Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Another interesting statistic
Recent studies have shown that all lawyers are not bad. It seems that 99% of them give the rest of them a bad name!
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Update on Iron Bowl prediction
10/1/07
Okay - still a lot of football to play and who knows how it will go. However, I must say, that no matter how the rest of the season goes and who wins what and who loses what, the Iron Bowl prediction does not look nearly as crazy as it did two weeks ago. Then, Auburn was 1-2 and UAT was 3-0. Now, they are both 3-2. Auburn's close win over KState looks pretty good given that KState just demolished Texas. Auburn's close loss in OT to SFlorida is not so embarrasing given that SFlorida is now solidly in the top 10 and just this pass week defeated a very good WViginia team. AU still lost to MSU which is NEVER a good thing, but, it does appear that MSU is not really a terrible football team.
Now, Auburn just beat UF for the second straight year. UF is 17-2 for the past two years, both loses coming to AU. Moreover, they beat them at the Swamp where they are nearly invincible.
Now, Coach Tub has a history of no matter how bad AU is, at least once per year, sometimes twice, they play lights out and win a game they should not even be competitive in. He also has a history of no matter how good AU is, at least once per year, sometimes more, AU loses a game that they should have won handily (other than '04!). AT this point right now, I do not know if the UF game falls into the former category, or if the MSU game falls into the latter. The next three weeks should tell us a lot. Vandy, Arkansas, and LSU. At this point, one would think AU should beat Vandy, the Ark game may be too close to call, and one would realistically think beating LSU at Death Valley would be almost out of the question. However, theoratically any and all of these three games could go either way and the way they go will tell us a lot about what kind of team this is.
Finally, though, I really think the next couple of years are very bright for AU. They are currently starting 3 true freshmen on the O-line. They are getting some experience for their versatile Freshman QB. They have several young RBs and Lester is coming back now and should be back next year.
But, in the end, we will only see on the field. That's why they play them!
Okay - still a lot of football to play and who knows how it will go. However, I must say, that no matter how the rest of the season goes and who wins what and who loses what, the Iron Bowl prediction does not look nearly as crazy as it did two weeks ago. Then, Auburn was 1-2 and UAT was 3-0. Now, they are both 3-2. Auburn's close win over KState looks pretty good given that KState just demolished Texas. Auburn's close loss in OT to SFlorida is not so embarrasing given that SFlorida is now solidly in the top 10 and just this pass week defeated a very good WViginia team. AU still lost to MSU which is NEVER a good thing, but, it does appear that MSU is not really a terrible football team.
Now, Auburn just beat UF for the second straight year. UF is 17-2 for the past two years, both loses coming to AU. Moreover, they beat them at the Swamp where they are nearly invincible.
Now, Coach Tub has a history of no matter how bad AU is, at least once per year, sometimes twice, they play lights out and win a game they should not even be competitive in. He also has a history of no matter how good AU is, at least once per year, sometimes more, AU loses a game that they should have won handily (other than '04!). AT this point right now, I do not know if the UF game falls into the former category, or if the MSU game falls into the latter. The next three weeks should tell us a lot. Vandy, Arkansas, and LSU. At this point, one would think AU should beat Vandy, the Ark game may be too close to call, and one would realistically think beating LSU at Death Valley would be almost out of the question. However, theoratically any and all of these three games could go either way and the way they go will tell us a lot about what kind of team this is.
Finally, though, I really think the next couple of years are very bright for AU. They are currently starting 3 true freshmen on the O-line. They are getting some experience for their versatile Freshman QB. They have several young RBs and Lester is coming back now and should be back next year.
But, in the end, we will only see on the field. That's why they play them!
Monday, September 17, 2007
Early Iron Bowl Prediction
Things appear bleak on the Plains. UAT has hired a coach who can walk on water and they will likely never lose a game while he is there. Auburn has started the season 1-2 and has looked like a cellar dweller in the SEC West. Heavens to Betsy they even lost to Mississippi State – who in the world does that? Therefore, it will appear shocking to some that I, the Groaning Philosopher, will make such a bold prediction right here on September 17, 2007:
Auburn will beat Alabama this year.
It is evident that somewhere in the past couple of years Auburn has had sub par recruiting classes. It is also evident that, although he was Mr. Football for the State of Alabama about fourteen years ago, Brandon Cox is not really a Division One level college football quarterback. Auburn also lost four of its five starters on the offensive line. It is also evident that Auburn had a fine recruiting class this most recent year. The result of all of this is that Auburn is playing a lot of Freshmen and other inexperienced players, including, finally, Kody Burns at QB.
As bad as Auburn has looked, they are, seriously, a couple of plays away from being undefeated. Now, I know that things like that are said by losers. Fact is, Auburn IS 1-2 and not 3-0. I am not making excuses here, just observations. I also know that, with the schedule so far, a 3-0 season with three close wins would not be all that impressive. But, at least consider: On one of Brandon’s rare good throws against USF he hit a wide open receiver in the hands on a deep route and it was dropped. Later, during overtime, he hit a tight end on a drag route and it was dropped. This likely would have been a score had it been caught.
The difference in the MSU game was less than a TD. MSU scored a TD off of an interception where Cox hit number eighty seven right between the eight and the seven. He popped the ball up, though, right into the hands of an oncoming defender who could have walked backwards into the end zone from there.
AU has had tremendous trouble with turnovers. In addition to receiver problems, Cox has thrown the ball more directly at defenders than he has his teammates. AU has fumbled several times, most notably Freshman running back Mario Fannin.
