Maelstrom

Can't Stop the Scaerismania!

2006-02-17T13:08:00.000-08:00

I know that I am not alone in appreciating the work of and thus loving David P. Scaer, and so I thought I'd post something of his on the same theme that's been running through the posts here at Theomony--Lutheran v. Reformed thought. Fittingly he titles this "Baptism As Church Foundation."

Below is a snipet of the article which can be read in its entirety here:

http://www.ctsfw.edu/events/symposia/papers/sym2003scaerd.pdf

A chance remark by Walter Kaiser, then at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and now
at Gordon-Conwell Seminary, located the fundamental difference between Reformed and
Lutheran theologies not in how we understood Christ (extra Calvinistium) and the Sacraments
(finitum non capax infiniti), but in where each begins theology. The Reformed begin with God
and Lutherans with Christ. Roots, trunk, branches and not just the shapes of the leaves are
different. Calvin defined God’s existence philosophically and then proceeded to the locus on
Scriptures and the Reformed confessions followed suit. Their concern is God’s rule, which is
reflected in their doctrines of divine sovereignty, providence and election. Lutherans begin with
Christ (or at least they should) and then proceed to the Scriptures. This approach predetermined
for Luther a christological interpretation of the Bible and so Lutheran and Reformed Weltanschauungen are worlds apart. Parallel doctrines may be identically worded, but the
similarity is superficial. For example Calvin defines faith as obedience and so even our doctrines
of justification are different.

Thesis #1

2005-12-28T17:48:00.000-08:00

Morality does not belong to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, Buddhism, or any single religious system, but belongs to humanity.

French Fries: The Gateway Drug

2005-02-25T18:30:00.000-08:00

Now, yes I am being a little facetious here in the title of this post--kinda. I'm trying to show the abusurdity of one of the arguments made against policies that would decriminalize marijuana in the U.S.. "Once they smoke pot, the next time you see them they could be mainlinin' dope!" is often the cry you hear coming from the mouths of the brainwashed masses. Does "brainwashed" seem like a harsh adjective to use in describing the jibber-jabber of the hypnopaeds? Actually, on the contrary, it is quite gracious. Better they hold their position because of brainwashing and ignorance than arriving at it by actually thinking and reasoning. For in reality, reason would only lead you to support the decriminalization of marijuana, and only irrationality or a lack of reason could lead one to the position now held by a majority of Americans. So then, in actuality I'm describing these folks in terms of their victimization by a propaganda machine that has been churning out its doctrine since shortly before the mid twentieth century--"Reefer Madness" anyone! Yet, it will be their fault if when met by reason and facts they continue to pipe on like good little sycophants will.

Look at these stats, and use reason to deduce what is more dangerous for Americans:

Annual Causes of Death/Death Toll (Year 2000)

Tobacco (435,000)
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity (365,000)
Alcohol (85,000)
Microbial Agents (75,000)
Toxic Agents (55,000)
Motor Vehicle Crashes (26,347)
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs (32,000)
Suicide (30,622)
Incidents Involving Firearms (29,000)
Homicide (20,308)
Sexual Behaviors (20,000)
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect (17,000)
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin (7,600)
Marijuana (0)

Information gathered from: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm#item1

Think about the fact that drugs like Aspirin are responsible for 7,600 deaths per year and compare that to marijuana induced deaths. Work your way up the list from the big fat zero at the bottom. Then, focus on the top three causes of death in the U.S.. Isn't it more likely that Alcohol is the "Gateway Drug?" Isn't it far more readily available than marijuana? Unless I've been missing out, I've never seen joints for sale at the Circle K, but they do carry beer. Even better yet, when I think about it, I had french fries before I ever sucked down a sip of goat whiz from my father's can of Bud. There are two McDonald's, 2 Jack in the Box's, as well as an Arby's within a 2 mile radius of my residence (aka Maelstrom Central Control). How's that for availability? So, next time a hypnopaed asserts that marijuana is a leaping off point on the way to the needle, posit that you instead believe our troubles begin with those items born of the deep fat fryer, and lay out the stats to prove it.

This of course is not the meat of the argument for the decriminalization of marijuana, but is simply one facet of the periphery. There are certainly core issues that far outweigh mere statistical information, and those will be brought to light in subsequent posts here in the Maelstrom.

