Psalm 127
A Song of Ascents. Of Solomon.
Unless the Lord builds the house,
They labor in vain who build it;
Unless the Lord guards the city,
The watchman stays awake in vain.
It is vain for you to rise up early,
To sit up late,
To eat the bread of sorrows;
For so He gives His beloved sleep.
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them;
They shall not be ashamed,
But shall speak with their enemies in the gate.
(NKJV)
It's funny (as in "hmmmm" not "ha, ha") how you can read something so many times and still when you come back to it you understand it on a whole different level. It's like, "OK, i got it". Then you see it three years later and it's like, "Whoa! Now that is something else entirely"
I guess in reading this Psalm in the past i had always seen this chapter as two different sections. The first being about God's protection and seeking Him, while the second being about how children are a blessing from God. But the reality is that it is all one Psalm. It's not two different section on two different topics. It's speaking about the family and how it is important. Replace "house" and "city" with "family" and you get the drift. The Psalm goes from having a little bit of meaning to me, to applying almost entirely to my life.
Don't get me wrong, i understood these principles long before reading this chapter this morning. It's just amazing how in reading God's Word you tend to find so many deeper layers and meanings than you realize at first. It's easy to read it and say, "Yeah, OK. I got it". When in reality it goes so much deeper and works on so many levels.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Festivals, New Moons, & Sabbaths as Prophecy?
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
Colossians 2:16-17 (NKJV)
Nothing overly exciting, but to take something out of topic/reference, there was something that i noticed here. Paul is talking to the church in Colosse about not getting stuck in legalism when he makes this statement; "regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come". It's an interesting statement that Paul makes here. Basically, from what i can tell, this is saying that the festivals, new moons, sabbaths (important Hebrew days) are more than just reminders of things that have occurred in the past or should be done because God required it in the law. But this states that they are also prophesies concerning the future.
For example, Passover represents the day that the angel of death "passed over" the houses of the Hebrew people and brought about the rescue of the people from Pharoh's hand. Meanwhile it was also a prophecy and representation of Christ, His coming, and His purpose. The second example is The Feast of Pentecost (feast of weeks or first fruits). It was initially a reminder that God is the provider of the harvest. Thus the first fruits belong to Him. In Acts 2:1 the Pentecost brings new meaning in that it sees the "First Fruits" of the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
What's interesting is that it appears that Paul is saying that the Hebrew festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths are prophesies for the future (shadow of things to come). Thus there is more there than meets the eye (not surprising considering) even beyond the then current fulfillments (see the previous examples). So what new festival/new moon/Sabbath fulfillments are still in store for God's people?
Colossians 2:16-17 (NKJV)
Nothing overly exciting, but to take something out of topic/reference, there was something that i noticed here. Paul is talking to the church in Colosse about not getting stuck in legalism when he makes this statement; "regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come". It's an interesting statement that Paul makes here. Basically, from what i can tell, this is saying that the festivals, new moons, sabbaths (important Hebrew days) are more than just reminders of things that have occurred in the past or should be done because God required it in the law. But this states that they are also prophesies concerning the future.
For example, Passover represents the day that the angel of death "passed over" the houses of the Hebrew people and brought about the rescue of the people from Pharoh's hand. Meanwhile it was also a prophecy and representation of Christ, His coming, and His purpose. The second example is The Feast of Pentecost (feast of weeks or first fruits). It was initially a reminder that God is the provider of the harvest. Thus the first fruits belong to Him. In Acts 2:1 the Pentecost brings new meaning in that it sees the "First Fruits" of the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
What's interesting is that it appears that Paul is saying that the Hebrew festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths are prophesies for the future (shadow of things to come). Thus there is more there than meets the eye (not surprising considering) even beyond the then current fulfillments (see the previous examples). So what new festival/new moon/Sabbath fulfillments are still in store for God's people?
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Stem Cell Research (Part II)
To make myself feel less guilty about not posting in a while, i have decided to turn this into a 2 part post.
Are there other alternatives?
That would be the really important question. Embryo's are not the only place that stem cells exist. A scientist can harvest stem cells from numerous other areas such as adult blood, bone marrow, and umbilical cords from newly born babies. There are also other ways of producing embryonic type stem cells without having to worry about killing an unborn child (This month's Wired magazine has an article about this here). As far as i can tell the biggest reason for using embryonic stem cells instead of these other alternatives is that as of right now we know how to harvest ESC's and the other areas still need a little more research to be fully viable.
Why is there such a big focus on ESC's when there are so many more ethical ways to obtain stem cells?