These are all terrible mistakes, but, I believe there will be tremendous improvement by the end of the year. I believe the receivers will be taught to catch the ball or sit down. I believe Fannin will be taught to hold onto the ball. Unfortuantely, I think Cox is beyond help, but I believe they will begin using him more wisely, and more and more using Burns in varying situations. By the end of the year, I think our offense will have, to a large degree, turned it around. I don’t think we’ll be world beaters, but I think there will be tremendous improvement. This improvement will, of course, take a lot off of our overworked defense as well.
Now, I know what you’re thinking – you don’t have to say it. This is just an Auburn fan making excuses and dreaming of a miracle turn around. Or perhaps you think I have drank the Tuberville Kool Aid. Actually, I am not like that at all. Back in 2003 I personally felt that the AU administration was smart to be looking at firing him and hiring someone else. I thought they were idiots in the way they handled it, but I personally was not sold on him entirely, and really I still am not. He had done a lousy job in '03 and deserved to have his seat feel uncomfortably warm.
Also, usually no matter what the records of AU/UAT are when they meet, I always have a bad feeling about that game. I have never at any time during the season over the past twenty five years made a prediction about the outcome of that game. Even when AU appeared to be great and UAT subpar, I have never assumed AU would win. It’s just that, for some reason, as bad as AU has looked thus far, I just don’t get the feeling that it is quite as bad as it looks. I think there is actually more promise for the future than one might think. I think we are a little coaching here and there away from being decent. I think that Burns is a little experience away from being a powerful tool on offense. I think Cox in a backup or situation role is much more effective than in a starting/only QB playing role. I think Fannin and Tate have tremendous potential for a fast, but powerful running game. I think our defense is sound and if the offense can do something and not continually put the defense in bad situations, they will be much stronger.
In the end, if I turn out to be right, I will tell everyone I know to look at the blog I wrote today, September 17, 2007. If I turn out to be dead wrong, I will just remove this blog and tell no one about it. No one reads this anyway!!!
Auburn will beat Alabama this year.
It is evident that somewhere in the past couple of years Auburn has had sub par recruiting classes. It is also evident that, although he was Mr. Football for the State of Alabama about fourteen years ago, Brandon Cox is not really a Division One level college football quarterback. Auburn also lost four of its five starters on the offensive line. It is also evident that Auburn had a fine recruiting class this most recent year. The result of all of this is that Auburn is playing a lot of Freshmen and other inexperienced players, including, finally, Kody Burns at QB.
As bad as Auburn has looked, they are, seriously, a couple of plays away from being undefeated. Now, I know that things like that are said by losers. Fact is, Auburn IS 1-2 and not 3-0. I am not making excuses here, just observations. I also know that, with the schedule so far, a 3-0 season with three close wins would not be all that impressive. But, at least consider: On one of Brandon’s rare good throws against USF he hit a wide open receiver in the hands on a deep route and it was dropped. Later, during overtime, he hit a tight end on a drag route and it was dropped. This likely would have been a score had it been caught.
The difference in the MSU game was less than a TD. MSU scored a TD off of an interception where Cox hit number eighty seven right between the eight and the seven. He popped the ball up, though, right into the hands of an oncoming defender who could have walked backwards into the end zone from there.
AU has had tremendous trouble with turnovers. In addition to receiver problems, Cox has thrown the ball more directly at defenders than he has his teammates. AU has fumbled several times, most notably Freshman running back Mario Fannin.
These are all terrible mistakes, but, I believe there will be tremendous improvement by the end of the year. I believe the receivers will be taught to catch the ball or sit down. I believe Fannin will be taught to hold onto the ball. Unfortuantely, I think Cox is beyond help, but I believe they will begin using him more wisely, and more and more using Burns in varying situations. By the end of the year, I think our offense will have, to a large degree, turned it around. I don’t think we’ll be world beaters, but I think there will be tremendous improvement. This improvement will, of course, take a lot off of our overworked defense as well.
Now, I know what you’re thinking – you don’t have to say it. This is just an Auburn fan making excuses and dreaming of a miracle turn around. Or perhaps you think I have drank the Tuberville Kool Aid. Actually, I am not like that at all. Back in 2003 I personally felt that the AU administration was smart to be looking at firing him and hiring someone else. I thought they were idiots in the way they handled it, but I personally was not sold on him entirely, and really I still am not. He had done a lousy job in '03 and deserved to have his seat feel uncomfortably warm.
Also, usually no matter what the records of AU/UAT are when they meet, I always have a bad feeling about that game. I have never at any time during the season over the past twenty five years made a prediction about the outcome of that game. Even when AU appeared to be great and UAT subpar, I have never assumed AU would win. It’s just that, for some reason, as bad as AU has looked thus far, I just don’t get the feeling that it is quite as bad as it looks. I think there is actually more promise for the future than one might think. I think we are a little coaching here and there away from being decent. I think that Burns is a little experience away from being a powerful tool on offense. I think Cox in a backup or situation role is much more effective than in a starting/only QB playing role. I think Fannin and Tate have tremendous potential for a fast, but powerful running game. I think our defense is sound and if the offense can do something and not continually put the defense in bad situations, they will be much stronger.
In the end, if I turn out to be right, I will tell everyone I know to look at the blog I wrote today, September 17, 2007. If I turn out to be dead wrong, I will just remove this blog and tell no one about it. No one reads this anyway!!!
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
For Whom are the Sacraments?
The Bible is full of word-pictures. These pictures often tell us much about God - Father, son, and Holy Spirit - man, sin, family relationships, political relationships, and so on. They also often tell us something about God's covenant relationship to his people - a relationship which is itself often the model for these other relationships. Particularly, we are informed in dramatic fashion about Christ's relationship to those whom the Father has given him, i.e. the church.
