Some time back, I read an ad for a web site called www.slacker.com. It seems you can go there, tell it artists you like, and listen to them all the time. What a concept!
I have been using this for awhile now. My computer speakers are not exactly hi-end, but they sound good enough. I have multiple Slacker stations - including one country, one soft rock, one classic rock, one r&b, one with a bit of everything, and several others. And, it is all free.! Of course there are upgrades you can buy, but even at the free level, it is great. This gives me enough exposure to the music I like, that I do not have to buy anything else!
It has also allowed me to find out there is music out there that I like and others that I don't that I would not have been able to know about before. I have found out that I like Gov't Mule, The Derek Trucks Band, Ray Wiley Hubbard, and others. I don't much care for Warren Zevon (I figure actually being able to sing would be a plus!)
I wish I could have a little bit more control. I wish I could list Chicago and only get stuff from the sixties and seventies, and leave all that eighties garbagio alone. I have listed Fleetwood Mac, and as you might expect, I get a great deal more of the Buckingham/Nicks era Mac than I do the Peter Green (which I love) or Bob Welch eras. On the plus side, when I put in Skynyrd, I get mostly the old original and not the current stuff. Another plus is that with the Allman's I get mostly pre 1975 and post 1990, and not much of the stuff in between. So, all in all it is a mixed bag but did I mention it is free? I guess if I got off the wallet I might be able to control it a little more, but for free it is great!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Further Thoughts on the Upcoming Election
The closer we get to the election, the more uncertain I become of which way to go.
In brief, here is my delimma:
I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.
I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.
I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.
On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.
The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?
Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:
1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.
2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.
3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.
4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!
These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)
However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.
1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?
2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'
All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.
Any help would be appreciated!
In brief, here is my delimma:
I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.
I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.
I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.
On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.
The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?
Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:
1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.
2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.
3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.
4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!
These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)
However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.
1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?
2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'
All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.
Any help would be appreciated!
Is God Pleased With Our Works?
This thought hit me as we began worship this past week: "Surely God is pleased with the praises of His people."
Now, His people are sinners, and in one sense can bring nothing to Him that could or would please Him. We are in rebellion against Him, and only by His grace can we even come into His presence. Yet, we come into His presence, and He condescends to us and is actually pleased with the worship we bring Him. That is actually a good example of His grace - that he not only accepts, but delights in our praise.
I do not think very many Christians, even specifically Christians in the Reformed branch(es) of the church, would deny that sentiment - that God delights in the praises of His people. Yet, the Reformed are quick to question any idea that God could be in anyway pleased, or even delight in, the works of His people. Any time people start talking about our works, Reformed people get very uncomfortable. We are only acceptable to God because of Christ's works, and our works are, it would appear, meaningless.
It is absolutely true that without the work of Christ, we could not approach The Father. However, the work of Christ actually makes our works acceptable. Worship itself is actually a work, as should be obvious. Even the word liturgy has a meaning associated with our work. In worship we do things (which is work) We pray, sing, kneel, stand, talk, listen, eat, AND bring our other works to the Father in the form of our offerings. What are our offerings, but the results of our works?
The Father delights in all of this when it is done in the name of the Son and through the Spirit. The Triune God delights in our worship - which is but one aspect of our works. It is therefore not at all wrong to think that God could be pleased with our works - when performed in the same manner on a regular basis as our 'special' work on each Lord's Day.
Now, His people are sinners, and in one sense can bring nothing to Him that could or would please Him. We are in rebellion against Him, and only by His grace can we even come into His presence. Yet, we come into His presence, and He condescends to us and is actually pleased with the worship we bring Him. That is actually a good example of His grace - that he not only accepts, but delights in our praise.
I do not think very many Christians, even specifically Christians in the Reformed branch(es) of the church, would deny that sentiment - that God delights in the praises of His people. Yet, the Reformed are quick to question any idea that God could be in anyway pleased, or even delight in, the works of His people. Any time people start talking about our works, Reformed people get very uncomfortable. We are only acceptable to God because of Christ's works, and our works are, it would appear, meaningless.
It is absolutely true that without the work of Christ, we could not approach The Father. However, the work of Christ actually makes our works acceptable. Worship itself is actually a work, as should be obvious. Even the word liturgy has a meaning associated with our work. In worship we do things (which is work) We pray, sing, kneel, stand, talk, listen, eat, AND bring our other works to the Father in the form of our offerings. What are our offerings, but the results of our works?
The Father delights in all of this when it is done in the name of the Son and through the Spirit. The Triune God delights in our worship - which is but one aspect of our works. It is therefore not at all wrong to think that God could be pleased with our works - when performed in the same manner on a regular basis as our 'special' work on each Lord's Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
