Last night, the jury in the Jerry Sandusky case handed down a verdict that Mr. Sandusky was guilty in 45 out of the 48 counts that he was charged with in his now-infamous child sexual abuse trial. Once the verdict was announced to those outside of the courthouse and eventually to the nation and the world, there was great rejoicing in the fact that a man who had violated the trust and the innocence of so many young boys was finally getting his just dues. The man who physically and mentally abused so many boys is headed to prison, never to be released or to see freedom again.
As I watched the media circus last night, I saw people rejoicing in the fact that this monster is headed off to jail. People were cheering the decision that the man who performed such heinous acts on young boys will now be locked up, unable to violate any more boys. There is justified outrage at this man, who started a charity to help young people, but used his charity instead to meet, and susequently take advantage of, the young boys he was supposed to be helping. Instead of helping these boys, he was helping himself to these boys.
As Jerry was being led from the courthouse in handcuffs, he had a dumbfounded look on his face. I had to ask myself, "What is he thinking? He shows no remorse for what he did." Was he in shock at the decision of the jury? Was he so arrogant that he thought that the jury would never convict him? Does he really have any remorse for what he has done?
As they were putting him in the police car to transport him to prison, the TV microphones picked up voices of those who were yelling at him and taunting him. One of the people who was yelling at Jerry Sandusky in the background could be heard saying, "I hope you rot in hell!" This is a natural human reaction, as we tend to view those who violate the trust and innocence of young people as scum of the earth. But as Christians, is this to be our reaction? Should we actually hope that a human being is sent to an eternity of torment in hell?
The answer to this question lies in this simple question - what does the Bible have to say about this? John 3:16 tells us that God loved us so much that He sent His Son to die for us, and that anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life. There is no exception to this. Salvation is for anyone who believes, even Jerry Sandusky. We read in Romans 3:23 that all men have sinned and have come short of God's glory. Romans 6:23 tells us that the wages of sin is death, but we have been offered the gift of eternal life. II Peter 3:9 tells us that the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
What these verses tell me is that we are all sinners. We have all committed sins against God. While the Bible lists many sins, I have yet to find a sin ranking in the pages of the Bible. In other words, any sin causes a sinner to be separated from God. Sin is sin. Just because I have not committed the same heinous acts as Jerry Sandusky does not mean that I am any more innocent before God or any less of a sinner. We all need to ask for God's forgiveness for our sins, including Jerry Sandusky.
To say that we want Mr. Sandsuky to "rot in hell" is saying that we believe that he is not worthy of God's salvation. That, however, is not our choice to make. None of us can do anything to deserve the salvation that God has offered to us. In the end, the only person who can choose whether or not Jerry Sandsuky ends up in hell is Jerry Sandusky. The choice is his - and it is his alone.
So what should we, as Christians, do, now that he has been convicted? We should pray. We should pray for those who were abused, that they would begin to have closure. We should pray for them, that they would be able to move past this horrific stage in their lives, and start to put their lives back together again. We should pray for their families, that they would have wisdom in moving forward. We should pray for Jerry Sandusky, that he would repent of what he has done. We should pray that he would ask forgiveness from those he has abused and taken advantage of. We should pray that he falls on his knees before God and asks forgiveness from the Almighty for the sins that he has committed.
I am not saying that if he has a cellblock confession that we should somehow completely forgive him and release him from the sentence that he will be receiving in the not-too-distant future. Part of seeking forgiveness for your sins is paying the price for the sins that you have committed. Mr. Sandusky should never be allowed to leave prison. The acts he performed are unconscionable. The sentence he gets is probably not going to be tough enough for what he has done. But we have a God who has made salvation available to everyone - including Jerry. And we should not wish an eternity in hell on anyone.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Marriage, Dear Abby, and Bad Advice
I do not usually read the Dear Abby column in the newspaper. I usually do not even have the time to read the newspaper. But for some reason, today was different. I was perusing the newspaper at work today while I was eating lunch. For some reason, as I approached the comic section of the paper (my 2nd favorite section of the paper, behind the Sports section), my attention was drawn to the Dear Abby column. Maybe it was the heading of the article. Maybe my curiosity got the best of me. I don't know why I looked at it, but I did, and what I read took me by surprise.
First, I am not sure why people write into Dear Abby or Ann Landers. The advice that is given by these columnists is not usually good advice. I can't believe that these people that are asking for advice have no one else to go to, whether friends, family, co-workers, pastor, or anyone close to them. In a nationally syndicated column, why would you choose to show how pathetic you are by asking for bad advice from a stranger?
Well, here is the situation from a person labelling themselves as 'What Happened in Vegas.'
DEAR ABBY: "Darrel" and I have been married 28 years. I thought we had an easy, comfortable relationship. We have no children; it's just the two of us with a large family of furry animals. We don't take vacations together because one of us has to be home to care for the animals.
Last year Darrel took four trips to Las Vegas -- two for business and two for special sporting events. I'm beginning to get little nagging signals that he may not have been on these trips alone.
He shuts his phone off for hours at a time and changed the password on his computer after I had to get on it for a security update. The last time he went, he told me he had won two tickets in Las Vegas to a show, so I asked him to bring the extra one home so I could see it. When he returned, he didn't have it. He said he had misplaced it.
There are other things, too, and I don't know what to think. I don't want to hurt his feelings if there isn't anything going on, but I need to know. What do I do? -- WHAT HAPPENED IN VEGAS?
So, what is wrong with this picture? First, there is a serious problem in this marriage. They go on separate vacations. As a married couple, you should strive to do things together, to draw closer together, to enjoy the company of each other. Obviously, there is very little communication. He turns his phone off so she cannot get in touch with him. He does not do something that she has asked of him.
Second, in the place of children and in place of each other, these people have pets. And they allow these pets to get in between them. They do not go on vacation together because someone needs to stay home with the animals that they call family. Now, there is nothing wrong with pets, but if the pets come between you and your spouse, you have a serious problem. How in the world do you choose to stay home from a vacation with your spouse because you cannot leave the pets under the care of someone else while you are gone? How could you put the family pet above the relationship with your spouse?
I am not going to condone the behavior of the husband, but if the wife is rejecting him because the pets are more important to her, can you understand why he might stray in the marriage? He is longing for attention, and his wife is not giving it to him. Spouses need to have the attention and love of the other partner in the marriage in order for that marriage to be successful.