Four very specific instances of the above occur throughout the gospels, epistles, and the Revelation, but perhaps most clearly and specifically in the writings of the Apostle John. We are told repeatedly that Christ is a shepherd and we are the sheep. The sheep hear their master's voice and those who belong to that master know his voice. Likewise, we are like the branches on a vine. "I am the vine, you are the branches." Third, we find that Christ is the Head, and we, the church, are the body. Finally we find that Christ is the Bridegroom, and we, the church, are the bride. This last is related to the previous, for we are informed that in our earthly covenant relationships of marriage, the husband is the head and the wife is his body. The wife is to submit to the husband, for he is the head. The church is to likewise submit to the authority of its head, namely Christ. The husband loves the wife, for she is his own body. The husband should be willing to lay down his life for his bride as Christ did for His. When husband and wife are united in marriage, the two become one. In like manner, Christ and His Church are so united as to become one. We are united to Christ in His life, His obedience, and even His death. Our earthly covenant relationship of marriage at its best is a scale model of Christ's relationship to His church - His body. Our other relationships and those of nature are also scale models. We are His branches, His flock, and so on.
These word pictures can and should inform us greatly as to the nature of our relationship to Christ. But what do they tell us? What can we learn from this? A cursory look at these pictures should provide us with some very edifying thoughts - thoughts which should color our prayer life, our individual and corporate worship and relationship to the Triune God. In a paper so brief, we can only hint at the depth and breadth of this whole matter. However, even being so shallow and narrow here, these thoughts can and should add significantly to the potential depth and breadth of our relationship.
Individual and Corporate
One of the first things that strike us is that hidden within these word pictures are the concepts of both of the individual and the corporate. We are individually sheep. I can not pass the muster for you, nor you for I. We are individually branches. If you or I are counterproductive in the yielding of fruit, we can and should be cut off and destroyed. Yet Christ has one bride, not many. One flock, not many. One body, not many. And Christ is one vine. Many branches yes, but all on one vine.
This is at once liberating and fear-inducing. It is liberating to know that perhaps if I err, as a sickly member of Christ's body, I will be healed by that Great physician - the Head, the Master, the Vine, the Groom. Not only this, but I have the other members of this same body working with and for me to bring this healing. If I am unfruitful, I have the pruning nature of God's discipline to spur on more fruit production, as well as the other branches of this same vine working in concert with me. If I stray like a lost sheep, I have a patient, caring, and loving Master who will leave the ninety and nine and seek after me and bring me home. I hear not only His voice, but also the voices of the others calling me back into the fold. If I am unfaithful to Him, I have the faithful Bridegroom always ready to forgive and forget.
However, this can be fearful, for if I refuse the medicine and ignore the rest of the body, I may, like the wayward eye or hand spoken of by our Lord in Matthew, be cut off and thrown into the fire. If I refuse to produce fruit, I can be cut off (more than a mere pruning) and be thrown to the fire. If I stray and ignore his voice, I can be finally given up for lost, and may never hear that kind voice again. If I am unfaithful with no repentance, I may be served divorce papers.
Therefore, it is I who must work out my own salvation. My mother can't do it for me, nor my father, nor my wife, nor my children. Yet Christ is kind to me, and is forgiving, and faithful. As an individual member of this vine, flock, body, and bride, I must individually seek Him, pray, worship, serve, and (ah this is hard sometimes) produce fruit. Yet, if all this totally depended on me individually, I would suffer endlessly, never getting where I need to go. If I seem to be grappling for words here there is a reason. I am! The depth and breadth of this is too wonderful for me to know!
But, enter here the corporate side. Corporately I pray and worship together with the rest of the flock, vine, body, and bride. Together we renew covenant weekly (not weakly!) in the breaking of bread - again a picture of the body of Christ. This act strengthens, renews, refreshes, and cheers me. In addition, I can meet with the body, or some small part of it on any other kind of basis as well - for prayer, study, and singing. The edifying power of Christ's institutional body is grand indeed.
The Sacraments
In addition to the above brief and inadequate description, these word pictures I believe, help express something very important in relation to Christ's sacramental provisions for His body/flock/branches/bride. With both sacraments, there is much misinformation within our world of Protestant Christianity. It is a major point of faith among many that the sacrament of baptism is only for those who have reached some subjective level of saving faith. It is even a wider belief that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is for such as these. In relation to this, let us first consider what these word pictures tell us when approached literally.
When a man owns a flock of animals, he owns not only the flock, but also their offspring. When one animal is born to his flock, he does not discard it. To do so would dwindle his flock in short order! He does not send the animal away and disown it, then hope and pray that it comes back to him at a later time in its life. Sure, he may buy other animals, and if he is interested in growing his little 'kingdom' exponentially he does. But, in good times and bad, he can be sure to keep those he has, and to keep their offspring. And let us not neglect to understand that often to indicate ownership, the man will place some form of identifying mark on those that are his. A brand or a tag on the ear or some other similar mark shows ownership.
Likewise, when a child is born to those who already belong to God in Christ, does He discard that child? Surely not! To do so would not make sense. While it is true that God 'owns' everything and everyone, He 'owns' His flock in a special sense. When one is born to His flock, they are His as well.
Naturally, if that little sheep grows up to be unfaithful to Him and unproductive for Him, he may discard of it then. However, if the rest of the flock (that's us!) does its job, this really should not be a problem. Also, clearly, our Lord is adding to his flock from those outside of what He currently owns. There is nothing unusual in that, for He is growing his kingdom through various means. (Also, when He does purchase a new sheep from outside the fold, he then owns their offspring as well.) But he most certainly does not say to a new arrival, "You're not mine! Go away and come back another day when you have a clearer understanding of my love for you, and when you can convince the rest of he sheep that you belong with them. I want you to submit to me first, through your own initiative and then I will claim ownership of you (if it is alright with the rest of the sheep)." Does a shepherd treat the offspring of his own sheep in such manner?
