Prophetic Musings

I'm watching CNN's coverage of Saddam Hussein's hanging, and something really bothers me. Actually, it bothers me that I'm watching CNN, but Greta Van Susteren is on Fox, and she just bothers me for some reason. However, CNN has given a name to their coverage: "Saddam Executed: Death of a Dictator". Why? Do we have to give a name to everything? Why can't the just say, "Hey, we're talking about swinging dead dictators here!" Ugh.

I'm not sure how I feel about Saddam being hanged. I'm recently finding myself having mixed feelings about the death penalty. I don't know why, but I'm questioning the morality of it. That's a topic for another time though.
 

Here in Texas, we don't have a White Christmas. We have tornadoes.

Yes, it's 29 December 2006. We have had at least four tornado reports so far, and it's probably going to continue in to the evening.

I love it when people think we can predict the weather. 

Good stuff here. I wonder if politicians are inherently stupid or if there is a special additive to the water in DC which makes them so? John Kerry is a rare treasure indeed, the gift that keeps on giving. One would think that after his failed presidential bid, he would trail off into the sunset, but no. He keeps sticking his chin out there and keeps getting it handed back to him. Props for not giving up though.

I just finished a wonderful book, Letters to a Young Conservative by Dinesh D'Souza. It's basically a collection of conservative bullet points, but written in such a way that it's exceptionally easy to follow. Mr. D'Souza hits on affirmative action, immigration, economics, everything. It's a treasure trove of information. At the end of the book, he includes a reading list of various books he found helpful. After finishing the book, I immediately went to Amazon and created a wish list of those books. Then it hit me.

Why can I so easily pickup any of those books and read them straight through, but yet if I pick up a book on theology or Christian living, it often bores me to death? Is that simply the way I am wired or is there something else at work here? Here's a short list of the books I've read in the past year.

• All the Harry Potter series, maybe a couple of the books twice
• The Circle Trilogy by Ted Dekker
• Blink by Ted Dekker
• State of Fear by Michael Crichton
• parts of the Koran (Qu'ran, however you spell it in English)
• parts of numerous technology books

What bothers me about this list is that I can read fiction all day long. Well, some fiction. I did read part of The Teeth Of The Tiger (Jack Ryan Novels) but it was crap. Tom Clancy really doesn't do anything for me. The point is that why can I read some mindless, banal trash, but can't get into reading about God? Isn't God supposed to be the focus of our lives? Am I missing something? In learning about technology and politics, am I wasting time and brain capacity that could be used by spiritual things?

Does anyone have an answer for me? 

Only one thing to post today. And it's pretty simple.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone went to his own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
"Glory to God in the highest,
 and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about."

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

May God Bless all of you this holiday season.  

I trimmed back the number of blogrolls on the left side and this also apparently fixed my comment problem. Commenting should be fixed now. If anyone has any trouble with it, please let me know.

We've been at my parents house on vacation for a week, so I haven't posted anything. I'll get back into the swing of things soon enough. I've got some work stuff to catch up on and some home stuff to figure out, and of course Christmas, but I'll start throwing stuff up again soon.

Good stuff here. I like the thought. Hate the picture though.

As some might have noticed, the sidebar has changed quite a bit. I've added some weather links, and better blogrolls to all of the sites that visit pretty much daily. I've added some other stuff too, so browse around and see if you like it.

A couple other things to know also. The photos link has moved from the side of the page up to the top, right in between Home and Email. Secondly, if you click on the link and see nothing, it's because you now have to have a login account here at the mighty claywginn.com in order to view the pictures. I can moderate who has account and who doesn't, and if you want to see the pictures bad enough, you'll get an account.

Any questions, please let me know. 

