Obviously, the “Stop Trump” campaign is Pro Democrat

I note a number of delegates to the Republican Convention have been stymied in their effort to block the nomination of Donald Trump.

Since the overwhelming choice of individuals voting in the Republican Primary this year voted for Donald Trump, one wonders why a group of people would do that? None of the party favored candidates seem to garner much interest.

The only logical explanation is the ‘Stop Trump’ faction is against any and all conservative candidates and would prefer to see the Democrat candidate – seemingly Hillary “the teflon screecher” Clinton win the election.

I’d like to see the Republican National Committee publish the names of the Turncoats who favor sabotage to elections. Then, we the voters can deal with them as we see fit.

Book Review: A Universe From Nothing; (Why there is something rather than nothing)

A Universe From Nothing (Why there is something rather than nothing), by Lawrence M. Krauss. Atria paperback, published 2013.

From the Merriam-Webster (on line) Dictionary:

1a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
1b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2 : a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters

Cosmology is one of my interests. When I was a kid, my first ‘real’ book (opposed to comics) was one of the early editions of A Guide to the Planets, by Patrick Moore. I recall that was in 1959 or so (for my birthday in the Ides of March). So I was an ‘astronomy’ buff to start, then spread out into other reaches and finally decided cosmology – not to be confused with ‘cosmetology’ (look it up yourself) – was my real interest. I also have a affection for particle physics, string theory and such.

Consequently I read a lot of books on the subjects mentioned. There are nine such books on my (home) library wall with authors from Michio Kaku to Roger Penrose and two by Dr.Steven Hawking. Additionally, I read most all the books in the Torrence or Redondo Beach library – I can’t remember which. To be completely honest, I don’t speak the level of math for some of them, but I have a fair grasp of the concepts of most.

The other angle from which I approach cosmology is Christianity. I am a long-time Christian and some of the teachings attributed to Christianity relates to the origin and composition of the Universe – which is a fair working definition of cosmology.

The Bible teaches God created the Universe from an absence of everything. Not even a vacant lot. Please recall this, as it comes up later. The Bible teaches God created ‘everything’; ‘everything’ includes the basic “laws of physics”.

This “laws of physics” is a somewhat nebulous (meaning not completely defined, agreed to, and finished) term including the discovered principles of how everything works – like water flowing downhill (gravity and fluid dynamics in science jargon). The “laws of physics” also includes not yet discovered principles, such as the Grand Unified Field Theory (if there is such a thing, it is still open to debate), the reasons photons are both wave functions and particles and probably why one’s nose itches when one’s hands are greasy. Not to mention some rather serious concepts like the actual trigger mechanism and function of the expansion of the Universe and the properties and limitations of ‘Dark Matter’ and ‘Dark Energy’.

If the reader doesn’t know what the latter two items are, don’t feel bad. Neither does anyone else. However, they can be measured, just not identified. Well, not identified exactly. Sort of like why one has ‘better days’ and ‘worse days’.

The book A Universe from Nothing is an attempt to explain the history and current status of the scientific principles of why – from a mechanical standpoint – the Universe exists instead of not being. From my background in casually (and not so casually) reading about such things, it does a pretty fair job. Do not misunderstand my thoughts, motivations or conclusions about this book; it’s a good book for the intended purpose. No one with a high school education should feel terribly out classed in reading this book, nor should anyone with a Christian background feel intimidated or threatened by it. At least not any Christian who has passed into the adult realm of thought. It may be a bit confusing to someone who has stultified in the primary levels.

Anyone interested in such matters could do much worse than to read this book. It does not have all the answers and explanations, but it doesn’t claim to have them, either. Seemingly, no one else has those answers either. So far.

The book deals with the discovery of ‘Dark Matter’ – discovery in the sense of realizing it’s there, not collecting a jar of the stuff. Also covered is the idea of ‘Dark Energy’, which explains the expansionary movement of the Universe, but doesn’t identify a particular ‘Dark Energy’ generator (and why there is no ‘Dark Energy’ generator). Dr. Krauss goes into Quantum Fluctuations, which seem like self propelled magic wands, but can be demonstrated in ‘real life’.

Some of the historical aspects include the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) study and the verification of the age of the Universe. Not directed connected, but associated is the ‘shape’ of the Universe (flat, positively curved or negatively curved).

At this point, the Theologian in me looks up at the absence of the mention of God. Actually, the absence is not surprising, as all of the explanation so far is a mechanical explanation of how the Universe operates and changes over time. (Lots of time.) One might well not notice the mention of God in an explanation of a an internal combustion engine or a vernier caliper. Usually, no need of mentioning the Almighty when designing or constructing an automobile engine. (At least not until the wrench slips and one smacks a knuckle.)

Dr. Krauss, in the opening chapters (or introduction?) admits he is not a ‘religious’ man. He is an atheist. As mentioned on one of Ian McKellen’s tee shirts, “Some Are and Some Aren’t”. So there’s no mistake about this.