I really think that there are only 2 real reasons for this.
1) As stated before, as of right now ESC's are easily harvested and mostly ready for research and use. Attempting to explain the finer points in this argument is currently beyond my exhaustion factor and current research knowledge. So i will leave that to others.
What i really want to bring to light is the second reason.
2) The controversy factor. ESC's are controversial. As such they garner all kinds of attention when you talk about them. The media wants to focus primarily on them because in doing so they get the attention. After all, who wants to write a story about the benefits of umbilical cord stem cells that will garner only a little bit of attention when you could write a controversial story about a controversial topic like ESC? After all, more readers means more money. On top of that, with the majority of the media being liberal, ESC support means more support for their own pro-choice and anti-pro-life agendas.
So, where does the real problem lie?
Are there other alternatives?
That would be the really important question. Embryo's are not the only place that stem cells exist. A scientist can harvest stem cells from numerous other areas such as adult blood, bone marrow, and umbilical cords from newly born babies. There are also other ways of producing embryonic type stem cells without having to worry about killing an unborn child (This month's Wired magazine has an article about this here). As far as i can tell the biggest reason for using embryonic stem cells instead of these other alternatives is that as of right now we know how to harvest ESC's and the other areas still need a little more research to be fully viable.
Why is there such a big focus on ESC's when there are so many more ethical ways to obtain stem cells?
I really think that there are only 2 real reasons for this.
1) As stated before, as of right now ESC's are easily harvested and mostly ready for research and use. Attempting to explain the finer points in this argument is currently beyond my exhaustion factor and current research knowledge. So i will leave that to others.
What i really want to bring to light is the second reason.
2) The controversy factor. ESC's are controversial. As such they garner all kinds of attention when you talk about them. The media wants to focus primarily on them because in doing so they get the attention. After all, who wants to write a story about the benefits of umbilical cord stem cells that will garner only a little bit of attention when you could write a controversial story about a controversial topic like ESC? After all, more readers means more money. On top of that, with the majority of the media being liberal, ESC support means more support for their own pro-choice and anti-pro-life agendas.
So, where does the real problem lie?
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Stem Cell Research
Well, with this new research coming out of South Korea on embryonic stem cell research i thought it important to abnegate the expression of my other current thoughts/concerns on this blog and instead to process and express my thoughts here on the topic of stem cell research (sorry, i just had to find a way to use the google word of the day). Some quick background - Stemcells are cells that can be used to form any type of other cells in the human body. Thus they have the potential to do things like grow replacement organs, such as a perfectly matched new kidney for a necessary kidney transplant, as well as to cure diseases such as alzheimers. So you get the idea, lots of potential.
If there is so much potential for this kind of research, than why is it so controversial?
Stem cell research in and of itself is not so controversial. The problem comes in how we gain access to those stem cells. Embryonic Stem Cells are where the controversy lie. Just to save myself some headache i will call them ESC's. Currently the only way to harvest ESC's are to kill an embryo (aka. abort a baby) and take the stem-cells from the embryo/baby's brain. Thus, the problem is that the research will cost lives to save lives. Now we get into a major moral dilemma. What is the value of a human life? Is it worth it to kill an embryo/baby (who may live to be 80 years old naturally) to help a wealthy 75 year old man be able to live out the last 5 years of his life being able to take care of himself? Well, what if the patient was a 4 year old child with AIDS? Then is it worth it?
Well, i have to go so i will have to finish this post later... Sorry to leave you hanging like this.
If there is so much potential for this kind of research, than why is it so controversial?
Stem cell research in and of itself is not so controversial. The problem comes in how we gain access to those stem cells. Embryonic Stem Cells are where the controversy lie. Just to save myself some headache i will call them ESC's. Currently the only way to harvest ESC's are to kill an embryo (aka. abort a baby) and take the stem-cells from the embryo/baby's brain. Thus, the problem is that the research will cost lives to save lives. Now we get into a major moral dilemma. What is the value of a human life? Is it worth it to kill an embryo/baby (who may live to be 80 years old naturally) to help a wealthy 75 year old man be able to live out the last 5 years of his life being able to take care of himself? Well, what if the patient was a 4 year old child with AIDS? Then is it worth it?
Well, i have to go so i will have to finish this post later... Sorry to leave you hanging like this.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
E3 Console Thoughts
By the way, E3 stands for Electronic Entertainment Expo. It is probably the biggest annual video games expo on the planet. Every major company makes a big deal about it and this year all three major console companies (Sony - PlayStation, Microsoft - X-Box, and Nintendo) have come out showcasing their new consoles for the next generation which makes this years E3 huge, even for E3. Now with that background out of the way, here are my thoughts on the new consoles.