The problem then becomes that she goes to an outside source for an answer to the problem. Instead of approaching her husband to find out what is going on, she turns to a nationally syndicated columnist known for giving questionable advice. So, in the tradition of giving bad advice, Dear Abby gives this answer to the wife in distress.
DEAR WHAT HAPPENED IN VEGAS: If your intuition is telling you that something is wrong, listen to it. Tell Darrel you're feeling insecure and why. Start going with him to Las Vegas. Hire a pet sitter if necessary. It will be money well spent. If your husband isn't open to it, hire a private investigator to tell you what's going on. Clearly, something is up.
Surprisingly, she does tell her to hire a pet sitter, so that she can go with him on vacation. However, she does not give the advice until midway through her response. The first thing she should have said is that this lady needs to go to her husband and apologize to him for letting the animals get in the way of their relationship. She should be willing to give them up if it means restoring her marriage and getting her husband back. It really is not enough to get a pet sitter for a vacation, for that only shows a short-term willingness to restore a relationship. By being willing to to give up the pets altogether, you show a long-term commitment to your spouse.
They should seek counseling to help them in their relationship. They need to talk, to communicate, to let each other know where they see the problems in their relationship. They need to make a commitment to each other not to let pets, or anything else, come in between their relationship with each other. They do not need to hire a private investigator. That will do nothing to restore trust in each other. That will only continue to drive suspicion and distrust.
Without proper communication in a relationship, it will be destined for failure. Unfortunately, many married couples today do not see the need to communicate with each other. We live our lives, many times barely even taking the time to say hello to each other, much less taking the time to have a deep conversation with each other. We let work, or kids, or sports, or the news come between us, using them as an excuse to not have to communicate. And then we wonder why the divorce rates are so high.
We need to learn to re-connect with our spouses. We need to learn to communicate with our spouses. This is a hard thing to do, especially for men. We do not like to talk on an emotional level. But we need to do that, because, in many cases, that is what our wives need from us. Remember, the marriage is successful when both the husband and wife work at it, and communicate, and work to meet the needs of the other person.
We need to get back to this model in our marriages. Not only will it help marriages last, it will show our kids that a successful marriage takes the hard work of both parties. Marriage is not a one-sided endeavor, but a trip that a man and a woman take together.
First, I am not sure why people write into Dear Abby or Ann Landers. The advice that is given by these columnists is not usually good advice. I can't believe that these people that are asking for advice have no one else to go to, whether friends, family, co-workers, pastor, or anyone close to them. In a nationally syndicated column, why would you choose to show how pathetic you are by asking for bad advice from a stranger?
Well, here is the situation from a person labelling themselves as 'What Happened in Vegas.'
DEAR ABBY: "Darrel" and I have been married 28 years. I thought we had an easy, comfortable relationship. We have no children; it's just the two of us with a large family of furry animals. We don't take vacations together because one of us has to be home to care for the animals.
Last year Darrel took four trips to Las Vegas -- two for business and two for special sporting events. I'm beginning to get little nagging signals that he may not have been on these trips alone.
He shuts his phone off for hours at a time and changed the password on his computer after I had to get on it for a security update. The last time he went, he told me he had won two tickets in Las Vegas to a show, so I asked him to bring the extra one home so I could see it. When he returned, he didn't have it. He said he had misplaced it.
There are other things, too, and I don't know what to think. I don't want to hurt his feelings if there isn't anything going on, but I need to know. What do I do? -- WHAT HAPPENED IN VEGAS?
So, what is wrong with this picture? First, there is a serious problem in this marriage. They go on separate vacations. As a married couple, you should strive to do things together, to draw closer together, to enjoy the company of each other. Obviously, there is very little communication. He turns his phone off so she cannot get in touch with him. He does not do something that she has asked of him.
Second, in the place of children and in place of each other, these people have pets. And they allow these pets to get in between them. They do not go on vacation together because someone needs to stay home with the animals that they call family. Now, there is nothing wrong with pets, but if the pets come between you and your spouse, you have a serious problem. How in the world do you choose to stay home from a vacation with your spouse because you cannot leave the pets under the care of someone else while you are gone? How could you put the family pet above the relationship with your spouse?
I am not going to condone the behavior of the husband, but if the wife is rejecting him because the pets are more important to her, can you understand why he might stray in the marriage? He is longing for attention, and his wife is not giving it to him. Spouses need to have the attention and love of the other partner in the marriage in order for that marriage to be successful.
The problem then becomes that she goes to an outside source for an answer to the problem. Instead of approaching her husband to find out what is going on, she turns to a nationally syndicated columnist known for giving questionable advice. So, in the tradition of giving bad advice, Dear Abby gives this answer to the wife in distress.
DEAR WHAT HAPPENED IN VEGAS: If your intuition is telling you that something is wrong, listen to it. Tell Darrel you're feeling insecure and why. Start going with him to Las Vegas. Hire a pet sitter if necessary. It will be money well spent. If your husband isn't open to it, hire a private investigator to tell you what's going on. Clearly, something is up.
Surprisingly, she does tell her to hire a pet sitter, so that she can go with him on vacation. However, she does not give the advice until midway through her response. The first thing she should have said is that this lady needs to go to her husband and apologize to him for letting the animals get in the way of their relationship. She should be willing to give them up if it means restoring her marriage and getting her husband back. It really is not enough to get a pet sitter for a vacation, for that only shows a short-term willingness to restore a relationship. By being willing to to give up the pets altogether, you show a long-term commitment to your spouse.
They should seek counseling to help them in their relationship. They need to talk, to communicate, to let each other know where they see the problems in their relationship. They need to make a commitment to each other not to let pets, or anything else, come in between their relationship with each other. They do not need to hire a private investigator. That will do nothing to restore trust in each other. That will only continue to drive suspicion and distrust.
Without proper communication in a relationship, it will be destined for failure. Unfortunately, many married couples today do not see the need to communicate with each other. We live our lives, many times barely even taking the time to say hello to each other, much less taking the time to have a deep conversation with each other. We let work, or kids, or sports, or the news come between us, using them as an excuse to not have to communicate. And then we wonder why the divorce rates are so high.
We need to learn to re-connect with our spouses. We need to learn to communicate with our spouses. This is a hard thing to do, especially for men. We do not like to talk on an emotional level. But we need to do that, because, in many cases, that is what our wives need from us. Remember, the marriage is successful when both the husband and wife work at it, and communicate, and work to meet the needs of the other person.