Yes, I know there are some Christians who quiver and run from the idea of reading anything by or even talking to an atheist. However, the reality is there are many atheists who have an excellent idea of their subject or field – regardless of their understanding of deity or religion or the Bible. Dr. Krauss strikes me as one of these. He is knowledgable in his field. At the same time, I would expect Dr. Krauss to convey the same respect to Christianity and Christians. Whereas I don’t expect Dr. Krauss to attend my or any Christian church every Sunday, I would not think he either commits or abets the arson of Christian church buildings. Those who fear hearing anything EXCEPT what they already believe are very, very limited. That applies to both sides of the ‘origin’ question, by the way.

However, I have – personally – some reason to suspect perhaps Dr. Krauss’ atheistic ‘bent’ may have colored some of the explanations and rationale presented in his conclusions, not his evidence. And so begins some of my observations which may lead the unwary or non-thinking to believe I don’t like the book or Dr. Krauss.

Probably my first ‘quibble’ or difference with Dr. Krauss is on page xiv of the preface. Dr. Krauss explains the question beginning with the word ‘why’ can only be handled in science by substituting the word ‘how’. In chapter 9, titled “Nothing is Something”, he expands on this subject and implies no one should ask ‘why’ questions but only ‘how’ questions. Since much of Christian doctrine – and a bit of theology – predicated on ‘why’, Dr. Krauss summarily dismisses any question not answerable by science. In other words, only scientific answers count.

This is the exact sentiment expressed by many of the Divine “Creationist” faction. If the explanation doesn’t begin with “God, in His wisdom …” they reject it out of hand. (I’ve always found it curious it applies to the origin of the Universe, but does not apply to arithmetic: They never recite, “God says, ‘Two and two make four!'” when counting change or balancing a checkbook.)

Beginning on page 125 and mentioned in other places is the “Anthropic Principle”. In dog years, this essentially says, “…if is not too surprising to find that we live in a universe in which we can live”.

Perhaps a bit more formally: Humans exist here and now because the conditions were and are right for humans to exist.

I find of note the principle applies to both ‘naturalistic’ and Divine situations. To wit: Humans breathe oxygen (in mixture, of course.)

Naturalism: Human evolved on Earth during a period when Oxygen was the primary ‘oxidizer’ in the atmosphere available; this would not have happened if the Earth had a significantly different element in the atmosphere. (I’m not a biologist, but I’m not aware of any other extant candidates for an ‘oxidizer’.)

Deist: God would not make oxygen-breathing animals on Earth IF Earth had a methane atmosphere.

The “Anthropic Principle” is not a primary principle in determining why some chemical reactions became important in the history of living things or in the mechanical functions of nonliving things; it is merely a way of simplifying concepts of potentially competing hypotheses, as above.

Mentioned in Dr. Krauss’ book is the “God of the Gaps” answer. Historically, those who objected to a non-Theistic explanation of the origin and history of the Universe have employed this answer any time a particular discipline did not have an immediate ‘answer’ to some scientific mystery. Prior to the development of Newton’s ideas and laws of gravitation, some theologians suggested God sent angels to push the planets around the Sun. (This was after the same theologians had their nose rubbed in the fact planets did indeed revolve about the Sun instead of the Earth being the center of the Universe.) The “God didit” suggestion may indeed be correct, but it gives no information mankind can use.

If mankind were satisfied with “Why does water flow downhill?” “Well, God didit!” Mankind would never have invented flush toilets and indoor plumbing.

On a similar note, we would not have two way radios, commercial radios, televisions or computers. I’m not going to argue the merits and disadvantages of those items at this point, but we would not have them.

Please note, this applies to naturalist and deist alike. (With the exception of the Amish, I suppose. They get along without flush toilets and television. But that’s a different discussion entirely.)

How different is the “Anthropic Principle” from the “God didit” principle? Both offer a rather pat solution to a problem that immediately dead ends. Of course, the “Anthropic Principle” doesn’t come with a moral code obligation.

Here and now I’ll mention this as well. The Person and intention and work of God does not remove the need to examine the ‘mechanics’ of a phenomenon. For instance, when a Christian has a flat tire, he or she accepts such as the allowed will of God. Which does not stop said Christian from looking for a puncture and attempting to repair said flat. (Or take it to the tire repair guy.) Homeowners (Christian ones) examine the roof and repair leaks (or call the roof repair guy) when the roof leaks.

In the Bible, the oldest manuscripts record men plowing the ground using animals and tools (plows) to raise crops for consumption. No where is there a commandment NOT to use technology and instead return to the ‘hunter-gatherer, living in the open’ sort of life-style. The Amish, who live a very simple life style with the intent of concentrating on God don’t eschew all technology. They build houses and sew at least. Cook food, rather than eat it raw and so forth. So the presumption God is the reason for lack of scientific progress is manifestly faulty and rather illogical.

