Friday, July 21, 2006
Mockingbird 2
I learned recently that there are plans to allow free downloads of the Mockingbird cd's songs sometime in September. I am not sure how official this is or if they will be available forever. I will post a link when I learn more.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
The Gospel of the Kingdom
I have started "The Gospel of the Kingdom" by George E. Ladd. Here are some highlights:
"The primary meaning of both the Hebrew word malkuth in the Old Testament and of the Greek word basileia in the New Testament is the rank, authority and sovereignty exercised by a king...First of all, a kingdom is the authority to rule, the sovereignty of a king."(p. 19) Italics are Ladd's.
"'Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' This prayer is a petition for God to reign, to manifest His kingly sovereignty and power, to put to flight every enemy of righteousness and of His divine rule, that God alone may be King over all the world."(p. 21) Italics are Ladd's
"When we trace this word in the New Testament, we discover that in the course of God's redemptuve purpose, there are two ages which are frequently called 'This Age' and 'The Age to Come.'"(p. 26)
"The point is this: it is the character of This Age to choke the working of the Word of God. The spirit of the Age is hostile to the Gospel.(p. 29)
"All forms of wickedness ultimately grow out of the root of unglodliness. Sin is primarily religious and secondarily ethical. Man is God's creature and his primary responsibility is towares God. The root of sin is found in his refusal to acknowledge in grateful dependence the gifts and the goodness of God (Rom 1:21), which are now imparted in Christ. Darkness is the assertion of independence rather than God-dependence."(p. 31)
"The New Testament sets The Age to Come in direct opposition to This Age. The present age is evil, but the Kingdom of God belongs to the Age to Come. The Kingdom of God, both as the perfect manifestation of God's reign and the realm of completed redemptive blessing, belongs to the Age to Come."(p. 31)
"Thus we find that the Kingdom of God belongs to The Age to Come and is set in sharp contrast to This Age. In This Age there is death; in the Kingdom of God, eternal life. In This Age, the righteous and the wicked are mixed together; the Kingdom of God, all wickedness and sin will be destroyed. For the present, Satan is viewed as the "god of this age;" but in the Age to Come, God's Kingdom, God's rule will have destryed Satan, and righteiousness will displace all evil."(p. 34)
"The solution of this problem is found in what we may call the Biblical prophetic perspective, a phenomenon which occurs throughout the prophetic Scriptures. Usually the prophets, as they looked into the future, spoke of coming events without attempting to give the temporal sequence of the several stages of the accomplishment of God's purpose. Not only is the distant future viewed as a single although complex event, but the immediate future and the distant future are described as though they constituted a single act of God."(p. 36)
"The primary meaning of both the Hebrew word malkuth in the Old Testament and of the Greek word basileia in the New Testament is the rank, authority and sovereignty exercised by a king...First of all, a kingdom is the authority to rule, the sovereignty of a king."(p. 19) Italics are Ladd's.
