What doctrine do you follow?

Here's a quiz that lets you know whether or not you are an Arminian:  QUIZ

The Devil Went To Georgia (What Really Happened)

The time when the Devil went down to Georgia - it's a famous story in the form of a song. I think that most of you have probably heard of it, I've even seen it played by the Hill Billies at Disneyland, and played it on Guitar Hero. Of course, if you don't know the tune, you'll have a chance to familiar yourself with it, since I've included a link to another rendition of the song below.

It's a beautiful piece, but there's just one thing wrong with it: that's not how it really ended. So, I've taken it upon myself to set the record straight, so that y'all will know what actually happened that day in Georgia. And it started like this:

The devil went down to Georgia,
he was looking for a soul to steal.
He was in a bind 'cos he was way behind
and he was willin' to make a deal.

When he came across this young man
sawin' on a fiddle and playin' it hot.
And the devil jumped upon a hickory stump
and said: "Boy let me tell you what:

"I guess you didn't know it,
but I'm a fiddle player too.
"And if you'd care to take a dare,
I'll make a bet with you.

"Now you play a pretty good fiddle,
boy, but give the devil his due:
"I bet a fiddle of gold against your soul,
'cos I think I'm better than you."

The boy said: "My name's Johnny and it might be a sin,
"But I'll take your bet, your gonna regret, 'cos I'm the best that's ever been."

Johnny you rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard.
'Cos hells broke loose in Georgia and the devil deals the cards.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold.
But if you lose, the devil gets your soul.

The devil opened up his case and he said: "I'll start this show."
And fire flew from his fingertips as he rosined up his bow.
And he pulled the bow across his strings and it made an evil hiss.
Then a band of demons joined in and it sounded something like this:

[Click Here to Hear The Original Song] (1:23)


When the devil finished, Johnny said: "Well you're pretty good ol' son.

"But sit down in that chair, right there, and let me show you how its done."

Fire on the mountain, run boys, run.
The devil avoids the risin' sun.
Chicken in the bread pan, now there's less
"Granny, does your dog bite?" "Yes, child, yes."


The devil smiled and chuckled though he knew that he'd been beat.
And then he said: “I'm Satan, and I'm known for my deceit-
"See, win or lose, you'll pay your dues, while I achieve my goal.
"Cause it's a sin to deal with me, so I still get your soul.
"You take that golden fiddle, boy, and you come on down with me,
"But you will only play it here, for all eternity.”

And there's fire on the mountain, run boys, run.
The devil avoids the risin' sun.
Chicken in the bread pan, now there's less
"Granny, does your dog bite?" "Yes, child, yes."

P.S. If the devil asks you to dance, you'd better say "Never"
for a dance with the devil might just last forever.


.

The Argument Clinic

Note: I found a couple other scripts for this part of the sketch, listed online, but they were not even close to being accurate word for word. Here is what I believe to be the most accurate transcription of the famous Monty Python Argument, from their sketch: The Argument Clinic.

Man: *Knocks*

Another man: Come in.

Man: Is this the right room for an argument?

A: I've told you once.

M: No you haven't.

A: Yes I have.

M: When?

A: Just now.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: Didn't

A: I did!

M: Didn't!

A: I'm telling you I did!

M: You did not!!

A: Oh, I'm sorry - Is this a five minute argument

or the full half hour?

M: Oh, oh. Just the five minute one.

A: Fine. Thank you. Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not.

A: Look, let's get one thing quite clear:

I most definitely told you.

M: You did not.

A: Yes I did.

M: You did not

A: Yes I did.

M: Didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: Didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: Look, this isn't an argument.

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is!

A: It is not.

M: It is! You just contradicted me.

A: No I didn't.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no, no, no

M: You did - just then.

A: No, no, no – Nonsense!

M: Oh look, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; you came here for an argument.

M: Well an argument is not the same as contradiction.

A: it Can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a collected series of statements

to establish a definite proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It isn't just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary

position.

M: But it isn't just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just

the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person

says.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is!

A: Not at all.

M: Now look--

A: *Rings bell*

Thank you. Good Morning.

M: What?

A: That's it. Morning.