In short, I’m a bit perplexed at the rather aggressive manner in which Dr. Krauss repeatedly concludes what has been discovered removes any consideration of the Christian God from the Universe. Dr. Krauss already said he was an atheist. One gets it without condemnation.

Dr. Krauss makes some – to me – extraordinary changes to his approach to cosmology.

Remember at the beginning of this essay I mentioned “God created the Universe from an absence of everything. Not even a vacant lot. Please recall this, as it comes up later.” Okay, it later and here it comes up.

“Nothing” is no longer ‘nothing’. “Nothing” (in this new sense) means empty space, with nothing in it, but all the laws of physics are intact. Attempting to be clear, “nothing” used to mean – and still does when used by a deist – empty space without the empty space. The word in the first sentence of Genesis (transliterated ‘bara’) implies a complete absence of everything. The Latin phrasing – a good deal later – rendered it ‘ab nihilo’ from nothing. Not even a metaphorical vacant lot.

Dr. Krauss explains the Universe could have begun resulting from ‘quantum fluctuations’ creating ‘virtual particles’ and this continuing on. That idea requires the laws of quantum mechanics already be in place. So, the Universe – according to Dr. Kraus – did NOT come from nothing, but from something. The metaphorical vacant lot.

So from what came the ‘something’ from which the Universe quantumly fluctuated? From where did the metaphorical vacant lot derive? Seemingly the ‘Bulk’. The ‘Bulk’ is a feature of M-theory and is essentially the background of our Universe, sort of the ‘container’ for the Universe. (Read up on M-theory, okay? It is too lengthy for me to write here. Not to mention it is not fully baked yet – finished – and even the proponents say there is no way to test the theory. Exactly. A very good book to understand M-theory is The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Mlodinow is spelled correctly.)

So what brought this on?
So what is THIS all about? It’s an attempt to remove a beginning to existence. Ever since the theory of Fr. Georges Lemaitre – which became the offensively termed ‘Big Bang’ theory – there has been a movement among certain scientists to disprove it. This was first spearheaded by the late Fred (later in life Sir Fred) Hoyle who proposed the Steady State Theory. Now the ‘alternative’ is M-theory. The basis for the objection to Lemaitre’s concept and thinking? With the Universe having a starting point, the Biblical explanation has too much credence. According to Hoyle (smug smile) Lemaitre’s theory is ‘too close’ to the Biblical account. So obviously, it has to go.

What happened to simply following the facts? In fact, Dr. Krauss says in more than one place we must follow the data and see where it leads. Unless it leads to God, it seems.

Incidentally, science history has a number of emotional and ego driven ‘clashes’ between ‘this’ faction and ‘that’ faction. Check out the concept of ‘phlogiston’ for one example. Another clash occurred when Dr. A. Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity. The ‘classic’ physicists went ‘hostile’ for a while. There are other events. It’s almost like scientists think like theologians, isn’t it. (Actually, yes it is; far too many ‘religious’ conflicts have been based on who – individual or group – got the power and money; not to mention the conflicts over who got to be Pope or pastor of “First Church of the Open Wallet”. I find squabbles of this sort distasteful among scientists and disgusting and sickening among those who claim Christ. “Differences”, even some resistance from say – Buddhists – is to be expected and reasonable. I’m off on a tangent again.)

Has anyone read about M-theory yet? This is a quick and brief (emphasis on ‘quick’ and ‘brief’) synopsis on what has happened so far.

M-theory posits a background setting, the “Bulk”. (This can be identified by other titles depending on the scientist doing the explaining. Other terms with which I am familiar is ‘mega-verse’ or ‘omni-verse’.) Whatever it is, it has existed eternally. There is no beginning and no end to the ‘Bulk’. This demands then it is immune to (or does not have) entropy. (This Universe has entropy, and will therefore end some day. Look up “Heat death of the Universe” for details.) If the ‘Bulk’ had entropy, it could not last eternally; it would finally lock up from ‘heat death’. Since that hasn’t happened, the ‘Bulk’ could not have existed eternally in the past, or ‘heat death’ would have set it. The same argument applies to our Universe.

But even though the ‘Bulk’ does not have entropy, it has quantum fluctuations. This is one of the assumptions I really have to question: If the [greater part, by any name] of the Universe has some of the rules of physics – quantum effects, for instance – they why – there’s that hideous word again – does it NOT have entropy? I suppose the Anthropic Principle could apply, “IF the Bulk had entropy, then it wouldn’t exist eternally” but that strikes me as a bit pat. And please forgive me Dr. Krauss, I just couldn’t resist.

One of the other ideas Dr. Krauss mentions on more than one occasion is that of Occam’s Razor.

From the Wiki entry:

Occam’s razor is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Or, as I learned it, the simplest explanation is probably the best choice – unless it cannot work.

Frankly, M-theory has far too many assumptions and one too many huge contradictions for me. And the quantum fluctuation explanation hangs on M-theory.

