Most people are aware of the worship of demons and more specifically the worship of Satan. The word worship is being used in the sense of a religion based around the glorification of and service to the entity in question. I contend all religions apart from true Christianity are in fact demon worship. I will list here the major religions and how/why I think they connect to demonic activity. In my first part, "Demons Part I: A Biblical Framework" I listed most of my research sources.
1. Paganism
If you asked a random person on the street if demons were worshiped anywhere they would probably reply "sure, Africa." That would be a creepy questions to ask a random person on the street but for the sake of argument say you did. Africa has the unfortunate combination of incredibly rich natural resources and incredibly weak nationalism which has led to a viscous cycle suppressing much of their development. In Europe, the "tribes" were united under national flags and the resulting unity gave the people strength. The African tribes have no such desire, or have not so far, and therefore the nations are weak and the continent is marked by strife and blood. Paganism has be known to flourish in a tribal society. In this case, paganism is the belief in an active and primarily malicious spirit-world closely connected to humanity. It often includes child sacrifice, blood feuds, magic and deep superstitions rooted in real events that have been sensationalized through the practice of oral history. I don't expect it to be difficult to convince anyone that demons are a part of this. In Spirit of the Rainforest, narrator and former witch doctor "Jungleman" describes his relationship with the spirit-world in grotesque detail. He describes a "house" inside his chest, something I dare say we'd call a heart, where his spirits would live. He describes how a drug induced trance would allow him to communicate with them and even travel great distances with them to do harm to his enemies. He describes the horror he felt when he realized they were not his friends but instead were controlling him. He describes how chasing them off was only half the solution and that the Great Enemy Spirit (what the other spirits called God) had to come and send His Son to live in his "house" in his chest to protect him from the spirits. I highly recommend reading Ritchie's book if you plan on doing any missions work, it'll change your view of the forces we are up against.
Like I said, not a tough sell that Paganism is influenced by demonic activity. However, as I address other forms of religion, consider how the demons manifest in the Pagan system. They are guides to the "spiritual" leadership, witch doctors/wizards etc. They openly admit enmity with God and encourage their subjects to do the same. They are not bound by the rules of science.
2. Polytheism
Similar to paganism, often put in the same category, but there are several differences in my opinion. I am not including Hinduism here even though it is the most popular Polytheistic religion, it will get its own paragraph. In this category I am referring to the Canaanite, Egyptian, Greco/Roman, Norse and South American religious structures. While Pagans have "little friends" on their shoulders, Polytheists have gods to look up to and appease. The Roman gods are the most famous, Zeus and Co, but from Baal to Loki to Isis you've got demons. Molech, for instance, was a deity of Ammon that God specifically mentions in Leviticus for Israel to avoid. Go figure, Solomon built an altar to Molech and Jeremiah pronounced judgment on the worshipers of Molech. Why? Molech demanded child sacrifice. The description of Molech are very specific. God does not say "do not burn your children before the altar of Molech" He does not say "do not sacrifice your children in Molech's name" He says "do not let your children pass through the fire to Molech." Molech, and the other gods, are not considered non-entities in Scripture, they're considered non-gods. Molech is powerless to kill God's children but if they offer themselves to him that is when he gains power. A modern scholar may suggest that this language is merely ancient-near-eastern and that the original author would have understood the Ammorite god to be a being but we are free from the cultural bias and understand him as a figment of the Ammorite imagination. This is a lazy approach in my opinion. The argument, that the idol being worshiped is just wood and can do nothing for the Israelites, that Isaiah uses still stands. The idols are what the people trusted in which is fruitless and as Isaiah says completely insane. They had built those idols, how could they have power? However, I believe Isaiah would have used a different tact when referring to who/what the idols represented. Molech was an evil power that had convinced the Ammorites to kill their own children. Molech was/is a demon. So next time you read about Zeus and watch Thor consider the original stories, most of which are born out of real events and have a real being trying to get a certain message across. I did like Thor though, cool movie.
3. Hinduism
The oldest world religion, if you're reading a secular history, was founded in India sometime c.3000 BC. A word religion has a particular culture/set of teachings which has been adopted on a global scale. Not many people would say Hindus are demon worshipers. Unfortunately, not many people know what Hindus believe. 30,000,000 gods and goddesses is the most famous aspect of Hinduism, but they are not merely Polytheists. These gods (to be simple and of course chauvinistic I'll just say gods for gods and goddesses from now on) are almost pantheistic and at the same time almost humanistic. Placing the Hindu belief system into words is extremely difficult. Try talking to one, you get very little a western modernist can easily understand. I say the gods are pantheistic-ish because all things can be and in some Hindus' minds have a god attached to them. However, the thing is not the god, like a Pantheist would say, but instead the thing has a deity which is of it and for it. Kinda like how a Catholic Saint would be "the Saint of lost wallets" or something. They are also humanistic-ish because you and I can just create a god for a new thing. More or less. When computers showed up, I'm sure devout Hindus began believing in ___________ the god of computers. They are fully aware they have "imagined" him but they are not worshiping a being they are worshiping to fulfill their inner desire to worship and to reach the great soul and escape the cycle of reincarnation from the suffering and pain of this world. So where do demons fit in? A practice common among Hindus which has branched off into its own religion of sorts in the west called Transcendental Meditation is eerily similar to the trance Jungleman describes in Spirits. It is a centering of oneself which calms the mind and opens the soul to the guidance of the inner spirits. Demons. I have a book called The Spirit sent to guide us which I picked up figuring it was about the Holy Spirit. Nope, it could be naively read as a treatise on the conscience but a careful reading reveals the truth. Demon guides which can be used "to find peace and happiness in this life and the next." Listen to Linkin Park's song Blackout from their album Ten Thousand Suns (I must interject with an explicit content warning for both album and song). The first 2+ min Chester screams about his anger and frustration in his life. Then, with a brilliant musical shift, finds a peaceful eye-of-the-storm like place and gives his "inner voices" the credit. I say its Hinduism and by extension demon worship.