First off, Microsoft's X-Box 360. From the looks, it is an impressive console. What Microsoft did/is doing with their online plan really puts them over the top.
However, i'm disappointed with the strides the 360 has taken over the original X-Box. In the days of the NES to SNES the processing power doubled. When the SNES was replaced by the N64 the processing power was quadrupled. I kind of feel like the X-Box 360 is a NES to SNES leap. Sony called it the X-Box 1.5 and while i don't fully agree with that statement, that seems to be the case in part. The X-Box 360 is 2 to 3 times more powerful than the X-Box, and it is setting itself up to be more of a multimedia device, which is really good. However, there really isn't anything innovative or new about it. It's not changing the way games are played or bringing all new technology into the system, if anything it seems to be just bridging the gap between a little bit more advanced console and a Microsoft Windows XP Media Center computer. However in doing that while it still makes a darn good console, it looks to make a less than par computer.
It's saving graces are that it has a really impressive online plan (only an extension of the current plan however), and that it is coming out first (this fall).
Personally i will probably never own an X-Box anything due to my qualms with Microsoft's history of breaking in, taking over, and monopolizing. No way will i support that.
Next is the PS3. Sony in conjunction with Toshiba and IBM have developed a new kind of chip called the cell chip. Basically the processor of the PS3 is a combination of 7-8 of these cell chips working together to do all of the multitasking necessary for the next generation of games. It promises to blow away the competition in pure processing power, and it gives the PS3 the ability to multitask in breakthrough ways. The cell chip in and of itself completely changes the way processing is done. To put it into perspective, Intel and AMD (the big two makers of computer CPU's) are developing and talking about their new, revolutionary, duel-processor chips. It's big, 2 core processors in one to make it easier for the computer to multitask! Well, with the cell processor it's more like 7 or 8 cores (or individual cell chips) in one. Overall it looks to blow the X-Box 360 and Nintendo Revolution out of the water with its pure processing power, which means faster, better detailed, and more cinematic games.
One letdown for the PS3 however is its limited/lack of real online plan. From what i can tell, it seems to following the plan of letting the game developers define the experience for their own games. This is good in that it better allows the developers to have full control of their property and it makes online a free service for most games. It is problematic in that it does not promote a real "community" experience for the gamers.
Ultimately, what is really going to make the PS3 is the games. If the game developers don't utilize the processing power of the system, it may prevent the PS3 from becoming the leader of the pack.
The PS3 will probably be my 2nd choice in console. I will most likely wait for the price to drop before i invest in this power machiene.
Finally, the Big N. Nintendo's new console is called the Revolution. It is supposed to revolutionize the way that people play games. The processor is supposed to be comparable to that of the other consoles, but that's not the real star of the system. Nintendo is attempting to revolutionize the way people interact with the games. The controller will be gyroscopic (tilt the controller to change direction), have pressure sensitive squeeze grip controls (reminiscant of stress balls), with an integrated microphone, and another big "revolutionary" concept that will redefine the gaming experience. So far Nintendo has been pretty tight lipped about what this "revolution" will be, but one rumor/speculation is that it will be some sort of 3-D display. Personally just with what's been revealed i'm really excited.
One of the big things that i'm really excited about is the Revolution's promise of backward compatibility. It will be able to play GameCube games as well as being able to download and play the games from the NES, SNES, and N64 systems. Talk about fun.
Nintendo's online plan is also promising to be amazing in that it is being developed in conjunction with IGN/GameSpy (well established online gaming names) to create a true Nintendo community while also being free.
As you've probably guessed, this is going to be my number one choice for console in the next generation.
Disclaimer: This is not a full listing of all of the pro's and con's of these systems. It is not meant to be. This is my personal views and interests only.
First off, Microsoft's X-Box 360. From the looks, it is an impressive console. What Microsoft did/is doing with their online plan really puts them over the top.
However, i'm disappointed with the strides the 360 has taken over the original X-Box. In the days of the NES to SNES the processing power doubled. When the SNES was replaced by the N64 the processing power was quadrupled. I kind of feel like the X-Box 360 is a NES to SNES leap. Sony called it the X-Box 1.5 and while i don't fully agree with that statement, that seems to be the case in part. The X-Box 360 is 2 to 3 times more powerful than the X-Box, and it is setting itself up to be more of a multimedia device, which is really good. However, there really isn't anything innovative or new about it. It's not changing the way games are played or bringing all new technology into the system, if anything it seems to be just bridging the gap between a little bit more advanced console and a Microsoft Windows XP Media Center computer. However in doing that while it still makes a darn good console, it looks to make a less than par computer.