We need to get back to this model in our marriages. Not only will it help marriages last, it will show our kids that a successful marriage takes the hard work of both parties. Marriage is not a one-sided endeavor, but a trip that a man and a woman take together.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Missions Conference 2012
Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA, will be hosting their annual Missions Conference, beginning Saturday, March 10, and will go through Wednesday, March 14. You will have a chance to hear missionaries from all over the world speak about the people they minister to, the countries they minister in, as well as the details of their ministry in those countries.
The service times are as follows:
- Saturday Evening: 7:00 pm
- Sunday School: 9:15 am
- Sunday Morning: 10:30 am
- Sunday Evening: 6:30 pm
- Monday Evening: 7:00 pm
- Tuesday Evening: 6:50 pm
- Wednesday Evening: 7:00 pm
If you are able to attend any of these services, I would encourage you to do so. You will truly be blessed.
Monday, February 27, 2012
A Bibilical View Of Homosexuality
I am currently taking a class at my church on the topics of The Doctrines of Man and Sin (Anthropology and Hamartiology, respectively). We are looking at man and sin from a Biblical viewpoint. One of the assignments for this class was to write a 1-page paper on a topic that deals with any area of these doctrines. After some thought, I chose to write a paper on a Christian view of homosexuality. What does the Bible say about it? What does God say about it? Given the elevated status that homosexuality seems to garner in today's society, how should the Christian view this lifestyle choice? Anyway, here is the content of my paper.
“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” This is a trite expression used by many Christians as evidence that homosexuality is not a lifestyle that God intended for mankind. While there is validity to this expression (as you will see later), it falls short of being a complete and total Biblical argument against the homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexuality as a lifestyle has become more common and prevalent in the last 15-20 years, though it has been existence since Bible times. In fact, it has become an in-your-face movement. No longer does it have the stigma that it once had. Popular culture tries to dictate to today’s Christian that we must accept the homosexual lifestyle. If we do not, we are labeled as bigoted, intolerant, or ‘homophobic.’
Sadly, many “Christian” churches have accepted openly gay people and their lifestyles into their churches, because “God loves everyone,” regardless of their lifestyle or their unwillingness to change their lifestyle to meet God’s standards. They try to tell us that God loves us just the way we are. In essence, instead of us trying to become closer to God and meet His standards, they want to bring God closer to us and have Him change His standards to accept that which He clearly condemns. We are not necessarily supposed to show our love for God on His terms. Rather, He is to show love for us on our terms.
So, does this mean that we are supposed to accept sinful lifestyles which are contrary to the Word of God? Are we supposed to ignore open sins which God condemns? Are we supposed to shut up about God’s standards and get along so that it might be easier for us to witness and win souls? Let’s see what the Bible has to say about this topic, and then I think the answer will be clear to us.
In Genesis 1:26-27, God says that man is created in the image of God. The end of verse 27 states that God created both male and female. This would make sense, seeing that in verse 28, God blesses the man and the woman, and He tells them to “…be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” This command is not a possibility if there are 2 men or 2 women on earth. Not to be crude, but God made the body of the man and the body of the woman to fit together anatomically for the act of procreation (which is to be within the bounds of marriage).
Later, in Genesis 2, the author goes into a little more detail on the creation of man and woman. In verse 18, God looks at Adam and sees that he is alone, and that he is in need of a help meet. In verses 21-22, God causes Adam to fall asleep. He then takes a rib from Adam, and God makes woman. It is the woman that is to be the help meet for man. This is clearly not the role of another man. Also, in verse 24, the author says that it is God’s command that man shall cleave unto his wife. These are not generic terms. This is quite specific that God intended for man and woman to be together.
In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul is writing to the church in Rome about the temptations and sins facing the church. Because man had rejected God and worshipped other things, God allowed man to be given over to his own fleshly, vile affections (Romans 1:26-32). In verse 27, Paul states that because of this, men started to be attracted to other men, doing that which is unseemly. Because of this, God gave them over to a reprobate mind. They have no guilt for what they are doing. In fact, they find pleasure in such acts.
In I Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul tells the Corinthian people that those who are unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Among the list of the unrighteous are those who are effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind. These are clearly listed as unrighteous lifestyles that are not compatible with a Christian lifestyle.
So people now use the argument that people are born gay. We are told that they are born with the predisposition for people of their own gender. And it seems as though many “Christian” churches are starting to buy into this philosophy. Well, according to Scripture, people are not born this way. Can I prove this scientifically? No, I am not a scientist, so I would not even know where to start. However, as I read the Bible, I can easily refute this line of thinking Biblically.
We have clearly seen that Scripture tells us that homosexuality is a sin. James 1:13 tells us that “…God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.” God does not tempt us to sin. God does not cause any man to sin. God will not force any man to sin. Why would He do anything to force mankind to do something contrary to His will? Man chooses to sin. Man chooses to live his life in rebellion to God and His Word. Romans 3:23 tells us that all have sinned and come short of God’s glory. People are not born gay – they are born a sinner. That sin can lead people to homosexuality.
So, as Christians, what are we to do? Are we to let these people continue in their sinful, vile ways and watch as they doom themselves to an eternity in hell? No, we are not to do that. We know that people can turn away from this lifestyle and follow after God. As soon as Paul is done listing different lifestyles that will keep us from the Kingdom of God, he goes on to say that some have turned from this lifestyle (I Corinthians 6:11). People are not doomed to stay in this type of lifestyle for the rest of their lives (which is another argument against being born gay – if we were born gay, then there is nothing we could do to change our lifestyle). People have turned away from their evil lifestyles and followed after God. They asked forgiveness of God, and He washed and sanctified them. It is possible.
We also are to show God’s love toward the sinner. We are not to accept their sins, but we are to display God’s love to them. John 3:16 tells us that God loved the world so much that He gave His Son to die for us. The Bible does not list any exceptions to this – He died for all. He died for everyone that ever lived. His death on the cross covered all of the sins of all mankind. His death covered all the sins that mankind has ever committed. Again, the Bible does not list any exceptions to this – the blood of Christ is able to cover any sin that man has committed. God is able to forgive someone who is gay, should they ask forgiveness. With His help, they can turn from this wicked lifestyle. But as long as they are living a life contrary to what God has prescribed in His Word, there can be no fellowship with God.
