Just like the one I used to know
Where the counter-tops glisten
And children listen
To every-thing they're told to do
I'm dreaming of a nice household
With every order that I give:
“May your day be merry and bright!
And may all your chores be done right.”
.
Once upon a time,
There was a young woman who lived in a giant castle, all by herself.
She had once been married to the prince of the kingdom, but all of them had ridden off to battle to stop the giant orcs who were attacking from the south. Her prince had fallen in the first day of battle, and the king, to keep the princess safe, had sent her to the lonely castle in the highlands. Since orc spies were in the lands, it was thought best that she be put in the castle by herself so as to not draw attention to her hiding place. And so in the castle she remained, while the bitter wind blew through winter nights.
After a few weeks of living in the castle, a particularly bad storm started up. There were drifts piled high against the northern gate of the wall. The wall was ninety feet high, but by the end of the fifth day of the blizzard, the drifts had scaled the wall completely. The young woman kept warm in the kitchen of the castle, stoking the oven's stove for heat and for cooking her meals.
Across the way, a woodsman saw a trail of smoke coming from the chimney. He had seen it before, but could never get into the castle due to the moat and the castle walls. But now, the drifts were high enough. Curious as to who could be squatting in the king's old hunting castle, the woodsman hefted his ax and made his way up the frosty slope to the top of the castle wall. He caught a glimpse of warm light from the window of the kitchen, and made his way toward it.
He peeked in and caught sight of the woman. Her back was to him, and he quickly ducked out of view again. She was wearing a beautiful red dress and jewelry from the king's supply. At this, the woodsman grew upset. A peasant woman had broken into the lodge and stolen the king's bounty! The woodsman walked through the courtyard of the castle while he wondered what to do.
At last, he stumbled across the carpenter's hut and found the needed supplies. Taking boards and nails, he moved to the kitchen door and began to nail it shut. If the peasant woman wanted the kings supplies, she could just stay in there forever! Inside the kitchen, the young woman heard the bangs as the first nails were driven into boards at the front door. Fearful, she rushed to the pantry and looked for a weapon, but all she had were pans and a bread knife--all the sharpened cutlery had been transported back to the king's palace and they hadn't thought to return it when she came to live there.
When the noise at the kitchen door stopped, the woman made her way to the door. She quickly realized she couldn't get the door open, and then a sudden bang came from the dinning room door! The woman rushed up the stairs through the servant's entrance to the main chambers of the castle. She reached the balcony outside the main hall and looked down as the woodcutter finished the dining room door.
"What are you doing?" she demanded.
The woodcutter remained silent. There was no sense talking to peasants. "If you do not leave at once, you'll be cast into the dungeon!" the woman continued.
The woodcutter knew that was an idle threat. This castle was never used during the winter months, and besides when the authorities came back they'd be tossing the peasant woman into the dungeon anyway. There was only one more entrance into the living quarters of the castle. The woodcutter made his way to the final door and waited. Sure enough, the woman appeared in the doorway, fuming in anger.
The woodsman held his ax up: "Stay where you are."
"You dare not speak that way to a princess!"
The woodcutter scoffed. "A princess? Alone in this castle?"
"The king--my father-in-law--will see you hanged for this!"
The woman gestured with the bread knife she still held in her hand.
The woodcutter laughed at the pitiful weapon.
"We shall see what the king says," he replied. "He's sure to get here by the end of spring."
"So we shall," she responded.
The woodcutter motioned with his ax and waited until the woman had stepped far from the doorway. Then, he lowered the ax, picked up a board and fastened it to the door. When he was finished, he looked up and saw the woman standing at the balcony once more. "There's not enough supplies for me to last until spring," she called out.
"That's because no one is supposed to be in the castle," the woodcutter said. He was proud of having done his civic duty to defend the throne.
"Do you know why I'm not concerned about that?" the woman shouted back. She seemed almost gleeful and proud. "No, and I'm not interested." "Because the king knows I'm here and knows I'll need supplies. Those supplies will be arriving any day now, and when they get here, you'll be dead!” The woodcutter laughed. "You should fear more for your own neck." And with that, the woman retreated inside the castle and the woodcutter climbed back over the walls and returned to his cottage.
The king's envoy did arrive a week later. They found the princess in the castle, bored but otherwise fine. They searched for the woodcutter to arrest him, but the woods were vast and the woodcutter, having seen the coming envoy, knew enough to realize he'd made a mistake.