Smoke Up, Li'l Johnny

2005-02-24T20:44:00.000-08:00

As a man for all seasons, I frequent many different forums, hangouts, and squats on the internet. One such forum is called WarriorTalk Forum. We talk about how we can be more proficient warriors in all areas of life there--Great place to learn about a side of being a man that seems to be all but lost on our feminized male culture. Anyway, a discussion of drugs came up, and some others and I were perplexed by the hypnopaedic rants that were appearing on the thread. TravisABQ responded wonderfully to such foolishness. So much so that I wished to post it here. I'm sure you can deduce what was being said in posts previous to this one.

"Sarah Brady is just as certain that posession of a gun will
MAKE you shoot somebody with it, as you seem to be that
using mind altering drugs (you are hedging on alcohol)
will MAKE someone destroy their own lives, use worse
drugs, destroy themselves and destroy other people on
their way to hell.

I have met alcoholics, and druggies, and the idea that
alcohol or drugs MAKE you screw over family and
friends, and take up all sorts of antisocial behaviors is
just Bovine Scatology, IMO.

I DON'T want a cokehead on the police force, don't
want a meth-head driving a semi, don't want a missileman
in Minot fuzzed up from smoking a joint 2 weeks ago.
I'm none too crazy about having chronic drunks, or people
on Prozac, Zanix, or Zoloft in those occupations either.
Your posts seem to reflect you have had a good amount
of experience with hard-core self-destructed druggies...
I won't debate that point. Asserting that "most" Marijuana
users will use hard drugs, and that "most" users of "hard
drugs" will self destruct because of it is just so specious.
The facts do not support that.

If somebody is into heroin, cocaine, and meth, are they
more likely to be smoking dope, or cigarettes and drinking hard liquor?

I've happened upon some AA meetings, and bars: judging
from the cigarette smoke, I think that hard core addictive
behavior comes in BUNCHES.

If you wish to look up the actual numbers of Causes of death...
http://www.citypages.com/databank/2...rticle12991.asp
"For every so-called "overdose" you can show,
I can stack up corpses from tobacco, alcohol, and
prescribed medications like cordwood.

Some people are just determined to destroy themselves....
Social puritans think we should throw them in prison in
order to save them.... and that we should imprison
thousands more casual users because they MIGHT
be self destructive.

Logic it out for me, why are we (as a society) getting
in between a fool and the consequences of his own
foolishness?

Alcohol prohibition did not work very well, it financed
the Mafia and turned millions of people from beer and wine,
to hard liquor.... and the present "Drug War" seems to
mostly have the effect of financing South American
Marxists, Al Quaeda, and keeping US prisons filled with
"customers".

Let's punish people for demonstrable bad acts, rather than
for posession of THINGS, and SUBSTANCES,
and the bad things that they CAN, or MIGHT
do with them."

--Travis--

The Glory of Soldiering

2005-02-24T15:58:00.000-08:00

Most people I suspect have a little blue birdie that comes to roost upon their shoulder from time to time in order to pass on a juicy tidbit of information that the lil' blue birdie believes will be helpful to that person's life. I, too, have a creature who performs that very task, but it isn't a little blue birdie. Hell, it doesn't even have feathers. Rather it has tusks, hair, grunts, and squeals. Anyway, my creature passed on an article that reinforces in my mind the position that for the soldier, or the one acting in that capacity, there is great glory in the job of killing.

Onward Christian Soldiers
But is it wrong for a fighting man to enjoy his work?
by Gene Edward Veith

Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight," Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis of the U.S. Marine Corps said in a panel discussion in San Diego. "It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling."

That admission, from a "fighting general" who led combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq—including the Battle of Fallujah—caused an uproar. How terrible! How insensitive! The mentality that gave us Abu Ghraib! He must be disciplined! He should be thrown out of the military!

But if we are going to fight a war, we need to understand what war entails. The public supports our troops, but mainly by feeling sorry for them and their familes. We also should appreciate our troops' facility in fulfilling their purpose, namely, killing the enemy.

There is a pleasure in battle. Yes, there is fear and desperation, but there is also excitement, exhilaration, and a fierce joy that go along with combat. At least that is the testimony of veterans and accounts of war that go back as far as the Iliad. "It is well that war is so terrible," said Robert E. Lee at Fredericksburg, "lest we should grow too fond of it."