Now, does Christ have a brand or a tag that he places on his sheep? Certainly! It is baptism. Christian baptism for covenant infants and small children should be the norm, rather than the exception that it is fast becoming.
In similar manner, when a new twig sprouts on a vine, does the vine dresser immediately clip it off and hope it will grow outside the vine? Then, if it miraculously does so, does he graft it back in? Or does he dress the entire vine, and "cut off" only those branches that work against his primary goal, the production of fruit? Sure, he may prune the vine to spur it on to greater production, but he does not clip each and every new branch that sprouts.
Does a husband love parts of his bride, but not the whole? Does the band on the finger mean that part of the bride belongs to the husband, or does it mean that the whole of the bride does? Does a man cut off parts of his own body without reason? Or does he only cut off a part that is so diseased as to cause damage to the whole?
The whole flock, all of the branches, the whole bride, the whole body belong to the Shepherd, Vine, Groom, and Head. It is a unified whole - far more than the sum of its parts - and woefully incomplete without all of its parts. As concerns baptism, the picture of the flock is the most useful. Again, the shepherd does not discard the newborns of his flock. He places his mark of ownership on them, and treats them as his own.
In addition to owning them is the fact that he cares for them as well. He does not feed the full-grown sheep only, but feeds the little lambs as well. Sure, in the early stages of their life, the littlest lambs are fed indirectly, as the shepherd provides nourishment for the mother, who in turn provides it to her babe. However, as soon as this babe is able to feed on its own, the shepherd provides the needed nourishment to this little lamb. In the beginning, the lamb likely does not understand that it is the shepherd that is providing for it. But, over time, this feeding process certainly builds the understanding in the lamb that it is the shepherd who is his provider. Through this caregiving, the lamb comes to know to whom he belongs and who is providing all of his needs. He then becomes committed to the shepherd, hears his voice and obeys his commands.
Surely, this tells us a great deal about how Christ, our Shepherd, nourishes us with the meal of His Body and Blood! When we are too young to take this meal directly, we take it indirectly through our mother's milk. However, as we begin to grow and mature, we are able to partake in it ourselves. We may not understand right from the beginning that it is in fact our Great Shepherd that is providing this vital nourishment to our souls, but, over time, this fact becomes clear. We hear His voice and cheerfully obey His commands.
Likewise, the new twig sprouting on the vine does not know from where it gets its life giving nourishment, but it does in fact receive it. The vine does not shut off its supply of life from the new twig until it grows up. If so, it would never grow up. But, the twig receives its life from the vine because it itself is an integral part of that vine. It is not separated and cared for in a different manner, only to become grafted back in at a later date.
A man does not neglect part of his body, cut it off and remove it, then re-attach it at a later date if it is deemed worthy. Instead, he cares for the whole body, and only cuts off what is dead or diseased. A man does not love part of his wife, and discard the other parts, waiting on a hopeful future date when he can love the remainder of her body.
Perhaps my words here are not perfectly stated, and they may indeed be in need of revision. However, I think it is plain from these and other word-pictures of the Bible that the sacraments are not for some of Christ's body, bride, branches, and sheep, but for all. Christ owns us and Christ provides what is needed for us. This includes all our body parts, all our branches, and all the sheep of the fold, including the newborns. Given this, why on earth would we neglect so great an ownership, and so great a care?
Dare we tell Christ that no, he can't have our little ones yet until we are satisfied to our set of standards that they know that they belong to Him? Dare we neglect His ownership, and His care? I contend that we do so only at great risk of becoming unfruitful ourselves, and then we risk the horrible prospect of being cut off and discarded.
Four very specific instances of the above occur throughout the gospels, epistles, and the Revelation, but perhaps most clearly and specifically in the writings of the Apostle John. We are told repeatedly that Christ is a shepherd and we are the sheep. The sheep hear their master's voice and those who belong to that master know his voice. Likewise, we are like the branches on a vine. "I am the vine, you are the branches." Third, we find that Christ is the Head, and we, the church, are the body. Finally we find that Christ is the Bridegroom, and we, the church, are the bride. This last is related to the previous, for we are informed that in our earthly covenant relationships of marriage, the husband is the head and the wife is his body. The wife is to submit to the husband, for he is the head. The church is to likewise submit to the authority of its head, namely Christ. The husband loves the wife, for she is his own body. The husband should be willing to lay down his life for his bride as Christ did for His. When husband and wife are united in marriage, the two become one. In like manner, Christ and His Church are so united as to become one. We are united to Christ in His life, His obedience, and even His death. Our earthly covenant relationship of marriage at its best is a scale model of Christ's relationship to His church - His body. Our other relationships and those of nature are also scale models. We are His branches, His flock, and so on.
These word pictures can and should inform us greatly as to the nature of our relationship to Christ. But what do they tell us? What can we learn from this? A cursory look at these pictures should provide us with some very edifying thoughts - thoughts which should color our prayer life, our individual and corporate worship and relationship to the Triune God. In a paper so brief, we can only hint at the depth and breadth of this whole matter. However, even being so shallow and narrow here, these thoughts can and should add significantly to the potential depth and breadth of our relationship.
