What a great way to celebrate reconstruction after Katrina. NOT.
My mother and I were talking about how sorry it is that people are commencing a new beginning after Katrina with a Mardi Gras celebration, a celebration that condones all sorts of vices (provoking of the flesh, debauchery, lust, etc.). What a great way to start off a new society. Yeah, right.
I know that people sanction their partaking of immorality in Mardi Gras as "culture" or "support," or what not, but we know better. I know that when girls are flashing the breasts everywhere, "culture" is the last thing on their minds. Wake up!
Instead of falling on your knees to The Creator, asking for guidance, and turning away from all things vile...where's the first place we turn? God? Who's that?
So discouraging.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Mardi_Gras.html
Jacobellis, you douche bag!
I couldn't believe my eyes when it happened. My eyes were glued to the television every mili-second of that race, only to be so dissapointed in the end. I saw every snowboardcross race, for men's and women's, but this was by far the closest.
The ladies were so tightly packed for 60% of the race, that it was only a matter of time that someone was going to slip. And it so happened that in one little hump, three of them were totally wiped out. Jacobellis took the lead. Of course she had to get all fat-headed and do a little trick on the last hump in an attempt to pull a "Wescott." This must of been the biggest day of regret for her. She could of had gold.
She can claim all she wants to how silver is still good, and how she is still glad, and how she is still proud, but we all know the truth. I've had silver before, I know. It's not the same. You feel as though you lost, because you were so close.
But, you know, she learned a lesson. Boasting, rubbing it in, "getting caught in the moment," (or whatever you want to call it, just isn't worth it. Jacobellis forgets the gold medal that she would have won wasn't just for her...it belonged to her parents, to her upbringing, to her coaches, to her role-models, etc. She owed them that. She made the biggest mistake of her life losing focus of that and letting her pride get the best of her. Her parents and role-models most likely did not teach her to do what she did, but it reflects on them whether she likes it or not.
I feel so sorry for her. I know, as she probably well knows, that the other contenders do not compare to her technically. Her technique, strategy, and form exceeded Tanja Frieden, the gold medalist, clearly. Once again God bestows His sense of humor on mankind.
Well, that's all I have to say about that.
On Homosexuality: I feel strongly about this.
The Bible doesn’t have a lot to say about homosexuality: there are approximately half a dozen references to it in all of scripture. Although the passages aren’t always black and white, the bible does explicitly establish that homosexuality is a symptom of man’s fall (just like lying or stealing). Tragically, the church has a horrible reputation for ranking homosexuality the worse of all sins and publicly condemning the gay-Christian lifestyle. Although what Christians have to say about homosexuality isn’t necessarily wrong, self-righteous judgment on homosexuality is just as culpable as the homosexual act itself. Somewhere along the line, the traditional idea of “loving the sinner, but hating the sin,” has faded away.
Before getting into heated debates about homosexuality, one should consider that we are all under God’s judgment. Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” There is not one without blame, except Christ. Romans 2:1 says, “What terrible people you have been talking about! But you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you do these very same things (this is to reaffirm that all sins are equal in the eyes of God; He does not have a sin ranking system). This should help us calm our indignation against homosexuals, for we are all in need of God’s mercy.
The most prominent passage utilized in Christian-radicalism against homosexuality is found in Leviticus 18:22; which says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Also, chapter 20 of Leviticus lists homosexuality as a sexual offense such as adultery, fornication, and bestiality. It is not uncommon to see protesters parading around churches and court houses holding up signs with these exact verses written on them. However, the verses protesters use from this chapter—practically the whole book—refers to purity laws of the Old Testament. The argument of Christian ethics in this case is irrelevant: Leviticus is not even appealing to moral law, but to purity laws (i.e. circumcision and diet). The only time there is an explicit theological argument against homosexuality isn’t until later in the New Testament. Only with passages from the New Testament will there be a way of reaching reconciliation between homosexuals and their persecutors (Christians and non-Christian alike).
The fundamental sin—evident since the creation story of Adam and Eve—is following our own desires and refusing to obey (being our own God). This is the only reason why Paul sets aside homosexuality from other sins. He does not set it apart to make it especially immoral, but to serve as a graphical representation of human nature’s rebellion against God’s original design. In Genesis, God’s intention for human sexuality is established: Man and woman are created in the image of God. Man without woman or woman without man does not complete the image of God. They were made for each other, to be fruitful and multiply. And sexual desires are rightly fulfilled through the union between a man and a woman.
When one engages in homosexual activity, it represents a very visible rejection of the Creator’s purpose for his creation. Romans 1:18-32 is a summary of what occurs when one negates God’s purpose:
“Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead. So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired….God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationship with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved”.With all actions comes retribution; therefore, consequences are not a deliberate act of God trying make our lives as miserable as possible. Instead, consequences arise simply from the self-destructive course of human nature. Lying and greediness are also indicative of mankind’s rejection of God’s authority that yields a vast array of consequences. The goal is to learn from mistakes, try again and make a change for the better.
