Pivotal Professionalism

This evening I was surfing the web and stumbled upon a shocking video of a 7-11 clerk on CNN (found here). This lady apparently offered a ride on her broom to the son of the camera man who refused her offer, causing this lady to become belligerent and start yelling. This attitude ultimately lead to her flipping the man off and followed him after a confrontation with her manager.

Am I the only one in this world that believes in the importance of professionalism? Professionalism does not care if you missed breakfast, woke up on the wrong side of the bed or got into a fender bender.  If any incident occurs that is so dramatic it causes you to become unprofessional during your time of employment, you should take the day off, otherwise suck it up and drive on.  This lady has absolutely no excuse for her behavior or actions and should be ashamed of herself. She has publicly humiliated herself, he honor and any future employment perspectives.

Unarming America

As a consequence of the horrific calamity in Aurora, Colorado much anti-gun rhetoric has erupted. This is a normal phenomena ensuing any criminal activity involving firearms. Rummaging through the vast amount of liberal and right-wing articles on gun control, one in particular stood out among the rest. Jason Alexander (who played the character ‘George’ in the show Seinfeld) wrote a centrist discourse attempting to persuade the masses that certain guns are acceptable and other are not.

Mr. Alexander argues that weapons such as AR-15′s should be banned from civilians because he believes the only purpose of such weapon is strictly for killing. Though he seems to be okay with sportsman rifles and pistols for self-defense, the discourse begins with a flawed interpretation of the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. This flawed interpretation taints his entire argument and displays his ignorance.

If you have not read the second amendment before, it reads:

__________________________________________________

As passed by the Congress:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

__________________________________________________

This highly debated amendment clearly posses three separate entities. First, Americans will have the right to create and maintain well regulated militias to keep States free from tyranny. Second, that ‘the people’ will always have the right to keep and bear arms. Third, that both of these right shall not be infringed. If anyone attempts to sell a molested version of the intent of our forefathers, it is important to remember that ‘the people’, has and always will mean the general public, not specifically militias.

Mr. Alexander begins his discourse stating that second amendment is one entity, therefore providing only ‘well regulated militias’ with the right to bear arms. This kind of anti-intellectual haughty writing should never be publicized, especially on matters as important of our constitutional rights.

Our right to bear arms is what keeps civilians safe from criminal activities. Banning guns will only prevent law-abiding citizens from owning firearms and will allow the criminals (who buy firearms illegally anyways) to have a comfortable advantage against population. To think disarming America is the best course of action to lower gun related criminal activity is nonsensical.

Titanium

Four days ago I was listening to Pandora’s “Todays Hits” station to provide motivation during a strenuous weight training session. After a couple of the modern hits that I had been previously previewed to, a new song appeared on the scene. The music had a techno feel to it and the lyrics were subtly amazing. Approximately half way through the song I noticed that my body was on overload from the amount of motivation entering my ear canal transferring to my extremities.

The song I write of is David Guetta’s “Titanium”, featuring Sia Furler.

If you have not heard this song yet, I would highly recommend following this blog that you log on to YouTube and listen to it.

The song conveys a message of inner strength, will power and the resilient attitude required to push through adversity. Such lyrics and generally cliché and contain a slight naive vibe that diminishes its power. David Guetta and Sia Furler tread the fine line of powerful lyrics with pitch perfect singing that combined create and epic song.

If you would like to see the original song on YouTube click here.

Also I  found a great cover by an independent artist that can be viewed here.

Love Win’s

Over the course of the last two days I have spent time reading “Love Win’s”, by Rob Bell. Whenever I brought up this book in conversation it felt as through this piece of work had been black listed. Just mentioning the title put people on edge and it was avoided by a quick change of topic. The curoiosty that stewed within me from this mysterious taboo made it practically impossible for me not to read it.

After ingesting and contemplating this book two words pop into my head.

Mind Blowing!

No were in my life have I read such a moving, thrilling, anti-cultural presention of God’s character. Rob Bell’s understanding of what hell and heaven are in so spot on I couldn’t agree with him more. I personally have had thoughts similar in my post “Does Ignorance = Automatic Salvation” however, Rob Bell explained the idea much more thoroughly.