Individual and Corporate
One of the first things that strike us is that hidden within these word pictures are the concepts of both of the individual and the corporate. We are individually sheep. I can not pass the muster for you, nor you for I. We are individually branches. If you or I are counterproductive in the yielding of fruit, we can and should be cut off and destroyed. Yet Christ has one bride, not many. One flock, not many. One body, not many. And Christ is one vine. Many branches yes, but all on one vine.
This is at once liberating and fear-inducing. It is liberating to know that perhaps if I err, as a sickly member of Christ's body, I will be healed by that Great physician - the Head, the Master, the Vine, the Groom. Not only this, but I have the other members of this same body working with and for me to bring this healing. If I am unfruitful, I have the pruning nature of God's discipline to spur on more fruit production, as well as the other branches of this same vine working in concert with me. If I stray like a lost sheep, I have a patient, caring, and loving Master who will leave the ninety and nine and seek after me and bring me home. I hear not only His voice, but also the voices of the others calling me back into the fold. If I am unfaithful to Him, I have the faithful Bridegroom always ready to forgive and forget.
However, this can be fearful, for if I refuse the medicine and ignore the rest of the body, I may, like the wayward eye or hand spoken of by our Lord in Matthew, be cut off and thrown into the fire. If I refuse to produce fruit, I can be cut off (more than a mere pruning) and be thrown to the fire. If I stray and ignore his voice, I can be finally given up for lost, and may never hear that kind voice again. If I am unfaithful with no repentance, I may be served divorce papers.
Therefore, it is I who must work out my own salvation. My mother can't do it for me, nor my father, nor my wife, nor my children. Yet Christ is kind to me, and is forgiving, and faithful. As an individual member of this vine, flock, body, and bride, I must individually seek Him, pray, worship, serve, and (ah this is hard sometimes) produce fruit. Yet, if all this totally depended on me individually, I would suffer endlessly, never getting where I need to go. If I seem to be grappling for words here there is a reason. I am! The depth and breadth of this is too wonderful for me to know!
But, enter here the corporate side. Corporately I pray and worship together with the rest of the flock, vine, body, and bride. Together we renew covenant weekly (not weakly!) in the breaking of bread - again a picture of the body of Christ. This act strengthens, renews, refreshes, and cheers me. In addition, I can meet with the body, or some small part of it on any other kind of basis as well - for prayer, study, and singing. The edifying power of Christ's institutional body is grand indeed.
The Sacraments
In addition to the above brief and inadequate description, these word pictures I believe, help express something very important in relation to Christ's sacramental provisions for His body/flock/branches/bride. With both sacraments, there is much misinformation within our world of Protestant Christianity. It is a major point of faith among many that the sacrament of baptism is only for those who have reached some subjective level of saving faith. It is even a wider belief that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is for such as these. In relation to this, let us first consider what these word pictures tell us when approached literally.
When a man owns a flock of animals, he owns not only the flock, but also their offspring. When one animal is born to his flock, he does not discard it. To do so would dwindle his flock in short order! He does not send the animal away and disown it, then hope and pray that it comes back to him at a later time in its life. Sure, he may buy other animals, and if he is interested in growing his little 'kingdom' exponentially he does. But, in good times and bad, he can be sure to keep those he has, and to keep their offspring. And let us not neglect to understand that often to indicate ownership, the man will place some form of identifying mark on those that are his. A brand or a tag on the ear or some other similar mark shows ownership.
Likewise, when a child is born to those who already belong to God in Christ, does He discard that child? Surely not! To do so would not make sense. While it is true that God 'owns' everything and everyone, He 'owns' His flock in a special sense. When one is born to His flock, they are His as well.
Naturally, if that little sheep grows up to be unfaithful to Him and unproductive for Him, he may discard of it then. However, if the rest of the flock (that's us!) does its job, this really should not be a problem. Also, clearly, our Lord is adding to his flock from those outside of what He currently owns. There is nothing unusual in that, for He is growing his kingdom through various means. (Also, when He does purchase a new sheep from outside the fold, he then owns their offspring as well.) But he most certainly does not say to a new arrival, "You're not mine! Go away and come back another day when you have a clearer understanding of my love for you, and when you can convince the rest of he sheep that you belong with them. I want you to submit to me first, through your own initiative and then I will claim ownership of you (if it is alright with the rest of the sheep)." Does a shepherd treat the offspring of his own sheep in such manner?
Now, does Christ have a brand or a tag that he places on his sheep? Certainly! It is baptism. Christian baptism for covenant infants and small children should be the norm, rather than the exception that it is fast becoming.
In similar manner, when a new twig sprouts on a vine, does the vine dresser immediately clip it off and hope it will grow outside the vine? Then, if it miraculously does so, does he graft it back in? Or does he dress the entire vine, and "cut off" only those branches that work against his primary goal, the production of fruit? Sure, he may prune the vine to spur it on to greater production, but he does not clip each and every new branch that sprouts.
Does a husband love parts of his bride, but not the whole? Does the band on the finger mean that part of the bride belongs to the husband, or does it mean that the whole of the bride does? Does a man cut off parts of his own body without reason? Or does he only cut off a part that is so diseased as to cause damage to the whole?
The whole flock, all of the branches, the whole bride, the whole body belong to the Shepherd, Vine, Groom, and Head. It is a unified whole - far more than the sum of its parts - and woefully incomplete without all of its parts. As concerns baptism, the picture of the flock is the most useful. Again, the shepherd does not discard the newborns of his flock. He places his mark of ownership on them, and treats them as his own.