M: But I was just getting interested.

A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes just now!

A: Afraid it was.

M: No it wasn't.

A: Sorry; I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

M: What?!

A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

M: But that was never five minutes just now. (pause) Oh come on!

A: *Hums*

M: This is ridiculous.

A: I'm very sorry, but I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

M: Ah, all right. *pays money* There you are

A: Thank you.

M: Well?

A: Well what?

M: That was never five minutes just now.

A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

M: I just paid!

A: No you didn't.

M: I DID!

A: You didn't.

M: I DID!!

A: You didn't.

M: I DID!!!

M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.

A: Well I'm very sorry, but you never paid.

M: Aha. Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing? Got you!

A: No you haven't.

M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.

A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

M: Oh I've had enough of this.

A: No you haven't.

M: Oh Shut up.

*Man leaves*

Spanking: Appropriate or Harmful?

Note: As a student pursuing my Bachelors in Psychology, the topic was sure to come up. So here are some of my thoughts, as presented in a paper I was assigned to write.

Some studies lump all types of spanking and corporal punishment together, and have shown that, all together, it's not emotionally or psychologically healthy for children. One study discriminated a bit more between types of corporal punishment, based on frequency and intensity, and discovered that occasional and mild spanking of preschoolers is harmless.(Ballie, 2001) Studies that discriminate more between types of corporal punishment are needed to debunk the myth that all spanking is either abusive or damaging to the child. True abuse is defined as follows: the willful infliction of a cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or any injury that results in a traumatic condition.(California "Child Abuse" & Corporal Injury Laws, n.d.)

Now I need address the following terms, for the sake of clarity: discipline, punishment, positive discipline, and corporal punishment. Discipline is the process of teaching someone and raising them up to follow a specific path; this is similar to discipling someone, or discipleship. The word discipline, though, is most often used to refer to negative consequences that lead to appropriate learning. Positive discipline is a subset of discipline, and refers only to discipline that helps children feel connected, is respectful and encouraging, is effective in the long-term, teaches, and invited children to discover their capabilities.(About Positive Discipline, n.d.) Punishment, on the other hand, is more of “this for that,” or “an eye for an eye.” The attitude of “You destroyed my property, so I will hurt you.” This is a different motivation from the desire to train up a child. Finally, corporal punishment is the intentional infliction of physical pain, and can be for punishment or discipline, and can be harsh or gentle.

Today, in fact, a news article came out surrounding a situation in which this very question came up: At what point does discipline move from corporal punishment to physical abuse? A video of a Texas judge beating his 16-year-old daughter with his belt went viral, and while some think that it's acceptable discipline, a large group of people have responded with outrage.(http://www.fmnewschicago.com/news/local/story.aspx?ID=1565910) I think that the situation fell on the side of “physical abuse” rather than appropriate discipline. Where is the line drawn? I believe that the line should be drawn with consideration to six aspects:

• Length/Intensity: Obviously, if a spanking is too long, it no longer serves the purpose of teaching or training, but just inflicts pain. A seemingly endless spanking also can quality as cruel and can result in a traumatic condition. An appropriate length might be 4 swats, or for a really serious offense, 12, but not more than that. Intensity refers to how hard the child is hit, and with what instrument. Belts and wooden items are much more dangerous than hands or rods which are flexible and designed not to cause damage to a child. However, on very young children, even a flexible rob would be way too intense.

• Anger: This is extremely important. Disciplining a child in anger does sever the connection there, destroys trust, and is more about calming the parent than growing and teaching the child. The example given, that “a parent might lose patience, respond with anger, and spank the child” would be completely inappropriate. If the parent is angry, they must wait until they are not angry before attempting any manner of discipline, save for restraint.

• Unpredictability: I also cannot overemphasize the importance of this aspect. There are two elements of predictability. The first element is that the child knows that a spanking will follow, if they break whatever rule is involved. The spanking cannot be a surprise, or it seems unjust. Additionally, it's very important that the child know how long the spanking will be. There's a huge difference between 4 swats and 39, and if the child doesn't know which they are going to get, it can be completely terrifying and leave the child feeling powerless. Predictable punishment, though, seems much more reasonable and just to a child.