Wow, that was more words then I expected. Guess we'll be amending to at least a 4 part series on demons and next time we'll hit up a few more religions.
Braves have won 4 straight, looking good again. Teheran with a dominant 8 1/3 shutout innings against Minnesota yesterday. The injury bug has decimated our bullpen with Venters and O'Flaherty, our two best lefties, out for the season with Tommy John surgeries, Walden and Martinez on the DL with shoulder problems and Luis Ayala on the DL for acute anxiety disorder which is typically extremely dangerous. Despite that we still have a top 5 bullpen in the NL with top Closer Craig Kimbrel, effective southpaw Luis Avilan and young but talented righties Cory Gearrin and Anthony Vavarro (David Carpenter and Cory Rasmus, both right handed rookies, fill out the last spots).
Being a Braves fan rocks the socks.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Demons Part I: A Biblical Framework
I am not an expert in Demonology or any Theological field for that matter. I have a 40 hour "minor" in Bible from a small college and a 24 year life of trying to figure things out. Neither of these things make me an authority on anything. However, I do fancy myself a thinker, mainly because other people have referred to me as such, and have endeavored to apply said thinking to the events and characters which comprise Demonology. Unfortunately, in my opinion, I must say that striking out on your own to discover the secrets of the Demonic world is not a good idea. This is fairly obvious. If you have any inkling in a belief in God you are immediately aware something similar to Him is in opposition to His will and actions. By similar I am referring to spiritual beings. Beings which do not posses corporeal states continuously (it is documented they can assume them at times) and do not age or die in the natural meanings of the words. If we believe God is good, and I hope you do, we can assume something opposed to God is bad. We can follow this assumption with the revealed Biblical evidence of Satan and his cohorts, demons, which are always portrayed negatively and in opposition to both God's overarching designs and to Jesus and other Christians in person.
Some Biblical cases of Demonic (and Satanic) activity include:
This is by no means an exhaustive list, however these are highlights and as noted before the demons are always on the wrong side of things. But I doubt you need me to convince you demons are bad, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.
We can draw a few other conclusions from these events. First of all, God is in complete control of the demonic world. He allows (it says sends in the KJV) a demon to torment Saul. He has an nondescript number of them chained in darkness awaiting the end. He releases them to wreak havoc on the earth in the Tribulation. At no point are we to think God is in a fight (or any other type of contest) with Satan and his forces. God is orchestrating His perfect designs while Satan and his forces try (and fail) to muck things up. Second, humans are definitely subject to a demon's influence and this is never a good thing. The Gadarene men, the prophets of Baal, Judas all suffer much at the hands of their possessors. However, thirdly, we learn that demons cannot be blamed for our wrongdoings. Judas is still guilty of betrayal whether Satan possessed him or not. Saul rejected God before Samuel says God rejected Saul. The Gadarenes had to have their sins forgiven not the demons. As it says in Matthew, if a man cleans his house (his soul) and kicks out a demon, he needs to fill it with something (Christ) or the original and seven more will move in and he'll be worse off then when he started (Matt 12:43-45).
I read a lot, see my Goodreads account, and some of what I've read addresses demons, both fictionally and non-fictionally. Some titles that I'd consider references on this topic are: The Screwtape Letters (fiction) by CS Lewis. This Present Darkness (fiction), Piercing the Darkness (fiction), The Oath (fiction), The Wounded Spirit (non), The Visitation (fiction) all by Frank Peretti. Spirit of the Rainforest (non) by Mark Ritchie. Peace Child (non) and Lords of the Earth (non) by Don Richardson. The Witches Bible (non) by JS Farrar. I also have several books on my shelf I haven't read (I haven't read all of the above in their entirety, still working on Lords and merely flipped thru Witches but I own both). I plan on at least looking through them. Why? Two reasons and then part one is finished.
1. God spends time on them so I think we should too. Not an inordinate amount of time, not in a fascination, but in order to understand them. God seems to think we should know about them, so I think we should know about them.
2. While God is not in a war against Satan and the demons, we are. The first rule of combat is to know your enemy. When I've finished this set, thinking 3 parts right now, I'll hopefully have connected demons to everything from pop culture to ancient world religions. They are relevant, prevalent and malicious.
Next Time: Demons and Spirituality.
Braves dropped the last two at Arizona. Huddy looks more and more like a candidate for retirement when he has outings like yesterday. On a bright note, back home for 6 against the Dodgers and Twins so here's to catching fire for a double sweep! #GoBraves
Some Biblical cases of Demonic (and Satanic) activity include:
- King Saul - the evil spirit that God sent to torment him 1 Sam 16:14
- King Saul - the witch at Endor (always reminded me of Star Wars...not the witch the place) 1 Sam 28:7-8
- Elijah - the maniacal actions of the false priests of Baal at Mt Carmel 1 Kings 18:27-29
- Christ - the temptations in the wilderness Matt 4:1-11; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1-13
- Christ - the Gadarene demoniac(s) Matt 8:23-32; Mark 5:1-13; Luke 8:26-33
- Judas Iscariot - possessed before the betrayal of Christ Luke 22:3; John 13:2,27
- Paul - Elymas the sorcerer Acts 13:8-11
- Paul - the healing of the Demon possessed girl Acts 16:16
- Judgment - fallen angels awaiting the end in chains II Peter 2:4
- End Times - Revelation (all over the book)
This is by no means an exhaustive list, however these are highlights and as noted before the demons are always on the wrong side of things. But I doubt you need me to convince you demons are bad, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.
