A Man Like David

There are people out there that you ache to help. You see them in pain and every fiber of your being screams out to help them, but you want to help in the perfect way. You want them to be uplifted and see God's glory. That's how I feel about people who were once close to God but can't bring themselves to reconcile with Him again. People who blame God for things and people who see God as punishing and cruel. I can tell you I don't know what God has in store but I'm positive his ways are higher. He knows what is for good and he can make the bad decisions of leaders have made into blessings. In the bible David is a man after God's own heart but he falters. He lusts after Bathsheba and sleeps with her. In the end she gets pregnant so David tries to cover up his wrongs. David gets one of his servants to call her husband Uriah so that maybe he will sleep with his wife and nobody with know what he's done. But Uriah is honorable and tells David that if none of the men on the battle field get to come home to their wives then he won't either, even when David gets him drunk! Eventually David orders him dead, He Murders Uriah. Tell me that was in God's plan. God is so angry with David, in the end the child from that adulterous affair is taken away from David. But what about Bathsheba? She had to endure being raped and then having her husband murdered. How could a God do something like that? He didn't. Sin is in the world. God does not make people do evil things for he is a good God. But to Bathsheba he gave the line to Jesus. Written in Matthew is the line to David where Bathsheba is mentioned. Bathsheba gave birth to Solomon, the wisest man alive! More women with shady backgrounds were mentioned are glorified through this line to Jesus. Don't let the sins of others turn you away from God. People who are respected, like David a King and Prophet, fall prey to sin as well. God does not condone the sinful natures of others. Satan is blocking your way to Christ by his works in a man like David. God is reaching for you and all he wants is you. The only way to get you past this pain is by going to him!

Don't Be FOOLED! "Tolerance?"

Okay lots of thoughts! First though, enjoy this wonderful article which puts in better words what I've always wanted to express.  Don't be afraid, it's a quick read.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

by Gregory Koukl

Probably no concept has more currency in our politically-correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America's noblest virtues has been so distorted it's become a vice.
There's one word that can stop you in your tracks. That word is "intolerant."
This idea is very popular with post-modernists, that breed of radical skeptics whose ideas command unwarranted respect in the university today. Their rallying cry, "There is no truth," is often followed by an appeal for tolerance.
The tolerant person allegedly occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed. No "forcing" personal views. That all views are equally valid is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism. And it's a myth.
For all their confident bluster, the relativists' appeal actually asserts two truths, one rational and one moral. The first is the rational "truth" that there is no truth, a clear conflict. The second is the moral truth that one ought to tolerate other's viewpoints. Their stand, contradictory on at least two counts, serves as a warning that the modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.
The Tolerance Trick
As it turns out, by the modern definition of tolerance no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It's what my friend Francis Beckwith calls the "passive-aggressive tolerance trick." Returning to the classic understanding of tolerance is the only way to restore any useful meaning to the word. Let me give you a real life example.
Earlier this year I spoke to a class of seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines, Iowa. I wanted to alert them to this "tolerance trick," but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The first expressed the current understanding of tolerance:

"All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another."

All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence:

"Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting Him."

Immediately hands flew up. "You can't say that," a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. "That's disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?"
"In fact, that happens to me all the time," I pointed out, "including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I'm wrong?"
"It's intolerant," she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn't see was that the first statement also violated itself.
I pointed to the first statement and asked, "Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?" They all agreed.
Then I pointed to the second statement—the "intolerant" one—and asked the same question: "Is this a view?" They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them. They'd been taken in by the tolerance trick.
If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than the Jews have is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than the Christians do. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because "tolerance" turns out to be gibberish.

Escaping the Trap

"Would you like to know how to get out of this dilemma?" I asked. They nodded. "You must reject this modern distortion of tolerance and return to the classic view." Then I wrote these two principles on the board (This way of putting it comes from Peter Kreeft of Boston College.):

Be egalitarian regarding persons.
Be elitist regarding ideas.

