Yo-Yo With Short String

Some time ago I posted about the need to moderate comments. Here is a prime example of what has to be filtered out. It was submitted to my post on the Speedex S-19 (which, by the way, I still intend to restore):

"Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in reality used to be a leisure account it. Glance complicated to far delivered agreeable from you! However, how could we keep in touch? Look into my weblog :: Forex Trading Demo"(I removed the link)

I suspect someone composed that and then ran it through a web-based (maybe Google?) translator. It was definitely not from a native English speaker. It is the second such attempt to attach a comment to that post.

Oh, well; I cast thee into the Bottomless Bit Bucket, O vile spammy entrapper.

Who's Peeking?

Just fooling around with the Google-y tools for bloggers and looked at the Stats page :

That is a screenshot of where the viewers are from. Hong Kong I can understand. Iran and the UAE? Wonder what it was that I said that aroused their interest. Is Paranoia an island in the South Pacific? Inconceivable! (and I'm not Sicilian).

Getting Spliced

One more task has been completed in the planned movement of the basement wall. The Cat 5 cables that were located in the ceiling box have all been relocated to the side wall and tested. This would have been a good idea even if the wall were not to be moved, since the cables from the router to the ceiling box occasionally lost contact from the movement of the floor joists, especially when the dining room had a big gathering in it. Becoming motivated to move the cables, though, was a major task.

The problem was that two of the cables would need to be completelyy re-run, and five would need to be spliced and extended to the new location. Mickey Axlebender was of the opinion that I should just install male and female connectors and extend them that way, but I was not confident that would work long-term, especially since the plan is to drywall the ceiling.

I decided to splice the cables with solder joints. Drawing inspiration from some web pages showing how the specified twists could be maintained, I began the splicing. The first cable took nearly two hours; I was deliberately going slowly to make certain my work would not create problems.

Each twisted pair was cut and spiced in a stagger pattern, the wire ends twisted and soldered, then clipped short and bent parallel with the cable.

When they were all soldered, the twist pattern for each twisted pair was maintained fairly close to the specs. Perfection was more than I could hope for, but in testing each cable as it was completed, the throughput actually seemed faster than before the splice. That may be imagination, but I think that plugging the cables in horizontally may maintain contact pressure better than plugging vertically and letting the wires hang. In other words, it seems to be working better, but I don't think my solder job had anything to do with that.

The last step was to replace the cable jacket. The jacket that had been stripped off was trimmed to length, split down the side, replaced around the wires, and secured with electrician's tape.

Another job finished that hurt more to think about starting than actually doing.

"We must change."

"We must change."

Those were the words of President Obama at Newtown (CT) High School on 12/16/2012. Mr. President, you are right. This nation has become a cesspool of iniquity, and as First Citizen, you must be the first to change. It is as you said,

"No single law -- no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that -- then surely we have an obligation to try. "

The Bible is clear on this; all have sinned and failed to measure up to God's standards. National repentance is in order, beginning at the office of the President.

God demands that nations practice justice. His summary of the sole requirement He lays on mankind is threefold:

1. do justly,
2. love mercy,
3. walk humbly with God.

America, beginning at the office of the Presidency, has refused those requirements. If you want meaningful change, Mr. President, you must lead the way in repenting of both your personal sin and the Nation's.

Do justly. Cease the murder of the innocent unborn. Cease the execution of citizens without bringing them to trial. Cease taking from one group to give to another. Cease showing favoritism based on skin color or belief or political advantage. Equality was a shining attribute of America in days past; let us return to treating everyone equally.

Love mercy. Cease the jailing of citizens, and the confiscation of their property simply because they have been too weak to conform to laws which have been enacted to protect them from themselves. Cease the spending beyond the ability to fund it, which causes future generations to inherit debts which will leave them enslaved. Cease the persecution of individuals who run afoul of laws designed to force social change, and instead use your own example and the soapbox afforded by your position to preach the benefits of caring for our neighbors.

Walk humbly with God. America has done great things with her wealth that was provided by God. This land was blessed with abundant natural resources, beneficial climates for varied crops and enterprises, and a foundation in a belief that God provides all things necessary for prosperity. America has grown arrogant and proud because no other nation on earth has been able to compete against her militarily or economically for almost a century. Pride goes before a fall. God has provided undeserved forgiveness through His grace. He would have us forgive those who have harmed or attempted to harm us, and not try to exact revenge.

You claim to be a Christian, Mr. President? The words of Jesus should affect your behavior. Never forget that He said that if we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven. Never be so proud to forget that vengeance does not belong to the office of the President of the United States, but to God. Never forget that Jesus does not force people into His Kingdom, but rather invites them. Never forget the most basic message Jesus had to preach -- "Repent".

"These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change." Indeed.

to "...communicate forget not..."

There has been many an evening when I have left work a bit late in order to finish off email correspondence with clients and/or contractors. I long ago realized that even a short break in communication can cause serious problems when a correspondent lacks the information to proceed in the right direction. Thus the saga of my past weekend.

It began simply enough on Wednesday, with a routine annual physical. My doctor noted some things on an ECG that he had not seen before, and asked me to wear a Holter monitor for 24 hours to record my heart rhythm during my normal daily activities. This I did, returning the monitor to the hospital about noon on Friday.

The day finished, I headed home, ate supper, and got ready to continue preparing the car for a quick trip north on Saturday. About 7:00 PM, I received a phone call from my doctor's partner in practice -- my doctor was apparently very much off-call that evening -- telling me that I needed to go directly to the emergency room at AGMC. I asked him why, since I was feeling quite well. He told me that the doctor who had read the Holter monitor was extremely concerned that my heart could stop and I could die at any moment.

Those who know me well know that I have maintained that very thing for quite some time. The human heart stops after every beat, and by the grace of God, it then takes another squeeze. That stop is the only rest it gets in a person's entire life. I find that miraculous, others find it terrifying.

During the phone call I was asked several times if I was having any symptoms, such as shortness of breath or chest pains. I replied that I was not. Apparently that was not believable, since the doctor who read the monitor was a highly regarded expert with much experience. That doctor did examine me 40 and 35 years ago, respectively, long prior to the valve replacement, and he had no knowledge of the subsequent treatment history. At the end of the call, I was informed that the Emergency Room at AGMC had been notified to expect me.

I was less than favorably impressed. I was feeling fine. Telling my Beloved Rib the essence of the call, I jumped in my car and drove off to the auto parts store to pick up some pieces I had ordered the day before. Jesse and I had plans to finish the wheel alignment job on the Sable, and I was set to take Grannie to visit Uncle Sam the next day.

As I was signing for the order, I received a call from Joonyah who asked how I was feeling and informed me that he was on his way over to take me to the ER. Then, as I was driving home, I got a call from Jesse, who asked me where I was. I told him that at that moment I was on the overpass at I-76. He asked what I was doing there; I sensed a bit of alarm in his voice and my perverted sense of humor almost drove me to say, "Getting ready to jump" but the more responsible part of me told him I was heading for home with the parts. He then said he would be at the house shortly.

I arrived home, and was finally persuaded that to ease everyone's mind, I should go to the ER. We went. They were expecting me. I asked if my doctor was aware I was there. They didn't know, but the verdict of the ER cardiologist (who had never seen me before) was that I was in a life-threatening situation. They booked me, gave me a gown, started an IV, and took me to my cell. They asked me about my symptoms, and seemed very unhappy when I said I didn't have any. Obviously, I was not being truthful; if the doctors said I should have symptoms, who was I to disagree?