Finally. The book is a good book on the subject and worth reading. I am not against Dr. Krauss (albeit I’m not above demonstrating some logical fallicies) nor am I against either Cosmology as a science or science in general. Nor am I a (shudder) Young Earth Creationist. If anyone thinks this essay is rough on the subject, read one of my criticisms of the mindless followers of James Ussher, Bishop of Armagh.

The Futility of Politically Motivated Prosecutions

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/18/highest-ranking-officer-charged-in-freddie-gray-case-acquitted-on-all-counts.html

Once again, the politically correct and seemingly “specifically criminal law deficient” Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby failed to convict another police officer she wanted to prosecute simply because her constituency was upset at the death of Freddie Gray.

So far, of six officer charged with the negligent homicide of Mr. Gray, four of the politically motivated trials have ended with loses for the ‘state’; that is, none of the four so far tried have been shown to be culpable under criminal standards for Mr. Gray’s death. Three of those trials have been acquittals and the ‘best’ results for Marilyn Mosby and the rest of the prosecution team has been a mis-trial.

This is what happens when prosecutors indict people on the demand of protestors instead of evidence. Not to compare any of the six officer indicted with Jesus, the Christ, but the protestors and demonstrators in Jerusalem demanded Pilate to condemn Jesus to death. Jesus’ execution followed and was based on the ‘public opinion’ of demonstrators and protestors rather than on evidence – which Pilate himself admitted.

Essentially, Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby participated in a legalized form of lynch mob. So far, she has failed, happily for the State of Maryland, the United States and jurisprudence (does attorney Mosby understand the ‘prudence’ part of that word?) in general.

Trey Pearson, the Homosexual, Christian Rock Singer. And?

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/06/16/christian-rocker-trey-pearson-reflects-on-life-after-coming-out.html?intcmp=hpff

Trey Pearson has publicly announced he is ‘gay’. So what? What possible meaning does this have for the world at large? What does it change in broad (no pun intended) terms? Not much.

It seems to be signaling the end of his heterosexual marriage, but his wife and he remain on good terms, it seems. It may quite possibly end the Christian music career he has been following. It may quite possibly cause broken connections between Mr. Pearson and some in the Christian community.

Frankly, I had not heard of Trey Pearson prior to this article appearing in Fox News. I do not follow ‘Christian music’ as I find most ‘Christian musicians’ are poor musicians in general and could not cut it in the regular music world. Sorry, but that’s my observation. (Feel free to disagree, but it’s a question of taste and not overly subject to rules of logic.)

Having said all that, I want to make a couple things clear.

I do not hate Mr. Pearson. I don’t even know him. He may be a prince of a fellow or he may be a rotten skunk; I simply do not know. I do know he claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. In that regard he is my brother and I am obliged – ordered, expected – to love him as a Christian brother and also as a human being.

Anyone who fails to grasp that last paragraph doesn’t understand the Bible much, nor the English language.

Do I fully endorse his lifestyle or his actions in some regards? No. As I mentioned, I’m not fond of ‘Christian music’ and homosexual conduct is prohibited in the New Testament. Then again, I don’t fully endorse my – hopefully past – lifestyle or actions in all regards. I’ve never engaged in homosexual behavior, but I have been bitterly angry with others, coveted others property, engaged in petty theft, been derelict in my duties – both secular and Sacred – and chased women. (Not to be indelicate, I caught several.) So my life as a Christian is not unsullied and perfect, EXCEPT as God has forgiven me and credited Jesus’ perfection and atonement to my account.

The same conditions apply to all persons. The exception applies to all persons who have agreed – contracted – with Jesus as followers and protected persons of Jesus. That – as far as I can tell – applies to Mr. Pearson.

So; I will pray for Mr. Pearson, his soon to be ex-wife – and I don’t agree with them divorcing – his family, his future and his service toward God. I would pray and expect he will at some point end his homosexual life-style. Not to satisfy my feelings, or those of any preacher, pastor, or holy man; but in response to God’s extant statement on the subject.

I find this whole matter sad. But it is a sad world, ever since man decided to ignore God’s directions and make up his own. No doubt most of us will survive and even grow stronger in Christ.

Except for those who choose to further alienate themselves from God.

Rare Glock Wanted!

https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=0c3e672a-8933-4896-bdda-6beb1b4cd4ec

If anyone knows about these pistols, I have two buyers who will pay cash for one each.

In the above referenced video, the U. S. President reports the existence of a Glock pistol with “… a lot of clips in it …” Aside from the rather uneducated errors in the comments, I am aware of no Glock pistol which will accept more than one ‘clip’ at one time. Nor am I aware of any Glock pistol which uses a ‘clip’; they use magazines. I am companioned in this mystification by a good friend who is a Glock collector and – at least for me and the girls I accompany – rather an expert in the world of Glock.