We can draw a few other conclusions from these events. First of all, God is in complete control of the demonic world. He allows (it says sends in the KJV) a demon to torment Saul. He has an nondescript number of them chained in darkness awaiting the end. He releases them to wreak havoc on the earth in the Tribulation. At no point are we to think God is in a fight (or any other type of contest) with Satan and his forces. God is orchestrating His perfect designs while Satan and his forces try (and fail) to muck things up. Second, humans are definitely subject to a demon's influence and this is never a good thing. The Gadarene men, the prophets of Baal, Judas all suffer much at the hands of their possessors. However, thirdly, we learn that demons cannot be blamed for our wrongdoings. Judas is still guilty of betrayal whether Satan possessed him or not. Saul rejected God before Samuel says God rejected Saul. The Gadarenes had to have their sins forgiven not the demons. As it says in Matthew, if a man cleans his house (his soul) and kicks out a demon, he needs to fill it with something (Christ) or the original and seven more will move in and he'll be worse off then when he started (Matt 12:43-45).
I read a lot, see my Goodreads account, and some of what I've read addresses demons, both fictionally and non-fictionally. Some titles that I'd consider references on this topic are: The Screwtape Letters (fiction) by CS Lewis. This Present Darkness (fiction), Piercing the Darkness (fiction), The Oath (fiction), The Wounded Spirit (non), The Visitation (fiction) all by Frank Peretti. Spirit of the Rainforest (non) by Mark Ritchie. Peace Child (non) and Lords of the Earth (non) by Don Richardson. The Witches Bible (non) by JS Farrar. I also have several books on my shelf I haven't read (I haven't read all of the above in their entirety, still working on Lords and merely flipped thru Witches but I own both). I plan on at least looking through them. Why? Two reasons and then part one is finished.
1. God spends time on them so I think we should too. Not an inordinate amount of time, not in a fascination, but in order to understand them. God seems to think we should know about them, so I think we should know about them.
2. While God is not in a war against Satan and the demons, we are. The first rule of combat is to know your enemy. When I've finished this set, thinking 3 parts right now, I'll hopefully have connected demons to everything from pop culture to ancient world religions. They are relevant, prevalent and malicious.
Next Time: Demons and Spirituality.
Braves dropped the last two at Arizona. Huddy looks more and more like a candidate for retirement when he has outings like yesterday. On a bright note, back home for 6 against the Dodgers and Twins so here's to catching fire for a double sweep! #GoBraves
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
At the Movies: Life of Pi *Spoilers*
Had a wonderful Mother's Day Sunday, grilled out with my mother and then took my wife (for her 1st Mom's Day) out shopping. Then yesterday she and I went out to eat as well (and of course more shopping).
Sunday night my 'rents grabbed a couple flicks from the box de la Red and we sat down to multiple award winning "Life of Pi." My sister tried to convince us it was actually pronounced Life of Pea but we made fun of her and looked it up online, confirming its actually Life of Pie.
Fascinating movie which I probably won't watch again if I have the choice mainly because it was grounded on not knowing what was going to happen, knowing the ending makes the rest of it rather superfluous and not very exciting. There were several deep philosophical and religious questions addressed to which I will commit a few words.
While I'm sure militant atheists had a explanation for the film, in most cases it assumed God. Not only did it assume God but the writer doing the interview is under the impression the story will make him believe in God. Something the story-teller is dubious about and gives the quote "I can only tell you the story, you must decide what to believe in." (Saxon's revised version.) Their conclusion, essentially the climax of the movie, is that God, or a belief in a god (faith), makes the world and the suffering therein endurable. That the story with the Tiger is better than the story without it. Truth is better served with a dose of the supernatural.
The religious pluralism was anything but subtle in the film. Your main character is a Catholic Hindu who preforms Salah (the Muslim prayers) and teaches a course on Jewish culture or the law I don't remember precisely which. You could suggest the author was endeavoring to make him relatable to a person of any faith. However, it was the faith of pluralism, something I think inherent in the Hindu religion, which was preached by our hero. The are many roads to God and Pi happened to take most of them. I half expected him to have a pagan-tribal experience and "find God" there too.
The way nature led Pi to God was a theme throughout. The 2nd storm which nearly killed them both reminded me of the book of Job in which God is asked "what else do I need to do to alleviate this suffering?" The answer was similar in the movie as in the Book, silence. God tells Job, not what to do, but who He is, teaching him and us that God's will is best because of who He is not what He does (we draw the conclusion from the end of the story that God's will ends up good for Job too, but that's not the validation of God's argument just a reassuring caveat). Pi, I think, was to understand God is the power of that storm and the life given to him is a gift easily taken. This lesson is evidently learned when he reaches the island. Which in the symbolic story is carnivorous but in reality I believe was where he knew he'd die alone. The island may not actually eat him, but it would take any chance he'd have of a life worth living; the life God had miraculously given him. Still haven't figured out the meaning of the tooth. Again connecting to Job, at the end of the movie you see Pi's family and the life he's enjoying now, seemingly better than anything he'd had before. God had brought him through the storm, tested his faith, and rewarded him with a blessed life.
Along with that, the inner tiger was a theme. Each of us, according to this film, in my opinion, have a young man and a tiger within us. The young man is innocent and trusting; the tiger is violent and resourceful. Without the tiger Pi would've been eaten by the cook. Without the young man, Pi would be disconnected from the world, a killer driven only to survive and not to live. Interestingly, the young man trusts the carnivorous island while his survival instinct (the tiger) runs and hides on the boat. Same response to the storm, Pi rips open the boat cover and stares full on into the storm (God) while his instincts run and hide. His inner killer is afraid of God. While these may be coincidences from the writer's standpoint, I like them and think they are great symbols. Possibly a dichotomy of Soul (Pi) and Mind (Tiger) one driven by the supernatural the other by logic/rationality/instinct. Remember, Pi admits Richard Parker didn't have a soul but pleads with the viewer (and the writer) to believe there's more than just natural machinery to animals and by extension human beings.
Being afraid of water and lacking any ability to swim beyond a doggy paddle for a few feet, I would've died about 5 minutes into the movie. Trapped on a raft in the ocean is virtually the most terrifying thing possible, I'd have taken my chances with Richard Parker in the boat and gotten eaten.