This is the problem with Gay subculture: they use their sexual preference to identify and isolate themselves from God. They claim their genetic disposition defines them as homosexual, and they cannot change that. On a secular point of view, geneticists argue that having a genetic predisposition does not determine or define the person, because environment weighs much more on the outcome. On a religious point of view, according to the Bible, the only one that can identify a person is God himself (not ourselves), “For I know the plans that I have for you. Plans to prosper you, not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” Some have genetic dispositions to obesity, alcoholism, and drug addiction; yet, not everyone is obese, an alcoholic, or drug addict that was genetically inclined. At the same time, not everyone inclined to homosexuality is or has overcome those tendencies. Doctors will argue that it is not the body’s goal to have these ailments (obesity, alcoholism, and drug addiction), just as God will argue that homosexuality is not the purpose for His creation.
According to the Bible, human kind—to those that have put their faith in Christ—is in a constant struggle against their nature to be transformed to the likeness of Christ. However, full redemption is not acquired until Christ’s return in the following kingdom: “And I am sure that God, who began the good work within you, will continue his work until it is finally finished on that day when Christ Jesus comes back again.” This means, that Christians must continue struggling to live faithfully in the present time. The advantage lies with those that can openly struggle with their sin (praying, supporting each other, accountability groups), which is very easy to accomplish in a church family. Unfortunately, homosexuals don’t have as many opportunities to openly struggle with their sin. Gay-Christians should be welcomed, because they are foremost Christian, struggling like any other to remain faithful to the likeness of Christ.
My Brother the Critic
I asked my brother to critique one of my essays the other day for school and I thought what he wrote was a little harsh...but also a little funny. He used track changes allowing him type directly on my paper. I didn't copy and paste all the comments he made, because they were ten times more harsh, but have decided to let you in on his ending comments. This is literally what he wrote, copied and pasted:
Good story but it has nothing to do with the prompt. You did not display how you changing anything makes you a better person. You do hint at it though but never say it. You certainly never say why this experience is also going to enrich your life in college. You need to phrase your sentences where you don’t need to use so many commas. What that shows is that you can not decide on what to say which in turn shows that you are either indecisive or scatter brained….you choose your favorite. Lists are ok, but not when you have one every other sentence. It’s, how do you say, annoying. It needs a lot of work.
Nooooooooooo moooooooooooooore
Cooooooommmmmmmmaaaaaaaassssss
Nooooooooo moooooooorrrrrreeeee
llllllliiiiiiiissssssssttttttttssssss.And if you forget everything I tell you, when you are writing, remember me in the back of your conscience telling your to cut the crap. ok. Just cut it!!!!!! You have a lot of caca in there that no one cares about.
Church Politics
Should Church Membership be automatic upon baptism?
I didn't know this (well, sort of, but I've never really thought about it), but most Baptist churches' grant membership automatically after baptism. Honestly, I don't really see a problem if a person is baptized by a x-church, and yet doesn't want to become a member of x-church; however, after reading the scriptures, praying about it, talking to my parents, and advisment from two Ministers, Dr. Rady Figueroa-Roldan and Mary Cantu, my convictions say otherwise.
My Pastor, Nestor Menjivar, is motioning to change the section of our constitution regarding church membership. Traditionally, our church has membership of four ways: through testimony, letter, transfer, and baptism. He believes that we should take a more "contemporary" approach to membership and exclude automatic membership upon baptism, and giving another option (requiring a series of biblical classes or instruction). It's not Biblical, but it's not really anti-biblical either.
My father is a deacon at Principe de Paz. He disagress with Hermano Menjivar, but since the majority of the deacons were in accord with the Pastor's motion, he had to fold and side with the majority. He is a little broken over it, but his duty first and foremost is to uphold harmony, so he really doesn't have much of a choice. Now the approval has already passed with the leaders of the church, and will be brought to the church members in a couple of weeks.
This is my argument. If a person has been ministered by x-church, so as to change their lives completely and accept christ, AND desire to get baptized by x-church...then why wouldn't they want to become a member? Plus, other problems, and possibly division, will arise when these new believers that are baptized are going to want to take part in church duties, responsibilities, leadership, voting, etc., but can't because they are not "official" members (for whatever reason, they chose to wait, weren't ready, or in this case haven't taken an instructional class).
I've read all the references to baptism in the NT, and of course, there is no reference to church membership being linked in any way (obviously, because in biblical times, believers gathered in what we say in spanish
celulas). So I must look past the words, and discern the principle behind the message. I find soley, through Christ's own example, Christ's own baptism, not only what baptism means (step of obedience), but also that it signifies the beginning of ministry.
