10/31/2008

Last weekend I watched Ben Stein’s movie Expelled about the unwillingness of mainstream science to even consider an intelligence behind the wonders of the universe. While the movie didn’t really get into specific problems with Darwin’s theory of evolution, it did do a fairly good job illustrating the connection between teaching evolution and teaching atheism. There was one particularly telling moment when Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, admitted the intriguing possibility that an advanced alien race might have set life in motion on Earth. This in response to Stein’s questions about inconsistencies in the Theory of Evolution and nearly impossible series of events needing to occur in order for life to have sprung up from lifeless muck and mire. It is very important to remember this, if a class room teaches Darwin’s theories, then a student raises a hand and asks the question, “So, what did God have to do with it?” and the student is either laughed under the table or even answered with a simple, learned, authoritative, “Nothing, God had nothing to do with it,” then the state is essentially teaching atheism.

The fact is, how life began on Earth is a mystery to the Scientific community. Theories exist that describe amino acids combining into forms that replicate themselves, but in order for even a single celled organism to exist hundreds of proteins have to be built then combined into specific patterns. The odds of this occurring in nature is statistically impossible. Yet, here we are, so the atheist simply says… well, we are here, so whatever the odds, it happened.

There is an idea that if hundreds of monkeys were sat at typewriters and they banged away endlessly at the keys, eventually one would produce the entire works of Shakespear. That is a ridiculous idea. Ideas like that are statistically possible on paper, but would never actually happen even if we set the experiment into motion and funded it from here to eternity. Some monkeys would wander off. Some would stop typing altogether. Some would rise up against their handlers. Some would make a go of it, then run out of ink and smash their typewriters to bits. Some monkeys might even get a few lines here and there but then they’d lean on the spacebar for a while then concentrate their efforts on the number keys. Some monkey might even sit there typing like a good monkey its entire life but never even touch the letter H. And it’s more likely for a monkey to author an original masterpiece than for it to make a copy of an existing one. Or, can you imagine this? A scientist picks up a stack of papers only to discover a monkey has just finished typing the entire Lord of The Rings trilogy. But, upon closer examination, the poor chimp had goofed the ending writing that Sam and Frodo had turned into a beetles and destroyed Sauron by feeding him too many Skittles. But, it didn’t matter anyway, because the scientists weren’t after Tolkien, but Shakespear. 

That’s what Intelligent Design science thinks about life developing from non-life. Sludge can wash against sludge all day long from now until the end of time. The sun can dry the sludge. Lightning can strike it and the winds can blow upon it, but a flower will not grow where no seed has been planted. Life is infinitely complicated and only springs from other life. Everything witnessed in laboratories and in nature shows this to be true. The only things that goes against this idea are preexisting biases that rule out the possibility of a creator. Science has failed to show that life coming from non-life is even possible, much less probable. So, whether evolutionist, or creationist, or in the Intelligent Design camp, there’s plenty room for skepticism about the origin of life on this planet.

I also watched a Martin Scorsese documentary called Bob Dylan: No Direction Home. What a great movie. For a music lover, I’d call it a must see. I never really knew much about Dylan or his music. That guy could write. And his story was fascinating, how he became an icon and how huge portions of his fan base considered him a traitor when he began playing electric.

-Joseph Mazerac

10/22/2008

In the previous entry, “Gay Marriage Debate- Part 1″ I discussed my reluctance to accept legally recognized marriage as only between one man and one woman. In this continuation, I will share why I ultimately agreed to the following amendment:

Florida Marriage Protection Amendment

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minor.

O- Yes
O- No

Part of the problem with not accepting gay marriage is the arguments. Here are the two main arguments I hear against gay marriage:

1- If gay marriage is legalized there’ll be two gay dudes on every street corner French kissing.

2- If gay marriage is legalized the United States will suffer God’s wrathful whirlwind.