In addition to owning them is the fact that he cares for them as well. He does not feed the full-grown sheep only, but feeds the little lambs as well. Sure, in the early stages of their life, the littlest lambs are fed indirectly, as the shepherd provides nourishment for the mother, who in turn provides it to her babe. However, as soon as this babe is able to feed on its own, the shepherd provides the needed nourishment to this little lamb. In the beginning, the lamb likely does not understand that it is the shepherd that is providing for it. But, over time, this feeding process certainly builds the understanding in the lamb that it is the shepherd who is his provider. Through this caregiving, the lamb comes to know to whom he belongs and who is providing all of his needs. He then becomes committed to the shepherd, hears his voice and obeys his commands.
Surely, this tells us a great deal about how Christ, our Shepherd, nourishes us with the meal of His Body and Blood! When we are too young to take this meal directly, we take it indirectly through our mother's milk. However, as we begin to grow and mature, we are able to partake in it ourselves. We may not understand right from the beginning that it is in fact our Great Shepherd that is providing this vital nourishment to our souls, but, over time, this fact becomes clear. We hear His voice and cheerfully obey His commands.
Likewise, the new twig sprouting on the vine does not know from where it gets its life giving nourishment, but it does in fact receive it. The vine does not shut off its supply of life from the new twig until it grows up. If so, it would never grow up. But, the twig receives its life from the vine because it itself is an integral part of that vine. It is not separated and cared for in a different manner, only to become grafted back in at a later date.
A man does not neglect part of his body, cut it off and remove it, then re-attach it at a later date if it is deemed worthy. Instead, he cares for the whole body, and only cuts off what is dead or diseased. A man does not love part of his wife, and discard the other parts, waiting on a hopeful future date when he can love the remainder of her body.
Perhaps my words here are not perfectly stated, and they may indeed be in need of revision. However, I think it is plain from these and other word-pictures of the Bible that the sacraments are not for some of Christ's body, bride, branches, and sheep, but for all. Christ owns us and Christ provides what is needed for us. This includes all our body parts, all our branches, and all the sheep of the fold, including the newborns. Given this, why on earth would we neglect so great an ownership, and so great a care?
Dare we tell Christ that no, he can't have our little ones yet until we are satisfied to our set of standards that they know that they belong to Him? Dare we neglect His ownership, and His care? I contend that we do so only at great risk of becoming unfruitful ourselves, and then we risk the horrible prospect of being cut off and discarded.
The Great Fraud
Ok, I have found a bunch of my old stuff and am in the process of posting it. This is something I wrote several years ago when in a particularly foul mood.
___________________________________________
I have always believed that taxes in general were entirely too high. By the time I pay my federal and state taxes, my property taxes, my vehicle tags, my fire dues, the sales tax on nearly every purchase - not to mention all the taxes which are built into the cost of nearly every product or service I obtain and that I have no idea how much they may be - I have lost a great deal of what little money I make to taxes. I realize that some level of taxation is absolutely mandatory if we are to have the necessary government functions pertaining to the protection of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of every individual. However, the level of taxes we pay, as well as the "services" rendered for them, are far out of line with where they should be.
Beyond all this, though, lies an even greater problem in my mind. Recently while filing my federal return for this year, I came to realize that even these taxes, as "taxing" as they are, do not get under my skin to nearly such an irritating level as the one other tax I have to pay which is not even mentioned in the rather substantial list above. I am talking about the Social Security tax.
Previously this was not as noticeable, nor as maddening as it is now. For, unlike in years passed, I have for the past several years been self-employed. The self-employed person must honestly make account of every penny he has earned, then honestly account for every expense he deducts from that. Woe unto him who makes a mistake in all this complicated business! Once that net income is calculated, we can take a generous discount of just over seven and a half percent from it. This new figure, over ninety two percent of our net income, is then taxed at a rate of just over fifteen percent. That is to say, my actual net income is taxed at just over thirteen and three quarters percent. This amount goes to the Social Security fund.
Think about that for a minute. On top of the federal, state, local, sales, property, and other taxes I have to pay, here is another almost fourteen percent of every penny I make taken away from me and my family. Considering such essentials as food, clothing, housing, transportation, and health care, which together run into the thousands of dollars per year, as well as other taxes, which run into the thousands of dollars per year, I still have to consider yet this further tax, which runs into another several thousand dollars per year. Just exactly where in the world does the government suggest I get this money? I can not cut out such essentials as food and clothing. However, I can not cut out such non-essentials as taxes, for if I did, I would likely end up in jail. Great system!
It would be humorous were it not so sad, that the very people who have placed all these onerous tax burdens upon us, are the exact same ones who claim to care about the working man. Well, I really do not know what exactly you would call me (and millions of others) but a working man. Frankly, I think I prefer to do without the help. In fact, I can not afford this type of help! If Washington actually cared the least little bit for the common man, or even the not so common man, they would do everything in their power not to hinder man's attempts to better himself. Taxation of any kind is a severe hindrance. While some level of it may in fact be necessary, surely we must reign it in. Social Security would be an excellent place to start.
I have been self-employed for about three and a half years. Thus far, I have been slowly growing my business until this year, for the first time I made a noticeable improvement. Thus far, I have been living largely of the "fat" I had earned before. That is to say, I have been slowly dwindling what I had earned while gainfully employed in the highly regulated semi-private sector. This year, I made great headway and did not have to skim quite as much fat as before, though I still had to fall back on some money previously set aside for retirement just to pay my bills. However, having just barely stayed afloat, I am now faced with a tax bill which I am uncertain at this time how I will meet, especially when considering that I now also have this year's income for which to continue to pay these taxes. The overwhelming cause of this problem is not state or federal income taxes, though. It is the self-employment tax which is for Social Security.
"Oh", but you say, "This is for you! This goes into helping you finance your retirement." Oh, okay, I guess I am just too stupid to do that for myself!