Oh, and by the way, they had run my health insurance card, and the carrier said that I was not covered; that coverage had lapsed that very day. Now just the day before, at the office, we had been discussing health care premiums and the fact that my Medicare coverage was to become active Saturday, and I was told that the Medicare supplemental PPO coverage would not become active until January 1 and my premiums had already been paid through December 31 under the current plan. No matter; the insurance carrier said my status was inactive.

I was hooked to a monitor and put to bed. At least my Beloved Rib did not forsake me. She slept beside me on the hospital bed all night. In the morning, one of my cardiologist's partners came in to see me, looked at the record from the monitor, listened to my heart, and asked about my symptoms. No chest pain, no shortness of breath? Hmm. He had not been able to find my records in their files, but said that it was possible he had mis-spelled my name. Meanwhile, he did not think that the slow heart rate was very serious, but I had taken my meds just before the Friday night call, and they could account for the the slowness. Because he did not have my records, and was not MY cardiologist, he could not recommend my discharge.

Another doctor stopped by -- the partner of the doctor who had admitted me -- and asked why I was there. At that point, I told him I didn't know. He asked about my symptoms, and again, I got the feeling he did not believe that I was not in distress. He was in the room a total of less than 5 minutes, and said that he would have to wait until my cardiologist recommended my release.

Saturday was spent reading. Joonyah and crew showed up, wanting to know what was going to happen. I had no idea. So we wandered to the nurses' station and asked when my doctor would arrive. I was told that he normally did not make rounds at AGMC. I asked if my cardiologist would be coming in. Again, a negative; he did not make rounds on weekends, and when he did come in, it would only be in the nature of a consultation, since the ER cardiologist had the responsibility of finally signing off on my release, and the GP I had been assigned in the ER would have the responsibility of actually signing the release.

At about this point, I was beginning to have symptoms -- of great irritation. My Rib called my doctor's office, then dialed the emergency number from the recording she got, and explained that we needed to talk to my doctor. Shortly thereafter, his partner called my cell phone and, out of breath and sounding a little unhappy that we had disturbed his Saturday activities, said that indeed my doctor had been informed that I was in the hospital. I was resigned to my imprisonment.

Now up to this point I had been alone in my room. I was comfortable, and Friday night I had slept with just the bedsheet covering my feet. Late Saturday afternoon, the adjoining bed was given to a fellow who was recovering from complete cardiac arrest. His grandson, who had been a lifeguard and had providentially been present at the time, had started CPR immediately. A pacemaker was now installed, and he had been brought up from ICU. Wrapped in blankets, and clutching a pillow to his chest (his ribs had been cracked during CPR), he immediately complained that the room was too warm. His nurse complied, turning the thermostat down from 70° to 65°, and unleashing a cold draft from the ceiling vents. (Beloved Rib would later sneak over, while he was sleeping, and turn it back up to 68°.) Needless to say, I made use of both the sheet and the blanket the next two nights.

Sunday morning, my cardiologist's partner dropped in again, having looked at my file in their office, and basically opined that, in my case, someone might have over-reacted. He felt that my stay was probably a waste of time, seeing that I had a history of a slow heart rate, and I was scheduled for an appointment in their office in a few weeks anyway. Nevertheless, he was not MY cardiologist, and without a recommendation from MY cardiologist, who would not be in until Monday, the ER cardiologist would not sign off on my release. He did authorize putting me back on my blocker, but at a reduced dose.

My assigned GP again dropped by for an obligatory 3 or 4 minute chat, and again seemed very doubtful that I was not feeling any symptoms of distress, especially since my blocker had been withheld on Saturday and my heart rate and blood pressure were now quite high. I was pleasantly surprised by a visit from Art and Sarah Kaufman, who had been visiting one of his cousins in a room a few doors down from mine. I had not seen Art since he found Jesse his house, and we had a brief but very good chat. Mike and Suzi brought Grannie to visit, and Suzi left her tablet with me so I could go on-line (the hospital has an open wireless network for patient/visitor use).

My Beloved Rib had spent two nights sleeping beside me on a hospital bed. I sent her home Sunday night so she could get a better rest in a warm room. At 3:30 in the morning, the nurses came in to change my IV. I said it could wait, I was going home in a few hours. They said no, that it had to be replaced anyway, and they got it done, barely, on their second try. Ouch.

Monday morning was foggy, but I was eager to escape. My cardiologist showed up at about 8:30, said we would take up the discussion at my scheduled appointment, and wrote out the recommendation for my release. I joyfully called for my Beloved Rib to come get me. The hours dragged by. About 2:30, the assigned GP having failed to show up, we mentioned the fact to my nurse. She began calling around the hospital to find out what was delaying my release.

My assigned GP had gone home for the day, early, and had left a list of patients to be seen with another doctor, who eventually showed up in my room about 3:00 and said that he had not been informed that I was to go home, or he would have been in to see me in the morning. Nevertheless, he was empowered to sign my release, which he did, and by 3:30 I was on my way out the door.

A comedy of errors? Perhaps, but I keep reminding myself that God has a purpose in all things. I met some new people, I saw an old friend, I was kept from traveling. Having an abnormal patient in their care may have been a good training exercise for the nurses. Plus, I have had a lesson reinforced : the passage from Hebrews 13:16 (KJV) now has a special meaning for me.

Prognosis

I do not in the least bit believe that the world will come to an end in December 2012. Frankly, though this world-age [aeon] could come to a crashing end at any second, I don't think it will occur in my lifetime. I guess that what I am saying is that it is more likely that my lifetime will come to a crashing end at any second; I am only a heartbeat from judgment.

Now that thought could be scary. The uncertainty of our lives is one of the reasons Jesus preached about the dangers of slacking off in our Kingdom duties. Today I read the 13th chapter of Mark. Here is what I think is a likely scenario for the future.

As a nation holding out the promise of freedom and justice, the United States is finished. The recent election was the modern equivalent of the man's hand writing on the wall, and the message was the same -- "mene, mene, tekel, upharsin"; "numbered, numbered, weighed, divided". Our national sins have been tallied up, the decision has been finalized, and as a nation we no longer have the unity of purpose to exist as a free people.

What comes next is anyone's guess, but the Glory of America is gone. Jesus warned of wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters, and the rise of evil and deceptive rulers. His prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the Temple in particular was only partially fulfilled and waits completion; the horror of the abominable desolation of the city and the destruction so complete that not even the Western Wall remains standing seems yet to come.

The danger to those who call themselves Christian is then evident in His next words, for He tells of deceivers coming in His name, and Daniel speaks of the Little Horn who "shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: " As Jesus put it, "For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."

Now I realize that popular opinion is against me in this, since there is that school of thought which holds that Jesus will secretly snatch away all the Believers at the secret sounding of the trumpet and that the elect spoken of here are Israelites and not the Church. They are, of course, wrong. The elect are the Chosen of God, both Jew and Gentile according to Paul, and the warning Jesus gave was to all those who claim to be His disciples.

History tends to repeat itself, and the inhumanity of the Inquisition will doubtless reappear. There will be those who betray their loved ones, because they think they are doing Christ a favor. We may tend to scoff at that idea, but when someone who appears as a savior, capable of publicly working miracles, gives the command to round up those who impede his progress, he will have no trouble finding believers in his cause. Jesus said the love of many would grow cold; Paul said there would be a great falling away when the son of perdition would be revealed.

Pause for a moment to consider the havoc that would be worked on our political and economic system if everyone were to follow the teaching of Jesus. Forgiving those who have harmed us would ruin the military-industrial complex, as would doing good to our enemies. Refusing to be covetous would ruin the bankers. Insisting on chastity would destroy a good portion of the entertainment (or what passes for entertainment) industry. A side effect would be the ruination of most of the lawyers.