As a thinking Christian, I have issue with both of those arguments. Let’s start with the kissing issue. I have unmarried straight guy friends, and I don’t know a single one who’d ditch a girlfriend and start dating some hairy dude just because that relationship could end up with a marriage license. Might it embolden some homosexuals? Okay, but a straight couple frenching in public isn’t even socially acceptable. What makes someone think same-sex couples would be so brazen? Furthermore, making out isn’t illegal now. Girls can smooch other girls in public.. Madonna and Brittany kissed on national television and no one was arrested, because it’s not illegal.    

Now, the wrath of God issue. One can actually make a decent theological wrath of God argument about homosexuality. But, about gay marriage? The wrath of God argument is a sexual immorality argument and lends itself to all sexual immorality, not just homosexuality. It covers adultery, lust, uncommitted sexual relationships, rape, etc. With the exception of rape, the other sexual sins, including homosexuality, are all perfectly legal. Same-sex couples getting an arbitrary license from the state is of little or no consequence to the wrath of God. The deviant sexual lifestyles are the offences and those lifestyles are already legal.

Here is a much better argument.

To talk about this we have to understand that legally acknowledged marriage is a privilege, not a right. Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage recognized, so it becomes a state issue and states issue marriage licenses, much like they issue drivers licenses. Also we have to recognize the three parties typically involved; the church, the state, and the individuals.
Holy marriage, legal marriage, and individuals’ perceptions of marriage are all separate. The CHURCH should never have to recognize marriages that are not in accordance with its religious precepts. The STATE should not have to recognize marriages that are not in accordance with its laws. And, INDIVIDUALS should never be forced to marry by anything other than their own traditions.

The Church-The Holy institution of marriage is a right of the religious in accordance with their religious beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are, and regardless of the laws of the state.

The State- Sates recognize and issue licenses to only those couples that fit its parameters for the most stable, productive, and acceptable forms of marriage. This is done in accordance with the will of the people.

The Individual- Any and all consenting adults can marry whoever is willing in morally binding commitment to one another, regardless of the state, and regardless of the church. This is not to say that all commitments are moral, but that an oath is a morally binding thing. Commitment is a condition of the mind and heart. Neither legislation issued by a government, nor decree issued by a church can add to moral commitment or take such commitment away.

So we have the church, the state, and the individuals. Here are a few examples of these three entities at work.

-A couple could say to one another, “we are husband and wife,” and it would be so. Only, it would not be recognized by the state or the church. This freedom is how polygamist sects can exist. A man may marry ten adult consenting women in accordance with their traditions, but only one of the wives will be recognized by the state government, and usually none are recognized by the Christian Church.

-If the state recognized gay marriage it does not affect Holy marriage or an individual’s perception of marriage. A church cannot be obligated to perform the ceremonies and it goes far beyond that. A church does not have to marry anyone, regardless of the sexual orientation. They can even make a couple go through counseling to determine if the there is a firm enough foundation for marriage. In the same way, individuals cannot be forced to marry someone of the same sex regardless of the new law.

-A cult may decide they do not believe in marriage, or they believe in open marriages with many partners, or they only believe in same-sex marriage. They can do all those things, but none of it has to be recognized by the state and individuals are not legally obligated to abide by the cults rules.

-Individuals can decide for whatever reason, they don’t believe in marriage, or they believe in open marriages, or they only believe in same-sex marriage, or regular marriages. But again, the state is not obligated to acknowledge any of it and neither are individuals subject to some random person’s personal convictions.

A legally recognized marriage is certified with a nifty little piece of paper called a marriage license. Licenses are issued for privileges, not rights, like driving. When a person turns a certain age, and can prove the ability to safely operate a vehicle, that person is issued a license by the state. That state’s drivers license can be taken away for a number of reasons, including traffic violations,  moving to a different state, or if the person finds themselves with an new infirmary like blindness, that would inhibit their ability to drive.

States issue licenses for fishing, curtain types of guns, and many regulated trades like electricians. The license in question here is the marriage license. For whatever reason, it has been a legally accepted truth that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Already, most, if not all states have laws, not against certain other types of marriage, but rather, only recognizing one type as legally binding; that is the marriage of one man and one woman.

The Supreme Court has shown on many occasions that whatever personal relational covenants people of legal age and of sound mind make between one another are fine, and the state cannot interfere, even if it does not condone. So, the church can go on marrying straight people, cults can do their thing, and individuals can do whatever individuals do.