• Purpose: This goes back to the whole discipline/punishment idea. If the purpose is to train the child, the child senses that, and it's part of the connection between parent and child. It will also lead to reasonable measures of discipline which are only designed to help the child. For instance, at the of time of discipline, the parent should talk over with the child what was done wrong, why it was wrong, what should be done differently in the future, and should address the child's thoughts about any difficulties that might get in the way of better behavior in the future. If the purpose is punitive, the child will sense this also, and is more likely to be resentful. Also, the punishments are more likely to be unreasonable, and based on the irritation of the adult. Additionally, it should never be about control, but about teaching and growth.

• Opportunity for reconciliation: After discipline, it's important that the child have the opportunity to receive comfort and reconnect with the adult, and feel completely forgiven. Re-establishing this connection is crucial to the child's development and feeling of being loved and belonging. This helps let the child know that he or she is loved and accepted, even though the behavior in question was not acceptable.

• Age: The question of “when is a child too old to be spanked” is a good question. I don't know exactly, and I think it would depend on the maturity level of the child. Ultimately, though, as children grow to be adolescents, pre-teens, and teenagers, the dynamic between parent and child changes. It's no longer just a “command-obey” sort of relationship. Young adults are trying to figure out who they are, as separate from their parents. Spanking pre-teens and teens can be devastating to the relationship, and can cause humiliation, mental distress, and embarrassment. It breaks trust and leads to a lack of respect.

These are the six aspects that mark the difference between long-term effective and ineffective physical punishment, and between abuse that tears a child down and discipline that builds the child up. I have based this on reading I have done, and also on a lot of personal experience and things that I have personally witnessed in the lives of others. More research needs to be done regarding spanking, and it needs to be research that discriminated between the types of spankings. For example, angry spanking should not be measured together with calm and forewarned discipline. Needless to say, though, there are many other methods that can be used to train and to discipline children besides corporal punishment. Having the child practice a better way of doing things, giving the child additional chores, time-outs, having the child make restitution or apologize, having the child do 10 pushups, or other techniques can also be precisely what is needed.

References:

About Positive Discipline. (n.d.). Positive Discipline - Solutions for Parents and Teachers to reate Respectful Relationships in Homes and Schools. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from http://www.positivediscipline.com/what-is-positive-discipline.html

Argosy University, (2010). Module 1. Retrieved on October 30, 2011 from www.myeclassonline.com

Ballie, R. (2001). Spanking study gets big play in the media. American Psychological Association (APA). Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec01/spanking.aspx

California "Child Abuse" & Corporal Injury Laws | Penal Code 273d pc. (n.d.). California

Dowd, N. E., Singer, D. G., & Wilson, R. F. (2006). Handbook of children, culture, and violence. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Marshall, M. J. (n.d.). Stop Spanking. Stop Spanking. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://www.stopspanking.com/

VIDEO: Family law judge beats his disabled daughter over downloaded music. - Local News - FM News 101.1 - Chicago. (2011). Home - FM News 101.1 - Chicago. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from http://www.fmnewschicago.com/news/local/story.aspx?ID=1565910

God's Sovereignty (A poll)

Orthodox Christians believe that God is Sovereign over the universe. Does this mean that when sin happens, He simply allows it, or does He get more involved? If God does, in fact, decree a specific sin - how involved does He get, in order to make sure that that particular sin (instead of another sin) actually occurs?

I want to hear about your beliefs.

Instructions:

First, read through the definitions of the terms that will be used: Levels of Involvement

Copy and paste the poll to a word document.

Fill out your answers and save the file.

Email to me: skarlet.servantoftheking (at) gmail.com

God Bless!

____________________________________________

Question #1-A

What is your name?

Question #1-B

You consider yourself to be:

___ An open theist

___ An Arminian

___ A non-Calvinist Christian

___ A Calvinist

___ A three point, or four point Calvinist

___ Other (Please explain)

Question #1-C

Do you believe that God is completely Sovereign over all creation?

Question #2

In your opinion, which viewpoints presented here represent a belief that YOU hold to, regarding the sin of humans?