The "fun" of combat is what non-warrior types pursue vicariously through entertainment. The competition of sports, violent TV shows, first-person-shooter video games, and a big percentage of Hollywood movies tap into the primal love of war.

Ironically, Lt. Gen. Mattis himself is the subject of an upcoming movie, No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah. Playing Lt. Gen. Mattis is Harrison Ford. Mr. Ford is an action star who in the movies entertains millions by shooting people and blowing them up. In real life, though, Mr. Ford joined other actors in a public protest of the war in Iraq. Perhaps the movie's producers will change the script to have Mr. Ford play a fictional character instead, now that Lt. Gen. Mattis has become so controversial. The makers of violent movies may find him too violent.

Lt. Gen. Mattis's love of fighting, though, is very different from the recreational violence of our entertainment industry. His violence has a moral context. "You go into Afghanistan," he said, "you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Mike Hagee, said that he had "counseled" Lt. Gen. Mattis that "he should have chosen his words more carefully." While Lt. Gen. Mattis may not be a poster boy for compassion toward Afghans, Gen. Hagee nonetheless refused to discipline him, saying that his commitment "helps to provide us the fortitude to take the lives of those who oppress others or threaten this nation's security."

But what about from a Christian point of view? Should a Christian soldier take pleasure in killing people?

Luther wrote a booklet titled Whether a Soldier Too Can Be Saved, taking up the issue of whether a Christian, who is supposed to love his enemies, should join the military, where he has the duty of killing them. According to Romans 13, Luther argued, God has appointed earthly rulers to restrain sin and has given them the authority to "bear the sword." The soldier, acting under a lawful chain of command under the authority of the state, therefore has a legitimate calling from God, who Himself acts through human vocations. Luther says the soldier should look at it this way: "It is not I that smite, stab, and slay, but God and my prince, for my hand and my body are now their servants." The Christian soldier, living out his faith in his vocation, loves and serves his neighbors by defending and protecting them. Yes, soldiers can abuse their license to kill. Luther goes so far as to say that soldiers should refuse to fight in wars that are clearly evil. But those who have the Christian vocation of being a soldier may fight "in good conscience." Before God soldiers should be humble and repentant. But before the enemy, they should "smite them with a confident and untroubled spirit." Soldiers, Luther says, should go "forward with joy!" As in other vocations, so in the military, there is nothing wrong with enjoying one's work. —•

The above article can be found at http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10368

The Tale of the Three Trees

2004-12-21T22:14:00.000-08:00

Once upon a mountaintop, three little trees stood and dreamed of what they wanted to become when they grew up. The first little tree looked up at the stars and said, " I want to hold treasure. I want to be covered with gold and filled with precious stones. I'll be the most beautiful treasure chest in the world!" The second little tree looked out at the small stream trickling by on its way to the ocean. " I want to be traveling mighty waters and carrying powerful kings. I'll be the strongest ship in the world! The third little tree looked down into the valley below where busy men and women worked in a busy town. I don't want to leave the mountain top at all. I want to grow so tall that when people stop to look at me they'll raise their eyes to heaven and think of God. I will be the tallest tree in the world.

Years passed. The rain came, the sun shone and the little trees grew tall. One day three woodcutters climbed the mountain. The first woodcutter looked at the first tree and said, "This tree is beautiful. It is perfect for me." With a swoop of his shining ax, the first tree fell. "Now I shall make a beautiful chest, I shall hold wonderful treasure!" the first tree said.

The second woodcutter looked at the second tree and said, "This tree is strong. It's perfect for me." With a swoop of his shining ax, the second tree fell. "Now I shall sail mighty waters!" thought the second tree." I shall be a strong ship for mighty kings!"

The third tree felt her heart sink when the last woodcutter looked her way. She stood straight and tall and pointed bravely to heaven, but the woodcutter never even looked up. "Any kind of tree will do for me," he muttered. With a swoop of his shining ax, the third tree fell.

