life News
New Zealand Herald
Posted by gid at 01:55 PM | Comments (3)

July 29, 2004

dirty politics

I have really made a concerted effort to lay off the political blogging here lately, but I just have to speak up on this one. When I went to Kerry-04.org I was struck by the picture of Kim Jong-il, Osama, and Sadam with the question asked "This November who would they vote for". Without a doubt they would vote for Kerry. Am I wrong about that? People might call Bush a hot head, war-hawk or something else, but at this point in our nations history I feel much safer having Bush in the WH.

On the other hand I don?t think this site helps convince non-bushies to vote for him. If you are going to present truths about Kerry's short comings to try and convince people who they should vote for, then I don?t think mocking Kerry while doing it is helpful in your cause. Though, political cartoons have been a part of our nation?s history going back to the colonist, so maybe I?m wrong.

One last thing: I just love the political process in this country. Every 4 years I look forward to the conventions and hearing what everyone has to say. The Democratic convention has been quite interesting. There have been several really good speeches and other that should have been left out. I think they should have dropped Gore from the speech line up. I think the Dems already have their base fired up and if anything they turned off some potential voters with his speech. I really wanted to catch Clinton the first night, but it came on way too late and I missed it. I am not sure why they had him come on so late, but I guess there was some reason. I might have to find his speech on-line somewhere. I love watching his speeches because I could always count on him to get my ire up. Well, that?s not the only reason. There is something about the man I find extremely fascinating.

Carters? speech was the best I have seen so far. After Carters speech I would have gotten up to go early vote if I were one of those people that needed all of their ?opinions? feed to them?.Heinz-Kerry?s speech was probably the worst.

Posted by gid at 05:56 PM | Comments (0)

July 12, 2004

the quiz

political score
Take the Quiz
I have taken this quiz a few times over the last few years, and I keep moving up vertically every time I take it. I think the last time I took the quiz there were a lot more question, which might account for some of the change. I might agree with the libertarians on a lot of issues, but I believe my vote is too important to throw away. Especially this year.
There are two issues that make me vote the way I do. They are the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. It is funny that the way I vote boils down to the 2nd chapter of Genesis. In that chapter God does two things. He breaths his breath of life into man and creates the institution of marriage. For me the most important thing I can do is to work to protect those two base institutions.
If my vote did not count as much as it could this election, I would really consider throwing my vote to a Libertarian.
If you take the quiz and feel like sharing then feel free to post a comment.
Posted by gid at 12:04 PM | Comments (2)

July 04, 2004

Religion or Politics

Thinking about Independence day In one of my other posts I uploaded a letter that I sent to Senator Alexander. I was not sure which category to place it under: religion or politics. I decided to post it using multiple categories, which got me thinking that posting the letter under both categories lacked a certain amount of political correctness. After thinking about it a bit my conclusion was that if the founding fathers could not differentiate their Religion from Politics, then why should I?

Take a look at what the founders said in the Declaration of Independence. They understood that rights did not originate from laws or government, but rights ultimately came from God. In the Declaration of Independence it states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. The founders understood something that most of us don't. They understood that if the ultimate statement of rights came from the government then they would have had absolutely no right to oppose the rule of the king. Instead they clearly understood that rights originated from God and were endowed upon them by Him. They had no problem standing up to the king and claiming what they had already given.
All that said today I am going to post this under the religion and politics categories, and then thank God for them both.
Posted by gid at 11:20 AM | Comments (0)

June 18, 2004

sanctity of marriage

A few days ago I wrote Senator Alexander. I have a lot to say about his respones and I hope to get back to this post in the future.
Senator Alexander,

I noticed on your website that you had a great picture of you with the late President Reagan. I had the opportunity to hear President Reagan speak at the 1988 Republican National Convention as well as the opportunity to read and listen to many of his speeches. Reagan never wavered on his commitment to traditional family values, and I am disturbed that you have. By turning down the opportunity to co-sponsor the marriage amendment bill, you have actively failed to represent the constituents that voted you into office. At this critical point in our nation?s history, we do not need politicians that give technical and complicated run-a-round answers instead of a simple yes or no. By refusing to co-sponsor this bill, you have voted NO to the sanctity of marriage, and by doing so, have failed to represent the constituents that voted you into office.