If a wonder-worker providing food and world peace came on the scene and said that those who didn't support his program had to go, does anyone doubt he would find willing hands to do his evil work? If someone who claimed to be the Son of God, performing miracles as proof of his deity, commanded his followers to kill anyone who refused to obey him, do you think that there would not be many who would be deceived enough to do his bidding? Jesus said it would happen. There will be many professing Christians that will be seduced; the elect will refuse to fall for it and will pay with their lives.

Jesus warned His disciples not to slack off in well-doing. He gave to each of His own some work to do, and if anyone needs to be reminded of that work, he needs only read Matthew chapter 5. Those are the talents the Master left with His servants. They are sand in the gears of the mechanism of this aeon.

We need not fear missing the "Rapture" of the church unless it is through our own deception by the False Christ. The dead in Christ are beyond worry, and the living need to watch. We can tell when the Real Jesus appears -- He "shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven." and, as Paul writes, "and so shall we ever be with the Lord". That, however, requires a change -- we will have to leave these bodies behind, most likely but not necessarily as corpses, since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God". Any messiah which appears without causing us to be resurrected is a false messiah.

And now comes the somewhat esoteric part -- the reason I think that the Lord's return is still somewhat distant and that tribulation is near. Space travel. Yes, you read that correctly. I have a hunch that mankind is going to step forward into space, and actually reach out quite far. A false messiah, enforcing world peace, as dictator and controller of the earth's resources, would have the means of channeling the energies of the earth's people into star travel. It would be another of those vain attempts to "reach unto heaven", the dream that was crushed at Babel. Further, the Scripture hints at that possibility, when God warns Israel of the penalty for apostasy -- exile -- but says that if they repent,

"If any of thine outcasts be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will Jehovah thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:" Dt 30:4(ASV).

This is repeated and reinforced,

"…but if you return to Me and keep My commandments and do them, though those of you who have been scattered were in the most remote part of the heavens, I will gather them from there and will bring them to the place where I have chosen to cause My name to dwell." Neh 1:9 (NASB).

Thus Jesus tells His disciples,

"And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven." Mk 13:27 (NASB).

Perhaps history will yet repeat itself. When guinea pigs are needed for "scientific" experiments, when expendable lives are required, who else to utilize, but the Children of God? Another Holocaust is on the way. "And ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."

Almost Funny

I just came across a Slashdot article that mentioned a large increase in the use of coal as power-generation fuel in China. This was attributed to the fact that the price of coal has declined significantly in the past few years due to the rise in "green" technologies in Western countries. Thus, while businesses in the West are spending vast sums to reduce CO2 emissions by going with solar and wind power generation packages, the Chinese are profiting from the surplus of coal to run their factories at a lower cost.

I suppose the next logical step for the Climate Change Brigades will be proposing legislation to make coal mining illegal in order to drive up the price and force the Chinese into compliance. It should make for an interesting string-pushing contest.

Some Thanksgiving Thoughts

I woke this morning and helped my Beloved Rib ready the turkey and potatoes. Turkey is in the oven; potatoes are waiting to be cooked closer to noon. Then I began to muse on Thanksgiving.

The number of things I could list as worthy of being thankful for is higher than I can count. I have to start with the graciousness of the Eternal God who not only provided the means of my redemption through His sacrifice on the cross paying the debt for my sin, but also for calling me to a realization of my need to be redeemed and granting me the faith to believe that it was true. That is a precious privilege. My thankfulness can only be expressed in a totally inadequate way by striving to follow His instructions for life.

Then I thought of the heritage which I have through my family; my parents and the generations that went before. My knowledge of who they were and what they did spans barely a century. Without a doubt, within my genealogy there are not only devout people of faith with kind hearts who blessed their communities through their love for Jesus, but knowing the history of Europe, it is impossible to deny that among them would have been idolaters, murderers, rapists, thieves, adulterers, and scoundrels of every sort. Yet despite what they may have done, or perhaps because of it, I am their descendant, and their actions, through the ages, have brought me to where I am. I am thankful for their lives, and owe them, whether they seemed evil or good, honor by being the best person I can be, and instructing my own descendants, to my dying day, in the ways of righteousness.

I am also thankful for my church fellowship. It is a microcosm of The Church Universal. While individual brothers and sisters may have different understandings regarding practices within the framework of their own cultures and times, the love of the Body of Christ reaches out to condemned sinners everywhere, not only expounding the message that salvation from eternal separation from a Holy God is possible through grace by faith in the completed work of Jesus, but expressing the Gospel message that because Jesus rose from the dead, we can also live sacrificially in love, even toward our enemies, because we, too, have that same hope of resurrection with Him. My thankfulness to my church can be expressed by tolerance of the believers who are weak in faith, carefully living so as to not cause any of them to sin, and stating the facts regarding sin and salvation without shying from the truth and yet without being contentious.

The land in which I live also provides a reason for thanksgiving. Within the framework of our government is one of the greatest gifts men have bestowed upon other men -- a Constitution, which not only provides a legal basis for the operation of government, but also limits that government as to its powers. Appreciation for that document requires that I be vigilant, examining my own actions as to whether they express respect for the hard-won freedoms protected by it. It may not be a perfect solution to the problems of life, but one of its stated purposes is the establishment of Justice, and the doing of Justice is one of the requirements the Eternal God has placed upon mankind.

True thankfulness for these gifts seems to be rare. We have a holiday called Thanksgiving, but it is overshadowed by a commercial event known as Black Friday (which, to maximize the love of money, has been extended into Blighted Thursday). Today will be a day of gluttony and drunkenness, and will culminate in an orgy of covetousness. Little consideration will be paid to the cost of the gifts which we take for granted.

I remember sitting through afternoon services in our old North Akron church, listening to Bro. Fred Kalman preach. Attendance was sparse; the morning folk always seemed to have better things to do than listen to an old man with a quavery voice expound on the blessings of God. Bro. Fred had an interesting life. As a young Believer, during the Great War, he was drafted and willingly went off to serve his country, but with a conscientious objection to killing people. In the early part of the 20th Century, the United States imprisoned men who were willing to serve but objected to killing.

Bro. Fred served time in a U.S. military prison for his beliefs, and I remember his voice breaking as he would describe the deaths of his fellow prisoners from the Great Influenza Epidemic. He stood for his convictions, and when the Second Great War came about, the sacrifices of the Believers in the first one bore fruit; our young brothers bravely served, as unarmed medics, on battlefields around the world, caring for the wounded and dying. Fred was a patriot; he was thankful for the Constitution which allowed the brethren to freely exercise their beliefs, and he was thankful that he had been used in that struggle to guarantee freedom. He preached it. He believed that as Christians in America, we had not only the right but the obligation to make sacrifices for justice, and for the future generations. Too bad that so many had no time to listen.

Our forebears (and even many now among us) fled Europe for America because here we could live out our beliefs under the protection of the Constitution. Sadly, the part in the Preamble about "secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" seems to have been forgotten in the importance of securing what we can for ourselves while the opportunity exists. Gone is the sense that personal sacrifice is needed to keep our descendants free, much less to adequately show thankfulness to the Eternal for what He has allowed us.

The recent election was said to be about "the economy", or a myriad of other "what's in it for me" items. America has forgotten that it is the blessing of God that makes a person rich (whether deserving or not -- that really irritates some people, that God would not consult them first!) and that it is God who sets up kings (OK - wannabe kings) and takes them down. Christians, both individually and collectively as The Church, have been sidetracked by the lure of materialism, and the encouragement of contentious behavior by the Adversary.