In case you haven’t read this book let me offer a one paragraph synopsis. Basically, Rob Bell displays his ideas and beliefs of how powerful God’s love really is for us. Many people believe that this book is about Rob Bell saying there is no such thing as “hell”. This is not the case, it’s more about God’s love then anything. In the process of explaining God’s love Rob Bell does question our interpretion of what hell really is. He offers conclusive evidence for debunking the current ideology of mainstream Christians that hell is an eternal, forever, conscience place of extreme torment. At the same time he shows us how this mentality will lead us away from God rather then wanting to be with him.

Francis Chan wrote a counter book titled “Erasing Hell”, which I just bought and will read this week. In my post about his book I will contrast these two authors points and try to find which one is more more biblically solid.

Does Ignorance = Automatic Salvation?

Image by Disco in the Nunnery via Flickr

A question has been lingering in the back of my mind for quite some time now. “Why would a human, who never had an opportunity to hear the name of Jesus, be banished to an eternity of torture?”

I have done much research, and to no surprise found a vast amount of ideas to this question, all of which use Bible verses to back them up.

Here are the three most common ideas.

1. If they have never accepted Jesus, then they go to hell, regardless of whether or not they had a chance to.

2. God will treat them as an innocent (ie. babies or anyone not capable of making such a decision) and they will go straight to heaven or purgatory.

3. After Jesus’ second coming everyone will have the opportunity to acknowledge him as God, thus receiving salvation before entering heaven.

I have found one of these answers to be satisfactory.

The first idea does not reflect the character of God as recorded in the Bible. Banishing someone to eternal damnation for failing to meet an impossible perquisite? That seems extremely merciless and unwise. Both are opposite of God’s character.

I don’t believe God would create a human, knowing full well that they would never hear the name of Jesus, then make knowing the name of Jesus a requirement for entering heaven.

The second idea is better than the first, however it mixes things that should not be mixed. “Innocents” verses fully capable adults. That is not a fair comparison. The reason is “Innocents” do not have the ability to accept Christ. People who have never heard the name of Christ do have the ability. Ability verses ignorance is too much of a discrepancy to be co-located in the same argument. Why should people who have never accept Christ’s sacrifice be granted paradise automatically? That completely grinds against scriptural doctrine.

The third idea is the winner.

It is the only idea that is reflected in the Bible.

1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 -

“For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10 He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him.” (NIV)

Paul is clearly saying that whether we are live or dead (sleeping), we will be given the opportunity to accept him as savior. Paul uses the word “sleeping” as a metaphor for people who are dead. This shows that he is describing people who are waiting for Christ’s second coming.

Another verse that I think indirectly gives credit to this argument is John 5:28-29 -

“28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” (ESV)

Notice that there is nothing comparable to “those who accepted Jesus” is in this verse. It’s good versus evil, some will arise from the grave and get life and some will be judged (which could also be interpreted as damnation). It is during the judgment period that I believe they will be afforded the opportunity to accept Christ, which they were denied on earth.

In conclusion, assuming that someone recognizes that there is a God, which is inexcusable according to Roman 1:20 -

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (NIV)

And that person just never had the opportunity to hear Jesus name in their life time, then they will have a chance to do so during the time of judgement.



You get as Much as you Put In

Image via Wikipedia

This evenings devotion was based around 2 Samuel 24:24. In this scripture King David sinned against the Lord by taking a census of his people. In order to make amends God ordered David to build and alter and burn a sacrifice.

After hearing this a man named Araunah offered to give David the land and the sacrifice for free. However David refused to take it for free and instead compensated him.

When we make mistakes and a sacrifice is required to redeem ourselves, we cannot by half-hearted. If we put little into sacrifice we will gain little. Just think, what if Jesus came was a just whipped for our sins. It wouldn’t make as much an impact to us personally, nor would compensate for our vast sin among us.

As with everything from exercising to writing, with sacrifice, you only get as much as you put in.

Not Worrying?

Image via Wikipedia

It seems like everyday is battle between myself and my worries. One day I will realize I need to let God take them, and I feel better then. However, many times I forget, or simply do not want to let go of the worries.

Why is this. Why on earth would people be more comfortable with their worries then without?

The answer could be all sorts of things, and is completely dependent on the person. For me, it’s because if I worry about a situation somehow I think I’ll make it better. If a situation is on my mind, I can maybe think of a minute detail that I had overlooked.

There is a difference though in thinking through a situation of event and worrying about the outcome. I worry about the outcome more than I think it through. Counterproductive indeed.