“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” This is a trite expression used by many Christians as evidence that homosexuality is not a lifestyle that God intended for mankind. While there is validity to this expression (as you will see later), it falls short of being a complete and total Biblical argument against the homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexuality as a lifestyle has become more common and prevalent in the last 15-20 years, though it has been existence since Bible times. In fact, it has become an in-your-face movement. No longer does it have the stigma that it once had. Popular culture tries to dictate to today’s Christian that we must accept the homosexual lifestyle. If we do not, we are labeled as bigoted, intolerant, or ‘homophobic.’
Sadly, many “Christian” churches have accepted openly gay people and their lifestyles into their churches, because “God loves everyone,” regardless of their lifestyle or their unwillingness to change their lifestyle to meet God’s standards. They try to tell us that God loves us just the way we are. In essence, instead of us trying to become closer to God and meet His standards, they want to bring God closer to us and have Him change His standards to accept that which He clearly condemns. We are not necessarily supposed to show our love for God on His terms. Rather, He is to show love for us on our terms.
So, does this mean that we are supposed to accept sinful lifestyles which are contrary to the Word of God? Are we supposed to ignore open sins which God condemns? Are we supposed to shut up about God’s standards and get along so that it might be easier for us to witness and win souls? Let’s see what the Bible has to say about this topic, and then I think the answer will be clear to us.
In Genesis 1:26-27, God says that man is created in the image of God. The end of verse 27 states that God created both male and female. This would make sense, seeing that in verse 28, God blesses the man and the woman, and He tells them to “…be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” This command is not a possibility if there are 2 men or 2 women on earth. Not to be crude, but God made the body of the man and the body of the woman to fit together anatomically for the act of procreation (which is to be within the bounds of marriage).
Later, in Genesis 2, the author goes into a little more detail on the creation of man and woman. In verse 18, God looks at Adam and sees that he is alone, and that he is in need of a help meet. In verses 21-22, God causes Adam to fall asleep. He then takes a rib from Adam, and God makes woman. It is the woman that is to be the help meet for man. This is clearly not the role of another man. Also, in verse 24, the author says that it is God’s command that man shall cleave unto his wife. These are not generic terms. This is quite specific that God intended for man and woman to be together.
In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul is writing to the church in Rome about the temptations and sins facing the church. Because man had rejected God and worshipped other things, God allowed man to be given over to his own fleshly, vile affections (Romans 1:26-32). In verse 27, Paul states that because of this, men started to be attracted to other men, doing that which is unseemly. Because of this, God gave them over to a reprobate mind. They have no guilt for what they are doing. In fact, they find pleasure in such acts.
In I Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul tells the Corinthian people that those who are unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Among the list of the unrighteous are those who are effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind. These are clearly listed as unrighteous lifestyles that are not compatible with a Christian lifestyle.
So people now use the argument that people are born gay. We are told that they are born with the predisposition for people of their own gender. And it seems as though many “Christian” churches are starting to buy into this philosophy. Well, according to Scripture, people are not born this way. Can I prove this scientifically? No, I am not a scientist, so I would not even know where to start. However, as I read the Bible, I can easily refute this line of thinking Biblically.
We have clearly seen that Scripture tells us that homosexuality is a sin. James 1:13 tells us that “…God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.” God does not tempt us to sin. God does not cause any man to sin. God will not force any man to sin. Why would He do anything to force mankind to do something contrary to His will? Man chooses to sin. Man chooses to live his life in rebellion to God and His Word. Romans 3:23 tells us that all have sinned and come short of God’s glory. People are not born gay – they are born a sinner. That sin can lead people to homosexuality.
So, as Christians, what are we to do? Are we to let these people continue in their sinful, vile ways and watch as they doom themselves to an eternity in hell? No, we are not to do that. We know that people can turn away from this lifestyle and follow after God. As soon as Paul is done listing different lifestyles that will keep us from the Kingdom of God, he goes on to say that some have turned from this lifestyle (I Corinthians 6:11). People are not doomed to stay in this type of lifestyle for the rest of their lives (which is another argument against being born gay – if we were born gay, then there is nothing we could do to change our lifestyle). People have turned away from their evil lifestyles and followed after God. They asked forgiveness of God, and He washed and sanctified them. It is possible.
We also are to show God’s love toward the sinner. We are not to accept their sins, but we are to display God’s love to them. John 3:16 tells us that God loved the world so much that He gave His Son to die for us. The Bible does not list any exceptions to this – He died for all. He died for everyone that ever lived. His death on the cross covered all of the sins of all mankind. His death covered all the sins that mankind has ever committed. Again, the Bible does not list any exceptions to this – the blood of Christ is able to cover any sin that man has committed. God is able to forgive someone who is gay, should they ask forgiveness. With His help, they can turn from this wicked lifestyle. But as long as they are living a life contrary to what God has prescribed in His Word, there can be no fellowship with God.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Is our political primary system in need of repair?
In case you have not yet noticed, the Presidential primary election system is upon us. Up to this point, only 2 states have voted (and one of them was a caucus, not a primary). There has been much emphasis put on winning the caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire. But why is that? I have a hard time understanding why we put so much emphasis on winning these 2 states, when Iowa only has 6 electoral votes and New Hampshire has 4. (Granted, the primary races are for delegates at the convention, not for electoral votes, but the electoral vote count gives us an idea of how big the state is compared to the entire country.)
This is not to say that their votes should count any differently than mine or yours. I guess my problem is that their votes seem to count more, since there is so much emphasis put on those 2 states. After all, the Republican winner of those 2 states this year has been declared the front-runner and people are basically handing him the nomination for the fall Presidential election. Yes, winning definitely provides momentum, but is it too early to declare a winner, after only 2 states?
The next state having a primary election is South Carolina (9 electoral votes). Then it will be on to Florida, with 29 electoral votes. Certainly, after these 2 primaries, we will have a definitive front-runner. Or will we? Will it be too late for someone else to move to the front of the race? Probably, but it would not be impossible.
As I have thought about this over the last several weeks, and months, I have come to the conclusion that the primary system in America needs to be fixed. And to avoid being one of those whiners that only complains and offers no solutions, I have several ideas that I believe would help fix the system that we use to elect a party's candidate for political office.
So without further adieu, here we go.