Take a quiz, Christian. First, read through the Ten Commandments (and don't give me any blowback about not being under the Law; such nonsense is the refuge of people who still think the Law is for justification rather than the definition of Sin). Then answer the following questions:

1. Is it Just to steal from the rich to give to the poor? Is it ever right to take something from someone else? (#8)
2. Is it Right to defy legally constituted authority based on our own comfort or convenience? (You may need to do some digging on this one, since it falls under #5 in the matter of loving God.)
3. Is it Just to kill unborn babies or the disabled and aged (mercy killing). Is it Just to kill anyone (friend or foe) without an unbiased trial? (The Law makes a strong case for capital punishment of certain offenses, with definite conditions.) Is it Just to kill anyone who has not been proven guilty? (#6).
4. Is it Right to engage in non-exclusive sexual relations outside the joining of a man and woman as one flesh until death separates them? (#7)
5. Is it Just to deceive (whether on a tax form or any other place where an advantage can be obtained) under any conditions? Do the ends ever justify the means, or has the Imitation of God some sort of exemption for being truthful? (#9)
6. Is it Right to be envious of what someone else has, insisting that we be treated exactly the way they are, or do we acknowledge that God is Sovereign and provides us with what we need, and that if we feel the need for more of anything, we should ask Him and not trust in Other People? (#10)

I'm guessing you don't like the answers. I am also stating that the failure of The Church to teach people to adhere to God's standards and take a stand for what is right is the primary reason for the erosion of American society. Christians are to be Salt and Light. They are called to be witnesses [Gr. μάρτυρ, Eng. martyr] , examples of how to love God and their neighbors. They are called to state the truth, live the truth, and not be contentious about it. They are not called to pass laws prohibiting or allowing any particular behavior. The Church has failed miserably, because those who would preach and teach such things fear that to do so would diminish the size of the congregation and the attending collection. The love of money is the root of all evil, especially in The Church.

Fred Kalman, and many other Believers like him, sacrificially stood for what was right in the face of persecution. He was thankful for his freedoms, understanding the First Amendment even when the authorities did not, and he was even more thankful for the grace of God that had led him to salvation.

Thanksgiving, 2012. Have another drumstick, and race out to the midnight sale. What are you thankful for, and how will you express it?

Treason

From the transcript of the third 2012 Presidential Debate :

SCHIEFFER: "Let -- let me ask you, Governor because we know President Obama's position on this, what is -- what is your position on the use of drones?"

ROMNEY: "Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends. But let me also note that as I said earlier, we're going to have to do more than just going after leaders and -- and killing bad guys, important as that is."

With that statement, Mitt Romney failed to make a commitment to renew hope for liberty in America.

When President George W. Bush instituted the War on Terror in 2001 and Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, the jihadists who flew the planes into the World Trade Center towers achieved their greatest victory. They had, through the use of fear, and by arousing a desire for vengeance, caused the United States to begin to devour itself.

Let me remind the reader that the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as they were passed in order of time, overrode any prior portions of the original Articles, including the powers granted to Congress, the President, and the Judiciary. That was the purpose of amending the document. Thus we have the following :

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The War on Terror, as prosecuted via the USA Patriot Act, violates in numerous places the above three Amendments, and is clearly unConstitutional in that respect. Evidences of warrantless searches and seizures, of indefinite detention without habeas corpus, of arrests based on secret testimony; all these are commonly reported in our daily news, with no resistance to the tyranny by those sworn to uphold the Constitution and defend it against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Those hired to protect have been the most egregious violators.

The Obama Drone Policy, of which Romney said, "I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends." has been used to sentence U.S citizens to death without trial. Further, the desire of the current administration to expand the use of drones worldwide against persons who are United States citizens, is an act of treason against the United States, since it gives aid to an enemy whose desire is to destroy our Constitutional protections.

Frequent mention has been made that this election is mostly about the economy. To the average voter, that is probably true, but what is also true is the undeniable fact that the collapse of our economy is inevitable. It will not matter who has won the Presidency. Whether we go forward into ruin under the policies of Obama, or in spite of the 5-point plan of Romney, whoever sits in that chair will face the responsibility for the failure.

America has, however, endured poverty before. The difference was that before, Americans enjoyed liberty under their Constitution. The poverty of free men has a much different feel than the poverty of slaves under tyranny.

It will not matter who wins this election; neither major candidate is a champion of liberty, and Americans will get the government they deserve. America has thrown away a gift from God, and the consequence will be one more chance to seek repentance on our knees.

Barack or Mitt?

I'm not at all in favor of continuing the status quo of the U.S. government. For most Americans, the choice comes down to one of two contenders, with the argument made that failure to vote for one of the two is simply a wasted electoral exercise. There are serious considerations tied to the upcoming election, and there are certain facts which need to be examined before leaping off into the ballot booth.

I. The economy. The Democrat (Socialist) Party incumbent would have us believe that all will be well if we just continue to borrow money. What is not discussed is the fact that money is a portable substitute for goods and services. If money is printed without any backing other than a promise to pay, and the people who own broken promises stop accepting them, the system propped up by that money must collapse. The challenger has offered some ideas that would slow down the breaking of the promises, but not eliminate them altogether. Further, sober number-crunching shows us that as a nation we have already passed the tipping point for economic collapse. The patient is terminally ill, and we aren't making funeral arrangements yet. When he dies, the body will get stinky in a hurry. Get ready.

2. Personal freedom. The status quo is a movement toward greater restriction and control of individuals and their liberty. The Democrat position is that might makes right; individuals must be subordinate to the will of the majority or face being beaten into subjection. The Republican (Whig) position is that the central government has the privilege of dictating uniform laws across the land; if you are not for them, you are against them, and if you are against them, you face being beaten into subjection. Not much choice of outcomes there.

Helping my mother fill out her absentee ballot the other day -- and no, I did not tell her how to vote, but simply made sure she followed the instructions for filling out the envelope -- I was made aware of the number of choices available on this election's ballot. (From the Summit County BOE website).

• Stewart Alexander/Alex Mendoza (Socialist)
• Susan E. Daniels/Jerry A. Veneskey (Write-In)
• Richard Duncan/Ricky Johnson
• Virgil Goode/Jim Clymer (Constitution)
• Gary Johnson/James P. Gray (Libertarian)
• Nelson Keyton/Jay Jennelle (Write-In)
• Barack Obama/Joe Biden (Democrat)
• Jill Reed/Tom Cary (Write-In)
• Platt Robertson/Scott Fall (Write-In)
• Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (Republican)
• Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala (Green)
• Randall A. Terry/Cathy Lewis (Write-In)
• Mike Vargo/Jeff Angeletti (Write-In)

Quite an array. We have a fairly clear idea where the Democrat and Republican candidates stand on things, but what of the others? Let's take a look.

Write-Ins & Independents. Those aren't actually write-ins; they are real ballot choices. I have no idea what they stand for. They don't seem well enough organized to actually be effective presiding over the United States.

Socialist Party : "Socialism and democracy are one and indivisible." That is their party line. Socialist Party USA. Prepare to be assimilated. Ugh.

Libertarian Party : "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." That's a nice sentiment, but, personally, I don't subscribe to it, because I know that God will bring us all into judgment. Libertarianism sounds good as long as the fine print is ignored. God ordained government to hold libertarians in check. Libertarian Party 2012 Platform. Sorry, I don't buy this.

Green Party of the United States : "We are partners with the European Federation of Green Parties and the Federation of Green Parties of the Americas." Wonderful. These folks believe government should control everything -- a sort of Anti-Libertarian party -- with the ultimate authority seemingly the UN General Assembly. 2012 Green Party Platform . Run away! Run away!

Democrat Party : "Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own." That's why Mr. Obama can say that an individual cannot succeed without government help. Democratic National Platform. If you are tempted to vote for these guys, read the platform carefully. They spend more time bashing Republicans and bragging about how they spent borrowed money than setting forward their political theory.