However, since it is proper to keep an open mind about such matters, I am prepared to be educated. So, if anyone knows of such a device, please bring it to my attention. And I want to buy one. I like firearms oddities. (Please include photos and asking price.)

In the same CNN interview, the President also made reference to an ‘assault weapon’ carried by the radicalized Islamic who conducted the murders in Orlando, Florida over the weekend. This also confuses me. The rifle carried by the Islamic shooter is not an AR 15; nor is an AR 15 an assault rifle. Notice I used the term ‘assault rifle’ vice ‘assault weapon’.

The U. S. Armed Forces – and other armed forces about the world – have used the term ‘assault rifle’ for a number of years. It is NOT a particular rifle, but a category of rifle employed by soldiers under certain conditions. Among other considerations, an assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire at the desire of the user. The weapon carried by the Islamic shooter does not have that capability. One also notes the absence of the use of term ‘assault weapon’ in the Armed Forces. There are no ‘assault pistols’, no ‘assault shotguns’, no ‘assault potato peelers’ or other such items. There is a class of fully automatic weapons which can be used in an assault (a noun as opposed to a adjective), but these are properly referred to as ‘light machine guns’; not ‘assault machine guns’.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/06/14/oh-the-orlando-killer-didnt-use-an-ar15-rifle-n2177835

I applaud the President’s decision to not identify the rifle used by the Muslim shooter; it was not as reported in the initial reports as an AR 15, but is a SIG-Sauer MCX Carbine. This rifle is not fully automatic either. Nor has anyone in a position to report the incident – witnesses – reported any fully automatic fire delivered. The two hours, more or less, the Muslim shooter had unrestricted control over his victims surely explains the number of victims killed and wounded rather than the rate of fire of the weapon or weapons involved.

Of course, the term ‘assault weapon‘ has long been used by the ‘media’, but only in the attempt to vilify weapons and the people who own them. I cannot believe our President would use incorrect and biased language in such a manner.

What also strikes me as odd is the President’s reluctance to associate an Islamic shooter targeting what appears to be homosexual men, with the Islamic, Koran based teaching that homosexuals are evil and should be killed. The President says this was an act of terror, but not Islamic or Muslim terror.

I suppose the comments of the shooter’s father shed no light on the matter, either.

The President did admit the profusion of laws prohibiting all manner of people – U. S. veterans who have someone else balance their check book for instance – do nothing to prevent this sort of terror attack. But then he went on to suggest ‘more’ is needed to curb the availability of firearms to normal U. S. citizens. Since the Muslim shooter passed a background check – never having been convicted of a crime or misdemeanor associated with domestic violence – the President hinted this standard was too permissive and needs to be more restrictive.

Perhaps as a nation we should not allow those who refuse our cultural norms – like murdering homosexuals, Jews, or anyone not a Muslim – to live in this nation? Perhaps the President is not looking at the real problem. What a shocking thought!

Rights? What Rights?

North Carolina has passed a state law prohibiting the use of gender specific rest room by people of a gender not identified on the bathroom.

In common terms, men may not use women’s rest rooms and vice-versa.

The Federal Government, specifically the Obama Administration and politically appointed positions of the Obama Administration, has ordered gender specific rest rooms to open to anyone who chooses to use them; regardless of who is already using the rest room.

Note this does not apply only to those persons who have had extensive surgery to remove extraneous sexual organs and features, additionally cosmetically adding the appearance of the desired sexual organs and features; but applies to anyone ‘identifying’ as a member of a sex. So a physically complete, functional female can enter a male rest room at will. Conversely, a physically complete and fully functional male can enter a female rest room at will.

According to the Obama Administration – and a group of supporters presumably and announced as members of the self-proclaimed “GBLT community” (“GBLT” is identified as Gay – Bi sexual – Lesbian – Transvestite or Trans sexual) demand this; as anything less intrudes on their ‘right’ to relieve themselves.

There are several inconsistent and somewhat incoherent thoughts in this.

One: From where does the ‘right’ to use a rest room of the other sex derive? The U. S. Constitution lists no such right along with speedy trials, possessing and carrying arms, security in property and papers, and the ability to criticize the government; probably some others I haven’t mentioned.

The Declaration of Independence – if not the structure of our nation and government as the Constitution, is the spirit of our nation and government – cites ‘inalienable rights’ ‘endowed by our Creator’ as the source of individual rights. I hear no argument nor can I cite such such ‘rights’ as endowed by the Creator. Nor has anyone else heretofore. Ever.

Two: Presuming such rights – and I do not, I speak only for sake of argument – why and how do the rights of ‘this group’ overrule the rights of ‘that group’? In common speech and thought, how does the claimed ‘right’ of a physical male who ‘self-identifies’ as a female, over rule the right of physical females who feel threatened and humiliated by the presence of a physical male in their rest room?

Why is allowing ‘other sex’ people to invade the rest rooms of ‘regular sex’ people so important?