This is not to say that their votes should count any differently than mine or yours. I guess my problem is that their votes seem to count more, since there is so much emphasis put on those 2 states. After all, the Republican winner of those 2 states this year has been declared the front-runner and people are basically handing him the nomination for the fall Presidential election. Yes, winning definitely provides momentum, but is it too early to declare a winner, after only 2 states?
The next state having a primary election is South Carolina (9 electoral votes). Then it will be on to Florida, with 29 electoral votes. Certainly, after these 2 primaries, we will have a definitive front-runner. Or will we? Will it be too late for someone else to move to the front of the race? Probably, but it would not be impossible.
As I have thought about this over the last several weeks, and months, I have come to the conclusion that the primary system in America needs to be fixed. And to avoid being one of those whiners that only complains and offers no solutions, I have several ideas that I believe would help fix the system that we use to elect a party's candidate for political office.
So without further adieu, here we go.
- Close the primaries for both parties. The Republican primary should only be for registered Republicans and the Democrat primary should only be for registered Democrats. I have no interest in voting for a Democrat nominee, and I surely do not want the Democrats picking the Republican nominee (heaven knows we have enough liberal Republicans voting in the primary). To me, this is akin to people from New Jersey or New York coming to PA to vote for our governor or representative, or me going to their state to vote for their governor or representative. I am not a citizen (i.e. member) of that state, so I should not be voting in their election. Likewise, if you are an independent, you have no right to vote for a nominee of either party.
- Political parties should not endorse any candidate. I have never made a decision to vote for someone simply because the talking heads of the Republican party endorsed a candidate. Once the party does endorse a candidate, they throw the weight of the party (and the money) behind that particular candidate. Personally, I do not care who the talking heads want as the nominee. And I do not believe that many other people out there care about the opinion of the talking heads. However, once the talking heads make an endorsement, it makes it much more difficult for other candidates to have their voices heard and get their message out to the electorate.
- Politicians should not endorse any candidate. Celebrities often make political endorsements. They just do not realize that most people could care less about their political leanings and beliefs. Politicians often feel as though they are celebrities, so they think we care about who they are going to endorse for office. This will often hurt them more than it will help them. For instance, this hurt Rick Santorum in 2006, and was part of the reason he was not re-elected. In 2004, Santorum endorsed the re-election of that Senatorial turncoat, Arlen Specter. Many conservatives were extremely unhappy about this, and they did not vote for Santorum in the 2006 election (they most likely did not vote for Sen. Casey either, most likely choosing a 3rd party candidate, or not voting for that office at all). So my message to politicians is this - keep your nose out of the primaries and stop endorsing candidates.
- There should be a limited number of caucus/primary dates on the calendar. The primary/caucus season started on 1/3/12 for this election cycle, and will not be over for several months. That is just too long for an election cycle. I believe that we should have 7 dates for primaries/caucuses. There would be 7 primaries on each date, except for the first one, which would have 8 states voting that day. These primaries should start on the first Tuesday in April, and proceed for the next 6 weeks after that. That way, they will not be strung out for months. Also, it would shorten the political season, as most of us are too tired of the whole thing by the time the conventions roll around.
- Large states should be the last to hold primaries/caucuses. In conjunction with the truncated primary season, I contend that the primaries and caucuses should be held in reverse order of electoral votes. This way, the big states would come last. This would cause the candidates to have to go to the smaller states in order to win elections and get an advantage over their competitors. This should also keep more candidates in the race longer, as these smaller states would probably be won by several of the candidates. This should also lead to an exciting finish of the primary season, instead of having the primary season over by mid-March, with half the nation still having not voted in a primary and basically being disenfranchised in the primary process. No particular candidate would be able to win enough delegates until the final couple of weeks of the primary season, therefore allowing candidates to stay in the race longer and making it more competitive. Also, it would keep states from arguing with each other and trying to move their primary dates so they can be earlier in the whole process. (In case you were wondering, being from Pennsylvania, we would vote on the last primary day under this proposed plan of mine.)
- If you are going to run for higher political office, you need to resign from your current elected office. This is a pet peeve of mine. The people voted a politician into office to do a particular job. The people did not vote someone into office in order for that person to run for a higher office and forsake the job they were elected to do. If that person is running for higher office, he is not doing what he was elected to do, thus giving those who elected him a raw deal. We should have expectations of our elected officials to do the job they were elected to do. If they do not do it, they should not hold that office. Also, this would allow us to see who is really serious about running for office. If they are willing to give up their current elected office instead of using it something to "fall back on" should they lose, then we know that the person will be a serious candidate for office.
- The political season needs to be shorter. Once Wednesday, November 7 rolls around, the 2016 Presidential race will start. Thankfully, many of us will to tired of politics to care. But that does not mean that the networks will not try to shove it down our throats. The Presidential election process should not start until January of the election year. This year, by the time January 1 had rolled around, the Republicans had already had numerous debates. This is happening too early, and it continues to get earlier each election cycle. Right now, unless your state is having a primary, not many people are paying attention to the process and the candidates. It is time to shorten the election season.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Happy 1st Birthday, Hannah!
As many people already know, Hannah was diagnosed with Down Syndrome. We were told within hours of her birth that she had several symptoms of Down Syndrome, but they would have to do further tests to confirm the initial diagnosis. After a couple of weeks, the diagnosis was confirmed. We started the new year not knowing what to expect, not knowing how Hannah would grow and progress, not knowing what we were going to go through, not knowing how to react to this situation, not knowing how her brothers would react to her.
Honestly, we started the year out with fear of the unknown. We did not personally know anyone with Down Syndrome. We did not know much about Down Syndrome. No one was able to tell us how mild or serious Hannah's condition would be. We just did not know where this road was going to lead us.
We did know her heart was fine. Heart problems are somewhat common amongst people with Down Syndrome, but the tests that they ran on her in the hospital showed that her heart was in good condition.
Hannah did not pass her hearing test in the hospital, and she also did not do well in some follow up hearing tests. However, as time passed by, and her hearing was tested again, the tests indicated that her hearing was getting better. I guess the inner workings of the ear just needed time to develop better. She will be getting tubes in her ears next week to help drain the fluid that is currently puddling in her ears. This should also help to improve some of the balance issues that she has.
Hannah had her eyes checked, and she needed to get glasses. I am still not quite sure how they figured this out, but once she got her glasses, we noticed that they really did help her out. She was better able to grab toys (and other things she should not have been able to get her hands on). In addition, she looks so cute in her glasses.
