I hate to bang on Windows because it just gets tiresome. After quoting Steve Jobs a few days ago I thought that I would give
give it a rest. There just didn’t seem to be much in doing it. But, you guessed it, here I go again. This article really surprised me. Here’s the quote that made me decide to comment:

According to the survery, the average failure rate requiring a system reboot was measured around 8% per session. This figure fluctuates largely according to the version of Windows. Indeed, Windows 2000 has a failure rate of 4% and NT4 of 3%, whereas Windows XP is closer to 12%.

I couldn’t believe this. I has been my experience that Windows has improved. XP seems to be much better than earlier versions. As a matter of fact I just purchased a copy of Windows98 because 95 keeps crashing on my VirtualPC and I need it to run Hebrew Tutor. I don’t think my iBook can handle XP so I’m trying to keep it simple.

I’m not going to lecture on how Windows should be doing better than that, the article at MacObserver does that. On a related note, the Wall Street Journal is recommending switching to Mac. Mossberg apparently hadn’t read the article on Windows stability when he wrote his piece since he says, “Not only is it more secure, but the Mac operating system is more capable, more modern and more attractive than Windows XP, and just as stable.” It appears Mac OS X is more stable.

I’m still working at Whole Foods, in the same store but I’m getting out of the Deli. I just got hired to be the new Store Systems Integrator, a.k.a. Computer Geek. Don’t know for sure when I start but it will probably be about two weeks. I will not miss setting up the deli case in the morning.

Yipee!

There are ten thousand bloggers looking at the Bush documents and finding the faults with them but I can’t resist! I downloaded the PDF from FoxNews and have given them the once over. Keep in mind, I spent 22 years in the US Air Force. I wasn’t there in ’72 but I was around for a while. Here are my observations:

1. There weren’t many typewriters that could type in Times New Roman back then. It wasn’t impossible but most of them used
Courier.

2. The one dated 4 May 1972 begins with “MEMORANDUM FOR” but that wasn’t introduced until the 1990s. Prior to that the standard format was “FROM: SUBJECT: TO:” and the subject would have “Memorandum for” in it.

3. On paragraph 2 of that same document the “th” of 111th F.L.S. is superscript. There weren’t ANY typewriters that could do that back then! Also, there shouldn’t be periods between the letters.

4. Col Killian’s signature block is wrong. It should be “JERRY B. KILLIAN, Lt Col, USAFR” or something like that.

5. The 19 May 1972 memo is “Memo for file”. This may have been a personal document and so the format could be whatever he wanted. Still, the standard way of doing it would have been “SUBJECT: Memorandum for Record”

6. The phrase “in a flight status” in the second paragraph of that same memo is very weird. Typically it is “remain in flight status”, no indefinite article.

7. The 1 Aug 72 letter is a memo for record. Suspension of flight status is a Very Big Deal and would go on something much more formal that an MFR. Even if it were an MRF that got attached to another formal letter, it should have been on letter head.

8. Paragraph 3 has a weird typo. It says “9921 st Air Reserve” and “147 th Ftr”. There shouldn’t be a space there unless, of course, you are trying to make sure that Word doesn’t make it into a superscript (see 3 above).

9. Also in paragraph 3 is the correct phrase “flight physical” had been used differently in the other memos. This is not necessarily an error by the forger, but it seems odd.

10. The 18 Aug memo has the same superscript problem. Its wording seems very strange too. Why file a memo like this? The tone is very personal but back then a commander would have written it on paper and then given it to a secretary to type up. I just can’t imagine a commander filing a memo like this. I suppose it is possible but I would expect it to be a little more polished. Maybe I’m wrong.

These documents smack of forgery to me. They look phony, especially the fact that they are Times New Roman and the superscript. The lack of letterhead is very suspicious too. My judgment: fake. Did Michael Moore have anything to do with this?
(Kidding!)

I’ve noticed that Safari is getting irritatingly slow lately. The reason I switched was because it was supposed to be much faster than IE, and it is. Er, was. It has been running about the same speed lately. Well, while pursuing the latest MacAddict (1/2 price via .Mac membership) I caught a letter that thanked them for the August issue on bug swatting; in particular bug fix #34 on speeding up Safari. Unfortunately, my MacAddict subscription started in September so I Googled “Safari sluggish” and came up with this. I’m leery of tweeking default settings via the terminal but this one really helped. I also found this on deleting the favicon cache but it didn’t seem to help all that much. Also, if you want to lift the music off the MacAddict CD you have to use the terminal to get there.