"'Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' This prayer is a petition for God to reign, to manifest His kingly sovereignty and power, to put to flight every enemy of righteousness and of His divine rule, that God alone may be King over all the world."(p. 21) Italics are Ladd's
"When we trace this word in the New Testament, we discover that in the course of God's redemptuve purpose, there are two ages which are frequently called 'This Age' and 'The Age to Come.'"(p. 26)
"The point is this: it is the character of This Age to choke the working of the Word of God. The spirit of the Age is hostile to the Gospel.(p. 29)
"All forms of wickedness ultimately grow out of the root of unglodliness. Sin is primarily religious and secondarily ethical. Man is God's creature and his primary responsibility is towares God. The root of sin is found in his refusal to acknowledge in grateful dependence the gifts and the goodness of God (Rom 1:21), which are now imparted in Christ. Darkness is the assertion of independence rather than God-dependence."(p. 31)
"The New Testament sets The Age to Come in direct opposition to This Age. The present age is evil, but the Kingdom of God belongs to the Age to Come. The Kingdom of God, both as the perfect manifestation of God's reign and the realm of completed redemptive blessing, belongs to the Age to Come."(p. 31)
"Thus we find that the Kingdom of God belongs to The Age to Come and is set in sharp contrast to This Age. In This Age there is death; in the Kingdom of God, eternal life. In This Age, the righteous and the wicked are mixed together; the Kingdom of God, all wickedness and sin will be destroyed. For the present, Satan is viewed as the "god of this age;" but in the Age to Come, God's Kingdom, God's rule will have destryed Satan, and righteiousness will displace all evil."(p. 34)
"The solution of this problem is found in what we may call the Biblical prophetic perspective, a phenomenon which occurs throughout the prophetic Scriptures. Usually the prophets, as they looked into the future, spoke of coming events without attempting to give the temporal sequence of the several stages of the accomplishment of God's purpose. Not only is the distant future viewed as a single although complex event, but the immediate future and the distant future are described as though they constituted a single act of God."(p. 36)
Friday, July 14, 2006
Terror and terror
The leak of top secret information by the New York Times and the LA times about the finacial tracking program lead me to wonder if that could be considered treason. I think one must look at the definition. The key words are consciously and purposely. These newpapers may have committed treason, but they claim that they didn't think these reports would aid the enemy; therefore, according to public record, they did not commit treason. But if this is not treason, they are incredibly arrogant and irresponsible, willing to compromise the lives of countless troops and civilians.
If that is not obvious, consider this: if the US catches someone funding terrorists, that someone will no longer be supplying money to the terrorists. If the terrorists have less money, they can only buy fewer bombs. If they have fewer bombs, they are blowing up fewer bombs. And if they are blowing up fewer bombs, they are killing fewer troops and civilians. If the newspapers fail to see this, they are either very ignorant or very deceptive. If it is the latter, I say they knowingly aided the enemy, hence treason.
If that is not obvious, consider this: if the US catches someone funding terrorists, that someone will no longer be supplying money to the terrorists. If the terrorists have less money, they can only buy fewer bombs. If they have fewer bombs, they are blowing up fewer bombs. And if they are blowing up fewer bombs, they are killing fewer troops and civilians. If the newspapers fail to see this, they are either very ignorant or very deceptive. If it is the latter, I say they knowingly aided the enemy, hence treason.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Cell Phone parody
See here for original.
For drivers, danger in the car-pool
A study calls talking to passengers as risky as driving drunk.
By Tim Gavril
Inquirer Staff Writer
Drivers who talk to passengers may be just as dangerous as those who drink.
That's the sobering conclusion of a study published yesterday by University of Gillsburg researchers who monitored 40 men and women on a driving simulator.
Drivers using gestures were no better than those with their hands on the wheel, confirming previous studies. That suggests New Jersey's ban on driving while talking to passengers, which allows talking while hands are on the wheel, is only partly effective.
The findings, published in the journal, X-Factor, take a swipe at a popular pastime that is taken for granted by millions of multitasking drivers.
At any given moment during the day, 10 percent of drivers are talking to their passengers, according to a 2005 estimate by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Bad idea, said psychologist Drew A. Franks, one of the Gillsburg study's authors.
"It's kind of almost unpredictable how they are driving," Franks said.
When talking to passengers, drivers had slower reaction times and more accidents, and they drove inconsistently, sometimes approaching other cars and then falling back, he said.
Cellular industry officials acknowledge that passengers can be distracting but said they can be talked to sensibly. It's unfair to single out passengers, said Wally Johnson, a spokesman for TACI-The Passenger Association, a Colorado-based trade group.
"I think there are just a multitude of distractions that are out there," Johnson said. "And by focusing on just one, you're creating a false sense of security among people."
In another recent study, by the Mississippi Tech Transportation Institute, some other distractions - such as applying makeup and reading - were found to be much more risky.