We have had the opportunity to have 2 different therapists come into our home and work with Hannah on various developmental aspects. She has received good reviews from them on her development this far. She is able to crawl all over the house, and she is doing her best to pull herself up to a standing position. Hopefully, in the next few weeks, she will be able to do this without our help.
Also, starting this Sunday, she will 'graduate' from the baby nursery to the crawler nursery at church. This is a big step for her, as she will now be in a nursery with mobile children who are not necessarily that gentle with things (and people) that they come into contact with. Pam, as well as some of the other ladies in the church, will be in there with her to help her out as she grows accustomed to this new environment.
Through all of this, I must say that I have been impressed with how her brothers have treated her and how they interact with her. I was fearful that they would treat her like another toy (or worse yet, like they treat each other), but they have been very good with her and to her. They all play with her. While they may not completely understand Down Syndrome, they do understand that she is their sister and that they need to take good care of her. And they do.
As far as Pam and I are concerned, we have our good days and bad days. At first, the bad days definitely outnumbered the good days. But that seems to have changed, and our good days outnumber the bad ones now. We still have a lot to learn, but one thing we do know is that she is our daughter and we love her very much.
I must admit that I still find myself asking why this happened to us. Why was such a beautiful, innocent child born with Down Syndrome? I am not sure I will ever get the answer to that question. But one thing I do know is that Hannah has taught me so much over the last year. I have found that I need to be more patient, not just with her, but with the boys (something I am not always good at). I have learned that I need to watch what I say, because I now see how some of the idiotic things I have said before about people's mental capacity can hurt those around me.
In my freshman year of college, the theme for that year was "God is great. God is good. Let us thank Him." Indeed, God is good to us. While we may not see it at the time, as we look back to see what He has done for us, we can see His goodness and His providence in our lives. As I look back on the last year and reflect on what we have been through as a family, I can be thankful for the words written by Ron Hamilton to a song that he wrote after having one of his eyes removed: "Now I can see testing comes from above. God strengthens His children and purges in love. My Father knows best, and I trust in His care. Through purging, more fruit I will bear. O rejoice in the Lord, He makes no mistakes."
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Ongoing Debacle at Penn State
Before I go any further, I just want to say that the acts that Sandusky is being accused of are grotesque and heinous acts. If he is found guilty, he deserves whatever punishment he gets, and then some more on top of that. To be in his position and take advantage of young boys the way he did is repulsive and predatory, and there is absolutely no reason that any court or any judge should show him any leniency. Sandusky is the predator, the criminal, the monster.
Now that a few weeks have gone by and the overall anger seems to have subsided a bit, I want to look back at how this all unraveled after the grand jury indicted Sandusky. There are many things that annoyed and frustrated me as this all played out in public, in the press, and on TV. And it seemed as though almost all of the anger was directed at Joe Paterno.
Paterno is a legend in collegiate athletics. He was a football player, who became an assistant coach, and ultimately came to be known as the winningest coach in major college football. He has been a leader to those he coached, a mentor, someone who wanted his players to succeed, not just on the field, but off of it. Penn State has a high graduation rate amongst its football players. In fact, of all of the buildings at Penn State that could be named after Paterno, it is the library that bears his name.
Yet, after all that Paterno has done for Penn State and for college football, people were yelling for Paterno's head as this scandal was breaking. They treated Paterno as if he was the one who was taking advantage of these children and molesting them. You rarely heard Sandusky's name in the days following the breaking of this story. People wanted to hold Paterno accountable for everything that happened, as though Sandusky had given him every intimate detail of what happened and Paterno was trying to cover the story up for his good friend and former assistant coach.
We know from the grand jury report that Paterno was aware of one incident that was reported to him by Mike McQueary. Paterno reported the incident to the proper two people on campus: the athletic director (it happened in an athletic facility) and the head of campus security and police. Most colleges have their own security and police and do not necessarily need to rely on the police from the surrounding towns/cities. Perhaps Paterno could have pushed them harder to investigate this more fully. I don't know if he did or not. Maybe Paterno should have gone to the police. What we do no know is that, according to the New York Times, the information was given to the DA, but he did nothing with it.
Now, how is that Paterno's fault that the DA chose not to take it further? It's not. But apparently there are some out there that think that no matter what Paterno did, it was not enough. The bigger issue here is McQueary. If he saw this happening, why didn't he do anything to stop it? Why did he choose to leave? Why didn't he report what he saw immediately? Again, the anger was directed at Paterno, who was not even an eye witness.
After a few days of public outcry, Paterno announced he would retire, effective at the end of the 2011 season. For the Board of Trustees, this was not good enough. They decided that Paterno had to go. But instead of meeting with him, in person, they decided to fire him over the phone. How cowardly is that? If you are going to fire the guy, at least do it in person. I do not believe that Paterno should have been fired. He should have been allowed to finish out the year. However, if they would have met with him in person to fire him, I could at least have some respect for the Board of Trustees.
Then there was the piling on. The Big Ten would remove his name from the championship trophy. The 2 senators from PA would withdraw his name for the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The rumors of his statue being removed from in front of the stadium (this proved not to be true).
After Paterno was fired, the talking heads on TV then turned their attention to McQueary's inaction based on what he saw. They also started to remember again that this is all happening due to the reported actions of Sandusky. It was as though their goal was Paterno getting fired. Now that he was gone, they could go back to focusing on the real story.
Now we will have endless investigations. First, the PA AG will continue the ongoing investigation. The State of PA is going to look into it. The Feds are going to look into it. And the NCAA does not want to be left out (although this is not part of their charter, as this does not have to do with the athletic program, it just happens to involve someone who used to be part of the athletic program).
Through all of this, there are still several questions that I need to have answered.
- What was Jerry Sandusky thinking? First, you ruined your credibility and character. I am not sure it is capable of being repaired. But due to you actions and your inability to control yourself, you have also torn down a great coach with a great legacy, you have dispirited a football team, and you have tarnished the legacy of an entire university.
- Why didn't Mike McQueary stop the actions of Jerry Sandusky? Why did he choose to leave, going first to his father, then to Joe Paterno, instead of the police?
- When the athletic director told Sandusky that he would be barred from campus and the athletic facilities, why did Sandusky still have an office on campus and have the ability to use the athletic facilities? Was he not actually able to enforce this? If not, then why hand it down as punishment in the first place?