It's saving graces are that it has a really impressive online plan (only an extension of the current plan however), and that it is coming out first (this fall).
Personally i will probably never own an X-Box anything due to my qualms with Microsoft's history of breaking in, taking over, and monopolizing. No way will i support that.
Next is the PS3. Sony in conjunction with Toshiba and IBM have developed a new kind of chip called the cell chip. Basically the processor of the PS3 is a combination of 7-8 of these cell chips working together to do all of the multitasking necessary for the next generation of games. It promises to blow away the competition in pure processing power, and it gives the PS3 the ability to multitask in breakthrough ways. The cell chip in and of itself completely changes the way processing is done. To put it into perspective, Intel and AMD (the big two makers of computer CPU's) are developing and talking about their new, revolutionary, duel-processor chips. It's big, 2 core processors in one to make it easier for the computer to multitask! Well, with the cell processor it's more like 7 or 8 cores (or individual cell chips) in one. Overall it looks to blow the X-Box 360 and Nintendo Revolution out of the water with its pure processing power, which means faster, better detailed, and more cinematic games.
One letdown for the PS3 however is its limited/lack of real online plan. From what i can tell, it seems to following the plan of letting the game developers define the experience for their own games. This is good in that it better allows the developers to have full control of their property and it makes online a free service for most games. It is problematic in that it does not promote a real "community" experience for the gamers.
Ultimately, what is really going to make the PS3 is the games. If the game developers don't utilize the processing power of the system, it may prevent the PS3 from becoming the leader of the pack.
The PS3 will probably be my 2nd choice in console. I will most likely wait for the price to drop before i invest in this power machiene.
Finally, the Big N. Nintendo's new console is called the Revolution. It is supposed to revolutionize the way that people play games. The processor is supposed to be comparable to that of the other consoles, but that's not the real star of the system. Nintendo is attempting to revolutionize the way people interact with the games. The controller will be gyroscopic (tilt the controller to change direction), have pressure sensitive squeeze grip controls (reminiscant of stress balls), with an integrated microphone, and another big "revolutionary" concept that will redefine the gaming experience. So far Nintendo has been pretty tight lipped about what this "revolution" will be, but one rumor/speculation is that it will be some sort of 3-D display. Personally just with what's been revealed i'm really excited.
One of the big things that i'm really excited about is the Revolution's promise of backward compatibility. It will be able to play GameCube games as well as being able to download and play the games from the NES, SNES, and N64 systems. Talk about fun.
Nintendo's online plan is also promising to be amazing in that it is being developed in conjunction with IGN/GameSpy (well established online gaming names) to create a true Nintendo community while also being free.
As you've probably guessed, this is going to be my number one choice for console in the next generation.
Disclaimer: This is not a full listing of all of the pro's and con's of these systems. It is not meant to be. This is my personal views and interests only.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Arguing Logic (or is it Logically Arguing?)
Well now. One of the blog sites that i like to visit referred me to this site. It's called
Thirty - Eight Ways to Win an Argument
from Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy"
Basically it goes over a list of ways to win an argument, even when the other person is more correct than you are. Here, as an example, is the first tactic in the list:
1 Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.
As arguing logic (or is it logically arguing?) is one of my favorite things to do, especially when reading (you should see the margins to some of the books i own), i have seen so many of these steps being used by people that i could probably have come up with this list on my own... well maybe not really.
I'm big into logic, so it always really annoys me when writer's logic is, well, more than a little fuzzy. It's always so much fun when i read something that i don't agree with and i break down and annihilate their logic. Sometimes i have so many "but...", "except that...", "no, not really because...", and other arguments that i have to practically yell at myself to stop or i will never finish what i'm reading.
I don't just do this with ideas, concepts, and writers that i don't agree with. Oftentimes when reading things that interest me and that i agree with, but that the author's arguments lack cohesiveness, i will sit there and argue their logic to make it more cohesive. Although, i have also been known to actually be arguing something that i don't agree with, just to get other people thinking. Just ask the Sunday School teacher at the church that i go to.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that i agree with everything this guy says, it's just funny how often i see people use these and other underhanded tactics to defend their ideas, not necessarily because their logic or ideas are incorrect, but more because they either don't realize what they're doing, or because they are trying to make a point above and beyond what is needed or true (sorry my logic may be a little fuzzy here as i am really tired).
Thirty - Eight Ways to Win an Argument
from Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy"
Basically it goes over a list of ways to win an argument, even when the other person is more correct than you are. Here, as an example, is the first tactic in the list:
1 Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.