Please mark an “X” by all statements that you believe are true, or just highlight in yellow. If you believe that none of the statements are consistent with what you believe, then do not mark or highlight any options.

__________________________________________________

___ God is sometimes ignorant of sin that will occur

___ God is completely uninvolved with occurring sin

___ God is helpless to stop some sin

___ God sometimes allows sin

___ God sometimes actively gives permission for sin to occur

___ God is a “cause in fact” for sin; without Him, no sin could have happened

___ God “aids and abet”s those who He knows will harm others

___ God provides synergist energy, thus enabling people to carry out every act of sin

___ God sometimes acts as a trigger or catalyst for someone committing a particular sin

___ Like the police, God sometimes entraps people by putting them in situations where He knows they will sin

___ God sometimes puts sinful ideas in people's minds

___ God sometimes lightly influences people to sin

___ God sometimes invents/masterminds the sin

___ God sometimes internally commands people to sin

___ God sometimes then internally persuades people to sin

___ God sometimes tempts people to sin

___ God sometimes indoctrinates people's minds, so that they will commit the sin

___ God sometimes inspires a sin

___ God sometimes manipulates a person to sin

___ God sometimes incites them to arouse them to commit the sin

___ God sometimes incepts the idea into their head, so that they think that they were the one to think it up

___ God sometimes uses overwhelming influence to get the person to sin

___ God occasionally, in effect, “drugs” people, by manipulating their brain chemistry to the point that they cannot go against the temptation that God is enforcing with the chemicals

___ God sometimes uses mind-control to make people want to sin and then sin; like a programmer causes a robot to act, by controlling all cognitions

___ God sometimes causes people to sin without will; like a puppet-master controls the actions of a willess puppet

___ God sometimes forces people to sin against their will

.

Nice Guys Finish Last (Satire)

Sometimes people need to be put in their place, but it can be hard to know what to say when this situation comes up. For those of you who stumble when trying to know exactly how to prepare that next verbal strike, this guide will be a priceless companion. Alternatively, if you need to win a debate, and to that end want to make you opponent overly emotional, these tactics will help to push buttons they didn't know they had! You don't need to try all of the angles that I mention here, it's more a big basket of brainstorming and ideas that you can pick and choose from. After learning these techniques, people often find 4-5 that they really gravitate to, and mostly specialize in those ones when situations come up.

First, I'll give you the theories, for those of you who think in general terms. Then I'll also give you some specific lines that are proven to be generally effective; they range from the rhetorical to the personal. Don't expect to remember all of these, thought. It will probably take some practice to hone your skills, and even without that, you're probably already using one or two of these in your ordinary conflicts. Keep building on those skills, and you'll get there. If there are people in your life that you don't want to hurt, that's your call, and you can carefully avoid using these methods. But if you need to verbally hit someone where it hurts, then you'll want to do it right.

Best for close relationships:	For strong opinions:
Use one-line “Sniper” statements Criticize, but invite no change and offer no opportunity for reconciliation Use “Always” and “Never” Withhold acceptance, affections, or appreciation.	Call their views bullshit (or other profanity) Blatantly disrespect their opinions and attitudes Exaggerate their claims
Tearing them down:	Preventing future improvement:
Use put-downs, belittle them Send messages of incompetence or inadequacy. Call them names Attack their core identity	Be overly general when you criticize: offer no specific problem action, tone, or tactic – give no indication of how they could improve Use negative future pacing
The heart of the matter:	The final twist:
Assume negative things about the persons motive or reasons Call them a liar (this works especially well when they have a history of being honest)	Mock and Scorn Use sarcasm in argument whenever you can Say something negative and believable as a joke (and the best part is blaming them for feeling hurt by it)

A few favorites:

“Only someone who can't think for themselves would subscribe to that.”

“You're looking for excuses; that's all you're doing right now.”

“Thanks for illustrating, once more, the inability of [Insert name of their group here] to offer intelligent feedback.”

“You won't get another damn question from me ever again”

“You did this on purpose. Well played”

“You'll never change.”