In the Utah study, both passengers and alcohol caused participants to "drive" more erratically over the simulated 24-mile course, but in different ways.
Those talking to passengers were involved in more "accidents," and they took about 70 milliseconds longer to react when the car on the video screen in front of them hit the brakes - a delay during which a car moving at 55 m.p.h. would travel more than five feet on the road.
When the drivers were drunk - with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08, the legal threshold for intoxication - they followed other cars more closely and they braked 23 percent more forcefully, a potential problem for motorists behind them. They also had twice as many close calls - defined as stopping less than four seconds away from a collision - as they did when sober.
The participants were given a mixture of vodka and orange juice. Their level of drunkenness - equivalent to four drinks in an hour on an empty stomach for a 170-pound man - was verified with a monitor.
By one key measure, those talking to passengers were even worse than drunken drivers.
When talking to a passenger, the drivers had three accidents, but when they were drunk, they had none. The drivers also had no accidents when they were sober and had no passengers.
Researchers said they were surprised that the drunken drivers were accident-free. They urged people not to misconstrue the results as suggesting that drunken driving was safe. The authors speculated that the lack of accidents may have been due to the fact that the study was conducted in the morning, when participants were well rested.
Because the drunken drivers followed too closely and had more close calls, they would be expected to have accidents in the long run, Drews said.
Drunken drivers in the Gillsburg study were barely illegal, while in real life, they may be much more impaired, said Anne MacCurt, vice president for research at the nonprofit Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Crash rates start to rise with blood-alcohol levels below 0.08, and they climb steadily after that, she said.
The Gillsburg researchers presented preliminary findings three years ago and are publishing them now after further analysis and peer review.
Besides New Jersey, the only states to ban driving while talking to passengers are Connecticut and New York. Washington and some other communities have also banned it, including Conshohocken and West Conshohocken. A statewide ban passed the Pennsylvania Senate this week, sponsored by Sen. Joe Cinto (R., Bucks), but a House bill has not been approved.
In New Jersey, police issued at least 7,000 tickets to drivers who were talking passengers during the first six months of 2005, the most recent time period for which data are available.
The real number of offenses is likely much higher, in part because charges are often negotiated away in municipal court, said Robert Rodrig, director of the state Division of Highway Traffic Safety.
Told about the new study, Rodrig said he wasn't surprised that researchers found no difference between drivers who used gestures while they talk and those who in the gestureless variety legal in New Jersey.
"You are not cognizant of what is going on around you" during a conversation with a passenger, he said. "That is the danger."
New Jersey Sen. Murtha Burk (R., Burlington), a sponsor of the talking-to-passenger law, said the exemption for the gesture-free variety was a compromise to get an unpopular measure passed.
Bark said that she got her own passenger (though blind thus rendering gesturing useless) only at her children's urging and that she uses it sparingly.
"I do not talk to my passenger," Burk said. "I just turn to my passenger and say, 'This trip will take fifteen minutes. Then I face forward and do not utter another word for the rest of the trip.' "
Frank, the Gillsburg researcher, said he never talks to his passenger while driving. His reason is more than just safety.
"I enjoy my quiet time," he said.
For drivers, danger in the car-pool
A study calls talking to passengers as risky as driving drunk.
By Tim Gavril
Inquirer Staff Writer
Drivers who talk to passengers may be just as dangerous as those who drink.
That's the sobering conclusion of a study published yesterday by University of Gillsburg researchers who monitored 40 men and women on a driving simulator.
Drivers using gestures were no better than those with their hands on the wheel, confirming previous studies. That suggests New Jersey's ban on driving while talking to passengers, which allows talking while hands are on the wheel, is only partly effective.
The findings, published in the journal, X-Factor, take a swipe at a popular pastime that is taken for granted by millions of multitasking drivers.
At any given moment during the day, 10 percent of drivers are talking to their passengers, according to a 2005 estimate by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Bad idea, said psychologist Drew A. Franks, one of the Gillsburg study's authors.