Sincerely,

J. David Gidcumb
And this is his response. I know this was the canned response, that was sent to everyone who wrote him, but I have a lot I would like to say about my opinion of politicians that are reactionary vs. proactive.


June 17, 2004

Mr. J. David Gidcumb
214 Signal View St.
Red Bank, Tennessee 37415


Dear David,

Thank you for getting in touch with me regarding a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is the law today in Tennessee. In addition, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996, gives Tennessee the right to enforce our definition of marriage even if other states adopt a different view. Since same-sex marriages are already outlawed in Tennessee, I have not yet been persuaded that it is also necessary to amend the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States has served our country well for more than 200 years. I believe it should not be tampered with unless absolutely necessary. If a federal court somehow took away Tennessee's right to enforce our law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, I would certainly then support a constitutional amendment restoring that right.
Thank you very much for writing.
Sincerely,

Lamar
Posted by gid at 03:57 PM | Comments (1)

June 12, 2004

God's Sovereignty

Right now I am reading through The Sovereignty of God by AW Pink. I started the book several years back, and have just picked it up again. I have done quite a bit, more then some but less then others, of reading over the last 10 or so years that I have been a Christian, but I have not run into anyone who is as well thought out as Pink. I think Pink is not read as much as be should be because of his English\King James use of old English. Though, it is really not that bad.
I have been struck, while reading this book, by one prevailing though. Every Christian I know would tell me that God is sovereign, but I don?t think they truly believe it or don?t know what they are really agreeing to. I don?t want to say anything else about my previous sentence because that is not why I am writing this blog entry. I am in the chapter five: The Sovereignty of God in Salvation. The chapter is broken out into section, and I want to just post some of the section on The Sovereignty of God the Son in Salvation.
Pink said this:
Grant that the One who died upon the Cross was God manifest in the flesh and it follows inevitably that what Christ has purposed that will He perform; that what He has purchased that will He possess; that what He has set His heart upon that will He secure. If the Lord Jesus possesses all power in Heaven and earth then none can successfully resist His will. But it may be said, This is true in the abstract, nevertheless, Christ refuses to exercise this power, inasmuch as He will never force anyone to receive Him as their Lord and Saviour. In one sense that is true, but in another sense it is positively untrue. The salvation of any sinner is a matter of Divine power. By nature the sinner is at enmity with God, and naught but Divine power operating within him can overcome this enmity; hence it is written, "No man can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (John 6:44). It is the Divine power overcoming the sinner's innate enmity which makes him willing to come to Christ that he might have life. But this "enmity" is not overcome in all-why? Is it because the enmity is too strong to be overcome? Are there some hearts so steeled against Him that Christ is unable to gain entrance? To answer in the affirmative is to deny His omnipotence.

I am not really going to comment on what he said. I think he speaks for himself. What I do want to say is while reading this I was reminded for the verse that Billy Graham gave to President Bush to read during Reagan's funeral which was:
Psalms 37:
22 For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off.
23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.
I am just left in awe of a Sovereign God!
Posted by gid at 03:56 PM | Comments (0)

June 07, 2004

living an eternally significant life

Well on the 3rd I turned 30. I have to say that I am starting to feel old. I really did not think 30 would be a big deal. My wife turned 30 on the 13th of May, so I had a few weeks to think about what it would be like for me to turn 30. I kept thinking that turning 25 would be a much bigger deal then 30. I mean, at 25 you are a quarter century which is half way to 50. My thinking that 25 was a big deal and that 30 would be nothing has just not panned out that way.

I guess I started college about 6 years later then the average person, so all through my college years I hung out with people younger then myself. That being the case I always felt that I was younger then I actually was. Even now, most of the people I would call close friends are 5 years younger than me. All that said, I was thinking this morning about Ronald Reagan?s death and the finality of life. I was thinking about all the great things he achieved and how history would remember him as a great man. I guess some where deep down I always had some illusions of grandeur about how my life would turn out. Not that this is the end of my life, but I do suspect that I will not achieve some of the lofty goals\ideas I had about where I would end up.

After a bit of thought, I think I am okay with that. I realize that my goals were more about me then Him.

I guess this is where I confront that recurring theme in my life of living an eternally significant life.

Posted by gid at 03:54 PM | Comments (0)