We need to rise up and call Social Security what it really is. A fraud. A fraud imposed on the masses of citizens of this country.
First of all, do I have any guarantee that I will ever see any of that money again? No. I have heard horror stories of people paying thousands of dollars into that system, then having the misfortune of dying before they reached the age where they can collect. What becomes of all that money they paid in? If I am fortunate enough to receive some Social Security payments some years down the road, is there any guarantee that I will get all of it back, plus simply the interest it could have accumulated had I put that money even in a low interest bearing savings account? No. Maybe I will get none of that money, maybe little, maybe a significant portion, or, maybe if I am lucky, I may get more back than I ever paid in, plus the accumulated interest. This last scenario would require several strokes of good luck, and I am more inclined to think that one of the other scenarios is far more likely.
In the meantime, I have to struggle simply to make ends meet, while someone else is getting paid off the money that I am putting into this money pit. Do I have any guarantee that the people receiving my money need it as bad, or worse, than I? No. Herein lies one of the many insanities of this whole system. The money which is wrenched from my hands, against my will, and which I can not afford, does not even go into an account with my name on it, to be grown and returned to me upon my retirement, at my desire, at some future date. It is placed in a fund used to pay people who are now in retirement. What happened to the money that they put in all those years? It went to the past generations when they retired!
We all know how the mathematics of this system works. The way it is funded, coupled with changes in the population growth, has caused this inane system to grow to the monster that it now is. When this system was started, the ratio of people paying into the system to the people receiving from it was such that the effect on the payers was not really noticed to a great degree. However, the inception of the baby boom generation, along with the lower birth rates subsequent to this, gives us a situation that as the baby boomers retire, this ratio becomes slanted more and more against those who are currently, or will be, paying into the system. Proportionally, less people are paying for the retirements of more people.
This situation is so bad, that if I were to concoct such a system as this, then try to go out on the free market and sell it to individuals who would buy into it of their own free will, it would be illegal. However, when the government does the same thing, only not freely but by force, it is called an entitlement. But an entitlement for whom? I certainly do not feel like I am "entitled" to pay a significant portion of my much-needed income so that some retired executive with about a hundred other sources of income and savings can receive it!
Social Security is such an ingrained part of American Culture now that it is nearly impossible to reform it, much less completely do away with it. The best the politicians can seem to come up with is this rather corny idea that we could now take a small percentage of it, and be forced to invest it in some sort of semi-private market – all still by the force of and under the direction of the government. This still is not right. It is still the government telling us what we are to do with the money we make. I am responsible for myself, and my own planning. I am in business for myself to gain the level of freedom for myself and my family that I desire. I certainly plan to grow this business in such a way as to become independent of anyone else for my well being. However, this is much slowed by the fact that probably well over half of my income goes to taxes in some form or other, most notably to this fraudulent atrocity.
I think the necessary reform for Social Security is nothing less than this: We must make it voluntary. Anyone who wants to "invest" in this system could be free to do so. Anyone who chooses to bypass receiving such "help" from the government and go it alone, could and should likewise be free to do so.
The cry of the entitlement crowd can already be heard. "But if it were voluntary, the whole system might collapse!" The answer to this objection is present within the objection itself. This system would collapse if it were not for the government's use of force against its citizens to keep it intact. Any system which requires that free citizens be forced to participate in order for it to "help" them, is surely not a system worth having.
Would you voluntarily give up any supposed benefit you might get at some point in the future, assuming you lived long enough, if it meant more money in your pocket right now – money you could invest or spend as you best saw fit in your own preparation for your own future, as well as your own provision for yourself and your family? I know I would gladly right now give up any claim on any money I may have coming to me in the future - even at the loss of the thousands of dollars I have already put in - if it meant that I would no longer be forced against my will to place yet more money into the fund. I will gladly provide for the needs of myself and my family. I will gladly prepare for my future. I will gladly voluntarily help those I can. But I will support such fraudulent entitlements as this only at the threat of violence, which is precisely the only reason that I am going to find some way to meet this current tax burden.
___________________________________________
I have always believed that taxes in general were entirely too high. By the time I pay my federal and state taxes, my property taxes, my vehicle tags, my fire dues, the sales tax on nearly every purchase - not to mention all the taxes which are built into the cost of nearly every product or service I obtain and that I have no idea how much they may be - I have lost a great deal of what little money I make to taxes. I realize that some level of taxation is absolutely mandatory if we are to have the necessary government functions pertaining to the protection of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of every individual. However, the level of taxes we pay, as well as the "services" rendered for them, are far out of line with where they should be.
Beyond all this, though, lies an even greater problem in my mind. Recently while filing my federal return for this year, I came to realize that even these taxes, as "taxing" as they are, do not get under my skin to nearly such an irritating level as the one other tax I have to pay which is not even mentioned in the rather substantial list above. I am talking about the Social Security tax.
Previously this was not as noticeable, nor as maddening as it is now. For, unlike in years passed, I have for the past several years been self-employed. The self-employed person must honestly make account of every penny he has earned, then honestly account for every expense he deducts from that. Woe unto him who makes a mistake in all this complicated business! Once that net income is calculated, we can take a generous discount of just over seven and a half percent from it. This new figure, over ninety two percent of our net income, is then taxed at a rate of just over fifteen percent. That is to say, my actual net income is taxed at just over thirteen and three quarters percent. This amount goes to the Social Security fund.
Think about that for a minute. On top of the federal, state, local, sales, property, and other taxes I have to pay, here is another almost fourteen percent of every penny I make taken away from me and my family. Considering such essentials as food, clothing, housing, transportation, and health care, which together run into the thousands of dollars per year, as well as other taxes, which run into the thousands of dollars per year, I still have to consider yet this further tax, which runs into another several thousand dollars per year. Just exactly where in the world does the government suggest I get this money? I can not cut out such essentials as food and clothing. However, I can not cut out such non-essentials as taxes, for if I did, I would likely end up in jail. Great system!
