What Child is this who, laid to rest
On Mary's lap is sleeping?
Whom Angels greet with anthems sweet,
While shepherds watch are keeping?

This, this is Christ the King,
Whom shepherds guard and Angels sing;
Haste, haste, to bring Him laud,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

Why lies He in such mean estate,
Where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here
The silent Word is pleading.

Nails, spear shall pierce Him through,
The cross be borne for me, for you.
Hail, hail the Word made flesh,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

So bring Him incense, gold and myrrh,
Come peasant, king to own Him;
The King of kings salvation brings,
Let loving hearts enthrone Him.

Raise, raise a song on high,
The virgin sings her lullaby.
Joy, joy for Christ is born,
The Babe, the Son of Mary

I absolutely love this song, especially when sung in parts as a hymn.  It's so beautiful.

-Defensor

I was talking to my a friend of mine, and he and I were discussing the concept of republic vs democracy.  I was making the argument that we, as a country, are a republic, not a democracy.  He was arguing that we are a democratic-republic, or at the very least, a blend of the two.  I didn't have a good, strong answer to that at the time, except to point to the definitions of "rule by law" and "rule by the majority."  His response to that was basically that the majority chooses the leaders who make the laws that rule us.  Again, I didn't really have a strong response to that.  But it suddenly occurred just now that our difference of opinion doesn't necessarily stem from definitions (though that's part of it).  Our real issue comes down to our views on the role of government.  Here's how it works.

My friend is viewing government as a creator of law.  He views government as an entity which makes up the laws of our country.  In that sense, we are a pure democracy.  The majority indirectly is making the laws because they elect the officials to make the laws for them.  This is the true form of this blended democratic republic.  It's really just an implicit form of democracy.

I realized that that's not the proper view of government.  Government is not to create law, rather government is to enforce law.  The implications of this concept are growing in my mind even as I type, to proportions that I never realized.

So first, that's where we get this republic concept.  It's a rule by law.  Government doesn't create it, government only enforces it, as is biblical.

Secondly, we start delving into the issue of "What law are we to enforce?"  This is so huge.  I can't convey my excitement right now.  What law are we to enforce if there are so many ideologies, religions, and opinions out there?  Short answer:  God's law, the one he sets forth in His Word.

Yes, but then you're being intolerant towards other people's views.  How dare you be intolerant?  How dare you tell other people they're wrong?  Well, first off, Christianity is by nature intolerant.  Those people that say that all religions are equally good, must make an exception for Christianity because Christianity says that there is only one way to eternal life, at which point, they've just proven their own statement false.

Secondly, Christ was very intolerant.  Remember that whole fiasco with calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers?  I don't think that was very tolerant of him, do you? Thirdly, the proper role of government is laid out in the Bible and its to enforce GOD'S law, not man's wickedness. Fourthly, God is the only source of truth.  Why should we run our government based on man's opinions?

Oh, you only believe it's true.  But ultimately there is no truth, so you can't bind other men to your truth.  I'm not binding them to my truth.  I'm binding them to the only truth, God's truth.  But people have a right believe whatever they want to believe.  You can't force them to accept that as truth.  No, I can't force them.  Neither can the government (hence the Amendment saying the government will not create an establishment of religion, ie, they aren't going to force people to go to a church or create their own church to run).  But government is still to enforce God's law regardless of whether you believe it or not.

So you just want your own theocracy?  You want to make a state like that in Iran where personal freedoms are thrown away?  You want to force your set of laws on people who may not believe in your God and the law that he sets forth?

In a word: yes.  Do you know why?  Where do our rights come from?  God.  Where does our supposed freedom come from?  God.  Do the laws of God abuse, hurt, or require anything inhumane from people?  Of course not.  Does it require you to recognize a higher authority?  Most definitely.

This is the only real reason why people object to having the laws of God enforced in this country.  The laws themselves are good.  We enforce some of them a good deal already today, albeit, we have a long way to go.  Capital punishment: Biblical.  Welfare (money, medicare, whatever): Unbiblical.  Homosexual marriage: Unbiblical.  Honoring the name of God: Biblical.

But do people want to recognize a higher authority?  No.  They don't want to recognize that God has said that homosexuality is wrong.  They don't want to admit that God has commanded us to keep his name holy.  Those movies that are full of the breaking of the third commandment?  Ya, those have to go.  People would have to give up what they might actually enjoy in their sinful state.  People might actually have to start OBEYING the Word of God.

But alas, like Christ, we will meet resistance if we so much as speak these ideas in any public setting whatsoever.  That's why he said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:11-12): "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."  He blessed those who were and will be persecuted for His name.  So when it comes, we should be glad that we are striving for the kingdom.  We know that we will receive a reward in heaven as Paul talks about (running the race and all that).

Hebrews 12:28-29: "Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.  For our God is a consuming fire."