A few months later, the campaign against the orcs was ended, the king victorious again.
And the events after that cold winter's day slowly faded from the memories of all who were involved.
Even so, at the time,
it had been the most important thing that had happened in the wood.
.
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*
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:
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
The first time I heard this argument, it seemed so obviously flawed that I just replied directly to the person and thought that I wouldn't hear of it again. However, I have heard that same argument used several more times, so I realized that I actually need to address it once and for all.
First, there is the verse:
John 6:44
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Then, the argument goes like this:
Everyone who the Father draws comes to Christ.
Everyone who the Father draws is raised up at the last day, and obviously that only included those who have come to Christ.
Therefore, whichever way you look at it, everyone who the Father draws comes to Christ and is raised up at the last day.
The trouble is, that isn't what the verse actually says. Perhaps God only draws those who end up being saved, but THIS verse doesn't say that... maybe other verses do, but this one definitely doesn't. I'll explain. First, I'll break up the verse into components and examine each part and show how it fits together, and then I will give an example of similar sentence structure.
Here are two basis statements made in this verse:
No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him
Christ will raise [him] up at the last day
The first part says that without the drawing of the Father, humans are unable to come to Christ. Without X, no one can do Y. This is similar to saying that without having hands, you cannot drum your fingers on your friend's head.
It does NOT follow that everyone who has X actually goes on to do Y. Without X, no one can do Y. With X, a person may or may not do Y... that isn't addressed. For example, if you have hands, you may or may not drum your fingers on your friend's head.
Without the drawing of the Father, humans are unable to come to Christ.
Without X, no one can do Y.
With the drawing of the Father, humans... ? [Are able to come? Will come?]
With X, a person [may or may not do Y...?]
To know what happened with X in place, to all people, we would need further information. However, we do get some information from the next part. Christ will raise “him” up at the last day. Who? The one who comes to Christ: A human cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws that human, and Christ will raise that human [the same one who was drawn and came to Christ] in the last day.
From this, we learn that there are people who are drawn by the Father who also come to Christ. We learn that whoever falls under that category is raised up on the last day. What category? The category of those who both
A) Come to Christ
B) Were drawn by the Father
Obviously, no one can be in category A without also being in category B – since the first part of the verse says so. So those who come to Christ fit BOTH categories, and are raised up in the last day. However, the verse didn't say whether someone could be in category B without being in category A. It didn't address that.
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
This does NOT say that all those who are drawn come. It says that all who come were drawn.
It does not say that all who were drawn are raised. It says that those came and were drawn are raised.
Analogy:
No one can murder his brother unless God first gives him existence; and the American law will send him to jail.
This does NOT say that all who are given existence murder their brother. It claims that all those who murder were given existence.
It does not say that all who were given existence are sent to jail. It claims that those who murder and were given existence are sent to jail.
Logic, people. Logic.
.
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
.
If one person takes action, or makes a choice, to what level can another person, or being, be involved with the process? This is a list of various levels of involvement, ranging from the least involvement to the most, complete with definitions and explanations. Many people also view greater involvement as implying greater responsibility.
1 – Ignorance
To be unaware. I am ignorant of any specific sins being committed in China right now.
2 – Uninvolvement
The opposite of being involved. If I hear about a situation involving my brother and some other boy at school, I am not ignorant, but I can choose to remain completely uninvolved with the matter.
3 – Helplessness
To be uninvolved because you do not have the ability to be involved, or to be involved in such a way where you cannot influence the outcome in any way.
4 – Allow
Allow implies complete absence of an attempt, or even an intent, to hinder. Allow is more passive; if you do nothing, and therefore the crime happens, you have allowed it.
5 – Permit
Permitting is similar to allowing, but is more active; if they have to get your permission before doing a crime, and you give permission, you have permitted the sin.
6 – “Cause in Fact”
A cause, without which, the result would not have occurred. The person who assembled this laptop keyboard is a cause-in-fact for me typing up this document with this keyboard.
7 – “Aid and Abet”
To assist another in the commission of a crime by voluntary and uncoerced words or conduct. For instance, if I lend my car to a friend, so that they can use it as a quick getaway car, that would be aid. [Note: The legal system also insists that the person giving aid must have criminal intent, but I do not use that meaning here.]