“Sure. Everything you say is right. You never make any mistakes”

Snark & Divisiveness within Doctrinal Debates

People are always going up against the ideas and beliefs of other people, trying to prove them wrong. Some think that any form of public disagreement or debate is divisive and/or a complete waste of time. I would disagree with that, especially within the Christian community. As Christians, we need to know what we believe, and why we believe it. We also are called to build up others in truth and in doctrine, and to be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us. It is important, then, to stand for truth – to teach it, and to defend it by debate should others be teaching false doctrine against it. [Of course, one must always have the humility to keep in mind that what they themselves believe to be the truth might be the false doctrine. Sometimes, both sides of a doctrinal debate are missing pieces of the truth.]

However, what is sad is when these doctrinal debates do became decisive. By this, I mean it's sad when groups slip into an “us versus them” mindset and start treating their opposing brothers and sisters gracelessly. For example, when one party starts to proclaim “anyone who does not agree with us about [insert specific non-essential-to-salvation doctrinal point here] is not saved, and is espousing heresy!” Or when one side of the debate claims, “well, they treated us poorly first, so whatever we feel like saying to/about them is justified since what they said/did is worse.”

Sometimes, people get into judging motives: “The only reason those people would disagree with this doctrine is because of [insert ungodly motive here].” What nonsense, though. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with any doctrine – it's possible that the other side has a part of the truth that you don't have, or else you are completely correct but they don't understand your position yet, or if they have an evil motive (doubtful) I'm sure that there are many different ungodly motives they could have for rejecting correct doctrine. To say that there is only one reason is ridiculous, in addition to being judgmental. These sorts of claims and statements are what bring divisiveness into the picture.

The worst type of argument against an opposing position is an argument which does not seek to put forward facts or reasoning, but sets out to put forward a tone.

This includes statements and writings where it's not about the argument, but about the atmosphere created. An argument might be something like this: “Your position states X, but X is shown to be false by A, B, and C.” A snide comment which is creating atmosphere of mockery toward the opposing position might sound more like this: "a person would have to be really stupid to believe X."

As an Arminian, I'm going to comment on some quotes from the Arminian/Calvinist theology debate. These were published by a prominent Calvinist against Arminianism, and I will not include his name here simply because my main point is not that he needs to change. My main point is that ALL Calvinists, and Arminians too, should avoid this type of assumption-based rhetoric which is entirely unhelpful to the debate in that it creates a negative atmosphere about the opposing position rather than creating specific claims or arguments about the relevant facts. [Note: It is important to keep in mind that I am not saying or implying that all Calvinists use this type of condescending language. Most Calvinists are godly, humble Christians. Arminians are also guilty at times of speaking in ungodly ways to their opponents.]

The quotes are very divisive, I believe, full of put-downs, mockery, and judgment of motives. Humility charges us to keep in mind that we may be missing part of the truth, or that our opponent's may not have evil motives, but when humility is lost from a person's heart, practical love and peaceful speech also seem to disappear as well. In my comments below, I disagree with much of what he writes through use of sarcasm, because that's how I respond to insults in books that I find humorous and illogical. :-) [If I were interacting directly with such a person, rather than simply reading a book, I would use a more direct approach and avoid sarcasm.]

"The apostle describes God as working 'all things after the counsel of his well.' This is a truth that human religion cannot abide. Surely the Scriptures do not mean all things! (Emphasis his) Surely this means that God created all things but now sort of lets them run on their own, does it not?"

Notice the obvious snide humor there, intended to mock the Arminian.

"Those who are in rebellion against Him fight and chafe against this divine truth."

Wow -- it's amazing how well this Calvinist understands my rebellious motives! I thought I had him fooled with my veneer of actually submitting to God in my life and seeking the truth wholeheartedly!

"Much can be determined concerning our true subjection to God by asking if, in fact, we love God as He has revealed Himself to be, the divine ruler of all things (and by this he means Calvinism's interpretation of diving ruling) or whether we seek to 'edit' Him down to a more 'manageable' and 'manlike' deity."