This is what moral people of many backgrounds want. Lots of activities are legal, yet not approved by the state, but since a license is in effect a stamp of approval, it is asked that the state licence only the most stable, productive, and accepted form of marriage, the traditional one woman one man arrangement. People can marry with their hearts and souls, but as far as the state is concerned it would only officially license the “regular” ones. Most Christians want the state to keep their noses and licenses out of all deviant forms.

In my view, the biggest mistake the homosexual community and its supporters make is pushing beyond civil liberty to normalization and moral equivalence of same-sex relationships. Pornography is legal and an epidemic sin problem within our culture far more rampant than homosexuality, yet pornography is not taught as a normal and okay. Another example, hate is legal, but even taught against in school. There are apparently already schools in this country that show cartoonish picture books with gay couples to little kids in the name of diversity education. The issue of whether homosexuals should legally be allowed to wed, and whether or not that lifestyle should be taught to our kids as normal and okay are two separate and very different issues. I can accept many things as legal that I do not accept as okay. A rather large portion of freedom is about going against the grain. Freedom isn’t a popularity contest.

Option C:

I wrote in part one that ultimately, I believe the best answer to the gay marriage question is c- none of the above. Another option might have been for the state to take a lesson from the Federal Government and not address marriage directly in any way.

Consider this scenario. What if, God forbid, my house burned to the ground and most of my personal documents were lost. Then, for whatever reason, years later I wanted to have a look at my Marriage License. At that point I discover the license was lost in the fire. So, I call up the State of California, where I was married, and somehow they had also lost all record of my marriage. Would that mean I was never married to my wife? According to the sate, YES! But, that is because the state is dumb. Of course my wife and I are married! We made vows before the Lord in the presence of many witnesses.  I know for a fact I am married because I was at the wedding! If I said to my wife, “Look honey, we’re not married after all. I think we should use this opportunity to start seeing other people,” I bet she would have a few things to say about that!

So, why do we need the state to issue “Marriage Licenses” at all? The picture of marriage most people have in their heads and the picture drawn by a “Marriage License” are two completely different things. People make vows to stay together for life in committed love for one another, but the Marriage License has precious little to do with that. A Marriage License is nothing more than a legal document that irons out state legal issues like spouse benefit rights on a healthcare plan and the division of property should the marriage not work out. The state could have a few standardized civil union contracts for couples to sign in conjunction with vows of commitment settling issues like child custody, health benefits, and hospital visitation rights. This type of arrangement might better address the inevitable legal issues caused by people who, for all practical legal purposes, live like they are married. That is all the law cares about anyway. Married or not, people live together, have kids, and share property. These arrangements have legal ramifications and that is what the state wants to work out by issuing Marriage Licenses.

Option C might be a more suitable approach than the state saying “this is marriage and this is not.”
-Joseph Mazerac

10-21-2008

I just sent in my absentee ballot for the 2008 elections. Of course I had the privilege of voting for President, but that isn’t what I want to write about today. The issue here is gay marriage. Florida is proposing a new article to the state constitution officially recognizing marriage as a union between one man and one woman only. To spoil all the suspense, I voted for marriage only being between man and woman, but I must say I did not come to that conclusion lightly. In part one I’ll explain my reluctance to agree to the amendment as follows:

Florida Marriage Protection AmendmentThis amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minor.