As arguing logic (or is it logically arguing?) is one of my favorite things to do, especially when reading (you should see the margins to some of the books i own), i have seen so many of these steps being used by people that i could probably have come up with this list on my own... well maybe not really.
I'm big into logic, so it always really annoys me when writer's logic is, well, more than a little fuzzy. It's always so much fun when i read something that i don't agree with and i break down and annihilate their logic. Sometimes i have so many "but...", "except that...", "no, not really because...", and other arguments that i have to practically yell at myself to stop or i will never finish what i'm reading.
I don't just do this with ideas, concepts, and writers that i don't agree with. Oftentimes when reading things that interest me and that i agree with, but that the author's arguments lack cohesiveness, i will sit there and argue their logic to make it more cohesive. Although, i have also been known to actually be arguing something that i don't agree with, just to get other people thinking. Just ask the Sunday School teacher at the church that i go to.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that i agree with everything this guy says, it's just funny how often i see people use these and other underhanded tactics to defend their ideas, not necessarily because their logic or ideas are incorrect, but more because they either don't realize what they're doing, or because they are trying to make a point above and beyond what is needed or true (sorry my logic may be a little fuzzy here as i am really tired).
Monday, May 16, 2005
Unbeliever's 23rd Psalm
1) I have no shepard and am in want.
2) My bed is hard rocks and the water is rough and hard to drink.
3) My soul knows no rest;
I go where i will and am continually led astray.
4) I stumble and fall into the valley of the shadow of death and am prey to the predators;
I have no one to lead, discipline, or comfort me.
5) I starve and am driven away when my enemies are near;
No one heals my wounds or provides for my needs.
6) Hardships and tribulation follow me all the days of my life;
And i will spend eternity alone and in torment.
Psalms 23 (UNV - Unbeliever's National Version)
2) My bed is hard rocks and the water is rough and hard to drink.
3) My soul knows no rest;
I go where i will and am continually led astray.
4) I stumble and fall into the valley of the shadow of death and am prey to the predators;
I have no one to lead, discipline, or comfort me.
5) I starve and am driven away when my enemies are near;
No one heals my wounds or provides for my needs.
6) Hardships and tribulation follow me all the days of my life;
And i will spend eternity alone and in torment.
Psalms 23 (UNV - Unbeliever's National Version)
True Worship
Well, another day, another thought. I was talking to someone a couple of weeks ago about the concept of worship and how it applies to us. It's interesting how many Christians seem to think that workship is what we do in the church on Sunday mornings. Well, that's what it is isn't it? Praise and Worship... The praise is the more upbeat songs, and the worship is the slower songs. And a good worship service leaves us feeling uplifted and like God really touched us. I suppose that there is some reality in that, but that's not really an accurate statement.
Matt Redman in one of his songs talks about wanting to return to the "Heart of Worship". In that song he says "I'm sorry Lord for the thing i've made it. It's all about you (not about me)". Matt states that this song came about as a result of a challenge that his head pastor had for him. He had challenged him to go one month leading the worship part of the Sunday service without any singing. It forced Matt to reconsider what worship truly is. The lyrics to the song Heart of Worship was born from that time.
So i guess that that's the challenge. What is worship without singing?
...more on that later
Matt Redman in one of his songs talks about wanting to return to the "Heart of Worship". In that song he says "I'm sorry Lord for the thing i've made it. It's all about you (not about me)". Matt states that this song came about as a result of a challenge that his head pastor had for him. He had challenged him to go one month leading the worship part of the Sunday service without any singing. It forced Matt to reconsider what worship truly is. The lyrics to the song Heart of Worship was born from that time.
So i guess that that's the challenge. What is worship without singing?
...more on that later
Saturday, May 14, 2005
E3, the PlayStation 3 and the Big N's "Revolution"
This Blog is turning into a real Renaissance of categories here -
Christianity & Christian Issues
Movies
Social Issues
Politics
and now Video Games
E3 will be here this week! I am so psyched about it. I won't be there of course, but it will result in the unveiling of the Playstation 3 and the Nintendo Revolution.
The X-Box 360 was unveiled yesterday, not that i'm that interested in it. I'm still really annoyed that Microsoft is even involved in the console gaming market the way that they have taken over and butchered so many other markets. Needless to say i haven't supported them in this gaming generation, and i won't be in the next either. On to more important things.