"Egalitarian" was a new word for them. Think "equal," I said. Treat others as having equal standing in value or worth. They knew what an elitist was, though, someone who thought he was better than others. "Right," I said. "When you are elitist regarding ideas, you are acknowledging that some ideas are better than others. And they are. We don't treat all ideas as if they have the same merit, lest we run into contradiction. Some ideas are good, some are bad. Some are true, some are false. Some are brilliant, others are just plain foolish."
The first principle, what might be called "civility," is at the heart of the classical view of tolerance. It can be loosely equated with the word "respect." Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false.
We respect those who hold different beliefs than our own by treating them courteously and allowing their views a place in the public discourse. We may strongly disagree with their ideas and vigorously contend against them in the public square, but we still show respect for the persons in spite of our differences.
Classic tolerance requires that every person be treated courteously with the freedom to express his ideas without fear of reprisal no matter what the view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.
These two categories are frequently conflated in the muddled thinking created by the myth of tolerance. The view that one person's ideas are no better or truer than another's is simply absurd and contradictory. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance.
Note that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different issue. Our laws demonstrate that a man may believe what he likes—and he usually has the liberty to express those beliefs—but he may not behave as he likes. Some behavior is a threat to the common good. Rather than being tolerated (allowed), it is restricted by law. Historically, our culture has emphasized tolerance (respect) of all persons, but never tolerance of all behavior. In Lincoln's words: There is no right to do wrong.
Topsy-Turvy
The modern definition of tolerance turns the classical formula for tolerance on its head:

Be egalitarian regarding ideas.
Be elitist regarding persons.

If you reject another's ideas, you're automatically accused of disrespecting the person (as the coed did with me). On this new view of tolerance no idea or behavior can be opposed—even if done graciously—without inviting the charge of incivility.
To say I'm intolerant of the person because I disagree with his ideas is confused. Ironically, it results in elitism regarding persons. If I think my ideas are better than another's, I can be ill-treated as a person, publicly marginalized and verbally abused as bigoted, disrespectful, ignorant, indecent and—can you believe it—intolerant. Sometimes I can even be sued, punished by law, or forced to attend re-education programs.
Tolerance has thus gone topsy-turvy: Tolerate most beliefs, but don't tolerate (show respect for) those who take exception with those beliefs. Contrary opinions are labeled as "imposing your view on others" and quickly silenced.
This is nonsense and should be abandoned. The myth of tolerance forces everyone into an inevitable "Catch-22," because each person in any debate has a point of view he thinks is correct.
Catch-22
Classical tolerance involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.
Notice that we can't truly tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views. They're on our side. There's nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat decently and with respect.
This essential element of classical tolerance—disagreement (elitism regarding ideas)—has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you're called intolerant no matter how you treat him.
This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise true tolerance, yet saying so brings the accusation of intolerance. It's a "Catch-22." According to this approach, true tolerance becomes impossible.
Intellectual Cowardice
Most of what passes for tolerance today is nothing more than intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word "intolerant" are unwilling to be challenged by other views or grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult—"you intolerant bigot"—than to confront an idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the modern era, "tolerance" has become intolerance.
Whenever you're charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition. When tolerance means neutrality, that all views are equally valid and true, then no one is ever tolerant because no one is ever neutral about his own views. Point out the contradiction built into the new definition. Point out that this kind tolerance is a myth.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I love that! It was great. Now some of my own thoughts (=  I'm starting 'something' I really don't know what to call it. Something of an essay or a thesis, but it's long. the title is "the church of the wind" from Ephesians 2: 1 & 2

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient” 

A lot of it is talking about not quarreling with people about Christian Liberties or believing in myths. actually reading the bible to see what it says. 2^nd Timothy 4:3-5 1^st Timothy 6: 4-5 &20, 1: 4-7 Titus 1:10-13 3:9-11.

·         Christian Liberties (what are and what they aren’t) Romans 14The Weak and the Strong  ¹ Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.

On the issue of weaker and stronger brothers and sisters: I had a moment like this. I disagreed with my dad about tattoos and breaking & entering. Every time my dad proceeds to take me into private property or historical areas that we are not supposed to be in my heart cringes and I start sweating bullets. i've tried to overcome this but I really can't. I want to run. He, he is free as a bird doesn't feel any shame. i don't really think he is doing anything wrong but it feels wrong to me. On the other, He thought that men looked at women with tattoos as being loose and easy so he didn’t want me having one. Yet I had met many men on the contrary to that belief so I didn’t agree with him. Needless to say I went and got a tattoo. After I got it a friend of mine saw it and started reciting verses to me and saying that my body was a temple and what I had just done was putting graffiti on the temple. I thought well graffiti is ugly; my tattoo was more of an inscription because it represented a scripture. But then he said something that will stick with me forever; “what makes you think that you can improve on God’s creation”. It’s true I can’t he was right. Although I still don’t regret getting the tattoo. My conscience hasn’t been seared in getting one. But because of what he said I probably won’t get another one. I respect that those are his beliefs and even though I see nothing wrong with it and can understand where he is coming from. I’m not going to set him against me by getting as many tattoos as I darn well please.

