Why Democratic Socialism is a Champion of Capitalism

Bernie Sanders is running for President. While he could use a different label and no one else would bat an eye, he chooses to accept the label Democratic Socialist. This scares a lot of people just because it has the word Socialist in it. The ironic part is that his ideology of socialism would open more avenues for capitalism in America.

In an interview with NPR, Bernie says himself why he does not simply stop calling himself that. It is because it is what it is. He does not change the meanings of words or change his beliefs simply because they are misunderstood or inconvenient. Bernie is, if nothing else, a man of conviction.

Let's take his idea for the US Post Office for an example. He wants to privatize the post office and turn it into a banking system. This would cut government spending, create jobs, and turn a profit. What does that sound like?

The bad parts of socialism is what we are already doing. When the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was signed by President Bush to essentially bail out the banks that had failed, that is Socialism at its worst. It is the opposite of Capitalism. It is the government holding up a system that cannot hold itself up.

Another example of bad socialism is the Berlin Wall. In reality, Trump is more of a socialist than Bernie is.

Socialism has good and bad, but Bernie is using Socialism as a champion for Capitalism. He does not want the government to control the banks, he wants to break them up into small credit unions. He is not going to take over any industry with the government. At most, he will regulate them with taxes.

I think a big one that people are disagreeing with is free college tuition at state and community colleges. This is not bad socialism. We are already doing this... It is called high school. Up until 60ish years ago people had to pay to go to high school. Now we have a government backed school system that has changed the literacy in America and increased the national wage average. Back then it was hard to get a job without a high school degree and few people had them. Sixty years later, most people have a high school degree but it is hard to support a family unless you have a college degree.

If the scenario for why we made public high schools free now exists for a college degree, why should we not have a free public and state tuition? That may be socialism, but it is socialism that promotes capitalism and entrepreneurship and creates an even playing field for the lower and middle class.

Bernie is the only one passionate about these issues. He wants radical change and we need it. Growing the middle class is good for the Nation. Six banks own 60% of America's wealth. That is not a good thing.

Why a prolife Christian is a Democrat.

I think I weird people out because I am a democrat but outspokenly against abortion. I am not the only one. When people hear Democrat or Republican, they immediately put them in boxes of every stereo typical view point of that party. I, personally, have an issue with anyone that agrees 100% of the time with any political party. I tend to believe that means they have their views because of their political party, not having their own views that prompts them to vote for a certain party.

This is how it works with me. It is similar to why I like Google. I stand behind and support Google because Google shares technological visions I have. Google does not dictate what I want from technology, they just happen to align with what I want from technology.

For me the Democratic party is similar. I have my ideas of politics and the democratic party aligns better with them than the Republican party.

On the issue of abortion, I believe the Republican party has struggled to yield results. Abortion numbers go up during Republican terms and I believe it is because of their "trickle down" economics which end up being hard on the lower and middle class (because people are greedy). On top of that, they tend to vote for tougher welfare restrictions which adds even more burden onto the poor. During George W. Bush's administration, the Republican party dominated the senate, the supreme court, and the presidency and yet did nothing to over turn the Roe vs Wade decision. They can say all they want about abortion but actions speak louder than words.

The biggest decrease in abortion in the past 50 years came during the years 2008-2011 (according to the Guttmatcher Institutes research) as the economy recovered from the train wreck that was the end of the Bush administration. Which is something I do not believe the Republican party understands. The economy makes the biggest difference in abortion rates. When we help the poor, we decrease people's desire to have abortion.

Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions. They will continue, they will just be done in secret or else where. Women will commit suicide and a host of other alternatives. Making abortion illegal is fighting the symptom, not the disease.

The disease is poverty. That is why I am strongly for a welfare system. That is why I am strongly for a government health care system. That is why I am strongly for a higher minimum wages. Let the CEOs take a pay cut every now and then. "Trickle down" economics has left us with CEOs continuing to be paid higher percentages and average employees getting less. It DOES NOT trickle down. We NEED to help the poor and let it trickle up.

In the end, it seems to me like the Republican party is focused on the letter of the Law while missing the spirit of the Law. To me, the Democrats are following the spirit of the Law and seeking the end result of a better standard of living for the poor and middle class which reaps the rewards of lower abortions rates and lower crime rates.