"It's kind of almost unpredictable how they are driving," Franks said.
When talking to passengers, drivers had slower reaction times and more accidents, and they drove inconsistently, sometimes approaching other cars and then falling back, he said.
Cellular industry officials acknowledge that passengers can be distracting but said they can be talked to sensibly. It's unfair to single out passengers, said Wally Johnson, a spokesman for TACI-The Passenger Association, a Colorado-based trade group.
"I think there are just a multitude of distractions that are out there," Johnson said. "And by focusing on just one, you're creating a false sense of security among people."
In another recent study, by the Mississippi Tech Transportation Institute, some other distractions - such as applying makeup and reading - were found to be much more risky.
In the Utah study, both passengers and alcohol caused participants to "drive" more erratically over the simulated 24-mile course, but in different ways.
Those talking to passengers were involved in more "accidents," and they took about 70 milliseconds longer to react when the car on the video screen in front of them hit the brakes - a delay during which a car moving at 55 m.p.h. would travel more than five feet on the road.
When the drivers were drunk - with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08, the legal threshold for intoxication - they followed other cars more closely and they braked 23 percent more forcefully, a potential problem for motorists behind them. They also had twice as many close calls - defined as stopping less than four seconds away from a collision - as they did when sober.
The participants were given a mixture of vodka and orange juice. Their level of drunkenness - equivalent to four drinks in an hour on an empty stomach for a 170-pound man - was verified with a monitor.
By one key measure, those talking to passengers were even worse than drunken drivers.
When talking to a passenger, the drivers had three accidents, but when they were drunk, they had none. The drivers also had no accidents when they were sober and had no passengers.
Researchers said they were surprised that the drunken drivers were accident-free. They urged people not to misconstrue the results as suggesting that drunken driving was safe. The authors speculated that the lack of accidents may have been due to the fact that the study was conducted in the morning, when participants were well rested.
Because the drunken drivers followed too closely and had more close calls, they would be expected to have accidents in the long run, Drews said.
Drunken drivers in the Gillsburg study were barely illegal, while in real life, they may be much more impaired, said Anne MacCurt, vice president for research at the nonprofit Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Crash rates start to rise with blood-alcohol levels below 0.08, and they climb steadily after that, she said.
The Gillsburg researchers presented preliminary findings three years ago and are publishing them now after further analysis and peer review.
Besides New Jersey, the only states to ban driving while talking to passengers are Connecticut and New York. Washington and some other communities have also banned it, including Conshohocken and West Conshohocken. A statewide ban passed the Pennsylvania Senate this week, sponsored by Sen. Joe Cinto (R., Bucks), but a House bill has not been approved.
In New Jersey, police issued at least 7,000 tickets to drivers who were talking passengers during the first six months of 2005, the most recent time period for which data are available.
The real number of offenses is likely much higher, in part because charges are often negotiated away in municipal court, said Robert Rodrig, director of the state Division of Highway Traffic Safety.
Told about the new study, Rodrig said he wasn't surprised that researchers found no difference between drivers who used gestures while they talk and those who in the gestureless variety legal in New Jersey.
"You are not cognizant of what is going on around you" during a conversation with a passenger, he said. "That is the danger."
New Jersey Sen. Murtha Burk (R., Burlington), a sponsor of the talking-to-passenger law, said the exemption for the gesture-free variety was a compromise to get an unpopular measure passed.
Bark said that she got her own passenger (though blind thus rendering gesturing useless) only at her children's urging and that she uses it sparingly.
"I do not talk to my passenger," Burk said. "I just turn to my passenger and say, 'This trip will take fifteen minutes. Then I face forward and do not utter another word for the rest of the trip.' "
Frank, the Gillsburg researcher, said he never talks to his passenger while driving. His reason is more than just safety.
"I enjoy my quiet time," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)