Three: How many of those people who might be considered “LBGT” really want to use the rest room of the other sex? How many Lesbians want to use rest room facilities with men? (Either as the invader or the invadee?) (I see from my spell check I’ve invented another word.) Conversely, how many homosexually inclined men want to use rest room facilities with women? (Again, as invader or invadee?) From my own knowledge derived from the men and women I know to be homosexual, none of them have suggested – to me anyway – they really feel deprived not being allowed in the ‘other’ rest room.

Four: The incidence of homosexuality – including lesbianism – in this country (or among humans world wide) is a very slim minority. There are varying estimates on the percentage. All the scientific surveys and estimates I can find start by saying, “No one really knows” and then proceeds with their best guess. I find it not surprising that most answers tend to support the views of the parent organization or agency. (Non-gay organizations tend to be lower in estimates than gay activist organizations.) However, all groups seem to find the homosexual (male and female) incidence rates are distinct minorities. The rates range from less than four percent to approaching twenty percent.

Therefore, by any count, the number of persons supporting and expecting some form of benefit from the dictate to ‘open the rest rooms’ to any is a rather small minority. What is the desire of the Obama Administration in discomfiting the
majority for the supposed benefit of a distinct minority?

By the way, we are not suggesting – nor does the North Carolina law, nor anyone else – denial of public restrooms to anyone. There is no question of “You have to go home to go”. Unless of course, the ‘open rest room’ faction succeeds; in which case the majority of people will be forced to share facilities with those who want to embarrass and possibly harm them.

Five: President Obama is now threatening to penalize North Carolina and other local governmental agencies if they do not comply with his dictates. All schools receiving federal funds – and of course, ALL public schools have been mandated to receive federal funds – or in the common tongue, individual citizen’s tax money – and therefore, ALL public schools are subject to the extortion by command, to open all restrooms to anyone who feels like it.

What is the purpose of all this? Other than the progressive goal of destroying all morals and values, one does not know. One understands this will expose all school age children – in a very vulnerable state – to the visual review of anyone and everyone. This is desired by the progressive faction of society, but I’m not sure it is desired by many others.

One other thing: If the United States elects a Democrat, either Democrat, to the Presidency everyone may rest assured this attack will continue. The reader may vote as the reader pleases. If getting more money and ‘benefits’ is more important than your children, feel free to vote Democrat.

If one’s children are important, one must consider doing otherwise.

Some Random Observations Regarding God

Following is a rather unconnected and rambling list of thoughts. They are all based on statements or questions presented by non-believers – and a few believers in some cases – and have demanded my explanation. Some of these items have been addressed before in this blog. Perhaps not in exactly the same manner, but hopefully with the same mindset and arguments.

Giving the same old answer to the same old question is to be expected. Asking the same old question after the answer has been provided – and explained, ad infinitum – is rather childish.

1. Dying isn’t the worst thing that can happen.

The stimulus for this is typically a complaint along the lines of someone dying when the speaker didn’t want them to die. The speaker/complainer feels rather victimized because someone – a child, one’s parent or other relation, one’s dog, a favorite actor or singer – has died. Not only has the someone died, but in the opinion of the speaker/complainer, at the improper time or instant. “Why did the little girl (or boy) die because a drunk ran them over? Why didn’t God – obviously God’s fault – stop it?”

In some cases, the dead person died far away and possibly long ago. For instance, “Why did all the various Christians die in the Roman circuses?” Or “Why did God allow the [pick an evil group] to kill such and such a Christian?”

Where I cannot clearly answer all details of all questions, I do have some basic information about the phenomenon.

First, everyone dies. It’s a rule. Not only everyone, but everything. Horses, trees, governments, ideas (perhaps not all ideas, but the ‘fad’ ones anyway), and so on. So even if Uncle Cletus had survived the automobile accident, the cancer would have killed him anyway. Or his age. Or his lifestyle (drank whisky like a fish and smoked like a steam engine). Perhaps an angry husband. But die he would have.

Every so often – less currently – the attack of 11 September, 2001 is mentioned. God is berated for the death of around 3,000 people. Sometimes Moslem terrorists are mentioned in passing, sometimes not. Allow me to point out, had that not happened, would those people have lived forever? Probably not. Dying is often a tragedy and nearly alway inconvenient. But it happens to everyone, sooner or later.

When one accepts the concept of God’s sovereignty and omniscience together, one understands it is God who determines when everyone – anyone – dies; and when it happens, it was the ‘right time’. Just to be sure everyone has a chance to get this, it was the ‘right time’ as far as God was concerned. It may not be the ‘right time’ for the grieving survivor – including me – but it was the right time in God’s plan. If one of the survivors don’t agree, it makes little difference in the long run. One might as well be mad Rembrandt didn’t ‘lighten up’ the painting “Man with a Golden Helmet”. It is decided and done.

Not to mention we haven’t mentioned the sometimes imbecilic decisions which preceded the death. Why blame God when a child is never taught not to run out in the street? Why blame God when a relative abuses his health for years? Why blame God for being God? Some of this thought will be further discussed in section five.