Next time, if something doesn't pop up, I'll write about some of my observations regarding Demonology.
My Braves broke out of a slump (lost 5 of 6) in a big way yesterday pounding the D-Backs. The offense has settled into a bit of an inconsistent up-and-down pattern. Getting JHey back healthy will help, Mac has been raking. JUpton and CJ2.0 for MVPrado, Delgado and a minor-leaguer will go down in Braves trade lore history. What a move Frank! One of these posts, when I can't think of anything philosophical, I'll lay out my novel ideas regarding baseball and why I should be a GM. As was once said, "There are three things every man thinks he can do better than anyone else: drive, run a hotel and manage a baseball team."
Sunday night my 'rents grabbed a couple flicks from the box de la Red and we sat down to multiple award winning "Life of Pi." My sister tried to convince us it was actually pronounced Life of Pea but we made fun of her and looked it up online, confirming its actually Life of Pie.
Fascinating movie which I probably won't watch again if I have the choice mainly because it was grounded on not knowing what was going to happen, knowing the ending makes the rest of it rather superfluous and not very exciting. There were several deep philosophical and religious questions addressed to which I will commit a few words.
While I'm sure militant atheists had a explanation for the film, in most cases it assumed God. Not only did it assume God but the writer doing the interview is under the impression the story will make him believe in God. Something the story-teller is dubious about and gives the quote "I can only tell you the story, you must decide what to believe in." (Saxon's revised version.) Their conclusion, essentially the climax of the movie, is that God, or a belief in a god (faith), makes the world and the suffering therein endurable. That the story with the Tiger is better than the story without it. Truth is better served with a dose of the supernatural.
The religious pluralism was anything but subtle in the film. Your main character is a Catholic Hindu who preforms Salah (the Muslim prayers) and teaches a course on Jewish culture or the law I don't remember precisely which. You could suggest the author was endeavoring to make him relatable to a person of any faith. However, it was the faith of pluralism, something I think inherent in the Hindu religion, which was preached by our hero. The are many roads to God and Pi happened to take most of them. I half expected him to have a pagan-tribal experience and "find God" there too.
The way nature led Pi to God was a theme throughout. The 2nd storm which nearly killed them both reminded me of the book of Job in which God is asked "what else do I need to do to alleviate this suffering?" The answer was similar in the movie as in the Book, silence. God tells Job, not what to do, but who He is, teaching him and us that God's will is best because of who He is not what He does (we draw the conclusion from the end of the story that God's will ends up good for Job too, but that's not the validation of God's argument just a reassuring caveat). Pi, I think, was to understand God is the power of that storm and the life given to him is a gift easily taken. This lesson is evidently learned when he reaches the island. Which in the symbolic story is carnivorous but in reality I believe was where he knew he'd die alone. The island may not actually eat him, but it would take any chance he'd have of a life worth living; the life God had miraculously given him. Still haven't figured out the meaning of the tooth. Again connecting to Job, at the end of the movie you see Pi's family and the life he's enjoying now, seemingly better than anything he'd had before. God had brought him through the storm, tested his faith, and rewarded him with a blessed life.
Along with that, the inner tiger was a theme. Each of us, according to this film, in my opinion, have a young man and a tiger within us. The young man is innocent and trusting; the tiger is violent and resourceful. Without the tiger Pi would've been eaten by the cook. Without the young man, Pi would be disconnected from the world, a killer driven only to survive and not to live. Interestingly, the young man trusts the carnivorous island while his survival instinct (the tiger) runs and hides on the boat. Same response to the storm, Pi rips open the boat cover and stares full on into the storm (God) while his instincts run and hide. His inner killer is afraid of God. While these may be coincidences from the writer's standpoint, I like them and think they are great symbols. Possibly a dichotomy of Soul (Pi) and Mind (Tiger) one driven by the supernatural the other by logic/rationality/instinct. Remember, Pi admits Richard Parker didn't have a soul but pleads with the viewer (and the writer) to believe there's more than just natural machinery to animals and by extension human beings.
Being afraid of water and lacking any ability to swim beyond a doggy paddle for a few feet, I would've died about 5 minutes into the movie. Trapped on a raft in the ocean is virtually the most terrifying thing possible, I'd have taken my chances with Richard Parker in the boat and gotten eaten.
Next time, if something doesn't pop up, I'll write about some of my observations regarding Demonology.
My Braves broke out of a slump (lost 5 of 6) in a big way yesterday pounding the D-Backs. The offense has settled into a bit of an inconsistent up-and-down pattern. Getting JHey back healthy will help, Mac has been raking. JUpton and CJ2.0 for MVPrado, Delgado and a minor-leaguer will go down in Braves trade lore history. What a move Frank! One of these posts, when I can't think of anything philosophical, I'll lay out my novel ideas regarding baseball and why I should be a GM. As was once said, "There are three things every man thinks he can do better than anyone else: drive, run a hotel and manage a baseball team."
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Eine Kleine Theologie
I haven't written much regarding my specific Theological bent. Here goes somethings.
God.
I believe God is.
I believe God was.
I believe God will be.
I believe God is independent of anything.
I believe God occupies space-time but also exists outside of it.
I believe God created space-time.
I believe God created space-time out of nothing.
I believe God has complete control over space-time and everything in it.
I believe God is perfect.
I believe God is always right.
I believe God will never change.
I believe God is the standard for everything good.
I believe God cares.
I believe God has a purpose.
I believe God won.
I do not believe God created evil.
I do not believe God needs anything.
I do not believe God is obligated to do anything.
I do not believe God vainly promises.
I do not believe God is conceivable.
I do not believe God had to compete.
I do not believe God is alone. (In that, He is 3-in-1 a Being of relationship)
I do not believe God is a sociological concept derived from natural occurrences meant to entrench the higher class.
I do not believe God can be used to obtain peace, wealth, fame or power.
I do not believe God can be used.