Republican Party : "The American Dream is a dream of equal opportunity for all. And the Republican Party is the party of opportunity." Sounds good, and the Prez/VP candidates seem to be men of good character. But … a part of their planned reforms is "…reversing the undermining of federalism…." 2012 Republican Platform . Sounds good, but not quite good enough.

Constitution Party : "The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries." Constitution Party National Platform. I guess these folks are as close to what I believe as anybody out there gets.

So what happens if I vote for Virgil Goode and Barack Obama wins the election? Maybe I should be asking what happens if Virgil Goode wins?

You see, the election is not in the hands of the people of the United States. This nation has invited the wrath of Almighty God, not through the actions of its rulers alone, but through the wanton disregard, by the people, of God's standards. It is God who sets up kings and takes them down. It was God who placed Barack Obama in Washington as a warning and punishment for America's sins.

So, unless there is wholesale repentance on the part of the people of the United States, it will not matter who sits in the White House. God will have put that person there. Despite that person's beliefs or desires, God will deal with America according to its sins. If our vaunted freedoms disappear because of our personal, everyday lifestyles, that is God's justice.

Make the best decision you can based on the facts that you have, and leave the results in God's hands. He can save, whether by few or by many.

No Middle Ground

From my June 24th sermon .. transcribed and cleaned up a bit ...

--------------------------------------

In my sermon two weeks ago I said things which later caused me to think quite a bit . There is a lot of concern in our world about how we conduct ourselves, what we should do, and how we define things. The burning question in our society today is still what do we say when someone asks us about marriage. I'd like to read, continuing somewhat in the 7th chapter of 1st Corinthians, where Paul writes this :

1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, It were good for a man not to touch a woman.
2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3. Let the husband give unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4. The wife hath not the power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not the power of his own body, but the wife.
5. Defraud not one another, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and again come together, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6. But I speak this by permission, not by commandment.
7. For I would that all men were even as I myself am. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8. Therefore I say unto the unmarried, and unto the widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I do.
9. But if they cannot abstain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.
10. And unto the married I command, not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.
11. But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife.
12. But to the remnant I speak, and not the Lord, If any brother have a wife that believeth not, if she be content to dwell with him, let him not forsake her.
13. And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, if he be content to dwell with her, let her not forsake him.
14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not in subjection in such things, but God hath called us in peace.
16. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or what knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
17. But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all Churches.[Geneva 1560]

In a somewhat light frame of mind, several weeks ago I made a comment that I thought that perhaps God runs a binary universe. I meant that in the sense that with God, things are either "Yes" or "No". They are good or evil. There is salvation, or damnation. There is Heaven, or there is Hell. There is right, and there is wrong. In God's universe, there really is no middle ground. It's either one, or the other.

The world looks at that says, "Oh, that sounds like you have a very harsh and difficult God. No middle ground? No compromise? Nothing that you can cling to in the center?"

The citizens of the world take the Ten Commandments and would turn them into the Ten Suggestions. They would say, "Well that sounds OK, up to a point. We prefer something like "You will have no other gods before me , unless, of course, it offends someone. Honor the Sabbath Day, unless you've got something better to do. Honor your father and mother, and the authorities that have been set over you, up to the point that you know better than they do. You shouldn't covet, unless you can afford it. You shouldn't kill any one, unless, of course, it's in self-defense. You shouldn't steal anything, unless you are really in need, and you shouldn't tell a lie, unless maybe it will help smooth things over'." The powers of this world abhor absolutes.

Regarding marriage, Jesus, in the 19th chapter of Matthew, talked about the two becoming one flesh. He talked about the fact that in sexual intercourse, God mysteriously created an indissoluble bond. Even His disciples said, "Master, that's pretty harsh. You've got to find some middle ground here. Who could be saved if we're going to have this kind of standard, where its either yes or no, good or evil? There needs to be some kind of middle ground or nobody can be saved." And Jesus said, "No, not really -- with God, these things are possible." As His followers, we have to be careful how we approach these kinds of things.

So, in looking at the definition -- God's definition -- of marriage, I questioned, I looked very deeply, into what the Scripture had to say. It still comes down to the idea that the two become one flesh. What God has joined together, no man can take apart.

In our language, there are a lot of words that we don't use any more. They've kind of fallen by the wayside, and I suggested two weeks ago that perhaps instead of talking about marriage, the Church ought rather to speak about Holy Matrimony. It might sound old fashioned, but it would make a little bit of a distinction from what the world has to say about it.

However, there is another English term that we very rarely hear any more, and that's the term wedlock. Occasionally you will hear it referred to as Holy Wedlock. Maybe it fell into disfavor because it sounded too sexual; I can only conjecture. But that term, if you go back to its roots, reaffirms the idea that what God has joined together, what He has made one flesh, that's bound for as long as the two shall live.

In 1st Corinthians 7 Paul lays down some instructions for Believers. He says, "You know there are some things that I teach that are pretty much my own idea. There are things that the Lord has let me teach by permission, not by commandment."

He then outlines some of the things that are in this category. He talks about people going through life not being married, and he says, "You know, this is the way I am . I wish everybody could be like I am because that would free them from so many of the cares and responsibilities that they have." As married people, yes, we do have cares and responsibilities. There are things that we are bound to. First, of course, we are bound to our spouses. Then we find that we are bound to our children, and the matters that have to do with the family sometimes compete with the things that have to do with church , with serving the Lord in some ministry. For unmarried people, to be able to decide that they'd like to go and spend several weeks or months or years on the mission field, to serve the Lord that way, they are free to do that. For a married couple to make that kind of decision, that's something that really is a major step.

Married people have all kinds of responsibilities that have to be addressed before some of these things can be undertaken. The single person is not bound by some of these things. So Paul says, "In terms of your service, it's good if people could be like I am." But he says, "I realize that not everybody can be like I am." So he gives further instructions and again, he says he's doing this by permission. He says its not something that God said, but something that the Lord allowed him to say -- "If they can't contain, if they can't hold back, let them marry. It's better to marry than to burn with passion, to be overcome by illicit sexual desires."

But, having given his own opinion, he then comes back to what he says is the Lord's command.

We then read his exposition of the Lord's words in Matthew 19, and he says, "Let not the wife depart from her husband, but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife." And its interesting that he uses that term, reconciled, because in another place, he says that we have been given the ministry of reconciliation.

When we consider the Lord's Prayer, right in the center of it is a statement that speaks to the ministry of reconciliation. It's where Jesus told his disciples to pray "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." You see, when you forgive someone, you must in a certain sense be reconciled to them. There has to be this kind of giving in of our own will. When we forgive, we give something up. Perhaps its our own stubbornness, perhaps its our pride. Perhaps its an expense -- maybe they cost us some money. Maybe they cost us our reputation. Maybe they cost us a lot. And we forgive and we can be reconciled to them; there is no reconciliation without forgiveness. From what Jesus said, we can conclude that if two people are not reconciled, they need to be considering their own standing before the Lord.

Think -- have we really gone the last mile? Have we really taken every effort, every opportunity to be reconciled? Its a price that we have to pay; when we think about the price that Jesus paid for our reconciliation, that was the ultimate price. He died for us, He shed His blood for us. There is no greater price that could be paid. We are called to that.

The entire substance of our life as Christians is centered around the fact that we have been reconciled to God by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As we serve Him, He says, "If you want to be considered children of your Father, you have to do His works." He says, in His address to His disciples before He left them, "You are going to do greater works than I've done." And from our perspective, sometimes extending a hand of friendship to someone who has wronged us is one of those greater works. Its one of those things that absolutely rubs us the wrong way . We look at things and we say, "But I'm justified in holding a grudge. I'm justified in keeping back." So, Paul speaks to these people who've suffered great loss, and it would be a very great loss indeed for a husband to leave a wife or a wife to leave a husband.