All believers are entitled to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and therefore should expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all believers in the early Christian church. With the experience comes the provision of power for victorious Christian living and productive service. It also provides believers with specific spiritual gifts for more effective ministry. The baptism of Christians in the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the initial physical sign of speaking in other tongues (unlearned languages) as the Spirit of God gives them audible expression. (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8; 2:4; 8:12-17; 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9; 1 Cor. 12:1-31)

I'm going to take issue with some of these instances, much like I did in a paper written for my Acts and Corinthians class at SAGU that I got a C on because the professor said I was "mistaken". Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4 and 8, Acts 8:12-17, Acts 11:14-16, Acts 15:7-9, and 1 Cor. 12:1-31 do not show any kind of proof that being baptized by the Holy Spirit causes you to speak in tongues. Yes, it happened in Acts 2:4 and Acts 10:44-46, but nowhere does it say that this was the evidence or merely a byproduct of the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12 does describe tongues as being one of the gifts of the Spirit, but it is in a list which describes all the gifts, including wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miraculous power, prophecy, discernment of spirits, and interpretation of tongues. None of these are mentioned as evidence of the baptism in the Spirit, yet the AG church has hooked onto two verses and extrapolated that it happens all the time. Are they wrong? Quite possibly. Am I wrong? Even more possible. Does it really matter? No.

Why not? Because the gift of tongues is not essential for being saved by Christ. Is the baptism of the Spirit part of the conversion experience or is it something deeper? The AG tends to believe that it's something more, that when you are baptized by the Spirit, something comes over you and you speak in languages you have never learned. Most non-Charismatic/Pentecostal churches don't feel this same way. My personal opinion is that when we give your heart to Jesus (that sounds so trite and cliché, but I can't think of anything else) you are immediately baptized by the Spirit. God takes up residence in your life and your conscience now has an additional helper in the Spirit. Is it a big event? It probably can be. But the way I read it it's not a guarantee that you will speak in tongues. However, it's theological splitting of hairs. It's interesting to discuss, but it's ultimately irrelevant because it doesn't change your final destination. Speaking in tongues is not the final stamp on your Christianity, guaranteeing your way to heaven. Tongues is simply a gift, doled out by the Spirit as God sees fit. Are there occasions it happens? Absolutely, and I'm not denying that. There are people who perform miracles, who heal the sick, who prophecy. Tongues is right there with those gifts.

Now, back to the Baptists. I've been in a couple of Baptists churches in the 10 years (yikes) since I was at SAGU. They don't hold back in their praise and worship, but they also aren't as free in the glossolalia department. Tongues is one of those things that is uncomfortable for people because they are unsure of what it is. Imagine someone standing up in the middle of church, and in a loud voice saying syllables you know weren't in your high school English book. I think that what has happened with Mr. McKissic is that he has been caught in a situation where the younger people in the Baptist church are ready to make some changes, but the older members aren't ready to turn over the reins yet. The younger members don't have numbers in their favor yet, so it becomes an issue.

I personally feel that if missionaries or anyone else who is in ministry wants to speak in tongues in private and has that gift, they should do it. What's said in prayer is between God and that person. It doesn't need to be legislated by anyone else. Honestly, if you are fervently praying and seeking counsel with God, should anyone else be acting as a referee over what you say? I think that the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention essentially outlawed an act which they can't police is ludicrous.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not Baptist, and what they say doesn't affect me. However, it is this kind of thing that shows the division in Christianity, and it hurts us especially when the argument is over something non-essential. Let's worry about how to reach people for Jesus rather than what missionaries might be doing in their prayer life. Support them for praying to begin with!

I'm testing a new service called Blogmailr, from the fine folks at Telligent. (In case you are curious, Telligent is the company that makes Community Server, which runs this site) Blogmailr allows me to post without actually getting on the site. I just need to send an email to a specific (secret) email address and it will post it for me. At least, that's the plan. We'll see if it actually works or not. I have no doubt it should, but let us try it out, shall we?

You know, it's about gorram time that this happens. I'll be first in line, as I'm sure will many others. I was late in coming to the 'verse, but it's well worth it.

Like Capt. Mal Reynolds stumbling in after a bar fight, the short-lived but much beloved sci-fi series Firefly will soon make an unexpected return, not as a TV show, but as a massively multiplayer online game.

Now that's shiny.