I do not believe God is me.
I do not believe God is nature.
I do not believe God is all things but instead all is from and as a result of Him.
I do not believe God is unfair.
I do not believe God is a dualistic necessity representing the good against the bad.
I want to know which of these y'all want more on instead of doing a talk on each. Hit me back. And Shane, can't you hear Trip-Lee doing this list?
God.
I believe God is.
I believe God was.
I believe God will be.
I believe God is independent of anything.
I believe God occupies space-time but also exists outside of it.
I believe God created space-time.
I believe God created space-time out of nothing.
I believe God has complete control over space-time and everything in it.
I believe God is perfect.
I believe God is always right.
I believe God will never change.
I believe God is the standard for everything good.
I believe God cares.
I believe God has a purpose.
I believe God won.
I do not believe God created evil.
I do not believe God needs anything.
I do not believe God is obligated to do anything.
I do not believe God vainly promises.
I do not believe God is conceivable.
I do not believe God had to compete.
I do not believe God is alone. (In that, He is 3-in-1 a Being of relationship)
I do not believe God is a sociological concept derived from natural occurrences meant to entrench the higher class.
I do not believe God can be used to obtain peace, wealth, fame or power.
I do not believe God can be used.
I do not believe God is me.
I do not believe God is nature.
I do not believe God is all things but instead all is from and as a result of Him.
I do not believe God is unfair.
I do not believe God is a dualistic necessity representing the good against the bad.
I want to know which of these y'all want more on instead of doing a talk on each. Hit me back. And Shane, can't you hear Trip-Lee doing this list?
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
BONUS POST: Rangers @ Brewers 5/7/13
Charlie Johnson and I attended game 1 of a 2 game series between the Texas Rangers and Milwaukee Brewers at Miller Park last night. Our wives stayed at their place and talked about babies or whatever. Our sons were with them.
We arrived around 7:15 which means the first inning had happened by the time we got to our seats. It was quite an inning. Justin Grimm got the start for Texas. He's a rookie right-hander who came in with a decent era in the mid 3.20s. He was not sharp. While we parked we had Bob Uecker on the radio and he pleasantly informed us of Aoki's lead off infield single, Segura's single and Braun's RBI single. Charlie is a die-hard, cattle-ranchin', Kinsler-loving Rangers fan, so he wasn't particularly excited about Uke's tone. As we made our way up to the stadium Charlie was even more disappointed as the stadium went nuts. When we got in we saw Gomez had driven in Braun and Segura with a double and they were cheering a 2-run shot from Yuniesky Bethancourt. Yuni and Gomez are having ridiculously good starts to 2013. We walked up to our seats, section 414 row 8, and that can take awhile, so we managed to miss Mitch Moreland's second inning solo shot off Brewers right-hander Wily Peralta.
When we finally got seated it was 5-1 Brew Crew and Charlie was cranky. As it turns out, not much else happened. Grimm settled down and didn't give up another run, though he loaded the bases once and had men on 2nd and 3rd twice. Peralta was dealing. I, being a Braves fan and rather indifferent to either team's success, enjoyed pointing out that only two starting Rangers were hitting over .265 (Cruz and Kinsler) and that Derek Lowe still plays for them.
In the 3rd Beltre made a play that honestly looked physically impossible. With runners on 1st and 2nd, Bethancourt hit a bouncer, pretty hard, curling around third. It bounced twice before it got to the base but was staying low. Beltre was playing back and off the line, but sill managed to go all the way to the foul line about 6 feet behind the bag. Leaping 2 steps out of bounds he slung the ball across the diamond and one-hopped it to Moreland who scooped it beating Yuni by a half-step ending the inning. Very cool.
In the top of the 5th, Geovanny Soto crushed a ball into right center that went all the way to the fence. He's not the fastest crayon in the box but still rounded 1st because at first glance it was a no-doubt double. Aoki was on the ball quick though and threw a strike to 2nd. The ball beat him that much I'm sure of. However, the 2nd base umpire flashed the safe sign and the Miller Parkians began booing. Charlie got a good laugh at that one. Soto was stranded on 2nd when Murphy and Martin failed to come through.
In the bottom Weeks led off with a single. Gomez came up and a couple pitches in seemed to get drilled on the wrist. The umpire said it hit the bat, which actually brought out Ron Roenicke, not for long of course, and Gomez had to keep hitting. Next pitch Weeks was running and Gomez swung through leaving Soto to gun out Rickie for the strike-em-out-throw-em-out double play.
The Rangers showed some signs of life in the following inning. Jeff Baker led off with a pinch hit single. Andrus pounded a double to left center moving Baker to 3rd and that brought up Beltre. Charlie and I were reminiscing about the unbelievable play he had made earlier when he hit a dribble to his counter-part Aramis Ramirez. Ramirez is no Beltre, he booted the slow roller and Beltre reached. Baker also scored making it 5-2. Nelly Cruz followed with a Sac Fly to right making it 5-3 and we had a game.
Robbie Ross completed a scoreless inning for Texas. Tom Gorzelanny came in for Milwaukee. He got Murphy and then faced pinch hitter Craig Gentry (Braves product). Gentry worked a walk and up stepped walking Hall of Famer Lance Berkman to pinch hit for the pitcher. Unfortunately he unceremoniously bounced into a 1-4-3 double play, inning over.
Jason Frasor came in to pitch the 7th and allowed Ramirez to get his first homer of the year, a blast to left. 6-3 Brewers. Kuntzler dealt a scoreless 8th. Ortiz the same for Texas. Jim Henderson entered for the save chance and looked a little shaky, 3 straight fly balls one of which dropped for a Murphy double opened the inning but he got Gentry to ground out to end it.
6-3 Brewers
W: Peralta (3-2) L: Grimm (2-2) SV: Henderson (7)
Fun stuff!