- Is all of this fair to Paterno? Was he the one who was taking advantage of the kids? Other than the one occasion that McQueary told him about, was he even aware that Sandusky was a child predator?
- Why did the DA choose not to press charges? Did he not have enough evidence?
- Why does the media have a feeding frenzy with stories like this? When did they become the moral arbiters of society? Is the media hypocritical for going after Paterno, who was not an accomplice in this story and has done nothing illegal, while protecting Hollywood types like Roman Polanski who stand accused of sex/rape of a minor? Or showing hypocrisy by going after Paterno, yet continually praising a late Senator who also killed a woman via drowning her?
As for Joe Paterno, if he did know more about Sandusky's actions, then he will need to live with that for the rest of his life. It is probably hard enough knowing that he was aware of one child being abused and that nothing was done to stop that abuse. The guilt he has to live with will be a burden on him for the rest of his life, and perhaps that is punishment enough for him.
As for the school, and the football program in particular, life goes on. It has to. You cannot let it stop here. There are some who have said that PSU needs to forfeit the rest of the season, and perhaps just go ahead and forfeit next year, too. This is not necessary. Penn State needs to get back on the field and show that they can overcome this. The football players are not guilty of anything. They should not be punished for this.
For Jerry Sandusky, he needs to pay the price for what he did. However, he can still have some hope in all of this. He can know that Jesus died for his sins, too. He can still ask forgiveness of God, who will grant him that forgiveness should he ask for it. That does not mean that Sandusky should be set free. If he would do this, it would mean that his punishment would stop at his death on this earth. It would not carry over into an eternity in hell. If God could forgive a man like Jerry Sandusky, perhaps we need to find it in our hearts to forgive him (and others), too.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
9/11/01 - 10 Years Later
Those of us who are old enough to remember 9/11/01 are able to vividly remember where we were when we heard of the events of that frightful morning. I remember I did not have to work that week. Business was slow, and we were on rotating, mandatory furloughs. This happened to be my week to be off of work. I was in bed when the attacks started. When I awoke, about 9:00 am, I made a phone call to a credit card company (we were having a huge disagreement about a payment). While I was on hold, I heard Tom Brokaw on what was supposed to be the "Hold" music. I was confused. He talked of planes hitting the World Trade Center. Was this for real? I turned on the TV and could not believe what I saw. The World Trade Center was collapsing. What was going on?
It was a beautiful morning with hardly a cloud in the sky in the eastern U.S. Then news started to break of an airplane that flew into the World Trade Center. Was it an accident? Was it terrorism? No one really knew what was going on at the time of the attacks. Then, several minutes later, another plane flew into the other World Trade Center tower. This time, it was captured on camera by many of the news organizations, who were there to cover the first plane. Not long after that, we heard of a plane that flew into the Pentagon. The World Trade Center buildings, under the intense heat, crumbled. Debris is everywhere on the south end of Manhattan. Then we hear of a plane crashing in western Pennsylvania. People started putting the pieces together. We were under attack. But who was doing this? And why did they do this?
In the hours, days, and months that followed, we learned that this attack was made by Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was now Public Enemy #1. We heard stories of the brave men and women who rushed to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to help save the lives of those who were caught up in the attacks. Many of these first responders perished in the World Trade Center collapse, as they were giving of their life to help others. We heard of the story of Todd Beamer and those on Flight 93 that rushed the terrorists, and forced the plane to crash in Shanksville, PA. We saw Americans of all different ideologies come together in unity to decry the terrorist attacks and celebrate the greatness that is America. We saw what it was like to have a President who would take a stand and tell the enemy that we will find them and deal with them and show them how we, as Americans, deal with our enemies.
For a while, Americans were all but united in our resolve to deal with the enemies that had done this to us. Flags were flying everywhere. Prayer services were being held at church. Members of Congress were able to agree (at that time) on how to deal with terrorists and terrorism. And Congress and the President were able to come to an agreement on how to unite our intelligence agencies, as well as get them to talk to each other. When we invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power and to break up the Al-Qaeda network, Americans were all but united behind the effort. Even when troops were initially sent into Iraq, the vast majority of Americans were behind the effort.
But what has happened since then? Americans seemed to have come up short in their resolve to defeat the terrorists (which is something that the terrorists had anticipated). As time went on, Americans did not seem to support this effort for the long haul (as if the terrorists were just going to wave the white flag and give up). Americans started to question the effort against terrorists. It is taking too long. There are too many deaths. It costs too much. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. America is doing this for oil. Some even went so far as to say that this was an inside job, engineered by the government for some sort of political gain.
Sure, there were speed bumps along the way. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was definitely not a high point. But let's remember that those who participated in those actions were held accountable. Then there was the lack of understanding of our mission for the detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay. The prisoners were treated well, allowed to read the Koran, pray their daily prayers, and fed 3 meals a day (which is much better than their life overseas).
There was the issue of enhanced interrogation, used on only the most dangerous prisoners that we had in custody. People said we lost the moral high ground for using these techniques, because this is not how America treats its prisoners. Well, I have a very big problem with that line of thinking. First and foremost, terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention, or more importantly, under our Constitution. Therefore, the rules are different. In order to protect the lives of American citizens, we needed to get as much information as we could about potential terrorist attacks. If that means making the lives of some dangerous Al-Qaeda leaders uncomfortable in the process, then we needed to do this. The moral high ground was to protect the lives of the American people. After all, this is the primary role of the government in the first place.
We've learned that Americans have short attention spans. While there was a tremendous unity in the months after the attacks, that gradually started to wear off. There was a segment in America that thought we had caused the attacks, because we thought we were so much better than any one else on earth. There is a segment that thinks we actually planned and carried out that attacks. Many liberals started to question the Republican President. They did not like what they felt was American Imperialism. Who were we to force our beliefs on the world? Many Americans have moved on with life, stopping to remember that attacks every year on 9/11, then putting those thoughts in the back of their mind until the next 9/11 rolls around.