If a gray area comes up and you don't know which side you're on here are some things to ask:

Is there anything wrong with this activity? Is it lawful? (I Cor 10:23)

Is it profitable (spiritually)? (I Cor 10:23)

Is it edifying? (I Cor 10:23)

Is it self-serving at the expense of someone else’s benefit? (I Cor 10:33, 15:1-2)

Is this something I can thank God for? (I Cor 10:30, Rom14:6)

Is this something that will glorify God? (I Cor 10:31)

Is it worth imitating? (I Cor 11:1)

Is this following the example of Christ? (I Cor 11:1, Rom 15:7-8)  (p. 381).

What my life might be like now...

I've been waiting for this moment for awhile. I told everyone around me, all my friends and family and even strangers that today was the day that I would be free from the brace. Because today was my doctor's appointment and we would figure out how to get rid of this cyst so I could live my life without the inconvenience or pain. Well first I was already in a rough mood, then I was lost getting there and then I had to wait for an hour in the cold waiting room. When he finally came in, he looked at it, twisted it around a bit and then tested my strength. Then he told me that there was nothing he could do, surgery was ill advised, the pain might go away, but I would have it for the rest of my life. He said that I should be able to do normal things and it wasn't a big deal. I kind of became angry at that point because right now I can't even grasp a doorknob without feeling pain or discomfort, I can't carry a glass pan without my wrist giving way. The doctor at the ER had given me hope that as soon as I was able to see another doctor that I would be healed and I wouldn't have to worry that I couldn't get into bed or type for long periods of time or cut anything. You can tell that I'm bitter can't you? Maybe just a little. Because on the way home from that downfall the radio was playing a hundred years by Five for Fighting and I was rearranging my visions of how I wanted my future to go, now with a brace on my arm and not being able to serve or do anything for myself. I'm a little melodramatic right now but seriously I had my hopes up and I really had such a little opinion of my cyst. That it was an easy fix. But since I've had my brace I've been one handed which is frustrating. Anyway I'm waiting for a second opinion or at least surgery. In other happier news, I had a wonderful time in culpeper with Krystell! I love her family! They are wonderful hospitable people, thank you so much if you are reading this! We went to davis street and had a wonderful time and hung out with her family, playing volley ball. When we came back to campus Liliya had done some spring cleaning. The floors were GOREGEOUS!! I am so thankful for her. It's too bad she is thinking of moving off campus. i hope she does well (= Anyway then later we went over to the westover and watched Once Upon a Time. I'm really starting to get addicted to that show even though some of the acting is horrible. At least Rumpelstiltskin is amazing! Andy made me an awesome cd at my persistence. Ironically enough, any cd that a guy has given me has had the hallelujah song. Weird. Thanks for the CD! I'm enjoying the new sounds. This morning was the weirdest morning ever! well at least for awkward moments between roommates. Claire, Krystell and I had gone to breakfast but Krystell was falling asleep in the booth. Then she went to tickle my knee. NoT OKaY! She said she would stop if she could hold my "baby" hands. She thinks they are adorable cause they can't even fit around an orange. So she's sitting there just feeling my hands. I am so weirded out by this roommate. Claire looks over and asks, "why are you caressing her hand?" Krystell-" Cause it's a wittle baby hand." (Baby talk). I just look over, "Yeah that's a little odd." Krystell says, "It's okay, we're roommates, we do weird stuff all the time." I laugh "actually Krystell that makes it all the more worse haha, remember the convo on friday and control yourself haha." as I remove my hand from her's. If anyone doesn't know what convo was on friday, it's okay. It was highly inappropriate because we had parents and cfaw in the room during a homosexuality talk. >.< Not Okay.

Just a litte thought

God knew! He knows! really He does. If you ever had an issue with anything, He will pound away at it until it is fully formed. I mean look at me, I'm a mess and yet God still intends on using me for good (whatever that may be). As all of you might have now realized, am socially awkward. Especially those who are close to me, they KnOW I have NO idea what I'm doing half the time or what I say. But now here in Lynchburg with the help of wonderful friends and the direction and purpose of God, I am no longer as socially awkward. that's so weird. But really I asked God to direct me relationally cause I felt like I didn't know how to be around people. I was very.....well the elephant in the room. The white elephant. But I have found a great friend in Krystell (my roommate). If you get us talking be prepared cause we won't stop talking until the day is through. Oh and it's not one sided like most of the conversations were before. I actually make sounds. They form words. Maybe not at first as many of the people notice I stutter...they make fun (= but it's cool I have fun with them as well. I have found that I can talk to people without having a purpose in the conversation! I don't have to be just talking to you because I forgot something or I something on my mind or a need a favor. I can genuinely speak nonsense with people, isn't it great? People here are marvelous (= they are so much fun and so weird while still being secure in God.