Sometimes we might look at the abandonment and we might say, "There was reasonable cause for that. Perhaps one of the spouses was abusive. Perhaps one of the spouses was simply unreasonable, or cruel." Yet Paul says, "Wait a minute -- what is it that you were called to? You see," he says, "if these people leave, you have to abide by that. You have to absorb the loss." He says, "In these kinds of things, they should remain unmarried, because there is always that hope of reconciliation." Reconciliation is our highest calling.

In looking back over the years, in our experience, we've seen that there have been those who decided to go the route of separation. They decided that because of their situation, they had to be separated from their husband or their wife. They were encouraged by people who said that it sounded like there was a reasonable cause. It seemed to be a situation where it would be better if they were separated, and those kinds of things definitely occur, for the safety of a wife, perhaps, or the safety of the children. But then, having separated, the two people remarry, because the logic has been, well, that person is pretty much spiritually dead, the one who caused the situation. And then we find, perhaps years later, the offending spouse is converted and repents.

Now there is a serious situation, because God has said, the two became one flesh, and what He had joined together, no one -- no decree of man -- can take apart. Having married another person, an adulterous situation was created. When we start to use God's definition as the definition of marriage, all the things that our society is throwing at us today can fall by the wayside. God's definition of marriage is definitive. It doesn't matter what some court says, it doesn't matter what some legislature says; they do not override the Word of God.

In the cases that we've seen where people have thrown God's Word aside and said, "We're going to decree that a marriage is what we decide its going to be", then we have things like homosexual marriage. It's interesting to note that currently a new question has risen, can we have homosexual divorce? And the world is stuck on the problem. The problem would disappear if they would simply look at God's Word and see what He says. We have to take it for what it is, exactly as He says, and not try to make exceptions or try to go around it. We aren't to try to be some sort of lawyer and find the loopholes.

This doesn't bear only on the question of marriage. It bears on everything else that God has said for us to do.

What is our position as we look at the Ten Commandments? Lots of people want those Ten Commandments posted in the courthouses and in the schools. They think that's great, that those rules are something that we ought to look up to. But when you ask them if they really believe that that's what they should do, if they really follow the Commandments to the letter, you get excuses. You hear people ignorantly claim they are no longer required to obey the Law. They turn their backs on Paul's statement that the Law was a schoolmaster -- an instructor in what was right and good -- to bring us to Christ as we saw our need for a Savior because we could not keep the Law perfectly.

You see, God set those Commandments down as absolutes. Those rules, those regulations, those laws, define sin, and sin is something that separates people from God. The instant we begin to make excuses, or begin to find loopholes around the law, the instant that we take God's standard of righteousness and we find excuses, we drive a wedge between ourselves and God.

True, there is no one who can keep all those laws. They are a yes or no proposition. You either do it, or you don't. And it's so hard to uphold, just in our everyday speech. As we talk with people, do we tell the absolute truth? Or do we shade it just a little bit? If we do, we've gone over the edge. And that makes us uncomfortable, thinking about it. We'd like to say, "You know, God's got to make an exception in this case. We can't keep these things." And, He says, "I know you can't. I know that you cannot keep all these things. That's why Jesus had to die for you."

You see, if our righteousness was centered on keeping the law, not one of us would be able to fellowship with God. Not one of us would have a hope of Heaven. Not one of us would be able to say that we are saved. But God has given us salvation. He's given us a Savior who has paid the price for us. Our sins nailed Him to that tree. Our sins caused Him to be mocked and scorned. Think of that.

If we do everything that God asks us to do -- not just asks, commands us to do -- if we follow through on what He says, the world will mock us. Oh, those foolish Christians. You would rather starve than steal? You would rather give up your life than tell a lie? You would rather go without, than covet what your neighbor has? Oh. those foolish Christians. But the Scripture tells us that we have something that eye has not seen and ear has not heard. It's reserved for us, but we need to remain faithful. We need to believe that what He has said is true. If we don't believe what God has said is true, we are calling Him a liar.

Think about that for a minute. If we don't trust what He has said, we're calling Him a liar.

In our Bible Class lesson this morning we touched on the idea that the disciples were there in Galilee and they were probably fishing because they were hungry. And Jesus even said. "Do you have any food?" "No", they replied. He invited them, "Come and dine." They didn't need the huge number of fish they had caught. You see, God can provide for His people, even in the direst circumstances. All we need to do is take Him at His word, to believe what He says.

He says that certain things need to be followed, that our job is to seek the Kingdom of Heaven first, and His righteousness. Part of our job is the ministry of reconciliation where we reach out to people who have offended us, people who have sinned against us. We don't wait for them to come to us and say "I'm sorry." Jesus didn't wait for us to come to Him and say, "I'm sorry" before He paid the price for us. We must reach out to them, in reconciliation.

Just as Jesus has been slapped in the face by so many people over the centuries who have seen and heard what He did for their salvation, what He gave up, the price that He paid, and they have experienced the knowledge of God and they have turned Him down and rejected Him, we need to understand that when we go to be reconciled with people we are going to be rejected too. That doesn't matter. If we do what He says we are to do, it doesn't matter.

God does run a binary universe. We will either obey or disobey, there is no middle ground. If we have obeyed Him and have followed through on His word, we have exercised all of the rights and privileges and the characteristics of our Father in Heaven. That's what we should be doing.

Picking My Poison

There are more kinds of stocks than there are colors in a box of crayons. There are low priced and high priced stocks. There are stocks that can be held for income, and stocks that can be held for growth or speculation. There are stocks that are very risky, and there are stocks that are boringly safe. What kinds of companies will I own?

The type of company which a person is interested in buying is a reflection of that person's view of the purpose of investing. It may be helpful once again to visit the story of the beginning. God had created people, and gave to them His first instructions.

1. be prolific in order to fill the Earth with people,and,
2. exercise absolute control over the Earth to maximize its production for the benefit of the people.

Each person must come to grips with his or her own level of submission to those two tasks. My own response to the the charge leads me to invest in companies which produce goods and services, and most specifically, goods and services of the types which I find myself using in the course of life. Utilities, manufacturing companies, food production, pharmaceuticals, transportation; all these sectors are comfortable in the sense that I feel myself to be providing benefits to other people.

Where a company is located is also a matter of interest. When I invest in a company, I provide it with operating capital which allows it to expand operations and ultimately provide jobs for other people. If I feel a higher level of concern for the people of my own nation than for people in far off places, i will tend to invest in more local companies.

The type of return and the long-range goal of my investing will determine whether I choose stocks which tend to grow in value in and of themselves, or stocks which pay out higher percentages of the company profits in annual dividends. A determining factor in choosing a stock will be its price history over a period of several years. If I wish to speculate -- gamble if you will -- by trying to buy low and sell high, the dividend history of a stock will be of less interest than its price history. If I wish to maximize an income stream from my investment, the ratio of the dividend to my purchase price will be a more important factor.

So, then, some general guidelines which I have formulated for my own holdings:

1. The investment must be morally sound. I will not invest in products or services which I feel do not contribute to the betterment of my society. Shares in casinos or cigarette companies are not even on the radar because of their records of destruction of human lives. Neither are insurance or finance companies, since those entities generate their profits through fear and usury. You might be shaking your head at this point, since those kinds of companies frequently offer the highest rates of return. I reserve the right to judge the righteousness of my own investments, and pay the penalty for my judgment.
2. The investment must pay a dividend. If I am to be an owner in a company, I want it to make a profit, and when it makes a profit, as an owner, I feel entitled to my part of that profit. Dividends can be tricky; the higher returns often are a sign of higher risk.
3. The investment must be affordable and such that downward changes in price are not likely to cause excessive mental stress. I choose cheap(er) stocks for two good reasons. The first is that if two stocks are paying the same amount of dividend annually, but one is half the price of the other, the rate of return for the lower price stock is twice that of the higher. Simple math, but often ignored. The second reason has to do with the volatility of the stock market and the possibility of being forced to liquidate a position in a down market. If the price of a stock declines, say 30%, I will lose far less of my initial investment in X shares of a cheap stock than I would in X shares of a high flyer. I am loathe to spend more than $40/share. While some of my stocks are currently trading in the mid-$70 range or above, I bought them at about $40, and I will not buy any more of those stocks while they remain so expensive (although I will probably let the dividends be reinvested).