We arrived around 7:15 which means the first inning had happened by the time we got to our seats. It was quite an inning. Justin Grimm got the start for Texas. He's a rookie right-hander who came in with a decent era in the mid 3.20s. He was not sharp. While we parked we had Bob Uecker on the radio and he pleasantly informed us of Aoki's lead off infield single, Segura's single and Braun's RBI single. Charlie is a die-hard, cattle-ranchin', Kinsler-loving Rangers fan, so he wasn't particularly excited about Uke's tone. As we made our way up to the stadium Charlie was even more disappointed as the stadium went nuts. When we got in we saw Gomez had driven in Braun and Segura with a double and they were cheering a 2-run shot from Yuniesky Bethancourt. Yuni and Gomez are having ridiculously good starts to 2013. We walked up to our seats, section 414 row 8, and that can take awhile, so we managed to miss Mitch Moreland's second inning solo shot off Brewers right-hander Wily Peralta.
When we finally got seated it was 5-1 Brew Crew and Charlie was cranky. As it turns out, not much else happened. Grimm settled down and didn't give up another run, though he loaded the bases once and had men on 2nd and 3rd twice. Peralta was dealing. I, being a Braves fan and rather indifferent to either team's success, enjoyed pointing out that only two starting Rangers were hitting over .265 (Cruz and Kinsler) and that Derek Lowe still plays for them.
In the 3rd Beltre made a play that honestly looked physically impossible. With runners on 1st and 2nd, Bethancourt hit a bouncer, pretty hard, curling around third. It bounced twice before it got to the base but was staying low. Beltre was playing back and off the line, but sill managed to go all the way to the foul line about 6 feet behind the bag. Leaping 2 steps out of bounds he slung the ball across the diamond and one-hopped it to Moreland who scooped it beating Yuni by a half-step ending the inning. Very cool.
In the top of the 5th, Geovanny Soto crushed a ball into right center that went all the way to the fence. He's not the fastest crayon in the box but still rounded 1st because at first glance it was a no-doubt double. Aoki was on the ball quick though and threw a strike to 2nd. The ball beat him that much I'm sure of. However, the 2nd base umpire flashed the safe sign and the Miller Parkians began booing. Charlie got a good laugh at that one. Soto was stranded on 2nd when Murphy and Martin failed to come through.
In the bottom Weeks led off with a single. Gomez came up and a couple pitches in seemed to get drilled on the wrist. The umpire said it hit the bat, which actually brought out Ron Roenicke, not for long of course, and Gomez had to keep hitting. Next pitch Weeks was running and Gomez swung through leaving Soto to gun out Rickie for the strike-em-out-throw-em-out double play.
The Rangers showed some signs of life in the following inning. Jeff Baker led off with a pinch hit single. Andrus pounded a double to left center moving Baker to 3rd and that brought up Beltre. Charlie and I were reminiscing about the unbelievable play he had made earlier when he hit a dribble to his counter-part Aramis Ramirez. Ramirez is no Beltre, he booted the slow roller and Beltre reached. Baker also scored making it 5-2. Nelly Cruz followed with a Sac Fly to right making it 5-3 and we had a game.
Robbie Ross completed a scoreless inning for Texas. Tom Gorzelanny came in for Milwaukee. He got Murphy and then faced pinch hitter Craig Gentry (Braves product). Gentry worked a walk and up stepped walking Hall of Famer Lance Berkman to pinch hit for the pitcher. Unfortunately he unceremoniously bounced into a 1-4-3 double play, inning over.
Jason Frasor came in to pitch the 7th and allowed Ramirez to get his first homer of the year, a blast to left. 6-3 Brewers. Kuntzler dealt a scoreless 8th. Ortiz the same for Texas. Jim Henderson entered for the save chance and looked a little shaky, 3 straight fly balls one of which dropped for a Murphy double opened the inning but he got Gentry to ground out to end it.
6-3 Brewers
W: Peralta (3-2) L: Grimm (2-2) SV: Henderson (7)
Fun stuff!
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Till Death Do Us Part
Well I had a change of heart and I decided that instead of music I wanted to share some "marital" ideas. Now, my wife and I are coming up on our 2nd anniversary, so by no means are we experts. However, we're happy and I think everybody should be happy so I'll try to share some things that I think are producing that happiness in our relationship. I'll relate to other couples but I won't use their names, whether good or bad, its just simpler that way (and I didn't ask anybody's permission to use them). So, here are 5 ways my wife and I love each other better than you.
1. We clean up together (or don't).
Smile at the cute young couple. Go ahead, do it. I know, "awww, that's cute." But listen, when I help Jenni clean up, we love each other more. When I don't, we don't. Its very simple. When Jenni does housework, we love each other more. When she doesn't, we don't. When we let the house go because we're having fun, going places, doing things, we love each other more. When one of us is trying to keep everything perfect while the other is trying to do a bunch of stuff (has been both at different times) we don't. I'm sure nobody needs to be told that doing things together builds a stronger relationship, but it bears repeating. Like I said, these aren't groundbreaking, they're just what I've noticed in our life. Now, if you asked Jenni, I don't get this right 100% of the time. In fact, the percentage is probably closer to 15, but even that is worth a ton, and I'm getting better. (She isn't perfect either :) ).
2. We decide together.
You may pick up a pattern. Jenni has struggled with making quick, efficient decisions her whole life. I tend to waffle back and forth from rapid fire decisions to heavily researched life choices. At first, combining her reluctance with my either speed or determination was a challenge. But instead of just taking over, or more like after taking over wasn't working, I decided (pun intended) to try and include her, no matter how trivial the choice. This has occasionally resulted in me getting frustrated as an opportunity floats by while she can't make up her mind. But it has also resulted in her preventing me from making a dumb knee-jerk decision numerous times. The primary benefit has been our direction as a family is unified. Great concept, better practice. Good friends of ours are funny to talk to because they have very different ways of expressing their family's goals. One of them thinks a particular career is the only way to go, the other thinks it will never happen but its cute. Without judging their relationship, because it looks great, I can't help but wonder what happens if the career pans out? Will person two be extremely opposed to it? Will person one realize they've been opposed the whole time? If it doesn't pan out, will person one ever be happy? Will person two understand why person one is unhappy? I don't think Jenni and I will struggle with this. I know, its early, we plan on being married forever so things could change.