2. Denying God’s existence will not make Him go away.

Many of the non-believers which whom I have discussed the matter justify ignoring God by the simple and circular reasoning of “I just don’t believe it”. One gets the feeling because what I have said does not convince the non-believer on the spot, it is not valid.

I haven’t been convinced of many things, but neither my ego nor faith is enough to convince me they cannot exist simply because I’m not convinced. It seems the non-believer’s faith is great enough to convince them they are the ultimate arbitrator of validity in the known universe.

It really isn’t, of course. It is the near ultimate form of denial. As long as one keeps repeating “Not real…” to themselves, they are safe from any consequence of the entity to be avoided. No doubt someone will post a reply to this essay, denying what I just said. Which proves they really don’t believe and they’re safe from God.

By the way, this denial doesn’t work with many other things in life. The death of a loved one, a diagnosis of cancer, a deadline, insufficient balance in the checking account or a flat tire. Nothing in reality ‘leaves’ just because one is not thinking about it or even honestly unaware of it.

3. The significant difference between ‘love’ and ‘approval’.

“Does God love homosexuals?” Variously, this is phrased as “Does God love [fill in blank of a person or group in opposition to God]?” Examples coming to mind are: Adolf Hitler, NAZIS in general, abortionists, women who abort babies, telephone salesmen, ‘sinners’ (non-specific) and so forth.

It is a ‘trap’ question. If one answers ‘no’, the questioner immediately pounces and announces, “Aha! So God doesn’t really ‘love’ everyone!”

If one answers ‘yes’, the clever questioner immediately pounces and claims, “Aha! Since God loves them, you must be wrong in condemning them as sinners!”

It’s the old ‘heads-I-win, tails-you-lose’, ‘unanswerable question’ gag. Much on the order of ‘Have you quit beating your wife (or husband, I suppose) yet?’

I have provided the answer on several occasions. Yes, God loves everyone, even ‘them’; however, that does not equate to approving or endorsing their actions. This of course is a ‘weasel out’ answer; it doesn’t play into their ‘gotcha’ game. They pretend the answer is artificial and doesn’t make sense, or they don’t quite understand it.

The mistake is in assuming evidence and definitions not given in Holy Writ. Nothing in the Bible suggests that one who rejects God can also ‘claim’ God’s protection.

4. The distinction between a moral code and peer group consensus.

God presents a code of ethics for His followers. In the Mosaic Law, it was seemingly formulated and specific. In Christianity, it is fairly loose in specifics and instead a general set of principles rather than a list of “do and don’t” articles. In fact, the Mosaic Law – the Ten Commandments and associated instructions for living life – was fairly general until the Holy Men of the Rabbinic league decided to specify what everything meant and issued – over a period of time – what everything meant.

This is not to point fingers at the traditional Jewish Rabbis. They did their work with great trepidation and with little monetary gain. Most of them did not get any pay as such for working as a rabbi. The great bulk of them served the Creator to the best of their knowledge and attempted to make others aware of what the Creator – The Name as usually used – wanted everyone to know.

So it has been in Christianity. Since the time of Christ, there have been people who claimed to speak for the Lord, as representatives of Christ and/or the Creator who further defined what Jesus instructed His followers to do. Rather than the formalized teachings of Mishnah and Gemara (look them up), Christianity has issued various documents of instruction in various forms and levels of authority.

The formal, organized, orthodox groups have demanded attendance at certain church functions during the year. Certain dress codes were published, especially for church attendance.

Protestant – as they are called – groups also issued ‘group specific’ rules of conduct and decorum. When I was a young man, a proper Christian was not to drink, smoke (cigarettes), dance, go to movies or engage in any form of sexual conduct with the ‘opposite’ sex. (Hardly anyone really knew if they were the ‘opposite’ sex or the other person was.) Card playing was usually forbidden; whether stud poker or bridge.

Other groups – church denominations – had either more strict or lax sets of rules. Some were very specific and demanding – like no female of any age could use make up or color their hair – and some allowed most everything. This is a whole study in itself and I won’t try to get more specific, other than to say Christianity as a whole has no less ‘commentary’ on what the Bible says than Judaism. It might be mentioned here that Judaism has a few distinctions between ‘groups’ as well. They range from the very Orthodox Jewish to essentially a ethnic, social society.

In the past one hundred years – more or less, it’s been a rather creeping process – many non-believers have set up a parallel belief system to Christianity, but one largely without Christ. The main thrust of the concept is “Christ doesn’t really matter, what He TAUGHT is what matters.” Except for the part about Christ being God, a relationship with Him as the key to salvation, miracles and that sort of thing.