Some Americans became embarrassed by our role as the sole superpower. Who are we to police the world? Had they forgotten it was the U.S.A. that was attacked and we have a right to defend ourselves? They were embarrassed by a President that set out a clear missions on how the U.S. would try to defeat terrorism. He had a firm grasp of right and wrong, good and evil, and he knew that evil needed to be defeated in this war. Unfortunately, there were many collegiate professors who thought it was their duty to try to indoctrinate students and teach them that America repressed the poor and needy in this world, that we mistreat the Islamic people of this world. It was the likes of these intellectual elites, liberals in Congress, and a growing portion of the media that it was the U.S. that was responsible for these attacks, because we have created a hostile environment, ripe for terrorist attacks against us.
Due to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay, we were told that we were encouraging attacks on the U.S. However, this line of thinking has always confused me. There was no Abu Ghraib when terrorists attacked the USS Cole. Those places were not in existence when we were attacked on 9/11. So what egregious act had the U.S. committed in order to solicit such a serious attack on 9/11?
We were told that Islam is a peaceful religion. This could not be further from the truth. Their goal is world domination. Sure, when they are trying to get a foothold in a community or in a country, they do their best to blend in. But eventually, they become stronger in their resolve. They become more dominant. Why is that people who feel like outcasts and become angry at the country (and at the world) convert to Islam? It is because that religion offers what they want - a chance to act aggressively against their enemies. Sure, there may be peaceful Muslims who want no part of this intifada against freedom. But the terrorists that we face espouse the religion of Islam and its teachings. They celebrated on the days of the terrorist attacks. Imams around the globe teach hatred in their mosques. This religion is not peaceful.
We are told that we need to allow a mosque to be built close to the World Trade Center sight. If we do not agree, then we are Islamaphobes and intolerant. The intolerance is really with those who want to build this mosque so close to the World Trade Center sight. Yes, we have freedom of religion and you are free to worship as you see fit. But that does not mean a mosque needs to be built so close to Ground Zero. This is not the place to build a "monument" to a religion whose beliefs led some of its adherents to kill so many people on that fateful morning.
Evil exists in this world. There will be a constant struggle between right and wrong, good and evil, until the end of this world. Many people fail to grasp this concept. In the age of secular humanism, people believe in a truth that is relative - who are we to tell people that their beliefs are right or wrong (after all, there are still people on this earth who will not declare that Hitler was evil for killing as many Jews as he did). Much of this is due to the secular humanist doing his best to take God out of society. They will tell you that if there was a God, why did He allow the 9/11 attacks to happen? If God was good, He would have stopped it.
Well, I cannot say why God allowed the attacks to happen. I know that He did not cause them to happen. Our God does not celebrate when we kill other people (as Islam teaches). Our God has explicitly told us not to kill others. I do know that it is a belief in God that has allowed many, many people to cope with this tragedy over the last 10 years. It is their faith and trust in an all-wise, all-knowing, all-caring God that has comforted them and given them the strength that they need on a daily basis.
So, where do we go from here? We, as a nation, need to turn back to God. That may not be easy, but that is what we need to do. We need to humble ourselves, and pray, and seek His face, and turn from our wicked, self-serving ways (II Chronicles 7:14). We cannot defeat evil without God's help.
Let us find some comforts in the words of President Bush, which were delivered to a joint session of Congress, and to a large national audience, on 9/20/11.
"Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity; they did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work and creativity and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today. And finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow and will strengthen us for the journey ahead.....Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.....The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.....In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America."
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
"In My Seat" - A Powerful Testimony
Which of these occupations does not belong: Pastor, Conference Speaker, Counsellor, Commercial Pilot? Well, Dr. Steve Scheibner is all of the above. This past Sunday, he spoke at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA. He shared with us his story of 9/11. We all have stories of that tragic day, but his is different. Dr. Scheibner's story is different because of events that transpired the day preceding 9/11.
He was scheduled to fly American Airlines Flight 11. However, he was bumped by another pilot. What he did not know at that time is that Flight 11 would the first plane to fly into the World Trade Center on that serene, sunny, almost cloudless 9/11 morning. He knows that he could have been, and possibly should have been, the pilot of the plane on that day. Can you imagine what that must be like to know that someone took your place on a plane that was attacked by terrorists? That they would force their way into the cockpit and fly the plane into the World Trade Center? I think that would haunt me for the rest of my days.
However, Dr. Scheibner has turned his thoughts and feelings from that day into a tremendously powerful message. He is able to speak about his knowledge of the plane that flew into the World Trade Center, for he had actually flown that plane before. He talks of one of the Flight Attendants, who he knew and had worked with. He talks of the pilot that bumped him from that flight, who he knew, but not all that well. And he is able to relate all of this to our spiritual life - how that someone died for us in our place.
His son, Peter, produced this video of Dr. Steve Scheibner telling his story of the events that happened on 9/10 & 9/11, titled "In My Seat."
He was scheduled to fly American Airlines Flight 11. However, he was bumped by another pilot. What he did not know at that time is that Flight 11 would the first plane to fly into the World Trade Center on that serene, sunny, almost cloudless 9/11 morning. He knows that he could have been, and possibly should have been, the pilot of the plane on that day. Can you imagine what that must be like to know that someone took your place on a plane that was attacked by terrorists? That they would force their way into the cockpit and fly the plane into the World Trade Center? I think that would haunt me for the rest of my days.
However, Dr. Scheibner has turned his thoughts and feelings from that day into a tremendously powerful message. He is able to speak about his knowledge of the plane that flew into the World Trade Center, for he had actually flown that plane before. He talks of one of the Flight Attendants, who he knew and had worked with. He talks of the pilot that bumped him from that flight, who he knew, but not all that well. And he is able to relate all of this to our spiritual life - how that someone died for us in our place.
His son, Peter, produced this video of Dr. Steve Scheibner telling his story of the events that happened on 9/10 & 9/11, titled "In My Seat."
Monday, June 27, 2011
Impact of the Current Recession
I wish I could claim this as my own, but I cannot. I received this in an e-mail from a friend. But it is rather funny.
The recession is getting so bad...
The recession is getting so bad...
- My neighbor got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
- CEOs are now playing miniature golf.
- Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.
- I saw a Mormon with only one wife.
- If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them.
- McDonald's is selling the 1/4 ouncer.
- Angelina Jolie adopted a child from America.
- Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.
- My cousin had an exorcism but couldn't afford to pay for it, and they re-possessed her!
- A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico.
- A picture is now only worth 200 words.
- Thousand Oaks, California has been renamed as 900 Oaks.
- The Treasure Island casino in Las Vegas is now managed by Somali pirates.
- I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call center in Pakistan, and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)