i guess i just don't get it

shut down?

So, I've been thinking about shutting down livingliturgy. While I like the idea of having a blog, given that I've been posting really infrequently, I can't allow myself to keep paying money for a service (which is excellent and I highly recommend to other bloggers) that I don't use and that is visited less and less often, both my myself and by outside visitors.

I've fooled myself into believing my statistics. I had a lot of visitors through Google Search. And that's been really cool. I kept the site up thinking that maybe a visitor would come into the site, see something they liked then keep coming back. Didn't happen. More than 95% of my visitors are one-timers. This is also due to me not having the time or interest in updating.

Why have I lost the interest in blogging in general? It's not that I haven't lost an interest in writing. It's not a loss of interest in the net. In fact, if anything, I'm on the net more often than ever. Mainly I update only my Facebook and Twitter (which is a great micro-blogging tool). Twitter is something you need to get on if you're not. Check it out.

I think I've lost the interest in keeping up this blog because I've lost the purpose. Originally the blog was started to help Immanuel Lutheran Church in Freeport, Illinois. We all know what happened there. If you don't, feel free to ask. I'll feel free to tell. That's no longer the case, obviously.

Also, livingliturgy was to help describe the work of the people (which is literally was liturgy means). I haven't lost the love of liturgy in service nor the liturgy in the life of the Church. Quite the opposite, in fact. I actually discovered a new love for it, realizing that it was a calling to the seminary. But, I've lost the love of the name. The name of a blog is as important as a name of a person. It's something to be called by. It was too impersonal, livingliturgy. And I believe in the ability to have anonymity on the nets, but that's not for me.

I think I've lost a little of myself, as well. I've also found quite a bit of me. Unfortunately, the part of me lost had to do with being able to maintain this blog (this is really hard to explain, so I'm going to leave it there). The part of me I found though is the Old Lewis, who was constantly interested in absorbing information. The only thing that's changed now is that I have other means and have to find more means to disseminate it.

This isn't to say I will never return to blogging. In fact, probably quite the opposite. I just need to have a break. And I need to know that livingliturgy is gone. I need to find something more me. If and when I return, it will be under my name, or at least my calling. I'll keep you updated. If you'd like to know when I return, ust look to the Eastern sky. Just kidding. Leave a message or send me an email or follow me on Facebook or Twitter. I'll be more than happy to let you know.

I won't let you know when this blog is shutting down. It won't be for awhile. But one day, you'll try to come and it won't be here. That's okay. I'll still be out there, waiting for you.

Come find me.

a picture's worth a thousand words.

For those of you who have rightly pointed out I haven't posted in a while, you're right. Even if you haven't said it, I still haven't posted in a while.

But, for those interested, the picture below is what I've been trying to work out for a few weeks. You tell me if you think it makes sense. Or perhaps, just what you think it might mean. Hmm...

reformation day.

This is one of my favorite days in the Christian life, outside the major holidays.

This day, in the life of Christendom, carries much significance for all Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike. It is the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg, sparking a revolution of religion, and, if you listen hard enough, the hammer still pounds away, echoing down the ages to us today.

Martin Luther, being the primary hero of the Reformation, is often cast aside by the majority of Protestants, given no more than a passing mention before moving on to the more "influential" Zwingli or Calvin.

However, without the boldness of a monk, his dedication to the true Word of God, and the inspiration he gave countless followers, there would be no Protestant church as it exists today. True, many stepped up to defend the True Church, some before and some after Luther, but it was Luther who took it to the next level.

So, in the spirit of Reformation, I present you two (yes, two) excellent videos. One to make you laugh. The other to make you, hopefully, inspired.

Happy Reformation Day!

The Yalies were pretty good, but had a few issues. I just think it's awesome.

A Mighty Fortress? Yeah, He is.

dashboard confessional.

Hello, folkses.

I'm updating the blog. I know. Crazy, right?

Anyway, I'm writing to post what is likely the biggest update of my life. Hope it holds out. You'll see what I mean. I also hope you can hear everything. You'll need speakers. But, I suppose when you see video, that might go without saying.

Enjoy the video. Let me know what you think. Let me know, too, if you couldn't get it all. Talk to you all soon.

ugh.