The new PS3 will be interesting to see. I'm assuming that it will have standard wireless controllers (as is planned for Microsoft and Nintendo), it's expected to have wireless internet (also for the MS and Big N). The really imprortant PS3 things still to unveil are what it looks like, how it plays, and the new (hopefully) controller. The Cell processor promises to really put out some gaming power. It would be a blast to see it in action.
What i'm really interested in (as are many others) is what Nintendo has in store for the Revolution. They've been making some big promises talking about how it's not so important how powerful the system is as that they will revolutionize the way that games will be played. They did it on numerous occasions such as with the introduction of the first wireless controllers and of touchscreen gaming and voice recognition standard in the Nintendo DS. I'm already excited about the gyroscopic controls and pressure sensitivity in the the new controllers, and the latest news is that the Revolution will only be about 1 inch thick. That's pretty thin to hold all of what has been promised including a hard drive. What really has be curious though is what the big "Revolution" is going to be. Rumors point to 3D play in a whole new way, but we have yet to see what's really in store. Only time will tell for sure at this point. So on to the new week and E3.
Christianity & Christian Issues
Movies
Social Issues
Politics
and now Video Games
E3 will be here this week! I am so psyched about it. I won't be there of course, but it will result in the unveiling of the Playstation 3 and the Nintendo Revolution.
The X-Box 360 was unveiled yesterday, not that i'm that interested in it. I'm still really annoyed that Microsoft is even involved in the console gaming market the way that they have taken over and butchered so many other markets. Needless to say i haven't supported them in this gaming generation, and i won't be in the next either. On to more important things.
The new PS3 will be interesting to see. I'm assuming that it will have standard wireless controllers (as is planned for Microsoft and Nintendo), it's expected to have wireless internet (also for the MS and Big N). The really imprortant PS3 things still to unveil are what it looks like, how it plays, and the new (hopefully) controller. The Cell processor promises to really put out some gaming power. It would be a blast to see it in action.
What i'm really interested in (as are many others) is what Nintendo has in store for the Revolution. They've been making some big promises talking about how it's not so important how powerful the system is as that they will revolutionize the way that games will be played. They did it on numerous occasions such as with the introduction of the first wireless controllers and of touchscreen gaming and voice recognition standard in the Nintendo DS. I'm already excited about the gyroscopic controls and pressure sensitivity in the the new controllers, and the latest news is that the Revolution will only be about 1 inch thick. That's pretty thin to hold all of what has been promised including a hard drive. What really has be curious though is what the big "Revolution" is going to be. Rumors point to 3D play in a whole new way, but we have yet to see what's really in store. Only time will tell for sure at this point. So on to the new week and E3.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Real ID Act & RFID
For those who don't know, the house of representatives (and now the senate) passed legislation on a new government ID. It's called the Real ID Act. Basically the idea is that every American will be required to have a special identification card in order to do most things (especially financially) in the US. The ID will have specific personal information, such as name, date of birth, address, picture, etc., and must be machine readable, most likely RFID(Radio Frequency Identification). Every person's personal information will be placed in a national database and they will not be able to do anything without their cards, and the governments knowledge.
Why am i bringing this up? Quite simply this is a major problem. Has anyone heard of "Big Brother" (not the TV show although that's the right concept), or "1984"... how about the movie "The Enemy of the State"?
Basically any semblence of our Constitutional right to privacy goes out the window. In time, the government knows where you live, where you work, when you leave home, where and how you get your coffee (or tea in my case), what you purchased online, what kind of birth control you use, anything they decide is pertinant to "national security" or "your safety". No more worry about identity theft or terrorists, after all the government is looking after you and only wants to protect you... doesn't it?
Why am i bringing this up? Quite simply this is a major problem. Has anyone heard of "Big Brother" (not the TV show although that's the right concept), or "1984"... how about the movie "The Enemy of the State"?
Basically any semblence of our Constitutional right to privacy goes out the window. In time, the government knows where you live, where you work, when you leave home, where and how you get your coffee (or tea in my case), what you purchased online, what kind of birth control you use, anything they decide is pertinant to "national security" or "your safety". No more worry about identity theft or terrorists, after all the government is looking after you and only wants to protect you... doesn't it?
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Thoughts and Ways
Seek the Lord while He may be found,
Call upon Him while He is near.
Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the Lord,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:6-9 (NKJV)
As i was doing my Bible reading this morning i came upon this chapter in Isaiah. I had been reading the end of Isaiah 52 and through 53 and had been hesitant to go on for awhile due the nature and richness of that passage, but i decided today that it was time to go on. I'm glad that i did, because when i came upon ch. 55 i found some real substance. This is just a nugget of what's there, but i wanted to take note of it.
Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the Lord,
And He will have mercy on him;
I think that this is interesting because it gives us a definition or understanding of what makes a man wicked or unrighteous and how they are different from one another.
The passage says to let the wicked man forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts. A wicked man is created and defined by his actions and way of life. A wicked man is wicked because of what he does and who he is.
An unrighteous man on the other hand is defined by his thoughts. An unrighteous man may be doing the right things, but his heart and mind are not focused in the proper direction. My thought of this is kind of like the new testament Pharisees. They did the right things, but their hearts and thoughts were not lined up properly. But then that example may be a little bit of an extreme. This i see as many Christians today. We talk the talk and do the right action (go to church, maybe pay tithes sometimes, are involved in men's ministy), but oftentimes it's just a show or an act. We do it to because we want to be a part of something, or we want to be "religious", or because we are supposed to, or because it's what our spouse and family expects.
So what's the difference between the unrighteous man and the righteous man? I think that, that can be answered by looking at the next section:
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
The difference between the righteous man and the unrighteous man is that the righteous man lines himself up with God. He does not just do what he's "supposed to" do. He understands that God is the very focus of righteousness and he seeks to line himself, his ways and his thoughts, with God, and by doing so to be able to be used by Him.
Lord,
Help me to be a righteous man. I don't just want my actions to be "appropriate". I want my life, my thoughts, my ways to be lined up with You. Help me to be the kind of man, husband, and father that is not just living day to day doing my own thing, but that is lined up with you in thought and way. Give me the wisdom and understanding to be all you have. In the name of Jesus, the Christ, Amen.
Call upon Him while He is near.
Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the Lord,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:6-9 (NKJV)
As i was doing my Bible reading this morning i came upon this chapter in Isaiah. I had been reading the end of Isaiah 52 and through 53 and had been hesitant to go on for awhile due the nature and richness of that passage, but i decided today that it was time to go on. I'm glad that i did, because when i came upon ch. 55 i found some real substance. This is just a nugget of what's there, but i wanted to take note of it.
Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the Lord,
And He will have mercy on him;
I think that this is interesting because it gives us a definition or understanding of what makes a man wicked or unrighteous and how they are different from one another.
The passage says to let the wicked man forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts. A wicked man is created and defined by his actions and way of life. A wicked man is wicked because of what he does and who he is.
An unrighteous man on the other hand is defined by his thoughts. An unrighteous man may be doing the right things, but his heart and mind are not focused in the proper direction. My thought of this is kind of like the new testament Pharisees. They did the right things, but their hearts and thoughts were not lined up properly. But then that example may be a little bit of an extreme. This i see as many Christians today. We talk the talk and do the right action (go to church, maybe pay tithes sometimes, are involved in men's ministy), but oftentimes it's just a show or an act. We do it to because we want to be a part of something, or we want to be "religious", or because we are supposed to, or because it's what our spouse and family expects.
So what's the difference between the unrighteous man and the righteous man? I think that, that can be answered by looking at the next section:
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
The difference between the righteous man and the unrighteous man is that the righteous man lines himself up with God. He does not just do what he's "supposed to" do. He understands that God is the very focus of righteousness and he seeks to line himself, his ways and his thoughts, with God, and by doing so to be able to be used by Him.
Lord,
Help me to be a righteous man. I don't just want my actions to be "appropriate". I want my life, my thoughts, my ways to be lined up with You. Help me to be the kind of man, husband, and father that is not just living day to day doing my own thing, but that is lined up with you in thought and way. Give me the wisdom and understanding to be all you have. In the name of Jesus, the Christ, Amen.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Unbelief and Time
Well, it's Cinco de Mayo of 2005, AKA 05-05-05 as well as the National Day of Prayer.
This morning i was attempting to do some Bible reading and i came across this passage:
Background - This passage comes directly after the death and burial of Jesus, the Christ.
Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.
After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either.
Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. Mark 16:9-14
It is interesting. The disciples have been with Christ for three years; learning under him, listening to Him speak, seeing Him do miracles, watching Him touch the lives of everyone that He comes into contact with Him one way or another, and even hearing Him tell them what would happen to Him. Even after all of that, when they are informed by some of their own that He is risen and that they have seen Him, the disciples still did not believe what was told them. When Christ appears to the eleven He had to rebuke them for not believing. These are those who would be empowered from on high and lead & build the church, and yet they did not believe even on the witnesses of 2 or 3 of their own.
So i guess that it should not surprise us when other people do not believe in Him when we first tell them of Him. Often it takes time for a person to come to know and accept Him. Unfortunately time and patience are not something that our society or even todays church instills in us. Just something to consider.