Here he does not even directly call Arminians out. No, he just subtly suggests that we are *seeking* to edit God, to be a more *manageable* and *manlike* deity. Now of course he couldn't make the argument directly, or it could be contradicted, but he merely suggests it in a way that leads no doubt that us Arminians are worshiping a manmade image, which we have intentionally created for ourselves. He strikes at the motives. He does not create an argument for the Calvinist understanding of what "diving ruling" is, but just creates an atmosphere -- a tone of derision toward those who would reject The Truth (which is, of course, implied to be his interpretation and understanding of God's revelation).

Again, he does not put forward an argument against Arminianism here. He just creates a tone.

"Aside from the fact that there is not a shred of biblical basis for such a concept..."

Really? Really now?

"Sadly, we must conclude that the only reason this teaching is promoted is to give the proponents a way 'out' of having to the deal with the reality of..."

Yes. That is the ONLY reason anyone teaches that. We just need to make up a lot of things to avoid these clearly obvious truths and realities, and Lord knows we're good at coming up with escapes and ways to get *around* the clear meaning of verses! But why would we do such a thing?

"Despite the constant misrepresentations of the opponent's of God's sovereignty...."

We don't just mis-represent Calvinist beliefs, apparently. No. We misrepresent because we oppose God's sovereignty. We are rebelling against the Most High here. And again, this man gives no logical or Biblical reason that those who disagree are opposing God as LORD and KING over the universe, but rather puts down everyone who disagrees with His definition of Sovereignty, by painting them as opponents of God.

But back to us skewing verses...

"The manifold attempts to get around this passage are far beyond our scope at this point..."

Notice that they are not alternate or even wrong interpretations. They are intentional attempts to Get Around a passage.

"Opponents of free grace have tried every conceivable means of getting around the plain teaching of this passage..."

It must be so frustrating for him to deal with us proclaimed-believers who in actuality oppose God's grace... I wonder that God's gives him the patience! And what can one do, really?

"But as long as people continue to look to their traditions rather than the exegesis of the text, they will not see this divine truth. There is really no way to make people see the truth when they are looking the other direction."

And why do they look in the other direction? Love of God perhaps? They might be just dumb ol' people who love Him and don't understand these mysteries, right? Nope.

"So why insist that faith is a capacity available to all, including the natural man? The answer is simple: Because without that assertion, God must be sovereign in salvation and man utterly dependent on Him."

Ahh yes! There we are again! Trying in futility to throw God off of His rightful throne. I tell ya... I learn so much about myself from reading this guy. :) He has such insight -- such clarity -- into my deeper motivations here.

"As long as we remain faithful to the sure teaching of Scripture that 'salvation is of the Lord,' we will not be able to profess this synergistic, 'God is dependent upon the creature' kind of theology that is so rampant in today's church."

Notice the wording: "Rampant." Strong negative connotations right there. Not to mention it's a complete and total strawman. Salvation IS of the Lord. HE saves according to HIS good pleasure. But here I am, again, just not remaining faithful to the sure teaching of the Scripture – which are the obvious meanings that I'm just trying to get around in my attempts to edit God down because I oppose His sovereignty. Am I ready for more mockery? But of course.

"Are we to imagine God wringing His hands, wondering what He was going to do now, since the very missionary He was going to use to bring the message to a major portion of the world just refused to 'cooperate'?"

Yes. That's *exactly* what all us Arminians are imagining, and if that image doesn't convert you to Arminianism, I don't know what will! lol

____________________________________________________

As they say, though, it's not worth it to take snarky put-downs very seriously. Love your opponents, bless them, learn from them, and ultimately treat them graciously as beloved brothers and sisters in Christ (even if they annoy you).

With issues above a certain level of complexity, it doesn't take bad motives for disagreement or misunderstandings to result.

Related posts:

A Tribute to Calvinism

Two Brothers (Civil War)

Two Brothers (Civil War)

This one song has been going around in my head today. The first time I heard this song, I absolutely loved it. I was at Disneyland for New Years, and I saw the "Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln" show, which included most of this song. While Lincoln was for the civil war, obviously, and the show seemed to back that very strongly, it also very heartfelt and touched on the tragedy of war... especially civil war. Lincoln constantly mentioned God, and the reason he fought was so that people could have liberty. Yet also remember Robert E Lee, who was a strong christian as well, yet fought for the south. In the end, perhaps the USA has less liberty because the government ended up with more power. Yet the South, who wanted liberty from government was unwilling to give liberty to those they "owned." This particular song is about two brothers who, having different political beliefs, joined opposite armies. As brothers, they must have had great affection for each other, and yet they fought for something they valued more than life itself: their ideals. It's really quite heartbreaking that both, so sincere, would be in a position where they would have to be mortal enemies that way.