8 – Synergism
Combined action or functioning; two or more energies working together. Two batteries working together is synergy. If I hold the toast, while you butter it, we have synergistically produced buttered toast.
9 – Catalyst
Anything, as an act or event, that serves as a stimulus and triggers or precipitates a reaction or series of reactions. A simple yell can easily trigger a massive avalanche. Similarly, a small protest can be the catalyst for a mass demonstration.
10 – Entrapment
Setting up a situation in order to make it more likely for a criminal to commit a certain crime, which they are in the habit of committing, in a place where they can be caught and prosecuted for it. If I was a policeman, and tried to set up a meeting to buy heroin, just so I could catch the dealer in the act of selling drugs, that would be entrapment.
11 – Giving Ideas
To not completely mastermind the crime, but to have some ideas about how to commit the crime, and then to suggest those ideas to the person who you know plans to commit the crime. Suggesting an escape route, or tactic to avoid detection, for instance.
12 – Light Influence
Light influence would be to try to get someone to do something by lightly influencing them – suggesting the idea, offering a bribe, warning them of what would happen if they don't, etc. It is influence, but not such influence that it would force their hand, like “overwhelming influence.”
13 – Mastermind
A person who supplies the directing or creative intelligence for a project. To plan and direct (a usually complex project or activity), especially skillfully. Inventing and planning out a specific scenario.
14 – Command
Commanding someone to do something. If a spirit is doing this, the command can be written (like in the Bible), audible, or sent directly to the person's mind.
15 – Persuade
Using reason (or some semblance thereof) to persuade someone to do something. If a spirit is doing this, the persuasion can be written, audible, or sent directly to the person's mind.
16 – Tempt
Tempting someone to do something. If a spirit is doing this, the temptation can be written, audible, or sent directly to the person's mind/will/emotions/spirit/soul.
17 – Indoctrinate
Indoctrinating or even brainwashing someone to believe something which would make them actually carry out the desired action. If a spirit is doing this, the indoctrination can be written, audible, or sent directly to the person's mind.
18 – Inspire
Guiding, prompting, and/or filling someone with an animating, quickening, or exalting influence to do something. If a spirit is doing this, the inspiration must be internal and directly involved with the person's mind/will/emotions/spirit/soul.
19 – Manipulate
Skillfully manipulating someone to do something; this usually involves knowing how to manipulate people, and how to “push their buttons,” so to speak. If a spirit is doing this, the manipulation may include manipulating circumstances around the person's life (to get them to react), and may also include directly sending thoughts and feelings to the person involved.
20 – Incite
Instigating, provoking, or urging someone on to do something. If a spirit is doing this, the inciting is internal and directly involved with the person's mind/will/emotions/spirit/soul.
21 – Inception
Putting the idea in someone's mind in such a way that they take the idea as their own, rather than rejecting the thought. (See “Inception” movie). If a spirit is doing this, the inception is internal and directly involved with the person's mind/will/emotions/spirit/soul.
22 – Overwhelming Influence
The situations where “overwhelming influence” is involved are the situations where people generally claim that they “had no choice.” Bribery may be light influence, but putting a gun to someone's head is overwhelming influence. Overwhelming influence is putting someone in a situation where they do have a choice, but it would be impossible or nearly impossible for them to choose against what you want them to choose, and they know it. The person feels “overwhelmed” by the influence, and gives in to the desires or demands of the one exercising the overwhelming influence.
23 – Drugging the person
To effect a change in a person's brain chemistry in order to take away a person's consciousness or rational control so that they become unaware, or extremely susceptible to suggestion. For instance, giving someone “truth serum” to make them tell the truth would be drugging the person
24 – Complete Mind-Control (like a robot)
To control a person's psyche so completely that you can completely determine all of their actions, in such a way that you also make them want to do what you cause them to do. The only real life example that can be used is that of a robot, whose every thought and action is completely determined by the programmer. Fictitious examples include numerous stories of people “hypnotizing” others to control their mind, or inventing “mind-control hats” and the like. [Also see “The Stepford wives,” and “Simon Says,” which an episode of “Underdog”] Brainwashing does not count as mind-control.
25 – Puppetry (like a puppet-master & puppet)
To control a person's actions, without making them believe that they are the one initiating the action (mind-control), but also without them being against the action (which would be force).
26 – Physically force, against their will
To make someone do something that they do not want to do, and that they know they do not want to do.