O- Yes

O- No

Let me start by saying my views on gay marriage are mixed. Ultimately, I believe the best answer to the gay marriage question is c- none of the above. (this position will be explained in the last paragraph of part two which explains why I voted to “protect marriage”) But, before we get there I’ll delve into why we should have a hard look at actually recognizing same-sex marriages as legally binding arrangements.Many people have a firm belief that the government should stay out of our personal lives. That is a very valid perspective. If a guy wants to go to Vegas and bet his life savings on a single spin of the roulette wheel, then he should be able to do that, regardless of how irresponsible it is. If a guy wants to drink all the time he can do that, but will suffer all the natural ramifications of that kind of behavior. If two guys want to have sex, they are well within their rights to do so, but will suffer spiritual separation from the Lord and some limitations in their interactions with people who do not agree with that lifestyle.There’s a movie coming out called Breakfast With Scott. In this movie two gay men adopt a little boy. They let him put on makeup and a frilly scarf and run around town and go to school like that. The kid’s sexual identity is utterly in ruins. This looks like one of the most upsetting movies possible to any religious person who cares about sexual ethics. If gay couples are aloud to legally marry, it will open doors for same-sex couples to do stuff like that. But here’s the thing, shouldn’t Christians be the ones adopting abandoned and orphaned children? Why are we not doing that?Christ has some very tough teaching and often, his teachings are completely contrary to our way of thinking. What might He think about some issues we face today. Let’s look at torture. McCain and Obama both claim to be against all torture. I have to say, at first I thought that was naive to the point of recklessness. If you’ve ever watched 24 you’ve seen Jack Bauer torture people to save the day over and over again. But, what would our Lord say about it. I’m pretty sure He’d say to let evil be done by evil people, and we should do what is right, come what may.Ted Dekker wrote a trilogy of books, Red, Black, and White. In these books was a theme of romancing the Lord. Basically, the idea is to follow the Lord with reckless abandon, obeying Him, trusting Him to work things out for good. Christ said to offer the other cheek if slapped. He practiced that teaching at the expense of his own life. He said that if someone wants to take something from you, you should give it freely and then some. This stuff doesn’t add up in our own way of thinking, but God does not think like we do. These teachings can only be followed out of deep heartsick love for the Father.

10/17/2008

Robert Luedke of Head Press was kind enough to link our website to his and we are returning the favor. Head Press publishes a Christian graphic novel/comic book series called Eye Witness. To visit his site go to www.headpress.info.

Several new stores in the Columbus, Georgia area are carrying our books, Judy Bug, Sanctuary, and The Book Exchange. If you are affiliated with a book store or gift shop and would like to carry our books, please send an email to granny@oldtimestories.com. Books can also be purchased through our distributors, STL and Ingram.

Also, we need customers to ask their local book stores to stock our books! Ask them to carry ANDY, Book 1 and 2 published by Old Time Stories. The ISBNs are as follows; 9780979277009 for Book 1, 9780979277023 for Book 2, and 9780979277016 for the Teacher’s Guide.

THANKS!

-Joseph Mazerac

PS- Thank you to those who posted reviews on Amazon.com

9-29-2008

I’m trying to wrap my head around this 700 billion dollar bail out. I’ll tell you what I think of it. If you have a different view, please show me my error.

In my estimation, the Fed wants to print $700,000,000,000.00 of counterfeit money, circulate it, which will devalue our currency, and for this privilege, we pay interest on money they create out of thin air.

This is wrong on so many levels.

If the government spends money we pay for it. Period. In my view. devaluing the dollar has the exact same practical effect to consumers as raising taxes. It’s just a lot more difficult to figure out where all your hard earned money is going. If what use to cost $3.00, let’s say a gallon of milk, now cost $4.00, how is that better than the milk staying at $3.00 and having a 33%  tax attached to it? This problem shows itself the most when trying to buy commodities on the world market, like oil. There are supply and demand issues effecting the price of oil, and no doubt, some people are getting very rich off $100 dollar barrels of oil, but even if the demand had not gone up and neither had the per/barrel cost, it would still cost more because the dollar is worth less.

Under G. W. Bush our National Debt has ballooned from just over 6 trillion dollars to nearly 10 trillion. Every man woman and child in the USA would have to pay $32,136.45 to pay our current debt. (This figure derived from the National Debt Clock at www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) That’s $128,545.80 for my humble family of four alone. Under Bush the per/person National debt has climbed over $11,000.00. Be clear about this. The Federal government has spent eleven thousand dollars per person more than it collected in tax revenue since 2000. For my family alone it has spent $44,000.00 more than my wife and I paid in taxes. So, in effect, if it had not done that, I would not have made any extra money, but the money I did make would have $44,000.00 more buying power. ( I realize this effect does not happen over night, but takes time to trickle down to consumers.)