Enforcing a law will not reap what we want. Punishing offenders will not reap what we want. When Jesus came, he went straight for the poor and needy, eating with sinners, thieves and prostitutes. Because the well do not need a doctor, the sick do. For me, the Democratic party aligns with this view better than the Republican party.

I do not agree with everything the Democratic party does, but I believe they can make a bigger difference in the things I care about than the Republican party.

Planned Parenthood for example. I believe the Republican plan for defunding Planned Parenthood and giving those funds to the community health centers which do way more for women's health than Planned Parenthood should be passed. Planned Parenthood does not do mamograms and many other basic women's health treatments yet takes 46% of the budget. Why is it such a bad plan to give that funding to the community health centers that do way more women's health care than Planned Parenthood?

We need to stop thinking of issues as a Democratic or Republican agenda and think for ourselves. Think through your issues and consider the result you want and pick the party that will get the results you want and not the one that says nice words you agree with. Words mean little, results matter.

I am prolife and every life in the womb matters, but I do not want abortion to be punished, I want people to stop wanting abortions. That is why I am voting Democrat.

Star Wars Dark Disciple review

I would like to start off by saying that I ultimately liked the book. Quinlan Vos is my favorite Jedi so the fact that he was added back to the canon in such a big way was great. The book includes a great deal of mystery and unexpected events.

It seemed like the story was trying to blend Ventress’ and Vos’ Dark Horse stories together with Khaleen being replaced with Ventress. Ultimately I liked the change as Khaleen was kind of one dimensional and never really understood why Vos fell for her.

They brought Ventress’ origin back into the canon which was cool. I also liked her character in this novel and the relationship she has with Quinlan is one to remember.

I am about to go into a few of the disappointments with the novel, but again, I would like to remind you I did like the book and am glad it came out. It will include a lot of spoilers so beware.

My biggest problem with the story was the lack of struggle found in the Dark Horse story. I never felt any sense that Quinlan was struggling between light and dark at all. He was either one or the other with no in between. He went from Jedi Master who was having feelings he could not identify for Ventress to abandoning the Jedi Order and wanting to live the rest of his life with her in about the span of one paragraph.

I really felt like Vos was a victim of his emotions in the novel. He had zero control. In the Dark Horse story, he was constantly struggling with how far was too far and inched his way to the Dark side and back, but in this novel it really seemed like he abandoned the Light side the second he touched the Dark side and just did whatever anyone told him. It did not seem like he was a Jedi Master, more like a Jedi Knight or a Padawan.

Another piece that is almost laughable is a topic I joke about any time I read about a Jedi falling in love. They really should tell Jedi the truth about why Jedi should not fall in love. It is not about attachment, it is because someone WILL DIE. I have read many Star Wars novels and it is an instant death sentence for someone as soon as they confess feelings for anyone in a romantic way.

Sadly, there was one exception to this rule up until now. Quinlan Vos and Khaleen got a happily ever after… but like Disney fixed Sleeping Beauty’s parents (being the only Disney Princess with living parents) in Malificent, Disney has now fixed Vos’ happily ever after.

Seriously guys, you cannot find another way to end a relationship without killing one of them? Let’s change it up every once in a while, okay?

Gay marriage: Don't be a bigot.

Bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

I'm going to start this off by saying I am not opposed to the Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states. The decision does not really affect me.

But what does affect me are all of the bigots on both sides of this issue. Yes, you can be a bigot and be for gay marriage. All of the hate posts and slander I have seen from both sides today shows me that there are an abundance of bigots on both sides.

I was blocked by someone today when I pointed out that not everyone on the anti-gay marriage side is an uneducated bigot. We would do much better in our posts today if we stop for a minute and remember that the person on the other side of the political spectrum is not an ignorant uneducated hater. They probably just have a different opinion.

So if you feel that everyone who was against gay marriage is an ignorant fool, you, my friend, are a bigot. In reality, both sides are very educated on the topic, they just hold different opinions.

This is America. Let us just say what our opinion is and that we disagree with the other side and vote on it. NO INSULTS NEEDED. It only makes your side look bad.

A.D. The Bible Continues review

A little background about me (just a tiny bit, I promise), I love to study the early church and have read many historical works from the time of Jesus and through the first few centuries of Christianity. So the history found in A.D. The Bible Continues is something that fancies me so it was impossible for me not to watch this show.