This morning i was attempting to do some Bible reading and i came across this passage:
Background - This passage comes directly after the death and burial of Jesus, the Christ.
Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.
After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either.
Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. Mark 16:9-14
It is interesting. The disciples have been with Christ for three years; learning under him, listening to Him speak, seeing Him do miracles, watching Him touch the lives of everyone that He comes into contact with Him one way or another, and even hearing Him tell them what would happen to Him. Even after all of that, when they are informed by some of their own that He is risen and that they have seen Him, the disciples still did not believe what was told them. When Christ appears to the eleven He had to rebuke them for not believing. These are those who would be empowered from on high and lead & build the church, and yet they did not believe even on the witnesses of 2 or 3 of their own.
So i guess that it should not surprise us when other people do not believe in Him when we first tell them of Him. Often it takes time for a person to come to know and accept Him. Unfortunately time and patience are not something that our society or even todays church instills in us. Just something to consider.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Flesh & Spirit
Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Ephesians 6:11-13(NKJV)
At times it becomes easy to forget that we are spiritual beings and not merely this temporary flesh. Our flesh and bodies will eventually be gone, but our spirits are eternal and will last forever. On top of that we are continually in a battle, but it's a battle that exists on a spiritual level and not a physical one. Ephesians 6 talks about putting on the full armor of God in order to fight these spiritual battles. However, it is not very clear how we do this on a daily basis. I have heard a number of different views on how this works, but i'm not convinced that any of them are that accurate or correct. So how do you put on "the whole armor of God"?
At times it becomes easy to forget that we are spiritual beings and not merely this temporary flesh. Our flesh and bodies will eventually be gone, but our spirits are eternal and will last forever. On top of that we are continually in a battle, but it's a battle that exists on a spiritual level and not a physical one. Ephesians 6 talks about putting on the full armor of God in order to fight these spiritual battles. However, it is not very clear how we do this on a daily basis. I have heard a number of different views on how this works, but i'm not convinced that any of them are that accurate or correct. So how do you put on "the whole armor of God"?
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
How to get started...
I haven't the faintest clue as how to write a book, but then who as a first time writer does? However, the more i think about it, the more i wonder if i shouldn't start trying to write it now. I went to go to court with one of my clients and was talking with someone who was doing the transporting. Somehow we started talking about some of my soapbox issues and i went on for at least an hour and a half just talking about it. It's funny because i'm usually pertty quiet and am not really that outgoing, so my talking about things with someone for 90 minutes straight is kind of a big deal. At the same time this isn't the first time this has happened and it probably won't be the last. But i guess my point is that maybe i should just bring a tape recorder and record one of my converstions with someone then transcribe the conversation to get myself started and the ideas flowing... Well, now i'm just babbling so i may as well just go. One of these days i will write a post about what my first book is about.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Classics Old and New
It's funny how many "classic" movies i have never see. I just turned on the telly and Hannibal is on. I've seen bits and pieces of it, but never all the way through. It's the same with The Godfather. Considering it is such a guy movie and i am proud of my Italian/Sicilian heritage, you would thing that i'd have seen it all the way through. What other "classics" have a missed? Some i have seen and recommend in no particular order;
Harvey - Hard to find, but definitely an excellent movie
The Passion of the Christ - No comment needed
Star Wars - All currently out... the classics are still the best
The Fiddler on the Roof - My all-time favorite musical. It works so well on so many levels
Short Circuit I & II - Not quite serious classics, but great none the less.
The Matrix - A little over the top, but it really makes you think... the first one does
Rain Man - Now that was a good movie!
Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail - Great comedy classic
The Princess Bride - "Anybody want a peanut?" Too many quotes, too little time!
The Lord of the Rings trilogy - Peter Jackson really did some amazing things. I just wish that he hadn't edited out to his own liking the real ending to The Return of the King
I could go on and on in this list, but i think that i'll stop there.
Harvey - Hard to find, but definitely an excellent movie
The Passion of the Christ - No comment needed
Star Wars - All currently out... the classics are still the best
The Fiddler on the Roof - My all-time favorite musical. It works so well on so many levels
Short Circuit I & II - Not quite serious classics, but great none the less.
The Matrix - A little over the top, but it really makes you think... the first one does
Rain Man - Now that was a good movie!
Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail - Great comedy classic
The Princess Bride - "Anybody want a peanut?" Too many quotes, too little time!
The Lord of the Rings trilogy - Peter Jackson really did some amazing things. I just wish that he hadn't edited out to his own liking the real ending to The Return of the King
I could go on and on in this list, but i think that i'll stop there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