How is it possible the government spent that much money? Even with a war going on virtually all of Bush’s presidency, how is that possible? Only a third of our new deficit can be blamed on the war. We borrowed every dime used to fund the war. But, the borrowing did not stop there. Twice the cost of our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan was spent on other things… just in deficit spending. So the government borrows $10 billion/month to fight the war plus another $20 billion/ month to do what exactly?

I have heard debate on the $700 billion dollar bail out. Some people like it, some don’t, some think it needs more oversight, but even its proponents are not even considering actually raising the money to pay for it. That would be ridiculous. Who could afford it? What politician would stand a chance at reelection if he actually proposed funding out of control spending? And who needs to raise taxes or cut wasteful programs when the Fed can simply print money for free?

These actions are tantamount to counterfeiting.

I am not an economist. Will the US slip into catastrophe if we don’t fork over the money for the bail out? I don’t know. I am not here to debate the bail out. We may need the bail out, but if we do it, we are going to pay for it. That is fact. That is what we need to understand. We are already paying for our deficit. That is fact. The spending in Washington is utterly our of control. That is fact.

People have the idea that the National Debt can increase indefinitely. That is fiction. The economy is complicated, but it’s not rocket science. When it becomes clear that a person can no longer pay his dept, his personal financial situation collapses in on itself. Same thing with a family. Same thing with small business. Same with billion dollar companies. Same with a government.

So, what’s the solution? First, the people have to wake up. Deficit spending is the same as rasing taxes. I politician who proclaims “No new taxes!” then spends as if he had raised taxes, is no better than a liar. New taxes means less money. New deficit means less value. It’s the same thing.

Please do not think I’m suggesting that democrats would have done any better. Washington’s spending spree has come from both sides of the isle. It has just been particularly grievous under Bush. And, I’m not saying we would have been any better off with Gore in 2000 or Kerry in ‘04. I am only trying to sound the alarm. Our financial house is not in order!

So geniuses, am I right or wrong?

-Joseph Mazerac

09/22/2008

FYI: Just to let everybody know, the ANDY, Book 1: Teacher’s Guide is now available for free download. Click HERE to visit the OTS Download Center.

This book was put together by a very talented Curriculum Designer, Amy Thoman, and we are extremely proud of it. The book contains six lesson plans that follow along with ANDY, Book 1. Also, there is a bonus materials section including, The Viking, Ninja, Super Hero, or Biblical Character Game, maps, fun Biblical facts, and more. If you would like to use ANDY as a fun way to help kids learn about the Lord, then the Teacher’s Guide is a must have. Also, if you would like a hard copy, they are for sale in our STORE along with bulk rate ANDY books.

-Joseph Mazerac

9-11-2008

Where were you when the world stopped turning? Allen Jackson asked that question in a song he sang at the American Music Awards in 2001. Where were you?

I was driving to work. I’d been listening to a morning comedy show on the radio when the news broke. At first the announcement seemed like one of their skits had come on and didn’t sync up right. There was no, “BEEP-BEEP-BEEP we interrupt this broadcast…” It just cut in.

Remember how it happened? It happened slowly. It escalated. A plane crashed into a World Trade Center building. That’s terrible, but at first it was just one plane crash. A really bad plane crash, but still, at that point, it was a Tuesday. It was 9-11, but it was not yet the 9-11: the day that changed the world. We had a TV in the break room at work and one of my coworkers came out saying the other tower had been hit. The guy telling us this was a well known screw up, so I dismissed his news as a mistake. Of course it wasn’t a mistake. It was real and happening. We, The United States, were being attacked.

Then the two other planes went down. Then the first tower fell. For me, that was the most incomprehensible part. Did you ever see those towers? They were huge. If you stood on the street and looked up at them you got dizzy. They were too big to fully understand. Kind of like the number One Trillion. Can anybody really understand that number? Or a light year. Who can fathom a distance so great? Our minds have no adequate reference by which to measure such enormities. The Twin Towers were to that scale. The only thing I had ever seen so flat and so big was… the ground. How can something like that stretch into the sky? Sure. It’s a bunch of steal, glass, and concrete with a foundation deep in the ground, but try to tell that to your equilibrium. If you saw them from a distance or in a picture the effect wasn’t the same.

