howtodateababe

Women made simple.

We want you to pick us up, honestly. So here’s a journal on how to get in our pants.

This journal updates on Mondays with new articles on getting laid and common mistakes guys are making that’s keeping them from getting laid.

It’s written by a 20-something woman who is REALLY sick of guys fumbling the ball.

Add me, you know you want need to.

nick_dock

[	Current Location	|	Home	]
[	mood	|	contemplative	]
[	music	|	AFI	]

Hey, I am looking for a community where I can post articles and speeches that I write. Have I come to the right place?
-nick dock

james_01

Think for a moment about the objections raised by skeptics: "Churches are full of hypocrites." "Religion has caused wars and atrocities." "If that's what Christianity is all about, I want no part of it." But that is not what Christianity is all about. I certainly do not deny that some heinous things have been done in Christ's name, but that is totally irrelevant to the ultimate truth of Christianity, as none of these things can undo the historical reality of the Resurrection.

On numerous occasions, prominent scholars have researched this topic, and to the surprise of many, have strongly verified the historicity of the Gospel accounts. For example, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, who was the Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, was considered one of the world's top authorities on legal evidences. After applying this expertise to the Resurrection, he concluded that it was, in fact, an historical fact. His research is available in a book called "The Testimony of the Evangelists." Furthermore, British lawyer Frank Morrison set out to write a book repudiating the Resurrection and instead found the evidence so overwhelming he became a believer himself! His findings can be read in his book, "Who Moved The Stone?" Similarly, journalist Lee Strobel began his quest as a skeptic attempting to discredit the Christian faith, but wound up having his own life-changing encounter with the risen Jesus. His story is told in the popular book "The Case For Christ."

One of the most striking evidences for the Resurrection is its immediate impact on the religious world of the day. With the founding of the church in 32 AD, we see a sudden change in the day of worship. This is significant because all of the early Christians were Jews coming from a strict background of observing the seventh day Sabbath. Once they became Christians, however, they made their day of worship Sunday, the first day of the week, to commemorate Christ's Resurrection on that day. It would have taken a very significant event to altar such a deeply seated tradition.
In addition, we see new ordinances (baptism and communion) practiced from the very beginning of church history as reminders of His death and Resurrection. The First Century Church has also left numerous other monuments, such as hymns, art and church readings done in honor of the Resurrected Christ.

This brings us to the strongest evidence of all: The fact that the risen Jesus was seen alive by over 500 eye witnesses! Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances are verified not only by the Bible, but by secular history as well. Josephus writes: "...he appeared to them alive on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." If these appearances were a delusion, how could this many people testify to the exact same thing? This is especially significant when we consider that many of them were tortured and killed for bearing witness to it. Would people endure this for something they knew to be false? We also see the dramatic conversions of two previous skeptics: James, brother of Jesus and a brilliant scholar named Saul of Tarsus, who we now know as the mighty apostle Paul.
Furthermore, Paul also states that most of these 500 witnesses were still alive at the time (1 Corinthians 15:6). In other words, the reader could easily ask them about the things they had seen.

The Resurrection narratives strike at the very core of who we are as human beings. We gaze into a loved one's coffin knowing full well that one day we are destined to be there ourselves. Until the fear of death is dealt with, we will never truly learn to live. May the hope and beauty of the Easter message be a reality in your life this season, and always.

james_01

In two weeks, we will reach the culmination of the Lenten/Easter season. As we take this time to reflect on the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, I would like to present a two-part series about what makes the Easter holiday so important. Regardless of your own religious beliefs, I hope that these articles will at least give you a deeper appreciation of these events, which have literally split history in half.

Historians estimate the date of Jesus' crucifixion as being around Friday, April 7th, A.D. 30. The religious leaders of the day, jealous of His influence and popularity, had turned Him over to the Roman government to be tried for false charges of sedition. Although the occupying Roman Empire gave the Jews a great deal of freedom in conducting their legal affairs, Roman approval was required for an execution. In order to avoid a riot, and thus preserve his standing with the Emperor, Governor Pontius Pilate reluctantly consented to the crowd's demands to have Jesus crucified.

The first step in this horrible process was a brutal beating with a leather whip, which was called scourging. While Jewish civil law limited the beating to forty lashes, the Romans recognized no such law, and thus were at liberty to beat the person as viciously as they pleased. The beating itself was often fatal. Geikie's "Life of Christ" tells us that:

“Victims condemned to the cross first underwent the hideous torture of the scourge...(Jesus) was beaten at the pleasure of the soldiers, with knots of rope, or plaited leather thongs, armed at the ends with acorn shaped drops of lead, or small sharp pointed bones...Under the fury of the countless stripes, the victims sometimes sank-amidst screams, convulsive leaps, and distortions-into a senseless heap; sometimes died on the spot; sometimes were taken away… to find deliverance in death.”

After the scourging, it was off to the hill known as "The Skull," ("Golgotha" in Aramaic, "Calverius" in Latin). This was the designated place where local executions took place, some by stoning, others by crucifixion. According to Unger's Bible Dictionary, crucifixion was used by a number of ancient civilizations, including the Egyptians and the Persians. It was used by the Romans from the very beginning of their history, until it was eventually abolished by Emperor Constantine. In any scenario, it was reserved for slaves and for the worst kind of criminals.