If you want me to respect what you believe based on the bumper stickers on your car, FOR PETE'S SAKE, GO THE SPEED LIMIT!!!!!!

questions of god.

Question(s): How do you know where God is leading you in life? I mean, seriously. People say that they "heard" God tell them where to go. Some people say He opens and closes doors. But, how do you really trust that God is leading you in a certain direction?

Another question(s): What if God is leading you to something that can't take place for another 7 months? What are you to do in the meantime?

Yet another frage: Assuming God is moving, what if it's the last thing you think you want to do for knowing the end result?

past our prime.

America's a scary place to be right now. It's no surprise the rest of the world is looking on us with disdain, now that they, and more amazingly, the American public, have learned that Congress totally screwed us by getting involved in housing loans. They screwed up, big time.

I've no idea how we're to get out of this crisis. But, I know it's not going to be easy and it's not going to be fun and it's going to take a long time. So, before you vote this November, make sure the candidate you're voting for has a well-laid-out economic plan that doesn't involve this type of governmental oversight and involvement in the markets.

That's why this is so bad. The government decided they knew how to run things better than the American people. Guess they were wrong.

Found this quote today. It's attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, though there's no proof where it came from. Regardless of who wrote it, the warning rings clear and loud. Too bad it took us (potentially) two hundred years to listen... We still got it wrong. Guess we're past our prime (small mortgage pun intended).

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

politics.

I hate when people start their political discourses from a point of hatred or fear rather than sincere investigation and curiosity. It shows their complete ignorance. It also shows them to be a fear-monger... and dare I say, idiot.

The rabid attacks on Palin and her family make me sick. They disturb me to a point where I myself want to lash out. Because she's a woman with children, she can't lead. Please. Because she's a woman, she can't lead. Whatever. These arguments, and so many others, are ridiculous.

This reminds me of some of the conservatives who tried to scare people with Obama's middle name (which is Hussein). While I don't like his policies, the fact that he shares a middle name (not even a family name) with a murderous, tyrannical dictator doesn't bother me in the least.

Hussein, as I understand it, is a fairly common name. It's ridiculous that because they share the name, Obama will be murderous and tyrannical.

Now, the fact that Obama supports abortion and infanticide makes him, in essence, a murderer by proxy. Aside from massive government expansion, I've yet to the tyranny. But, you never know. It has nothing to do with his name, however.

If politics is just a raving lunacy of name-calling and insane diatribes, then America really will be going downhill fast. If, however, like some of the commentators, we can actually talk about what people believe and their plans for the future, then we can finally get somewhere.

christmas in september?

Can I just say that I still love Point of Grace's Christmas albums? They totally rock my world and get me in a better mood. They also really make me reflect on the idea of Christ.

I mean, think about the idea that God was absolutely silent for centuries. Think what that would mean when you're used to hearing Him and understanding His directives. Then, nothing. No word from Him. I'd be so grieved.

All of the sudden, God declares the birth of Jesus and says, in the words of Point of Grace, "Let there be light!"

Doesn't it give you chills? I have 'em. I could listen to them all year. In fact, I am. I'm listening to Christmas music. After all, four weeks out of a whole year is way too short to enjoy great music!

days like this... not today.

I hate days like this... not that today's been one. Actually, in general, the weeks gone pretty well. Got to see my Badgers win. Got to worship God. Got to see my Packers win. Got to see old friends who came into town. Got to see newer friends who live in town. But I thought this was too good not to share.

so who talked about who more?

Sarah Palin got completely lambasted by the media for "attacking" Obama. Interesting. Actually, that was the headline on the majority of the papers I saw after her speech. Those words. "Attack." "Ambush." "Insult." Hmm.

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook. Absolutely fascinating. What are your thoughts? (Click to embiggen.)

So, given this, who talked about who more? Who attacked the other? I wonder. Too bad they can't quantify context and tone. But, this chart is interesting in trying to figure out where the parties spend most of their time.

tax cuts are great. obama's plan isn't.

