New Covenant

Words, and their meaning

In our understanding of the communication aspect of language, the concept of "units of thought" is critical. At its lowest level of detail, a word comprises a unit of thought. However, the meaning of the word, in the context of the author's intent, is best understood when one moves up to higher level units of thought - those of sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books.

As John Holzmann shows us, another critical aspect of understanding the meaning to a passage of text, is that of grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. In Get Myself into trouble..., he bravely addresses that tenuous issue of Worship Songs.

Spelling, punctuation, grammar, the words themselves: they matter very much to me. And I realize they mean much more to me than they do to the average bear. That's my training. That's a discipline I have pursued since I was very young. I realize that the structural elements of language make a difference, and so I seek to use them to the best effect.

I am concerned that [our church], in its worship/singing on Sunday mornings, seems, often, to ignore these elements . . . to the detriment of meaning.

Among the various songs he takes aim at is Everything, by Tim Hughes.

...at the tail end of the song, we wind up singing a heretical pantheistic affirmation that God is everything ["You are everything"]--repeated at least four times over (though, as I recall, [our worship leader] encouraged the congregation to sing it 8 times). Please! God is not "everything." He made all of creation. He made human beings. Etc. He is not the things He made.But then, after a pantheistic affirmation, finally, the song winds up repeating a kind of Hinduistic mantra, a meaningless jumble of words: "Jesus everything." Four times over on the screen. Eight times over as a congregation:

Jesus everything. Jesus everything.

Jesus everything. Jesus everything.

As above: Whatever is that supposed to mean? . . . Or is it the intention of [our church] to advocate that its members enter into a kind of mindless euphoria through thoughtless repetition of meaningless--but holy-sounding--words?

How many of the worship songs we sing, on Sunday mornings, fall into the trap of pushing non-Christian (or even heretical) ideas at the expense of thinking through more theologically proper songs? Do we dumb-down our worship songs to accommodate a touchy-feely culture, or in response to a less intelligent society? Or both?

In the Middle Ages, stained glass was used to illustrate narratives of the Bible because the populace was largely illiterate (as was the case in most societies in history). Now, it seems, we purposely cater to a culture that, despite the means and ability, prefers to feel than to think.

Also reference Holzmann's post, Hymns and praise songs: what's the difference?.

Change... we can believe in

From NLPC,

NLPC has uncovered a plan by the White House New Media operation to hire a technology vendor to conduct a massive, secret effort to harvest personal information on millions of Americans from social networking websites.

My journey towards owning a firearm, vol. 2: the Tueller Drill

Twenty one feet.

One and one-half seconds.

The Tueller Drill was developed by Sgt. Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City Police Department, to demonstrate the amount of time it would take an assailant, armed with a contact weapon, to travel 21 feet (7 yards) to his intended victim. Based on the tests conducted, it was demonstrated that it only took 1.5 seconds for the attacker to reach his victim. The point of the drill was to illustrate the dilemma faced by an armed victim, namely, to be able to recognize the potential threat, determine that an attack is occurring, and respond appropriately (in self defense). Particularly designed for persons armed with a holstered firearm, the drill was contrasted against the time required to draw, aim, and shoot the attacker. Tests typically show that most experienced shooters can recognize a threat, draw their firearm, and shoot in around 2 seconds.

That leaves the victim in the red by about 1/2 of a second.

Thus, it is entirely possible for an attacker armed with a knife to move across 7 yards and make contact with his victim before the victim can take action to defend himself. The dilemma an armed person now has is whether or not he can recognize a real threat with a non-existent threat, and whether or not the aggressor is within his danger zone. If he makes the wrong decision, and kills the person representing the non-existent threat, he could be faced with murder charges. If he makes the wrong decision, and waits until the bad guy's attack is well underway, he could be dead.

What to do?

In Armed Response, David Kenik recommends running through various scenarios designed to instill the reality of how quick an attack could take place. For instance, he envisions a home invasion occurring while your family members are in various locations within the house. How much time would it take to get your family into one safe location and to retrieve your self-defense handgun? He thinks that the lag in time to accomplish so much dictates his being armed while in his own home. 

Is Kenik overreacting? Maybe, although his point is well taken that if an event (such as a home invasion) were to occur, time would be of the utmost essence. In my opinion, scenarios such as those recommended by Kenik are useful in helping to educate one on the need for alertness at all times. One of the key components of one's response time, to an attack, is to recognize that an attack is occurring or about to occur. Indeed, one of the tips given to women, regarding their responsibility in managing their own safety, is to always be aware of who is about in their surroundings. This is typically known as being in relaxed alert mode of Condition Yellow.

Apart from the fact that many people consider a lethal threat occurrence to be so unlikely as to negate the necessity for consideration, much less training, I have to wonder how such people view events such as house fires, car accidents, natural disasters, etc. As for my family, my wife and I have discussed with our children what to do in the event of a house fire. We've done this, despite the fact that none of us have ever experienced a house fire.

Owning a firearm, for the purposes of self-defense, opens up a myriad of responsibility issues for the firearm owner, not the least of which is the understanding of the Tueller Drill and its implications. Regardless of whether or not an attacker is 21 feet away, one's awareness of his surroundings is paramount. Self defense experts will reiterate that tactical training, with one's firearm, is critical and should include exercises designed to stimulate one's ability to make shoot or no-shoot decisions under stress.

Probably most important, is the decision one must make regarding whether or not they can shoot a firearm, in self defense, and potentially take another human's life. And that will be the topic of vol. 3 in this series.

All photos - © 2009, A. R. Lopez

Regarding wariness towards the cult of Obama and our children

From FoxNews (HT: Belmont Club),

The Obama administration is rethinking its course recommendations for students ahead of President Obama's address to the the nation's schoolchildren next week, rewriting its suggestions to teachers for student assignments on how to "help the president."

(emphasis added) From Hope & Change parents,

You're certainly free to consider me paranoid. And I'm free to consider you naive.

Winter Squash

We have some winter squash that sprang up in our garden.

Does anyone know how to prepare these vegetables? What types of recipes are they good for (if any)?

Thanks.

Health care is not a right; Rationing is inevitable

Two provocative excerpts from Eric Chevlen, in an article at First Things.

It’s a mistake to think of health care as a right. It is not a right; it is a good. Freedom of speech, by contrast, is a right, as is freedom of religious belief. They are privileges that inure to individuals as a consequence of the primordial right, free will. That is why we see them as inalienable. The exercise of these rights does not depend on any action of government, but rather on its inaction. Government may not legitimately interfere with their exercise, but nothing mandates that the government provide us with printing press or chapel.

Health care is different. It is more akin to the other goods which sustain life: food, clothing, and shelter. A well-ordered society exists to protect its members from the unlawful taking of life, and is structured to facilitate its members’ acquisition of these goods.

And then,

To claim that Congress will devise a new federal health care plan that will not involve rationing is like claiming that it will invent a triangle that doesn’t have three sides. Currently, within the private sector of health care, we have a large number of private insurance companies vying for the business of their customers. They ration health care on the basis of evidence-based medical necessity. The Obama health plan, the details of which are still being worked out, will also ration health care. The alternative to that is an accelerated escalation of aggregate health care costs. But the single-payer system to which Obama’s plan will lead will have no competitor and no pressing financial incentive to please its customers. No competitor for the single payer means no alternative for the patient. We can reasonably expect that a single-payer system of rationing will be largely implicit rather than explicit, and governed as much by cost and political considerations as by medical evidence. Such a system would likely combine the fiscal responsibility of the Postal Service, the customer friendliness of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and the smooth efficiency of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.