So what do I own at this time? What I am about to tell you is not to be considered a reliable guide to making money. You are about to view my idiosyncrasies, and if you attempt to duplicate what I have done, you may loose your shirt (along with the rest of your clothing). Thus, in order of my capitalistic meanderings:

AIVSX - The Investment Company of America. This is my only mutual fund, originally recommended by Mark Novkov. I hold it simply because it has sentimental value. It is also growing, and if you take pleasure in watching trees grow or racing turtles, this one is exciting. It does seem safe, though.

D - Dominion Resources, Inc. My natural gas supplier finally convinced me that I should buy its stock and get back some of my heating bill money. As the price has gone up, the dividend yield percentage has shrunk a bit; it is now a hair over 2%. Still, winter comes once a year to this corner of the globe, and I see a future for furnace fuel far into the distance. I bought it in late 2008; it was at about $35 then.

SJM - I originally bought Smuckers at $42.24 per share, a steep price for me, but since we drink Folgers coffee, eat Jiff peanut butter, and bake with Crisco, it seemed like the right thing to do. While it pays $1.92 annually, it traded over the last year from $60.46 to $80.25, and if it wasn't for the Folgers, I probably would have sold it. I can't justify spending any more money on this one; it is now too risky for me.

PFE - Pfizer was not purchased because it produces Viagra. At the time I bought it, it was paying a 32 cent quarterly dividend, or about an 8% return. When the dividend was cut to 16 cents, the price plummeted, but it is now back up to 22 cents, with a current return of about 3.6%.

KMB - Kimberly-Clark makes Scott toilet paper. 'Nuf said. What goes in, must come out; there will always be a need for toilet paper. I bought a few shares at $58 and cannot justify buying more at today's prices, but the dividend is hefty enough to register about a 3.5% return.

WIN - Windstream is a telcom stock. I was driving around Geauga County, seeing Windstream Cable vans everywhere, and decided to buy. My initial 100 shares were purchased at $14.21, and over the last year it has traded in the range of $10.76 to $14.40. The dividend, however, is $1.00 annually, or 7% on my initial investment, and being in a DRIP, it has grown to the point where if I had to sell it, I would likely break even on my initial principal. If I hold it and let it grow, it will, in a decade or so, be a handsome income stock. As of September 24, the dividend return is just over 9%.

FE - FirstEnergy is an electrifying stock. Yuk-yuk-yuk! Hey, same idea as Dominion, here. I have to light my bulbs, I may as well pay myself for the favor. Paying about 5% now.

CAG - Conagra Foods makes ACT II popcorn, Hebrew National hot dogs, and Swiss Miss cocoa. Gotta have it. Returning roughly 3.5%.

LYTS - I purchased 100 shares of LSI Industries at $7.26; it pays 20 cents annually for a 2.75% return on my initial investment, and roughly 3.5% at current prices. However, it is in a Dividend Reinvestment Program, and over the last year has traded in the range of $5.85 to $9.61. It is a park-and-forget stock. I bought it because I was intrigued with the electronic billboards that LSI makes. Besides, it's an Ohio company. Have to keep the neighborhood employed.

RPM - Rustoleum Products, anyone? Another neighborhood business, paying about 3%.

GRC - Gorman-Rupp Company. Hmmm. I bought this to show solidarity with my son-in-law. Have to keep him employed. Good thing this stock did a 5 for 4 split soon after I bought it. Still under water, and only paying about 1.4%. HOWEVER. It has some strong points, like almost zero debt, and a huge market for its industrial pumps. Tortoises belong in every portfolio. It was purchased for the long-term, though, and is (to me) a prime example of the idea of exercising the Genesis 1 requirement.

FTR - Frontier Communications is another communications holding, bought initially at $5.95 and paying 75 cents annually, or 12.6%. It has had a 52 week range of $5.33 to $9.84 and is being held for income. Although the quarterly dividend was cut to 10 cents, it is still putting out over 8.5%.

ALSK - Alaska Communications. What? Yep, a cheap dividend stock. Looks like a loser, but when something is this cheap and paying 8% - 9%, you buy lots and hang on. Besides, they nearly have the wireless spectrum cornered in Seward's Folly. I can live with this risk.

DOW - The Dow Chemical Company. Better living through chemistry. I'll buy that. I did. Paying about 4%.

OLN - Every feller needs his Winchester. Buying this was an American thing to do. Besides, it pays about 3.5%.

TNK - Teekay Tankers is a company for us oil speculator types. Of course, all we do is fill up the big tubs and sail them from place to place. As long as the return is in the 10% - 13% range as it has been this year, I'll anchor some money here. This is one where the dividends have outweighed the loss in principal over the course of the year.

NM - Navios Maritime Holdings is a Greek owned bulk carrier with a huge modern South American terminal. Somebody has to feed the world; we deliver the food. And other stuff. They were a cheap buy, and the dividend is about 6%.

CSX - Well, I couldn't afford the Reading or the B&O, so I bought CSX since it was cheap and had a cute internet commercial. It is paying about 2.6%. The graph for this one shows why being a day trader is a sure cause of heart attacks. In this rodeo, you get on and hang on. We will always need our choo-choos, and I will probably buy more of this in the future.

I see only one legitimate and constructive way of "occupying" Wall Street. Buy stocks.

A Biblical Definition of Marriage

I had posted a transcript of my June 10th sermon on Facebook, and Hansen commented that it was blog material. Since I have ditched Facebook, I suppose this is a good resting place for it.

----------------------------- We're faced with a lot of tumult in the world; we're faced with a lot of decisions to make. There are contrary opinions floating here and there and we often have to make statements because people ask us what do we think about this thing or that thing. It's good to understand exactly what the Scripture has to say about certain things. I'd like to begin reading in the book of Genesis, all the way back in the second chapter. God had created man, He set man in the Garden of Eden, and He gave Adam a task. In the 18th verse:

Gen 2: 18-24 "18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

I would also like to read from Matthew, the 19th chapter, where Jesus was faced with a question. Matthew 19, beginning with the 3rd verse:

MT 19:3-9 : "3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. "

Recently, a Federal court made a ruling that parts of the law known as the Defense of Marriage Act were unConstitutional. That aroused a good bit of unhappiness because one of the things the Defense of Marriage Act says is that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Anybody running for office is faced sooner or later with the question, "Where do you stand with regard to this?" As Christians, we're often expected to say, "We agree with the Defense of Marriage Act." Yet the Scripture tells us something that is slightly different -- it's enough that we have to stop and think about what it's actually saying -- because Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." And when we stop to think about that, we have to stop to think about what it is that God has set up in His regime that is different from the world's.

Peter writes that in the last days, it will be just like in the days of Noah. He says they are going to be marrying and giving in marriage. So we have to think a little bit about this question. What is marriage? That's a big argument that's going on in our society today -- What is marriage? How do you define marriage? Is marriage just the relationship between one man and one woman?