[We] are often unable to think sharply or feel deeply for the simple reason that [we] have not worshiped truly. As William Willimon and Stanley Hauerwas have noted, “bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics.” Never to have encountered the awful otherness-in-nearness of God in worship is never to have exercised either our hearts or our brains. It is easy to move from sentimental worship to sentimental nationalism or materialism. – Ralph C. Wood, Contending for the Faith

Youch! But good heavens the man’s right! I think Wood’s point here is the thesis of Hebrews 12. The first half, up to verse 17 or so, is about moral living. From verse 18 till about verse 24 is a reminder of the the delivery of the Old Covenant and how frightening that was. Then at the end of the chapter the author says, “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” Notice that all the appropriate elements are there: morality, worship and fear of God. When our worship is light and airy, our view of God soon becomes small. When our view of God is little, the problem and pain of sin turns out to be not that big a
deal.

Worship (“liturgy” in the quote) must be deep because our God is deep. He is not our best friend, our buddy, or a really good guy. He is “a consuming fire”! Does our worship reflect this truth or do we focus on him who “loves us so much that he’d rather die than live without us”? Wood’s point is that such soppy sentimentalism about God will result in soppy thoughts about sin, the church, commitment to other believers, the authority of the preacher and indeed the word preached. The authority and unction for these things is derived from God and his primacy. If he is not made much of in worship (at least!) then out thoughts about all that flows from him will be diminished. This is a very good reason that we need to gather to worship and to pray. We need the gifts God has given us to stir each other up, we need to intensify each other’s worship and prayer, we need those gifted at music to lead us emotionally, we need those gifted at preaching to lead us mentally, we need those gifted with service to leads us practically. All of these things (and more) should stir in us a greater, ever more intense worship and love of God. That will lead and guide and direct the rest of our lives.

Others understand the historic importance of our work. The terrorists know. They know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate. They know that men and women with hope, and purpose, and dignity do not strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent. The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear and they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march.

I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom. As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region. Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel. Young women across the Middle East will hear the message that their day of equality and justice is coming. Young men will hear the message that national progress and dignity are found in liberty, not tyranny and terror. Reformers, and political prisoners, and exiles will hear the message that their dream of freedom cannot be denied forever. And as freedom advances heart by heart, and nation by nation America will be more secure and the world more peaceful. – George W. Bush

The above quote is from President Bush’s acceptance speech at the GOP convention in New York this week. It also constitutes the heart of the reason that I cannot vote for him. It isn’t that I’m opposed to freedom; I’m not. It would be wonderful if every nation in the world enjoyed the same freedoms we do here in the US. Often, political and economic repression are obstacles to the gospel. While the persecution in such systems is often good for the church, it is not good for the people and can make evangelism profoundly difficult. Liberty can have its pluses.

No, what caused me to decide that George W. Bush is not the best man to lead our nation in these difficult times is that the statement above, while hugely patriotic, demonstrates an immense lack of understanding if Islam and Islamic fanatics. President Bush believes that freedom is the answer. He believes that if we bring liberty to Islamic nations they will not want to strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent”. And here he is fundamentally wrong. Not because Muslims don’t want freedom and prosperity nor that all Muslims are terrorists (they’re most certainly not), he is wrong in how he thinks they will accept it.

Christian evangelism occurs on a person-by-person basis. We rejoice “over one sinner who repents” and can consider a country as “reached” with the gospel even if it remains secular or Hindu or whatever. But Islam doesn’t see it that way. They think more in terms of nations and states than in terms of individuals. When our troops landed in Iraq, Muslims generally saw it as an assault on Islam. President Bush’s unfortunate use of the term “crusade” only cemented that observation. Infidels invaded an Islamic nation and so it was an attack on their religion. Sure, they hated Hussain but it was equally repugnant to be “liberated” by unbelievers. This is why they didn’t take up arms and join us in the fight when we arrived. Mostly, they either sat by and watched or eventually took up arms against us. The issue is much more complicated than I’ve just stated it but in general terms this is what is going on.

So when President Bush talks about bringing liberty to these people it shows that he doesn’t understand what they want. Islam is a strict religion. Dress, gender roles, cleanliness, etc. are all detailed for them. What they see of the free West is MTV, Quentin Turretino movies, Janet Jackson, Sex in the City, etc. A good Muslim on the street may be fascinated by it but they don’t want it in their neighborhood. It is sin by the bucket loads to them. Children are disrespectful of their parents, women dress immodestly and insult men, everyone has sex with everyone else, homosexuality; this is what they see in the West and they see the West as Christian. Christians, to them, are Madonna, Billy Graham, Brittany Spears, the Spice Girls, Eddy Murphy, “Will and Grace” and President Bush. Remember, they don’t think in terms of individuals but in terms of nations.