I got an email from a friend in Malaysia this morning asking why Palin spoke out against Obama's plans to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Why is that a bad thing? Well, I wrote a response to her that I thought I'd pop up here and see what you all thought. I thought it was pretty good. Who knows? She thought I might be a bit biased, but still asked for the opinion. Her bad. I added a little, but it's essentially the same

Not sure I'm biased, but I could never vote for Obama. He voted against a law that would help babies who survived abortions live. Basically, he voted for infanticide (the babies can be killed in that instance). Not a big McCain fan though. He's definitely one of the most liberal Republicans to ever run, but he could be good. I'm definitely excited about Palin. She's exactly what I look for in a candidate.

But, taxes... Sure, here's the issue. The 95% of taxpayers he's talking pay about 40% of the taxes. Of course, you can see that this is so spread out, most of them pay next to nothing. The bottom 50% of earners pay less than 3% of the taxes. Therefore, the largest number of people will see the most amount of pay cuts, ultimately having no effect at all for the budget.

So, let's assume the entire national budget is a dollar. And there are only 100 people in the nation. If that's the case, then one person, the top earner, pays nearly 40 cents of the national budget. The next four top earners each pay 5 cents, paying a total of 20 cents. That's 60 cents so far. The next five earners each pay roughly 2 cents, paying a total of 10 cents. Now we're at 70 cents out of 100. The next fifteen earners only pay 1 cent. Now it's 85 cents total. The next 25 top earners pay less than half a cent each. Now we're at 97 cents. The bottom 50 earners pay less than .1 cent each. This means we're at 100 cents. Multiple this by hundreds of thousands of people for a total of 2.3 trillion dollars. It's ridiculously insane. (source: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)

Obviously, the top earners pay the majority. Obama thinks this isn't fair. So he's going to make them pay more taxes so others pay less. It already sounds like we're not paying much. How is it fair to let these entrepreneurs and capitalists shoulder even more of our debt? Everything is just out of control.

Obama will increase taxes for the top 5% of American who pay 60% of the taxes. He said he would. This means that the smallest number of people who pay the majority of American taxes by no small percentage will see an even greater increase.

What this means for the economy is that all American will see an increase in goods and services because the majority of the top 5% are business owners and operators. Like Big Oil, if they are taxed more they aren't going to really pay for the taxes. Instead they will increase their prices, meaning the American consumer will have to pay more to obtain them.

That's why Obama's energy plan is so dangerous as well. It's all precipitous on the idea that if we tax Big Oil and try to punish them for their capitalistic ways, they'll concede and lower the prices. This will then, Obama presumes, help us have more federal funds to research alternative fuels. In fact, in a capitalistic society, taxes have the opposite effect.

That why a tax increase for anybody will drive up inflation. The dollar is becoming worthless. If taxes are enacted, it will fall further meaning that Americans will still have to pay more on earning less, even with a tax decrease.

The real solution is to curb spending and kill the deficit. We can no longer spend on the idea that we might one day have the money and go back to basing our spending off how much we have saved up, like any good person has. This is the problem with the housing market as well. Banks are taking chances that people will pay them back the money they loan them for houses. The people, however, are spending way beyond their means, accruing debt. The banks then completely repo the house and all assets of these people which set them further back than they were, ultimately not being able to get out of debt, claiming bankruptcy, and sticking the taxpayer with the burden of their debt.

The banks were told to lend money to these people by the Federal government through the Fair Housing Act, so they feel have no choice (though they do since the Feds can't really enforce a suggestion), but if they did not loan to under-qualified people in the first place, the banks and their debtors would likely be in a much better place.

Also, earmarks are out of control and the Democratic Congress, who promised to stop earmarks (which was how they took control), is requesting and spending billions on earmarks. Republicans are guilty of this as well. But Palin has a history of killing stupid spending in her offices and throughout her career (interesting, she has more Executive experience than any of the other candidates, POTUS or VPOTUS). So, I think that's the way to go with it.

So, you can see, the tax question really leads into all theses (and more) issues. The basic, take-home idea is: cutting taxes for the lowest earning 95% of American taxpayers who pay 40% of the taxes, while raising taxes on the 5% of highest earners who pay 60% of taxes will ultimately lead to disastrous consequences and a weaker dollar.

So, anyway, that's taxes as I understand them. Anybody see an issue with that analysis? Pretty sure it's correct. Which is why, again, I'll never vote for Obama. He's a monetary charlatan, looking to pull tax wool over people's eyes (Ooh, tax cuts! Yay!).