I read a very interesting article, by Dr. R. Albert Mohler -- he's the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- writing as a contributing writer to CNN. He said that the question about homosexual marriage is one of the things that he is asked about most frequently. He pointed out what the Scripture has to say about homosexuality, and then he made a statement that caught my attention He said that the church has an opportunity at this point, and that it needs to make sure that it does what's right because it made a mess of the question of divorce.

I thought about that. You see, one of the things that people are upset with Christians about today is that we say marriage is just between one man and one woman. They ask, "What's so wrong about some other kind of arrangement? How can you Christians be so judgmental?" In fact, we find that in all the Scripture, it doesn't talk too much about what marriage is, so much, as it talks about the union between a man and his wife. So in Genesis we see that God declares that the two become one flesh. And we see in Matthew that Jesus repeats that, and He goes right back to that verse in Genesis, and says, "Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh?" For the most part the Christian world looks at that and says, "OK, that means one man and one woman."

However, the Apostle Paul writes something very, very interesting. He says this in the 6th chapter of 1st Corinthians :

"13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."

Throws an interesting light on it, doesn't it? What happens in an adulterous situation? What happens if you have one man and one woman and they have been joined together as one flesh, and one of them steps outside the relationship and becomes joined to another person as one flesh? Is that also a marriage? It would be, according to the Word of God. At that point the world says, "Wait a minute, we can't handle that."

In fact, under the law, people said, "We can't handle this." So Jesus pointed out, "Because of the hardness of your hearts God gave you divorce." But, he says, "It wasn't like that from the beginning. Divorce -- simply the fact that somebody says you are no longer married -- doesn't undo what God did."

The world says, "Wait a minute -- that means that if a man divorces his wife and marries somebody else, he now has two wives!" Yeah, it does. And they are both marriages. And the question becomes, "How do we get around the Word of God? How do we satisfy our consciences so that we can say it's all OK?" Jesus said divorce was permitted because of the hardness of peoples' hearts -- the unwillingness to obey God. What God has joined together, nobody can take apart. And Paul writes in Romans, that under the Law, when a woman is married to a man, the only thing that separates them is death.

At this point someone -- the government -- steps in and says "We're going to define marriage." I suppose they can do all the defining they want, but they can't undo what God said. That creates some other problems, too, doesn't it?

The Apostle Paul in Romans talks about those who have left the intended use of the body; about homosexual relationships. That leaves you wondering exactly what God is looking at in those. Are those marriages in the sense of becoming one flesh? Scripture is really not that clear on it, but the possibility exists. If the mere physical act is enough to trigger the joining as one flesh, would that illuminate the statement in the Law that bestiality creates confusion?

But our problem is that we fail to understand, we fail to admit, we fail to cling to what the Scripture says. God says, "The two become one flesh." And the Apostle Paul says, "You fool around? You go out and have an affair with a harlot, or more than one, and when you do, you become one flesh with that person or persons!"

It doesn't talk about any marriage ceremonies, it doesn't talk about any legal arrangements, it talks about the fact that the two become one flesh. And THAT's Gods standard, His definition.

Brother Froelich wrote a very interesting book, and it ought to be required reading for everyone. We've got it on our website, so if anybody wants to read it, it's there. You see, he had a problem. He had a very big problem, because in Switzerland, in his canton, if you did not belong to the established church, if you did not go to the established church, you couldn't get married.

He met his wife, and they wanted to get married, and the canton said, "No, you don't belong to our church. We won't issue a marriage license for you." So he searched the Scripture, and his book, Matrimony According to the Word of God , is an interesting read because he tells about what he found. Nowhere in the Scripture is there a marriage ceremony! It all comes down to the two becoming one flesh.

So, free in conscience, he and his bride went before his church, and they asked the church's blessing. Then they set up housekeeping, without a marriage license, without a ceremony, without official sanction from the state. And every time his wife bore a child, she was thrown in prison for prostitution. That's what happens when there is no First Amendment.

What is our stand on marriage? Do we go with the world, or do we go with the Word of God? If we go with the Word of God, are we willing to accept the discomfort that comes with accepting what the Word of God says, because Jesus says this, " Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and shall marry another committeth adultery, and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Now -- is adultery sin? Do we call sin, sin? Do we admit to it? Or do we shovel it under the rug and say, "Well, that was for those people. We don't have to worry about that, because our government says something different."

I don't think we have that liberty if we want to be faithful to God.

So I think the church may need to change its terminology a little bit. We may need to redefine things a little bit, because when the world talks about marriage, it talks about a contractual relationship between people and it talks about legal relationships. You know, in Ohio, we no longer have common-law marriage. We did, up until the 1970's. Common law marriage came out of Anglo-Saxon tradition where two people could simply say, "We're married" and set up housekeeping. Simply because they agreed and said so, the state accepted it. But then the lawyers passed a law, and they said, "No, you can't do that any more, because it produces legal problems. It makes it difficult for the state to determine who owns what property. So, you can't do that any more." And that is the reason why everybody's so interested in defining marriage -- because there is money involved. Not because they want to take the high road, not because they want to take God's definition, but because there is money involved.

So maybe the church needs to sit back and think about this a little while, because as Froelich wrote, matrimony is something that is honorable, just as the Apostle Paul also wrote. And it's something that is good and clean. But it has to be within the constraints of what God says, and there's a difference between that which is blessed by God, and that which people do on their own.

Maybe that term that seems to have fallen out of use -- the idea of Holy Matrimony -- ought to be revived. Not that we would talk about marriage, because as we see from the Scripture, somebody who is promiscuous could be married to an awful lot of people, but it's not HOLY matrimony. It's not God's plan, it's not what He intended. We need to understand that.

Yes, the church has made a big mess of the question of divorce. Because of the hardness of their hearts, people didn't want to look at what God said. They looked to government rather than God, and the government gave them an out and said, "If you want to do it, we'll let you do it."

So people make excuses. The Apostle Paul talks about that too, in Romans -- it's kind of interesting the way he phrases it -- he talks about them excusing and accusing one another -- because they know that the things they do are condemned by God. In chapter 2,

"14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

See, all those excuses aren't going to stand up. People make up rules and they make up laws and they define things but if they don't look into God's word, and see what their conduct ought to be, it's all in the vanity of their own minds. They're all going to have to give account of it someday because there will be a judgment. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to be included among those who accuse or excuse base on worldly judgments; based on the darkness of our own minds, the hardness of our own hearts.

Oh, yes, it leaves a lot of problems. What do we do when people sin; how do we handle it? What happens within our own families when people sin? How do we treat those who sin? Scripture has a remedy for that also, and the first place we need to look is how does Jesus treat us when we sin? It is easy to condemn someone for an infraction of the law. Its easy to condemn someone for something that we might say is a really big sin. Do we condemn, or do we intercede?

Scripture tells us that if we offend in one point, we've broken the whole law. We might try to weigh good and evil and we might try to say that this sin is worse than that one, but in God's eyes, the businessman who takes home pencils from the office is just as guilty as the murderer. We don't like that, do we? We don't like that standard of judgment because we'd rather say, "My sin is not as bad as his!" But all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. That is the measuring stick -- the glory of God. When God says that something is, and in this case, He says the two shall be one flesh, then I'd better believe it. We'd better listen to what He has to say.

When the world comes to us and asks, "How do you define marriage?"; we've got it here: the two become one flesh. Throw aside all the little conditions that people might put on it. Throw aside all the things that they might say, like, "It doesn't count unless the state sanctioned it" or, "It doesn't count unless it's done in a church" or, "It doesn't count unless it's between two people who are ... whatever." Throw that all aside. God says, "The two become one flesh." That is HIS definition of marriage. Where do we stand? Do we look at marriage as being just a convenience or do we really take it for what it was intended -- Holy Matrimony? Maybe we need to bring our own thinking in line with God's.