It would be humorous were it not so sad, that the very people who have placed all these onerous tax burdens upon us, are the exact same ones who claim to care about the working man. Well, I really do not know what exactly you would call me (and millions of others) but a working man. Frankly, I think I prefer to do without the help. In fact, I can not afford this type of help! If Washington actually cared the least little bit for the common man, or even the not so common man, they would do everything in their power not to hinder man's attempts to better himself. Taxation of any kind is a severe hindrance. While some level of it may in fact be necessary, surely we must reign it in. Social Security would be an excellent place to start.
I have been self-employed for about three and a half years. Thus far, I have been slowly growing my business until this year, for the first time I made a noticeable improvement. Thus far, I have been living largely of the "fat" I had earned before. That is to say, I have been slowly dwindling what I had earned while gainfully employed in the highly regulated semi-private sector. This year, I made great headway and did not have to skim quite as much fat as before, though I still had to fall back on some money previously set aside for retirement just to pay my bills. However, having just barely stayed afloat, I am now faced with a tax bill which I am uncertain at this time how I will meet, especially when considering that I now also have this year's income for which to continue to pay these taxes. The overwhelming cause of this problem is not state or federal income taxes, though. It is the self-employment tax which is for Social Security.
"Oh", but you say, "This is for you! This goes into helping you finance your retirement." Oh, okay, I guess I am just too stupid to do that for myself!
We need to rise up and call Social Security what it really is. A fraud. A fraud imposed on the masses of citizens of this country.
First of all, do I have any guarantee that I will ever see any of that money again? No. I have heard horror stories of people paying thousands of dollars into that system, then having the misfortune of dying before they reached the age where they can collect. What becomes of all that money they paid in? If I am fortunate enough to receive some Social Security payments some years down the road, is there any guarantee that I will get all of it back, plus simply the interest it could have accumulated had I put that money even in a low interest bearing savings account? No. Maybe I will get none of that money, maybe little, maybe a significant portion, or, maybe if I am lucky, I may get more back than I ever paid in, plus the accumulated interest. This last scenario would require several strokes of good luck, and I am more inclined to think that one of the other scenarios is far more likely.
In the meantime, I have to struggle simply to make ends meet, while someone else is getting paid off the money that I am putting into this money pit. Do I have any guarantee that the people receiving my money need it as bad, or worse, than I? No. Herein lies one of the many insanities of this whole system. The money which is wrenched from my hands, against my will, and which I can not afford, does not even go into an account with my name on it, to be grown and returned to me upon my retirement, at my desire, at some future date. It is placed in a fund used to pay people who are now in retirement. What happened to the money that they put in all those years? It went to the past generations when they retired!
We all know how the mathematics of this system works. The way it is funded, coupled with changes in the population growth, has caused this inane system to grow to the monster that it now is. When this system was started, the ratio of people paying into the system to the people receiving from it was such that the effect on the payers was not really noticed to a great degree. However, the inception of the baby boom generation, along with the lower birth rates subsequent to this, gives us a situation that as the baby boomers retire, this ratio becomes slanted more and more against those who are currently, or will be, paying into the system. Proportionally, less people are paying for the retirements of more people.
This situation is so bad, that if I were to concoct such a system as this, then try to go out on the free market and sell it to individuals who would buy into it of their own free will, it would be illegal. However, when the government does the same thing, only not freely but by force, it is called an entitlement. But an entitlement for whom? I certainly do not feel like I am "entitled" to pay a significant portion of my much-needed income so that some retired executive with about a hundred other sources of income and savings can receive it!
Social Security is such an ingrained part of American Culture now that it is nearly impossible to reform it, much less completely do away with it. The best the politicians can seem to come up with is this rather corny idea that we could now take a small percentage of it, and be forced to invest it in some sort of semi-private market – all still by the force of and under the direction of the government. This still is not right. It is still the government telling us what we are to do with the money we make. I am responsible for myself, and my own planning. I am in business for myself to gain the level of freedom for myself and my family that I desire. I certainly plan to grow this business in such a way as to become independent of anyone else for my well being. However, this is much slowed by the fact that probably well over half of my income goes to taxes in some form or other, most notably to this fraudulent atrocity.
I think the necessary reform for Social Security is nothing less than this: We must make it voluntary. Anyone who wants to "invest" in this system could be free to do so. Anyone who chooses to bypass receiving such "help" from the government and go it alone, could and should likewise be free to do so.
The cry of the entitlement crowd can already be heard. "But if it were voluntary, the whole system might collapse!" The answer to this objection is present within the objection itself. This system would collapse if it were not for the government's use of force against its citizens to keep it intact. Any system which requires that free citizens be forced to participate in order for it to "help" them, is surely not a system worth having.
Would you voluntarily give up any supposed benefit you might get at some point in the future, assuming you lived long enough, if it meant more money in your pocket right now – money you could invest or spend as you best saw fit in your own preparation for your own future, as well as your own provision for yourself and your family? I know I would gladly right now give up any claim on any money I may have coming to me in the future - even at the loss of the thousands of dollars I have already put in - if it meant that I would no longer be forced against my will to place yet more money into the fund. I will gladly provide for the needs of myself and my family. I will gladly prepare for my future. I will gladly voluntarily help those I can. But I will support such fraudulent entitlements as this only at the threat of violence, which is precisely the only reason that I am going to find some way to meet this current tax burden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