If we attempt to establish “a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East” it will not “discredit their radical ideology of hate”, it will inflame their distrust and hatred of the West in general and the US specifically. That isn’t because all Muslims are terrorists but because they don’t want to see their religion wiped out. Sure, we believe that it would be better off in a free society but they don’t. President Bush will only piss these people off more by “liberating” them. His attempt to make the world safer will in fact make things worse. Much worse in my opinion.

It is too bad. I like the guy and I am not thrilled with Kerry. Given these two as the only viable candidates, I think the best case scenario would be to put Kerry in the White House and keep the congress firmly in the hands of the Republicans. The two
opposites would hopefully balance each other out. What is tragic for me is that the Republican candidate in Illinois is Alan Keyes. In many ways the guy is an unelectable “right wing nut job”. So my choices next month are Democrats I largely don’t agree with or Republicans I think are going to get us in real trouble.

“Since research has shown only India to be a more religiously devout nation than the United States, and since Sweden is notorious for being the most secular, [Peter] Berger has famously said that America is a nation of Indians governed by a bureaucracy of Swedes.” – Ralph C. Woods, Contending for the Faith.

In Mac OS X’s history — four and a half years — we’ve had 43 security updates fixing security issues, but only 2% of them were critical. In Windows XP, which has been around for less time, they’ve had 77 security updates but 66% of them were critical in terms of the industry’s nomenclature. So we’ve had very, very few critical issues. – Steve Jobs.

So, you may ask, why did I switch to Apple?

Second of two in a series.

I can’t even begin to guess how many times and in how many ways I’ve heard evangelicals describe hell as being “out of the presence of God for eternity.” I think this comes from an incomplete exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord.” Seems pretty straight forward; the threat is an eternity in hell away from God’s presence. But I don’t think that is exactly what the passage is talking about. Take it in its context and “the Lord” refers not to God the Father nor the Trinity but to Jesus Christ. The next verse speaks of His return and that can only be Jesus. In the pervious verse those who face such a judgment are those “who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” so, though God is in proximity, it is Jesus Himself who is the closest antecedent to “the Lord” in verse 9.

Furthermore, the rest of verse 9 and part of verse 10 read, “away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints”. It seems clear that Jesus and not the Trinity or the Father are in mind in this context. All of this to say that “eternal destruction” is not restricted to the idea of it being only an absence from God’s presence. All 2 Thes 1:9 teaches us is that those who don’t obey the gospel will suffer destruction away from Jesus’ presence and his might, not necessarily away from Jesus personally or physically. Indeed, Revelation 14:9-11 would seem to indicate that the eternal punishment of the unrighteous is eternally before Jesus; “he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.”

A related question is if when we’re in heaven we will be aware of hell. I have heard people emphatically say that we couldn’t be filled with joy if we are aware of hell and those we knew who are now suffering there. Heaven would not be enjoyable if I am there seeing a close relative or friend suffering. The answer to this one is much more complicated. There is no clear verse of scripture we can go to to argue either side. The closest I can think of is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31. My hesitancy to appeal to that passage is that it is a parable. The point of Jesus’ teaching there is not what heaven and hell will be like, but the urgency of listening to the witnesses available in this life. Still, I don’t think Jesus completely distorted the afterlife in order to teach this lesson so if we’re careful not to go too far we can learn something here. First, the rich man is in “Hades” and is in torment. Hades is probably not synonymous to hell but is probably much more like Sheol from the Old Testament, e.g. the place of the dead (see Acts 2:27, Rev 20:13-13). But in this parable whether the rich man is in Sheol or in hell is immaterial, he is in torment so hell is in view. There is a chasm between the unrighteous rich man and Lazarus and Abraham which cannot be crossed (Luke 16:26) but communication can apparently take place across it and the two sides can see each other. There is no changing of position after death but both sides are aware of each other. This seems to indicate that hell is not only visible to Jesus but also to us.

The question of our reaction when we see a sister or brother who rejected Christ suffering eternal punishment then abides. Again, I have no scripture to base this on but only some reflections on God’s nature, sin and our poor understanding. I think we will be sorry to see those we loved in this life suffering just as we will be happy to worship in heaven beside our spouse and children and parents. But hell is not cruel. It is not an expression of God’s injustice. Those in hell will receive exactly the measure of punishment they deserve, no more and no less. God is just. I think in some fashion our reaction will be sorrow that they did not accept the gospel when they had the chance, praising God for His justice in punishing sin, and worshipping Him because we know that we were no better nor smarter than those in hell and the only reason we are not with them is because of His mercy and grace.