Why was it on my mind? Well, besides being a beautifully haunting song, I was thinking about a similar topic. Last night I was talking to a friend of mine. A friend who I respect very much, and who I have a lot in common with. Very few people are as passionate about truth as I am. He is one of them. We both love truth, even hard truth, and are willing to stand for what we believe against all opposition. Both of us are also very sincere, wholehearted, and sensitive to what people say to us. It's hurtful when a fellow christian says that you propagate heresy, that you pervert the gospel, or that you are making god in your own image. I could recite hundreds of sincere but harsh things christians say to those they sincerely disagree with about really big issues. We are not called to be divisive, and it's sad when even non-divisive people are harsh with their words. But even beyond that, when we are all loving each other and getting along, it's still sad. One person pours their life into supporting and teaching one ideal, and their brother pours their life into teaching against those teachings. I mentioned that me and my friend have a lot in common. We both love Christ with all our hearts. The difference between us? He is as sincerely for calvinism as I am against it. Siblings in Christ, and yet we stand for different ideals. It all reminded me of this song, and so all today today it's been going around in my head. All day, I would be doing stuff like putting stickers on envelops, and in my head, I'd be remembering cannonballs and kindness.

Here's the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgGcwBH6kFw
Another version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4LI5y2QxSk

Two Brothers:
Two brothers on their way
Two brothers on their way
Two brothers on their way
One wore blue and one wore grey

One wore blue and one wore grey
As they marched along their way
The fife and drum began to play
All on a beautiful morning

One was gentle, one was kind
One was gentle, one was kind
One came home, one stayed behind
A cannonball don't pay no mind

A cannonball don't pay no mind
If you're gentle or if you're kind
It don't think of the folks behind
All on a beautiful morning

Two girls waitin' by the railroad track
Two girls waitin' by the railroad track
For their darlin's to come back
One wore blue and one wore black

One wore blue and one wore black
Waiting by the railroad track
For their darlin's to come back
All on a beautiful morning

All on a beautiful morning...

True Listening

I wanted to take a moment and write about a very important skill in debate: listening. I don't just mean physical listening, when one person only listens to what the other person says enough to throw their words back at them with a witty retort. I also do not mean listening and heeding, when a person listens to and then believes the other person's argument. I am speaking of the type of listening when you hear what the other person is really trying to say, think about it, and ask them questions until you are able to form in your own mind a working mental model of their point of view.

To listen to your opponent is not to hear one statement, judge it as incorrect, and move on to just trying to prove your own point. True listening is not the intent to persuade, but rather the intent to understand. Why would your opponent believe something that is obviously false? They must have reasoning and perspective that you do not have. Each thing ties into something else, and makes a complete system.

Once you understand your opponent's position, it is wise not to just accept it, but to think it over and compare it to Scripture, etc. Then, if trying to also persuade an opponent, one must clearly represent that knowledge of their position, rather than starting with putting forward an assessment of their position that they disagree with.

It seems to me that for the main part, this type of listening is a lost art in America. For the most part, people will listen to a couple points, and if at that point they see an error in your thinking, they will never go on to listen to the whole picture of what you think. They will shoot it down, but will never build a comprehensive mental model of what you actually are trying to say. That style of doing things does not seem to build either clarity or agreement, but rather frustration.

To truly listen is not so much an exercise of patience but of curiosity. Actually be interesting in what they believe (though they are wrong) and why they believe it. In many cases, though they may be wrong about one thing, they may be right about something else. I would go so far as to say that it is likely that there is something you can learn from any person.

"As the Communist atheists allowed no room in their hearts for Jesus, I decided not to leave the slightest place for Satan in mine." -Richard Wurmbrand

Let us all be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. Myself included.