For instance, Christ did teach about helping the poor. Therefore, in the Christianity without Christ religion, ‘giving to the poor’ is of greater significance than knowing and recognizing Christ as God. This ‘giving to the poor’ is also attached to various political systems who claim to assist the poor. For this reason, socialism is deemed to be more friendly to the poor than capitalism. Even if empirical, historic data shows otherwise.

This leads to the view that everyone should be removed from and protected from the results of their actions. “Freedom” is construed as action without limits or constraint. Therefore, birth control and abortion must be available to all women and at public expense. By the same token, medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases – which could be easily prevented by ‘chastity’, the ‘old fashioned’ idea of only engaging in sex with one’s own and single partner – should now be provided to all at public expense. Recognizing a person brought some disaster – either legal, economic or medical – on themselves by their own choices – misdeeds in most cases – is considered ‘judgmental’ and forbidden.

On the same line, ‘environmentalism’ is a holy and required view; espousing ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ is far more important than other considerations. This is now to the point where evaluating ‘climate change’ and realizing the claims made are insubstantial and non-substantiable is considered heresy. Seemingly punishable by burning at the stake or at least a total and complete excommunication from society.

All these things – and many other associated – are now ‘assumed’ to have equal – indeed, preferential – standing with the moral code promulgated by God. Therefore, ‘free’ (public funded) abortions are now more important than celibacy or chastity and ‘environmentalism’ is more important than ‘thou shall not steal’.

In this logic, the God who said “Thou shall not steal” is wrong and the pretend god who who said ‘Gaia is the Earth Mother’ is right. Consequently, anyone who recognizes the Creator of the Universe is, at best, out of date and in error.

5. The significant difference between ‘holy’ and ‘happy’.

God commanded His people to be Holy, as He was Holy. This is recorded in the Mosaic Law and re-stated by Christ in the New Testament teaching of Christ. Whereas there are writings and poems or songs in the Old Testament book of Psalms about wealth and prosperity, the record of both Old and New Testament writings demonstrate God does NOT guarantee His followers with health, wealth, prosperity and “a rose garden” at all times. The story of Job, the history of the nation Israel and the deaths of Jesus and many of His followers demonstrate this concept.

What it – the message of God – does teach and guarantee is God keeps His followers in a positive state of mind through bad times. The Bible teaches those who rely on God will be ultimately rewarded in eternity, not immediately.

If it hasn’t been mentioned before, or no one has noticed, one is not issued a Rolls-Royce, a mansion in Beverly Hills and a wardrobe from the most fashionable designer immediately upon becoming a Christian.

Nor have I been protected from injury or illness due to my belief in God. I have to admit, I thought I was dead a couple of times, but God has preserved me. I expect to die at some point. All my grandparents – both sides – and my parents have died. Most of them were better Christians and probably better people than me. I have to replace the tires and oil in my car periodically. My dog got old and had to be put down.

The idea God makes life perfect for His followers is simply NOT part of Christian (or Jewish as I can tell) doctrine. Those who expect all their wishes fulfilled and a perfect life are confusing Christianity with a 1960 television show with Barbara Eden or a Disney movie.

6. “I don’t like it!” is not a valid criticism.

When dealing with those non-believers who justify their non-belief on what God ‘fails’ to do or does wrong, I’ve noticed a commonality. All of them are upset that God doesn’t do things they would do, or not in the way they would do them.

The conversation invariably comes around to ‘God shouldn’t do [such and such] – or allow [fill in the black here] to happen’. In other words, God didn’t follow this person’s wishes and is therefore wrong.

Not only that, but the person objecting demands God comply with their wishes in order to gain the objector’s favor.

So, just exactly is God in this case? Or more properly, who assumes they are God? If I had a nickel for every time some nitwit with a runny nose and no kleenex told me God was in error – I’d have a bunch of nickels.

So what is to be done?

God is going to win. I read the book all the way to the end. God wins. (Go figure.)

For those intellectually honest, admit to yourself God is really God and ask Him to show you the reality. Then have the intellectual honesty to understand God is telling you the reality and listen.

You will NOT have to start dressing like me, or get rid of everything you have. You won’t have to make any ‘specific’ changes prior to becoming a follower of Jesus. You won’t have to exile your girlfriend or boyfriend (regardless of participant’s sex). You won’t have to divest yourself of all your worldly possessions and become a monk or nun and live in a cave or anything.

You may have to make some changes in your life. However, you will not have to change anything until after you become a believer – and only then when God instructs you to do so. You will not have to change anything to placate me. Nor to placate the local pastor or priest. Placating your Mom is up to you and her. I would expect most everyone to change something in their life; but not everyone the same thing. Mostly what a follower of God needs to change are the things which stand between the follower and God.

If one does not believe God exists and continues in that belief; go ahead. No lightning bolt will strike – usually. In eternity – after you die – God will demand some explanations. It is up to you, obviously. I will still talk with you, share with you and even like you – depending, on how we ‘mesh’; there are some Christians with whom I don’t really get along. If you don’t shower often and never change your socks I may not ‘hang around’ as much.