Based on Matthew Chapter 3 (the whole chapter), I find that Christ's ministry begins directly after His baptism; therefore, what ministry can a believer have if he is not commited to his church? Christ, as soon as He was baptized, commited to the church in ministry. He was aware of His mission at 12, and began carrying out in His thirties, directly after baptism. Baptism is a step of obedience, but it's also a very public way of saying "I'm a Christian now and I'm a part of the body of Christ."
Our present churches
represent the body of Christ, a community of believers here on earth. We represent a church that suffers with eachother, prays for eachother, rejoices with eachother, etc. (Romans 12:1-21). How can you possibly take part, for the edification of the church, if you are not commited to it? Being baptized by x-church tells me that you agree with the doctrine of x-church, are in accord with the Word, and are ready to commit...so why the second thoughts?
I don't know. I love Hermano Menjivar, and I will always have great respect for him. I've know him for so long, I love his family and am very close to them, he started off as my youth minister way back, and now he is my Pastor. He's always backed me up with school, has always had a good relationship with my family since we started
la nueva obra, and completely sincere.
He's definitely not wrong. His intentions are good. And I believe he's just willing to change, from a stauch traditional mindset, if it means growth for the church, and that's why he has decided to make a little bit of ammendments to the constitution...However, changing
that part of the constitution might possibly leave more room for division in the church.
Let me know what you think? What are your convictions?
Awwwwe, The Month of The Sweethearts...
Well, I don't have a sweetheart for this year. I'm not exactly sad about that, and I'm not exactly happy about it either. I just find myself reminiscing, a little more that usual, about the sweethearts I have had. And truth be told, there's really only one of significance. He was my first kiss. It didn't happen on Valentines or anything like that...and it wasn't all that memorable. My first kiss just really wasn't all what people hype it up to be.
That being said, I do have to say that my second kiss
completely redeemed the first one. Yes, it did! I'm
definitely partial to the second kiss. It's actually a sweet little story, which is why I've decided to let you in on it.
I "surprise" visited my ex-sweetheart that day at a dialysis treatment center. I really felt for him, because he had just been diagnosed with kidney failure. Apparently he only had 40% (or around that) of his kidney functioning. I stayed with him for the duration of his treatment. I don't remember what all we did...I just remember that we had fun together (well, as much fun as you can have being tied down by three prongs in your veins). We just talked and laughed and joked and talked some more about politics (we loved talking about politics). Anyways, after his treatment was done, we went to a family dinner at my uncle's house that I had invited him to.
It was dark, semi-chilly, crescent moon out, lots of stars, huge stars, holding hands...definitely magical. I was walking a little ahead of him, and we were almost at the front door when he gripped my hand a little tighter and swung me around (like in the movies guys, no joke). And well, you know what happened next.
The funny thing is that my uncle Merced's house has light sensors all around, and when we kissed...all the lights went on. My ex-sweetheart freaked out and almost pushed me to the other side of the yard. lol. To this day, I wonder why the lights didn't turn on while we were walking up the driveway, but only when we kissed? Maybe someone was watching?...I'll just never know. Or maybe we were totally mackin' it out, and didn't realize the
mackinating power of our
mackquaciously sweet lips inter
macketing. Yup,
definitely partial to the second one. Unforgettable.
Our fault or God's intervention?
Dude, It kind of sucks, because everything is going backwards for my family at this particular time. I think it's due to a series of unwise, or impulsive, decisions that we've all made. Maybe...I don't know. A lot of the times we tend to use "God's will" too liberally. I mean, in the sense that we make decisions, and back it up by saying we "felt" it was God's will. Later we complain, "Why does God allow this? Why is this happening?" and forget sometimes that God really doesn't have anything to do with it. It's your own friggin' fault...your having to deal with the retribution of YOUR friggin decisions.
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but sometimes I feel that my parents are extreme drama queens when it comes to things about God..."Oh, what is God trying to teach me and Oh, why is God allowing this to happen and Oh, I feel the like the enemy is attacking?" or something to that effect.
Now, God is real to me. As a matter of fact, I know He exists. And God is more to me than a higher power looking at his creation beat each other up from afar. But that is not what I am arguing about. My argument is that if there are struggles, or any challenges, or atrocities that come are way, they are products of our own actions or just the bizzareness of this world. To me, it's not necessarily a lesson God is purposely trying to teach us, but more like it just happened...and God is going to use if for the better, I mean, why not? There's no reason to be worried up about what God is trying to tell us, if really His intentions are just to help us get through it.
I don't know, am I right? Maybe I don't take God seriously enough. Maybe I'm right, and I take God in the right amount of seriousness. Hmmm? What do you think?