3. We "friend" together.
I am particularly bad at this one, Jenni is AWESOME at it. She often laments the fact she didn't have a lot of friends growing up. She had some, but in her own words, none of them were super close. I've had buckets of close friends evidenced by the 7 guys who stood in my wedding plus the two who sang and one who ushered. When we got married we wanted to do stuff with people, this is pretty normal. However, my friends were not Jenni's friends and vice-versa. With a little work, a lot for Jenni, we now have virtually completely mutual friends. In fact, just last night a mutual friend was over. While we were dating, he would've been "my friend" but now he's definitely "our friend." But I must stress, most of the work has been done by Jenni, partially because I have a load of friends and partially because most of her friends live in Colorado. I would expect this to be a given, however I've observed many a couple with the "guy's night out" and "girl's night out" mentality. Not just because the girls are stamping or watching chic-flicks but because the guy wants nothing to do with the girl's friends. This is a bummer for everybody so stop it.
4. We had a baby together
Don't worry, this will be safe for work. Our little man has brought us together in a lot of ways. Most of them are obvious, we love him so loving him we love each other more. Despite my initial misgivings, I call her "mommy" constantly. She likes that, and calls me "daddy" (in unison now, "awwwww" you guys sicken me) so we love each other more. We help each other take care of him, her more than me, and so we love each other more when we help each other. He draws out different aspects of our personalities which lead us to love each other more. Time spent together, in peace, is a premium so we enjoy it more and therefore love each other more. But, there are a few ways he has drawn us together that I didn't expect, or at least had never occurred to me. I recognize and appreciate the ways Jenni will provide for Chipper that I could never provide. Things she doesn't provide for me, she's not my mother, but are still love-worthy. I don't get to experience that without Chipper. She has also mentioned things I'll be able to do with Chipper that she and I can't do. She gets to love that. Kids rock, go have some.
5. We make fun of each other
Other than Christ this may be the single most important aspect of our relationship. I'm kidding. But really, we are real to each other. We do what we think we should and say what we want to say and then chance the consequences with our other half. Jenni makes fun of me constantly. This is very very good. It is first, humbling, second, a useful critique and finally, fun. We aren't the only couple that jokes, some of our best friends are also constantly ribbing each other. That's great, and essential to keep both people grounded. I am well acquainted with a couple in which if she were to say some of the things Jenni says to me, fire would rain down. That's troubling. Lighten up, enjoy each others' senses of humor and remember what's fair is fair.
Hope that warmed your heart.
Braves snagged game one in Cincy last night. Simba with his first career 2 homer game, that dude is gonna be the top SS in the league for a while. He's already the best defender in the NL (SEA Brendan Ryan, CLE Asdrubal Cabrera, BAL J.J. Hardy prolly better in AL) but his bat is still growing.
Going to see Brewers-Rangers tonight. Thursday I'll give a game recap and talk about why we attend New Testament Baptist Church.
1. We clean up together (or don't).
Smile at the cute young couple. Go ahead, do it. I know, "awww, that's cute." But listen, when I help Jenni clean up, we love each other more. When I don't, we don't. Its very simple. When Jenni does housework, we love each other more. When she doesn't, we don't. When we let the house go because we're having fun, going places, doing things, we love each other more. When one of us is trying to keep everything perfect while the other is trying to do a bunch of stuff (has been both at different times) we don't. I'm sure nobody needs to be told that doing things together builds a stronger relationship, but it bears repeating. Like I said, these aren't groundbreaking, they're just what I've noticed in our life. Now, if you asked Jenni, I don't get this right 100% of the time. In fact, the percentage is probably closer to 15, but even that is worth a ton, and I'm getting better. (She isn't perfect either :) ).
2. We decide together.
You may pick up a pattern. Jenni has struggled with making quick, efficient decisions her whole life. I tend to waffle back and forth from rapid fire decisions to heavily researched life choices. At first, combining her reluctance with my either speed or determination was a challenge. But instead of just taking over, or more like after taking over wasn't working, I decided (pun intended) to try and include her, no matter how trivial the choice. This has occasionally resulted in me getting frustrated as an opportunity floats by while she can't make up her mind. But it has also resulted in her preventing me from making a dumb knee-jerk decision numerous times. The primary benefit has been our direction as a family is unified. Great concept, better practice. Good friends of ours are funny to talk to because they have very different ways of expressing their family's goals. One of them thinks a particular career is the only way to go, the other thinks it will never happen but its cute. Without judging their relationship, because it looks great, I can't help but wonder what happens if the career pans out? Will person two be extremely opposed to it? Will person one realize they've been opposed the whole time? If it doesn't pan out, will person one ever be happy? Will person two understand why person one is unhappy? I don't think Jenni and I will struggle with this. I know, its early, we plan on being married forever so things could change.
3. We "friend" together.
I am particularly bad at this one, Jenni is AWESOME at it. She often laments the fact she didn't have a lot of friends growing up. She had some, but in her own words, none of them were super close. I've had buckets of close friends evidenced by the 7 guys who stood in my wedding plus the two who sang and one who ushered. When we got married we wanted to do stuff with people, this is pretty normal. However, my friends were not Jenni's friends and vice-versa. With a little work, a lot for Jenni, we now have virtually completely mutual friends. In fact, just last night a mutual friend was over. While we were dating, he would've been "my friend" but now he's definitely "our friend." But I must stress, most of the work has been done by Jenni, partially because I have a load of friends and partially because most of her friends live in Colorado. I would expect this to be a given, however I've observed many a couple with the "guy's night out" and "girl's night out" mentality. Not just because the girls are stamping or watching chic-flicks but because the guy wants nothing to do with the girl's friends. This is a bummer for everybody so stop it.
