I've been reading this book I picked up at the discount table of a library called "My Lord and I".  It's a daily devotional of mini-essays by Harry Moyle Tippett.  I don't know if it's the post WWII times he wrote in (it was published in 1948) or the fact that he masterfully encased his insights in the English language before its most recent perversion in modernization that it makes me so happy.  In any case, I'd like to blog these daily entries as much as I can.  I hope you receive as much grace as I have these past months.

May 8         "Christ the Word"         John 6:35
Our Satisfying Portion
    I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
    The spiritual significance of the banquet on the grassy hillside was lost upon the multitudes who had seen the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand.  "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert." "What sign shewest thou?"  To this query, made apparently in self-defense to the charge of the Saviour that they were material-minded, He reminded them that He was the true bread of life, the final answer to every human need, the ultimate satisfaction of every human heart.
    No more universal symbol could Christ have used thatn this one of bread.  For nearly every nation on earth it is truly the staff of life.  It ministers equally to every race and class of people.  Infidel, atheist, agnostic, Mohammedan, Buddhist, Christian--all receive alike its sustaining power.  Our bones, our tissues, our blood, our bodily organs--all cry out for bread.  There are no theological quarrels over its value.
    When famine stalks a land, the cry is for bread.  When people become hungry, cold, and desperate, great bread riots break out in populous centers.  In the exigencies of a nation besieged by war the most familiar sight in the cities is the bread line.  What a vital symbol Jesus chose to represent His significance to famished souls. 
    But how often the material manna of the baker's loaf obscures the eternal values of life.  How often the lusting hearts of men, like those of ancient Israel, spurn the food of angels for the sodden satisfactions of Egypt, symbol of sin's slavery.  Christ was in the celestial manna that nourished Israel in the wilderness.  He is the living bread that men must eat today if they would strengthen their spiritual ankles to walk the way of self-sacrificing service He walked in Galilee.  He is a satisfying portion that disease will not waste, fire will not consume, death cannot destroy.  But bread to feed the hungry soul must be eaten daily.  "O taste and see that the Lord is good." Psalms 34:8.

[side note]: Don't you just love how good writing gives you chills? 

The whole article is well worth the read, but here's a blurb:

[Excerpt]:
"...Western attitudes of superiority to China and the rest of the East will also subside, as Westerners realise they are no longer the masters of the world.
The U.S. company Orient Express complained when Tata tried to buy it, that any association with the Indian company would damage the Orient Express's premium brand.
Responding, R K Krishna Kumar, a senior Tata executive, thundered that "Indian companies ... will take their rightful place in the international arena.
"Enterprises and individuals must recognise and adapt to these fundamental economic changes. We believe that those with a fossilised frame of mind risk being marginalised."
In a world in which we are no longer masters, it is a warning that we ignore at our peril."

full article

Wow.  I guess 'humility' and 'graciousness' are out of the picture.

So... who's lookin' forward to one hellova rude awakening?

[crickets]


Oh, and I also updated the last post with the still-functioning video of Fitna by Geert Wilders. 
It's good to know that death threats and fear mongering are still alive and well in the world of *cough* free *cough, hacking cough* speech. 

My friend Charles, environmental studies major at Univ. of Nevada Las Vegas, asked me to complete a survey for him for his class.  I'm to be the one opposition voice on the topic of climate change.  HAHAHA.  I thought he'd have fun with this one, and I thought I'd put my answers up here to stir the waters a little.  Enjoy~!

A)   Age and gender:     24, Female

B)    Is climate change real or made up for the sake of politics?
The climate changes; that’s real.  Man-made global warming or climate change is a scare tactic to get people to think that what they save or recycle matters more than it really does to make people feel good and feel like they’re in control of something.  This becomes political because this “feel-good” movement translates into policies enforced on the rest of the populace that only denotes more power for the government and less individual rights, as well as limiting open dialogue and criticism to uncover the truth and really talk about the bare facts of climate change.  Pollution, acid rain, deforestation… all these are much more pertinent environmental issues we can grapple.  Taking it to the next (an obscene next) level dubbing it “global climate change” when we can’t even accurately predict next week’s weather is fundamentally ridiculous and the dearth of information and proven facts point to mythology more than climatology.  

C)    What is climate change, what is the cause of climate change today?
The climate goes through changes regularly, although how “regular” that is may be in larger scope than we think.  Climate change is a vast and complicated process with many factors, the profundity of which is difficult if not currently impossible to fully comprehend.  Thus, it is highly doubtful that mankind’s activities on earth have manipulated the brunt of climate’s change because despite the amount of carbon emissions we emit and CO2 we produce, the earth is and has been capable of volatile changes as stark as the most recent ice age being only 1,500 years ago to massive global warming as well as global cooling.  A volcano erupting sends tons more toxic materials into the atmosphere than any booming industrial economy and natural fires (without human intervention through firefighters) would completely scorch the earth and leave nothing but charred carbon.  Basically, the world left to its own devices would do much more “damage” to itself than if there were not a human presence on the earth, but also even if humans did not exist the earth would survive.  It survived meteorites and dinosaurs and everything else evolutionists believe, and yet scientists cannot believe that the earth will survive “global climate change”?  Today, the cause of climate change is substantially lessened, as human life and development on this earth has mitigated a lot of the volatility that the earth is capable of.  There are immediate, viable environmental issues such as pollution, deforestation, etc, but they dwarf in comparison to the drastic changes the earth is capable of undergoing.  

D)    What are supposed to be the ramifications of climate change?
The ramifications of climate change are supposed to be volatile environmental conditions, shortages of food/water/resources, and general death and destruction—all within a ridiculously short timeline of the next 50-100 years.  It was predicted in the 1970s that with 4 billion people in the world, the earth would come to an end within a decade because of how much it would take to sustain such a population and the effects that population would have on the environment.  We are now closing in on the first decade of the new millennium with a population of 7 billion and counting, and we are doing just fine.  People in the world live better today than they ever have before, and science never stops innovating to adapt to whatever the changing scenarios demand.

E)    What are ways to act to mitigate the impact of climate change?
There are no feasible ways to mitigate the impact of climate change.  Experts agree that it would take a complete overhaul in the way we live (or the complete overhaul of life itself) to make even one single dent in this massive process called climate change.  In that sense, no conservation of energy, toilet paper, or fuel will really do anything and our greatest efforts toward mitigating climate change would be negligible at best.  Climate change is an issue that goes beyond our current realm of understanding, just like evolution, God, or the universe (just think about the word ‘cosmic’) so it is best understood in baby steps, not in leaps and bounds of desperate theories forcing square pegs into round holes in the effort to make some sense.  If we want to mitigate pollution of our air so we can breathe better and not have acid rain ruin our clothes and make our hair fall out, then that’s an issue we can deal with.  If we’re talking conservation of energy or getting off of our dependence on oil because the people who have it hate us, then that’s a topic worth grappling.  Too much (especially political power playing) has been stuffed into the concept of “climate change” and it urgently needs to be parsed and adequately analyzed to actually make sense.

haha. thanks for reading. I'm sure it was difficult for some of you. 
Bring on the haterade~