Multiverse, maker of a free MMO-creation platform, plans to announce Friday morning that it's struck a deal with Fox Licensing to turn the show into an MMORPG in the fashion of Star Wars Galaxies or Eve Online.

What does this mean?  It means that I'll have to start scheduling things better. Now, it won't be out for a couple years, so I should be done with grad school or close to it by the time the game releases.

Wait, do you even know what I'm talking about? Firefly, and it's motion picture successor Serenity, was created by Joss Whedon. Airing in 2003, it was cancelled after only 11 episodes, though I'm not sure why. The show is a sci-fi western. Think Star Wars meets Gunsmoke, but with better characters. The dialog was spot on all the time, and there isn't a single episode in the 14 on the DVD set that is not worth watching.

There were several great things about the show. One, there was no sound in space. No whooshing, no laser blasts, just silence. Just like real space. Second, no aliens. It's set 500 years in the future, where the Earth was abandoned and humans moved out into other star systems to colonize. They didn't find aliens, they just found more space. It's a wonderful series and movie. I watched on of the episodes the other night in fact. Great stuff.

And once again, the debates have begun over who deserves to play for the title, and who doesn't. I'm going to present a (hopefully) well thought out idea for why college football should move to a playoff format over the current BS...er, BCS format. It's going to be long. It involves history. It's also fun.

Let's have a playoff. Each year, use the current BCS ranking system as the seeding for the playoff. Teams which place 1 through 8 in the BCS are in. This is regardless of conference, as some years a conference may place two or even three teams in the playoff. It would be possible to prevent this and only two teams from each conference, but for simplicity's sake I'll ignore that for now. Based on this, I have seeded the playoff for each of the nine years of BCS existence.

2006 1 Ohio State vs 8 Boise State 2 Florida vs 7 Wisconsin 3 Michigan vs 6 Louisville 4 LSU vs 5 USC	2005 1 USC vs 8 Miami (FL) 2 Texas vs 7 Georgia 3 Penn State vs 6 Notre Dame 4 Ohio State vs 5 Oregon	2004 1 USC vs 8 Virginia Tech 2 Oklahoma vs 7 Georgia 3 Auburn vs 6 Utah 4 Texas vs 5 California
2003 1 Oklahoma vs 8 Tennessee 2 LSU vs 7 Florida State 3 USC vs 6 Texas 4 Michigan vs 5 Ohio State	2002 1 Miami (FL) vs 8 Kansas State 2 Ohio State vs 7 Oklahoma 3 Georgia vs 6 Washington State 4 USC vs 5 Iowa	2001 1 Miami (FL) vs 8 Illinois 2 Nebraska vs 7 Texas 3 Colorado vs 6 Tennessee 4 Oregon vs 5 Florida
2000 1 Oklahoma vs 8 Nebraska 2 Florida State vs 7 Florida 3 Miami (FL) vs 6 Oregon State 4 Washington vs 5 Virginia Tech	1999 1 Florida State vs 8 Michigan 2 Virginia Tech vs 7 Wisconsin 3 Nebraska vs 6 Kansas State 4 Alabama vs 5 Tennessee	1998 1 Tennessee vs 8 Florida 2 Florida State vs 7 Arizona 3 Kansas State vs 6 Texas A&M 4 Ohio State vs 5 UCLA

From that, we get these two sets of data. One is the number of appearances, followed by the number of conference appearances.

Appearances

Conferences

5 times Ohio State (1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006) USC (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006) 4 times Florida (1998, 2000, 2001, 2006) Florida State (1998, 1999, 2000, 2003) Miami (FL) (2000, 2001, 2002, 2005) Oklahoma (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) Tennessee (1998, 1999, 2001, 2003) Texas (2001, 2003, 2004, 2005) 3 times Georgia (2002, 2004, 2005) Kansas State (1998, 1999, 2002) Michigan (1999, 2003, 2006) Nebraska (1999, 2000, 2001) Virginia Tech (1999, 2000, 2004) 2 times LSU (2003, 2006) Oregon (2001, 2005) Wisconsin (1999, 2006) 1 time Alabama (1999) Arizona (1998) Auburn (2004) Boise State (2006) California (2004) Colorado (2001) Illinois (2001) Iowa (2002) Louisville (2006) Notre Dame (2005) Oregon State (2000) Penn State (2005) Texas A&M (1998) UCLA (1998) Utah (2004) Washington (2000) Washington State (2002)