Large, rusty spikes were driven into the wrists and feet. The cross was then erected, with the person's body suspended about four feet above the ground. What followed was a long, excruciating death so horrible that mere words cannot begin to do it justice. Medical Doctor Gerald H. Bradley gives us a look:

“This was the most agonizing death man could face...He had to support Himself in order to breathe...the flaming pain caused by the spikes hitting the median nerve in the wrists explodes up His arms, into His brain and down His spine. The spike burning through the nerves between the metatarsal bones of the feet jerks His body erect, then the leg muscles convulse and drive His body downward...beating Him against the cross. Air is sucked in, but cannot be exhaled until the buildup carbon dioxide in the lungs and blood stream stimulates breathing to relieve the cramps. Exhaustion, shock, dehydration and paralysis destroy the victim. The heart is barely able to pump the thick blood as each of His billions of cells die one at a time. Prior to His death in all His agony, Jesus is in full control of His mind. He asks the heavenly Father to "Forgive them; for they know not what they do."

If the story ended here, we would have a beautiful account of a man dying as a martyr for His cause, but nothing more. What makes Jesus' death stand out is what occurred three days later: The verifiable, historical reality of His Resurrection! Next week, we will look at a few of the evidences for this remarkable event.

Stay tuned!

james_01

In recent weeks, the death penalty has been a frequent topic of discussion here on the Beacon editorial page, with practically all of the arguments being in opposition. I can certainly respect the convictions behind that viewpoint, as I struggled over the issue for many years myself. Nonetheless, I have come to believe that a mandatory death sentence for certain crimes is not only ethical, it is absolutely necessary for a stable and just society. While my own personal views may very well be in the minority, I feel that I must offer the other side of this debate.

For the most part, the previous columns have focused on two facets: the ethics of a punitive death penalty and the deterrent value it offers. These are certainly important concerns that I will also address. However, I would also like to introduce a third premise: the need to make a statement about how our society values life. If we hold human life in proper regard, then the only sufficient penalty for taking it is for the murderer to give his or her own life. As Ed Koch, the liberal former mayor of New York, points out: “... it can be easily demonstrated that the death penalty strengthens the value of human life. If the penalty for rape were lowered, clearly it would signal a lessened regard for the victims’ suffering... When we lower the penalty for murder, it signals a lessened regard for the value of the victim’s life.”

While the right to life is foundational, it can be forfeited. This concept is found in both the Judeo-Christian scriptures (Genesis 9:6; Ezekiel 13:19; Acts 25:11; Romans 13:1-4, etc.), as well as in the U.S. Constitution. According to the Fifth Amendment, no person shall be “… deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” In other words, if, through this due process, a person is found guilty of a capital crime, the State has a right to impose capital punishment.

Some may object to my use of the Bible in this manner: “But what about ‘Thou shalt not kill?’” A better translation of this verse is “Thou shalt not murder.” While all murder is killing, not all killing is necessarily murder. By definition, the word “murder” means to willfully take the life of an innocent person. This commandment could not have been a prohibition of capital punishment, since in the very next chapter, God specifically commands the death penalty for a number of different offenses.

In the debate over capital punishment, the word “compassion” is often used, and rightfully so. However, when properly carried out, the swift execution of violent criminals is one of the most compassionate things a just government can do. It permanently removes the offender from society.

It also sends a powerful message to would-be criminals. Although some have argued otherwise, the facts remain unchanged: The deterrent value of a consistently enforced death penalty is a powerful restraining agent against crime. In fact, according to a 1985 study by Stephen K. Layson in the Southern Economics Journal, each execution performed in the U.S. deters approximately eighteen murders. For example, in a 1961 California case known as “People v. Love,” the convicts specifically admitted that their decision not to kill hostages was motivated by fear of the death penalty.

It is a horrible thing to have to take a human life. In a perfect world, capital punishment would not be necessary. It is an unfortunate fact of life that, as long as crime and violence exist on this planet, there will be a need for a properly exercised death penalty to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Failure to do so is an insult to every person who has ever been the victim of a violent crime. In the words of former Mayor Koch:

“The death of anyone - even a convicted killer - diminishes us all. But we are diminished even more by a justice system that fails to function. It is an illusion to let ourselves believe that doing away with capital punishment removes the murderer’s deed from our conscience... When we protect guilty lives, we give up innocent lives in exchange.”

james_01

“Hey, brother!”

For many years, I received this cheerful greeting every time I entered the home of my sister, Sandy Adcox. Although she was nearly eighteen years my senior, the love and closeness we shared only grew stronger as we got older. Sadly, she is no longer with us. As we approach the third anniversary of her passing, I would like to use this column to both share some memories and to somehow offer a small tribute to this wonderful lady.

We often read books and hear stories about great people of the past and the great legacies they left behind. In this case, however, I watched a legacy being built every day right before my eyes, a legacy of kindness, unselfishness and laughter. I could always count on Sandy being a constant in my life, through good times and bad. She was a true role model to me in every sense of the word.

