27JUN07 @ 12:32, Wed.

The following is a quote from CNN's website concerning the WWE wrestler Chris Benoit's death:

But the WWE said evidence gathered in the investigation indicates "deliberation, not rage."

"The wife's feet and hands were bound and she was asphyxiated, not beaten to death," said a statement posted on the company's Web site. "By the account of the authorities, there were substantial periods of time between the death of the wife and the death of the son, again suggesting deliberate thought, not rage."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/wrestler/

What this quote shows is the continuation of the lifestyle and health choices that WWE and its ilk perpetuate. WWE is falling all over itself in its attempt to dismiss the role steroids allegedly played in Chris Benoit's family death recently.

At least it's comforting to know that WWE isn't denying, per se in its totality, the role steroids can play in these types of circumstances. Just as long as steroid use is associated with "deliberate" acts and not acts out of "rage."

26JUN07 @ 00:11, Tue.

I have to admit I was skeptical when I read on the news (albeit, from various sources) that WWE wrestler Chris Benoit and his family were found dead in their home.

Admittedly, I am not a viewer of WWE telecasts, or other forms of its sports entertainment. However, I am aware of its history of sensationalism. And even the plot line of an "alleged," death, or plot to blow up the limo of chairman Vince McMahon. So, understandably, I was skeptical.

I am not a viewer of what WWE has to offer because of this analogy: One doesn't have to engage in alcoholism to know of its side effects. Similarly, and perhaps ironically, there are some who were initially skeptical of Mr. Benoit's death because of WWE's history of sensationalism and outlandish story lines, including the recent faking of Mr. McMahon's supposed death.

Certainly not to belittle or demean Messrs. Benoit and Guerrero's deaths, but this is a case where WWE is perhaps ironically a victim of its own sensationalism that results in doubt whenever a death of one of its own occurs in real life.

22JUN07 @ 19:06, Fri.

Just a quick thought. Sen. Fred Thompson's character on Law & Order, on TNT the other night was quoted as saying, "The people who skip jury duty are the same people who skip active duty."

One of the thought(s) throughout the episode was you can't really distinguish between being against "The War," and being against troops.

20JUN07 @ 23:25, Wed.

One of the most innovative, yet unbiblical, views of God, is known as Open Theism. In short, Open Theism posits that since Man is a moral character with free will, that as free agents, God cannot know our (or human) choices before we, our ourselves, make them. In other words, that which is not known, cannot be known; or, if we do not know our future choice(s), how then can God know?

Advocates of Open Theism err in their hyper-view of human choice. To be sure, our decisions are of our own making. Yet, when one examines the usual Open Theist's theology, one discovers that their pre-supposition is that a God who knows the future - even choices that are yet to be decided - cannot be a personal God, if, in fact, humans are free in their choices.

Thus, for an Open Theist, since Man comes to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Saviour of their own choice, that ability to freely make choices (albeit, about salvation) must then therefore logically extend to making ALL choices.

And since those choices are not known until the person makes them, God cannot know what those choices will be either (since God does not also know who will come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ).

So, there you have it. Open Theism. I was doing a devotion of God and His knowledge of the future and His sustaining the Universe which He created. There will be much more discussion about how this innovative view of God is sweeping evangelicalism.

20JUN07 @ 17:08, Wed.

A few thoughts on recent news about stem cell research and Pres. Bush's veto about the issue. It's interesting to note that the very same people who would presumably cry out against the Nazi atrocities of WWII, are some of the very same people who support stem cell research.

The link? As some may know, the Nazis supported genetic research in developping the Master Race. The famous movie "The Boys from Brazil" speaks much of this issue.

Advocates of stem-cell research attempt to pull the heart strings of the uninformed. They appeal to our sense of "humanity," and desire to save the lives of our loved ones.

However, stem-cell research's logical conclusion is playing the eugenics game of days gone by. The ability to choose genetically "fit," babies; the ability to do this or that - sounds promising - yet once we step back from the emotional tugging of the marionette strings of liberalism, we will realize that to play God in our pre-emptive selection of genetically "fit," humans will be our ultimate undoing.

Additionally, if stem-cell research were so promising, why is it that liberals would have us believe that such research can only survive if federally funded? If it held such promise, where are the millions, or billions, from private industry, or private donors? No - this appeal for federal funding, my friends, is nothing more than government subsidization of morally bereft choices.

More on this in the future!

Psalm 127:: reads...
Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is [H]is reward.

Remember, in order to harvest stem-cells, one must kill the living.

18JUN07 @ 22:54, Mon.

Do liberals in this country ever stop and think? Today's media outlets never cease in their reminding us of the daily death toll of US troops - especially those who die in the service of our country over in the Middle East. Liberals would have us believe that these deaths are unprecedented and Republicans are the cause. Nevermind the fact that nearly all of these deaths are due to non-US personnel. And minus domestic people like Messrs. McVeigh, Unabomber, etc., and the IRA, liberals just can't face the fact that most of the terrorists in the world are non-US. Yet, these liberals would have us believe that it is politically incorrect and even unconstitutional to racially profile those who would intend on harming this country. So when our soldiers die in the service of their country, in an attempt to prevent further domestic attacks, and people of Middle-Eastern origin from infiltrating this country, or attempting to attack US interests, who would liberals have us attempt to prevent from harming us?

Speaking of our daily reminders of dying US soldiers - interesting that the media nearly never shows pictures and stories of the lives US troops positively impact. The liberals' mantra of WMD, etc., ring in our ears; yet, where are the liberals in congratulating our troops for discovering the numerous torture, rape, etc. rooms that Saddam Hussein dotted across his country? 

I guess, according to liberals, torture and rape are ok.

...Ooops - sorry. Forgot to say that torture is only ok for terrorists. Liberals routinely attack our troops for their use of certain interrogation tactics. Yet it's ok for terrorists, who, additionally, televise the execution of Westerners. 

Remember, folks - the religion of "peace."

18JUN07 @ 22:44, Mon.

Ever stop to think why is it that Democrats have a pass when it comes to saying something politically incorrect, or racially "insensitive"? When Sen. Trent Lott made a comment about this country being under the potential leadership of Sen. Strom Thurmond, the liberals came out of the woodworks to denounce Sen. Lott as someone who was saying that this country would have been better off under a racist, segregationalist society.  Despite the fact that was not what Sen. Lott was saying, Democrats fell over themselves jockeying for position in their denouncement of Sen. Lott. He was subsequently forced to resign as Republican leader of the Senate. Interesting how, years ago, when Hillary Rodham Clinton called Sen. A. D'Amato, from NY, Senator "tomato", no legion of Democrats called for Mrs. Clinton to apologize for her using, presumably, an Italian oriented, or associated label toward Sen. D'Amato.

Interesting.

18JUN07 @ 15:31, Mon.

Well, just finished my bubble-gum flavored Slurpee! 7-11 was out of the Coca-Cola flavored Slurpee, so I had to resort fo the aforementioned flavor.

18JUN07 @ 13:46, Mon.

This is my new blog. I will update it as time allows.