4. We had a baby together
Don't worry, this will be safe for work. Our little man has brought us together in a lot of ways. Most of them are obvious, we love him so loving him we love each other more. Despite my initial misgivings, I call her "mommy" constantly. She likes that, and calls me "daddy" (in unison now, "awwwww" you guys sicken me) so we love each other more. We help each other take care of him, her more than me, and so we love each other more when we help each other. He draws out different aspects of our personalities which lead us to love each other more. Time spent together, in peace, is a premium so we enjoy it more and therefore love each other more. But, there are a few ways he has drawn us together that I didn't expect, or at least had never occurred to me. I recognize and appreciate the ways Jenni will provide for Chipper that I could never provide. Things she doesn't provide for me, she's not my mother, but are still love-worthy. I don't get to experience that without Chipper. She has also mentioned things I'll be able to do with Chipper that she and I can't do. She gets to love that. Kids rock, go have some.
5. We make fun of each other
Other than Christ this may be the single most important aspect of our relationship. I'm kidding. But really, we are real to each other. We do what we think we should and say what we want to say and then chance the consequences with our other half. Jenni makes fun of me constantly. This is very very good. It is first, humbling, second, a useful critique and finally, fun. We aren't the only couple that jokes, some of our best friends are also constantly ribbing each other. That's great, and essential to keep both people grounded. I am well acquainted with a couple in which if she were to say some of the things Jenni says to me, fire would rain down. That's troubling. Lighten up, enjoy each others' senses of humor and remember what's fair is fair.
Hope that warmed your heart.
Braves snagged game one in Cincy last night. Simba with his first career 2 homer game, that dude is gonna be the top SS in the league for a while. He's already the best defender in the NL (SEA Brendan Ryan, CLE Asdrubal Cabrera, BAL J.J. Hardy prolly better in AL) but his bat is still growing.
Going to see Brewers-Rangers tonight. Thursday I'll give a game recap and talk about why we attend New Testament Baptist Church.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
With Liberty and Justice for All...
- The following are the criteria for a Just War. Developed from the thinking of St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas.
- Just cause - The reason for the war must be defense either of oneself or a helpless victim.
- Comparative justice - The war must be in response to action. (threat of action is debatable)
- Competent authority - The individual declaring the war must have sufficient authority to do so (derived from the people's will)
- Right intention - The war must not include a conflict of interest or selfish gain.
- Probability of success - The party attempting to be just must have a chance to win.
- Last resort - The war must be the final act in a series of processes for peace.
- Proportionality - The war must be fought fairly, such as guns vs guns etc. (This is also greatly debatable.)
- I believe a war is just or correct if it adheres in principle to the above list. The union's actions in the Civil War were not just. How so? They meet Just Cause, because they set out to free slaves. They meet Comparative Justice because the CSA mobilized. They meet Competent Authority the Constitution gives the President and Congress the right to declare war. The meet Right Intention, see Just Cause. The meet Probability of Success. They fail to meet Last Resort. Lincoln had many options on the table, he rejected them and he launched the war. The CSA however, presented each of those options and did not intend on combat, but merely a peaceful withdrawing from the union.
- WWI - Just Cause? Possibly, at least for America, we saw the preservation of the Modern European states as a just cause. Comparative Justice? Both sides were being ruthless so response to those actions would qualify. Right Intention? Neither side meets this criteria, except for perhaps America, as we had no chance to gain from the war. Probability of Success? All sides had argument here. Last Resort? Possibly, much peach was bantered about before the war broke. Proportionality? For the most part. Total War allows for civilian casualties. I believe that Total War is just only if the war is truly against the people and not just the government controlling those people, such as with Japan in WWII. The Japanese government may have been totalitarian, but each and every Japanese soldier was willing to die to protect those islands. In Germany however, the public opinion of the war steadily fell and fire bombing Berlin was not a moral action (and in many ways militarily superfluous.)
- Iraq? Just Cause - stated cause was expansion of freedom (no) and toppling of Hussein (yes) and acquisition of WMDs (yes, though their existence is to this day merely a myth). Comparative Justice - had Iraqi government agents carried out the 9/11 attacks then yes, however there is not evidence they did, so no. Competent Authority - yes, go check the Congressional vote. Right Intention - again, yes unless all the conspiracies about oil acquisition and arms production is true, which I doubt. Probability of Success - almost certainly. Last Resort - debatable, but in relation to the 3 goals I listed under Just Cause, yes. Proportionality - they had tanks, air power and a modern army. As for the overwhelming numerical advantage the Allies possess, Proportionality is describing attacking someone you could instead just bully into submission. Example, Italian tanks flying through Ethiopia killing men on horses. The Italians could have occupied Ethiopia with ease without the mass slaughter. That of course, is only one of the many reasons the Axis offenses in WWII were unjust.
- So. Self-defense and the defense of another with sufficient evidence grants just war. Lots of relative terms in there, so to clarify: The leadership of a nation, with the support of its people, may wage war in order to protect itself and the interests of its allies, as long as it pursues peace up to and during the conflict.
- I believe a Pro-Life individual can be in favor of Just War. I am.
- Braves took 2 of 3 from the Nats, still looking like the cream of the NL, especially with McCann hurt, Jason on the DL, Beachy still rehabbing and BJ hitting >.200. AND Hudson's 200th win, the one where he beat Gio Gonzalez, went 2-3 with a 2B and a HR and raised his BA% for the year to .386 led me to check his career numbers and evaluate his HOF chances. I think he's in, he's 7th on the all-time winning % list at 200-105 and has good counting numbers even with a season lost to Tommy John's. He's said he wants to play 2 more with Atlanta at least so add a couple more years before he hangs it up and he has a shot at 250.
- Next week, I'll go a different direction again. Let's talk about the music I like, why and why you should too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)