-Defensor

Again, my friend had another post I liked (and again, its long):

"I applaud anyone who makes it all the way through this post...

I was reading a forum where evolution and creation were being debated and I was inspired to do a little research myself.  I've read alot in these forums that the information argument of new information entering the system doesn't make any sense, that its confusing and doesn't apply.  I'm going to try, for the sake of releasing some frustration and personal satisfaction, to reduce it to very simple terms that anyone can understand.

According to a guy who "makes a living troubleshooting PC hardware and software," human DNA contains the equivalent of more than 300 million lines of computer code.  To put that in perspective, Red Hat Linux 7.1 (an operating system for those who don't know, kinda like Windows, but much different), contains 30 million lines of code.  So there is a whole lot of information there.

And there is obviously more information in a human gene pool than in the gene pool of a single-cell organism.  For example, there is no code for a liver, or a heart, or a spleen in the single-celled organism.  So somewhere we went from simpler code to more complex code.

Now, the lines of code in a computer at the base level are made of ones and zeros, ultimately.  The base level of DNA technically is the atom, but for simplicity's sake, we'll just say that it is the four (technically five) DNA bases, the chemicals that actually carry the information, the "code" one might say. 

Now, imagine the amount of ones and zeros in the computer program and multiply it by at least a factor of ten and assume that's the amount of "ones and zeros", or DNA bases, in the human genetic code.  However, as large as that code is, there is an infinite number of ones and zeros.

Here's where two different arguments come in.

One: No new code can enter the system without intelligent design.  It's impossible for a computer to add code to itself by itself.

Two: Corrupted code does cause a loss of information.  Granted, there is a slight chance that the corrupted code may impart some sort of information to the computer.  The code "101010101" may have now have been corrupted to say "101011101"  That may say something to the computer, but there's something missing.  Where did the "101010101" go?  That information is now gone.  That loss of information will cause something to not work right.

Additionally, where does the new code fit in?  Now it's just random information that the computer doesn't know what to do with, regardless of what information it may impart.  Ultimately we have a degraded system.  Also, the "new information" did not add to the overall complexity of the system, because no new information was added.

Now, one argument an evolutionist may have is that the computer isn't affected by natural selection, therefore is a poor example of the situation.  True.  So lets say that these computers are also programmed to reproduce and build new computers, transferring their code on to the new computers.  Lets say that a random one or zero is changed every time.  Let's also say we have 100 million computers doing this all at once, and each computer "reproduces," per se, 100 times.  You would end up with a very, very large computer "family tree" very, very quickly. (100*100 mil=10 bil offspring*100=1 trillion offspring, etc).  Each reproduction we'll assume takes one second (which would be amazing).

Any computer programmer would be able to tell you that there is no possible way that, at any point in the line anywhere, you would get a computer better, or more complex, than the first ones.  It wouldn't matter how many years and centuries you ran the program, it would never make a better, more complex computer. 

In fact, so much code would end up being corrupted that eventually, the computers wouldn't even be able to reproduce because their reproduction code became corrupted.  It doesn't matter how much "extra" information you have contained in those computers...none, absolutely none of them would be in working order.

Whew...thought I was done didn't ya?  You can take a break if you want, go get a Starbucks, use the bathroom, whatever.

Counter-argument: Evolution works by eliminating bad "code" and favoring good "code".  In the computer world you've created, you don't provide for that.  Note: evolution supposedly eliminates bad code by "killing" off the one's with bad code...they get eaten, they become lame and die of starvation, whatever.  The ones with good code live and pass on their code to their offspring.

Actually, by making it so that no one "dies" I just make it easier to see the logical conclusion.  Look at it this way, you have a tree, where the first computer (and we are assuming the first computer is there somehow with all the code) is the trunk and the branches branch out infinitely, kinda like the family tree of the whole world.  Even if you cut off some of the branches because they "die" the conclusion is not changed.  The tree is not added on to, just taken away. 

Basically, no new code is added by eliminating those with bad code, so the argument is mute.  All that is proven by cutting off limbs is that there is now a lesser chance of something good to come of the whole fiasco.  Ultimately if someone is totally honest with themselves, one would have to admit that there is no way that a computer better than the first computer could possibly arise. 

The same is true with evolution.  There is no possible way that the family tree of evolution could (1) create new genetic code from nothing, or (2) that the old genetic code could change into better AND more complex code.  Anyone who is in their right mind and honest with themselves, must see this.  It's so obvious and simple and a logical conclusion of the above evidence.  Simple as that.

However, I do realize that there are those whom God has blinded and will never see this.  In Romans 11:7-10, Paul says:

"What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.  Just as it is written: 'God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, to this very day.'  And David says: 'Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a recompense to them.  Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see and bow down their back always.'"

There it is.  Sorry for so long a post, but that's what I've been thinking on for the past...four hours now.

-Drizzt"

Wow that's a long post.  But I don't have much to add to that, so...

-Defensor