The first tree rejoiced when the woodcutter brought her to a carpenter's shop. But the carpenter fashioned the tree into a feed box for animals. The once beautiful tree was not covered with gold, or treasure. She was coated with sawdust and filled with hay for hungry farm animals. The second tree smiled when the woodcutter took her to a shipyard, but no mighty sailing ship was made that day. Instead the one strong tree was hammered and sawed into a simple fishing boat. She was too small and too weak to sail to an ocean, or even a river. Instead she was taken to a little lake. The third tree was confused when the woodcutter cut her into strong beams and left her in a lumberyard. "What happened?" the once tall tree wondered. "All I ever wanted was to stay on the mountain top and point to God..."

Many days and nights passed. The three trees nearly forgot their dreams. But one night, golden starlight poured over the first tree as a young woman placed her newborn baby in the feed box. "I wish I cold make a cradle for him," her husband whispered. The mother squeezed his hand and smiled as the starlight shone on the smooth and sturdy wood. " This manger is beautiful," she said. And suddenly the first tree knew he was holding the greatest treasure in the world.

One evening, a tired traveler and his friends crowded into the old fishing boat. The traveler fell asleep as the second tree quietly sailed out into the lake. Soon a thundering and a thrashing storm arose. The little tree shuddered. She knew she did not have the strength to carry so many passengers safely through the wind and the rain. The tired man awoke. He stood up, stretched out his hand, and said, "Peace." The storm stopped as quickly as it had begun. And suddenly the second tree knew he was carrying the King of heaven and earth.

One Friday morning, the third tree was startled when her beams were yanked from the forgotten woodpile. She flinched as she was carried through an angry, jeering crowd. She shuddered when soldiers nailed a man's hand to her. She felt ugly and harsh and cruel. But on Sunday morning, when the sun rose and the earth trembled with joy beneath her, the third tree knew that God's love had changed everything. It had made the third tree strong. And every time people thought of the third tree, they would think of God. That was better than being the tallest tree in the world.
--Author Unknown

The Glory of Justice (The Glory of Killing Revisited)

2004-12-20T21:50:00.000-08:00

It seems that many of my acquaintences didn't take all that well with my previous entry titled "The Glory of Killing," and so in hopes of winning them over to my position I thought that I would speak a bit more on this very difficult topic.

I suppose I could try and be more "sensitive" as to how others might process what it is I'm attempting to address. Afterall, they haven't spent hour upon hour, upon the throne or in the shower, wrestling over a hard topic such as the killing of enemies. That's probably where I should start to offer some clarification, and possibly some nuance to my previous post.

When I spoke of the "killing of a human being," I hoped that one could extrapolate out from within the context of my writing to realize that I wasn't speaking of just any old human, but truly evil men or those that serve them. Hitler would be one. Pol Pot would be another human in whose death we could glory. Pol Pot alone murdered 1/5 of the Cambodian population. Many were killed for being students, for wearing glasses, or just because somebody felt like ending their existence. They weren't all adults either--women and children first took on a whole new meaning under the Pol Pot regime. When you think about it, he and his minions exterminated what would be the equivalent of 50 million Americans. So, when I speak of "human being" this type of person is who I'm addressing.

That still leaves us with the question, "Ok, so why should I even glory in the killing of this type of person?" The answer would be that we shouldn't if somehow the actions of the person could somehow be separated from the person. As if the person were somehow not comprised of his actions. As if justice could be brought to bear upon the actions and not the individual--a "Love the sinner, but hate the sin" kind of fallacy. And here lies the rub of the matter. Justice is not an abstract principle that exists in the nether regions only to be admired while disassociated from humanity or this worldly existence. It is foolish to believe that justice can be celebrated, or gloried in, without having a face attached to it and, on the contrary, to embrace the idea that evil could somehow reside apart from the creature--apart from flesh and blood. On second thought, why don't we just put murder on trial and glory in the justice of declaring it evil and heinous? Wouldn't that be awesome! That way we could, much like Pilate, wash our hands of doing the dirty business of justice, and detach ourselves because in those moments we realize that we can't detach justice from its recipient.

To conclude, when I say we should glory in the killing of men such as I mentioned, I am simply saying in another way that we should glory in justice incarnate. Justice come in flesh and blood to exact a penalty on evil incarnate. We are not, of course, to glory in killing for the sake of killing. That would make us like the very cancer our justice systems and armies seek to destroy. But we are bound to glory in the killing of those who demand that their own blood be spilt by their monstrous acts against humanity. We can glory in their demise in light of the many who will be spared the grief of their company.