1998 - Big 12 (2), Pac 10 (2), SEC (2), ACC, Big 10 1999 - ACC (2), Big 10 (2), Big 12 (2), SEC (2) 2000 - ACC (3), Big 12 (2), Pac 10 (2), SEC 2001 - Big 12 (3), SEC (2), ACC, Big 10, Pac 10 2002 - Big 10 (2), Big 12 (2), Pac 10 (2), ACC, SEC 2003 - Big 10 (2), Big 12 (2), SEC (2), ACC, Pac 10 2004 - Big 12 (2), Pac 10 (2), SEC (2), ACC, Mountain West 2005 - Big 10 (2), Pac 10 (2), ACC, Big 12, Independent, SEC 2006 - Big 10 (3), SEC (2), Big East, Pac 10, WAC   Total Conference Appearances ACC - 11 Big 10 - 13  Big 12 - 16 Big East - 1 Independent - 1 Mountain West - 1 Pac 10 - 13 SEC - 13 WAC - 1

A couple of interesting things about the data there. The last three years, one team from a mid-major conference or an independent has cracked the top eight. Second, the Big 12 would appear to be the most successful of the major conferences, getting 16 bids into the playoff format. It is the only conference with two teams that have four or more appearances, and the only conference to have four teams with three or more appearances. Finally, the SEC is the only conference which places at least one team every year. The Big 12, Big 10, and Pac 10 place one team in all years but one.

So, how would this playoff format work? The same as the current bowl structure, but without nearly as many teams. We'll use the 2006 pairings to start out with. Why did I pick these particular bowl games? No real reason for the Gator and Alamo other than they don't have stupid names.

First Round - December 16
Sugar Bowl - Ohio State vs Boise State
Cotton Bowl - LSU vs USC
Gator Bowl - Michigan vs Louisville
Alamo Bowl - Florida vs Wisconsin

Second Round - December 23
Orange Bowl - Ohio State/Boise State vs LSU/USC
Rose Bowl - Michigan/Louisville vs Florida/Wisconsin

Final Round - January 1
Fiesta Bowl - the two teams that are left

Now, why would anyone care about these games instead of the others? For the same reason that people go to see the NCAA tournament. Because the always is a chance for an upset. Just like Kansas State beat Texas this year when they had no right to, Boise State could do the same to Ohio State. The best teams is the one that wins when it matters, no matter by how much.

People say that the current system is a lot like a playoff because every game means so much. They are right, but how much more would the bowl games mean if they had high-quality match ups in every game, not just two or three. Teams like Michigan wouldn't be playing for a consolation prize, they could still be playing for the whole thing. Teams like Kansas State in 1998 wouldn't get their national championship hopes dashed because they lost a conference championship games. I think it's high time for a playoff system. Every other sport does it.

Worried about interfering with finals for the students? That's OK, don't start the games until the third week of December. That doesn't interfere with finals and it finishes about the same time as the current bowls do. Yes, it does keep some teams out of a bowl game, but honestly who really cares? You think that anyone other than alumni of South Florida and East Carolina are chomping at the bit to get tickets to Papajohns.com Bowl? Exactly. Too many bowl games which are rewarding too many bad teams. Kansas State is playing a bowl game that won't be televised nationally. At 7-5, they really aren't a high caliber team either. (As an aside, Rutgers got royally screwed by the system, much like KSU did in 1998. There is no reason why Rutgers is playing in the Texas Bowl. They're a better team than that. When KSU lost to A&M in 1998, they were #3 in the BCS standings, but played in the Alamo Bowl and got beat.) Bowls need to mean something, not just be somewhere for 6-6 teams to go.

So there you have it. I started this three days ago and finally finished it. What do you think?