I can’t imagine being there when they fell. Living there. These things that had been in the back ground… forever… were gone. That would be like living somewhere with a view of a mountain range. Then one day you walk out your front door and it’s all gone.

I went to the library yesterday. When it came time for me to leave, I saw that our local news channel had set up a camera in the parking lot. They were asking people to express their memories of 9-11. How things had changed. How the day made them feel. A weird cameraman with a ponytail interviewed me. Audio/Video guys are a strange lot. I’m okay with strange. I embrace strangeness. I’m pretty odd at times. Anyway, among other things, he wanted to know how I felt about the country. I love this country. We’ve got problems. Lots of problems, but this nation still has a heart for God. This nation has a heart for lots of things, including lots of bad things, but it still has a heart for God.

They say we believers should pray for our country, the world, and our leaders. We should do that. Of course we should, but I often have problems praying prayers like that. How should I pray for our country? Should I pray that we all turn to Jesus? Should I pray that our leadership will seek first the Kingdom of God? Should I pray for peace on Earth and good will toward men?

Our country is utterly divided. We don’t agree on anything. We don’t agree on the war. We don’t agree on taxes. We don’t agree on God. We don’t even agree on Capitalism. Recently I began praying a new prayer for our country. My prayer is that in The United States there will always be a heart for God, and that in this nation there will always be a safe refuge for those who call upon the name of our Lord. That is a prayer I can believe in.

-Joseph Mazerac

09/04/2008

I got a call last week that my uncle Jerry, who has cancer, was dying and only had a few days to live. I haven’t seen my uncle in many years but as a kid he was always one of my favorite relatives. This guy told the funniest stories. He was big into auctions and peddling what he called “junk.” I guess he has some kind of store now, but I don’t know much about that.

This news caught me off guard and I was quite shaken by it. My Grandma is having health problems and I could hardly imagine what she might have felt, hearing she was losing her son to cancer. I wanted to see my uncle again before he passed, so the family and I packed up the Jeep and drove down to Florida.

The next day we got a report that, most likely, he wasn’t dying after all, but the reason his kidneys were shutting down was a reaction to medication. Previously the doctor suspected his cancer had spread to his kidneys. When my wife and I saw Jerry he looked good, thin, but he was in high spirits and still he could make me laugh.

The night before we got there he had taken some sleep medication that was making him hallucinate. His wife sat there talking to him as all this was going on. Jerry said the stand that held his drip bag was a tree. He told his wife they were going to overhaul the store and sell nothing but “cow feed and chicken sh**.”

He told us that a few months back he had passed out, they loaded him in an ambulance, and took him to the hospital. When he woke up it was night and he didn’t know where he was, but he had to go to the bathroom. So, he got up, took care of business, then went back to bed. When he woke up again a nurse was standing over him yelling. He was lying in a pool of blood and fluids. Apparently he had unknowingly ripped the IV out of his arm when he got up to go to the bathroom. He also complained that a nurse woke him up in the middle of the night to give him another sleeping pill. Why do hospitals do stuff like that?

The good news is that Uncle Jerry is okay… well, he still has cancer, but they’re fighting it. And, it was good seeing him again after all these years, even if it wasn’t under the best circumstances.

If you’re a believer, please take a moment to pray for my uncle’s continuing recovery.

-Joseph Mazerac

08/15/2008

We have been having problems with our shipping calculator, but the problem has been fixed! Sorry for the inconvenience. If you ever notice a problem with the website please send an email to: granny@oldtimestories.com. We always appreciate constructive criticism… well, most of the time

 -Joseph Mazerac

08/05/2008

I was able to get together with Kevin Kirby, the co-author of ANDY, Book 2 and we signed about twenty Special Edition Book 2’s. I signed all of the Special Editions, but only these few are also signed by Kevin, so if you want one, it’s first come first service. The Special Edition only cost $8.50, a dollar more than the retail edition. If you want one click HERE.

-Joseph Mazerac