I do hope this has shed some light upon what I was saying, and in the end moves some of you at least to believe that "maybe he hasn't gone off the deep end afterall." I can only hope and pray. Lock and load.

A Proposal for a Booth Monument

2004-12-19T16:55:00.000-08:00

I was born and raised in Upstate New York--a burgeoning bastion of liberal thought and historical revisionism. It was there that my young mind was filled with the romantic notions of our nations history, and my hungry eyes filled with the pagentry of patriotic parades on the Fourth of July and Veteran's Day--the visuals always make it easier to swallow the lie (a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down). Hitler understood this well and utilized the methodology of pagentry in conjunction with patriotic pride to steer the German nation toward the gates of destruction. And so my mushy brain was hardened with the lies of the beast (Public School System), and the more I suckled the at her breast the sweeter the putrid milk tasted.

I recall standing every morning from Kindegarten onward to say the Pledge of Allegiance in unison with the rest of the school body--our principal guiding us through it over the loudspeaker intercom. As I look back now I realize that I wasn't pledging allegiance to the nation our great founders rose from the soil, but to the lie of historical revision. You may be thinking to yourself that this is an empty accusation. "What revisionism?" you might ask. I could hardly provide you with a more glaring example of truth turned lie than in the treatment Abraham Lincoln has received from many historians. I have come to believe that this country would be better off today had the South won the war, and that in fact a memorial to Lincoln should be razed to the ground. Let me show you the mythical nature of revisionistic truth about Lincoln's role in history, and the lie demolishing truths that have moved me to pray for the demise of Lincoln's currently favorable legacy.

An aquaintence of mine has taken the time to put this list together, and he posted it at a forum we both frequent. Time to set 'em up and knock 'em down.

Myth #1: "Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves." Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." Abraham Lincoln

Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not "interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states" (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union "with the rights of the several states unimpaired." At the time of Fort Sumter (April, 12, 1861) only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.

The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect "duties and imposts," and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that "the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed" in the states that had seceded.

Myth #2: "Lincoln's war saved the Union." The war may have saved the Union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature. In the Articles of the Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, the states described themselves as "free and independent." They delegated certain powers to the federal government they had created as their agent but retained sovereignty for themselves.

This was widely understood in the North as well as the South in 1861. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle editorialized on Nov. 13, 1860, the Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." The New York Journal of Commerce concurred, writing on Jan. 12, 1861, that a coerced Union changes the nature of the government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves." The majority of Northern newspapers agreed.

Myth #3: "Lincoln championed equality and natural rights." His words and, more importantly, his actions, repudiate this myth. "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." And, "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot then, make them equals."

In Springfield, Ill., on July 17, 1858, Lincoln said, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." On Sept. 18, 1858, in Charleston, Ill., he said: "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes."

The Glory of Killing

2004-12-18T14:08:00.000-08:00

Our society seems to have this notion that killing humans is bad no matter who does it or for whatever reason it is accomplished. For instance, I recently heard a medal recipient proclaim that he didn't like killing the twenty terrorists he dispatched with his rifle, their rifles, and an RPG, but rather did so to defend his nation. Now, I'm not saying that this man is a proponent of the view that all killing of humans is bad, but I was disappointed with his response.

What I'd like to hear coming from the mouths of our soldiers is, "Man, it was great to see the terrorist bastards disintegrate into bite-size dogfood pieces as we unleashed our mounted .50 cal" or "As the worthless piece of s*** was about to fire his RPG, my sniper wounded him in the upper chest. We let him writhe around for a minute for his buddies to see before we blew his brains out, and man it felt great!" Such honesty would be refreshing instead of the constant banter of the hypnopaedally sheepish minds our society is producing.

I remember hearing the report on the radio as I was driving home from school that Sadam Hussein's sons were dead. I vividly recall the tears of joy running down my cheeks as I prayed a prayer of thanks to God for ending the temporal existence of these two murdering rapists. I was even more pleased when I arrived home, and pulled up the pictures of their corpses. What a glorious vision indeed. It was one of those moments where you see with extreme clarity. A time when you feel the electricity of living. It was a moment where I was experientially realizing that there is great glory in killing another human being.