Nowhere was Sandy’s heart seen more vividly than in her work with children and teens. This was especially clear in her devotion to her own children, Jennifer, Stephanie and Jordan, as well as the countless others she touched as a school teacher and guidance counselor. Her soothing voice, gentle demeanor and bubbly sense of humor led children to bond with her instantly. As the nursery coordinator at her church, “Ms. Sandy” was well known for her ability to take a crying baby in her arms and watch it calm down almost immediately.

In December, 2000, we received the devastating news that Sandy had been diagnosed with leukemia. The next four years, we saw her fight like a lion. Although she was in and out of remission several times, eventually the battle ended. Sandy died on April 13, 2004.

The amazing thing was that, even when she knew the end was near, she was more concerned about the rest of us than she was about herself. She was always there to reassure us. It’s so easy to get wrapped up in ourselves and our everyday lives that we “don’t have time” for others. However, Sandy always had time for anyone who needed her. That still amazes me. Anytime I went to her needing a kind word or some “big sisterly” advice, she always seemed to know just what to say. Sandy touched countless lives in so many ways. When my time here is over, I hope I have impacted as many people as she has.

I’ll never forget the last day I spent with Sandy. It was the day she left for Houston in a last-ditch effort to save her life. To look at Sandy was heartbreaking. The leukemia, combined with the chemotherapy, had ravaged her body. She had lost her hair and was unable to get around without the aid of a walker. Since her immune system was very weak, I tried to avoid standing too close so that I wouldn’t pass any germs to her. But suddenly, as I walked by her chair, she threw her arms around me and gave me a huge hug, saying, “Brother, I love you very much.” Although it was a very sad day, that is still a memory I’ll cherish forever.

Sandy’s memorial service, which drew over five hundred people, was billed as a “Celebration of Life” rather than a funeral. She had emphatically stated that she did not want it to be a sad occasion and had requested that no one in attendance wear black. Of course, we could not honor the former request, but through all the tears, sharing and memories, I believe she was still looking down with a smile.

It is easy for me to be sad now that she is gone, but although it seems to have passed so quickly, I am so thankful that God allowed this wonderful lady to be a part of my life. The great preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon summed it up well: “A good character is the best tombstone. Those who loved you and were helped by you will remember you when forget-me-nots have withered. Carve your name on hearts, not on marble.”

Heaven only knows how many hearts carry Sandy’s inscription today.

james_01

Published in The Daily Beacon,Monday, February 26, 2007

Not long ago, I was entering the drive through window of a fast food place, when I saw a bumper sticker which summarized my political philosophy quite well: "Politicians are like diapers. Both need to be changed regularly!" In our own local government, the issue of term limits has been hotly debated in recent months, but the underlying principles are as old as our nation itself. Over and over, human nature has proven to me that every elected official, from the President down to the local school board, should be subject to term limits, period.

Thomas Jefferson observed that "if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life," Unlike the dictators, kings and emperors of other nations, our officials are selected to serve the people, not vise-versa. While most people may enter public service with noble motives, the opiate of political influence often proves difficult to handle. Like no other institution, politics has repeatedly proven Orwell’s maxim that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The need for term limits has been recognized throughout our nation’s history, starting with President George Washington. Although Washington’s decision to serve no more than two terms was primarily due to health concerns, it set a model followed by all subsequent presidents until Franklin Roosevelt broke the tradition by being elected four times. This prompted the newly elected Republican Congress to amend the Constitution to prevent the presidency from evolving into a dictatorship. The result of their efforts was the Twenty-second Amendment.

Although term limits is generally thought of as a conservative issue, that has not always been the case. As President Ronald Reagan’s second term was coming to an end, some Republican lawmakers began to push for a repeal of the 22nd amendment so that he could seek a third term. It was later, during the administration of George H.W. Bush that the GOP again picked up the term limits gauntlet. The elder Bush was a strong advocate for expanding term limits to Congress. In the Republican Revolution of 1994, the issue was a key part of the “Contract with America.” Not surprising, however, the issue eventually faded after the Republicans were the party in power.

This was unfortunate. The fact is that term limits address the concerns of both conservatives who are concerned about the government getting too big, as well as liberals who want a more level playing field. This is why people of both parties would be well served to study the issue more carefully. Such an effort would help to clear the path for new faces and fresh ideas to emerge as never before.

Would term limits be an instant "cure-all?" No, but over a period of time, I do believe we would begin to see a more honest, efficient and accountable government. Gradually, beltway elitists would be replaced by private citizens who knew that they would have to return to the real world and live under the laws they had made.

You might say, "But we already have term limits. They’re called elections!" True enough, but this argument is both overly simplistic and self-defeating. Not only are elections often stacked in favor of the incumbent candidate, they are often decided by uninformed voters who think of elected officials in celebrity terms. How many times are votes cast based on which candidate is taller, better looking or simply has more name recognition?

Although the concept of a “virtuous electorate” is certainly a noble ideal, it is simply not a reality. The potential for these sorts of abuses requires us to put up proper restraints. Term limits are one of these restraints which would bring some much needed “fresh air” to the corridors of power.