I love it! I'm caught up to "Saul's Return" and have found it phenomenal.

But I have been asked how historically accurate it is. The answer to that is it is mostly historically accurate. There are a few discrepancies and I'll discuss a few in a minute, but it is important to note that the show is 90% not historical, but fiction derived from the history. There is only about 10% history referenced at all in the show. The rest is an adventurous fiction derived from the history (like most historical fiction is).

There are so many things I like about the fiction they have created surrounding the history. If you read Josephus or Tacitus or even Acts, there is very little emotion expressed in those writings. It is clear they are meant to record history. This show is not meant to tell history as if it were a documentary. It is meant to express the emotion felt during that time and I believe it is doing a great job of it!

The rivalry between Saul and Peter was so well done. The tension in Jerusalem from the Roman presence, Pilate and Caiaphas and their wives, it really makes it all so personal. The persecution of the early church coupled with its growth. How the apostles probably did a lot of hiding from the authorities. It's a great show.

So now that I talk about the small things I don't like or wish they had done differently, do not let them keep you from watching it. It is still a good show.

The few discrepancies I have seen are small and mostly (but not entirely) insignificant. They do show several appearances of Jesus, but it was far less than what is recorded. Jesus only appears to the disciples a few times in the show before his Ascension, but according to Acts 1:3 Jesus appears to them seemingly many times over the period of 40 days (over a month!) to speak with them and eat with them. They could have had Jesus be a regular character for 2-3 episodes before the ascension.

Another is that on the third day, Jesus did not just appear to the apostles, he appeared to the disciples who fled. They mentioned the members who fled in the show but they didn't mention or show that Jesus appeared to them on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13-35. I could have seen a very cool episode where this happens to the disciples that fled and how the returned to Peter and the apostles afterward. Though from a tv stand point, that's more actors and probably would have cost more money in casting, so I can understand why that may have not made the cut for the show.

But one of the coolest things they could have easily done was the appearance to the 500. In 1 Corinthians 15:6, Paul recites possibly the earliest Christian creed which includes Jesus' appearance to more than 500 people at once. It does seem to be in order so it had to have occurred before Paul's conversion. The perfect time to do that would have been after Peter and Paul's debate in front of the believers camp. Having Jesus appear to the camp after Paul's exit would have been such a great time to do that. I think they really missed an opportunity there.

Those are what I'd consider the most significant. The other small things that are completely inconsequential are they have Peter's wife dying prior to the resurrection. Early church historians however record Peter's wife living long after the resurrection and eventually being martyred shortly before Peter himself is. I think they did this to show a sense of sacrifice in Peter on the show.

The emperor did die in bed and it is recorded that his successor did kill him, but it was certainly not in Jerusalem. Though I'm glad they did it that way. Learning of the Emperor's death through a letter would have been way less dramatic.

It's Hollywood so we can't expect them to cast unattractive people but Paul was probably short and bald. Though the guy they cast is really good at displaying Paul's fervor.

These things are minor compared to the things they do have right. They are really getting across the might and arrogance of Rome, the steadfast devotion of the Jews to the Temple, Pilate's cruelty, Caiaphas self righteousness. So bravo to them. I look forward to the coming episodes!

Why I became a Creationist.

I mostly want to tell this because speaking with many who are not Creationists has shown a great many prejudices of me that simply are not true. Most believe all Creationists are anti-science and run around shouting "God dun it" to any question they are asked. Some believe Creationists are not curious about the universe and all things in it and do not seek answers to hard questions. In fact, it surprises some to learn that I believed fully in evolution until I was 17 years old.

The honest truth is though I was raised in the Bible Belt, I had never even heard of Creationism until late in my teens. I never even knew there was an alternative view other than evolution. I remember asking my mom in my tweens how evolution produced Adam and Eve. She was far from an apologist at the time and her unsure answer did not satisfy my curiosity.

Throughout my up bringing, I was always interested in the sciences. Astronomy was my strong suit and I always did really well in those classes, even getting an award in high school for highest academic performance in Astronomy my junior year. Star Trek fueled this.

Being a sci-fi geek always pushed me to study various sciences and certainly colored my beliefs in things such as extraterrestrial life and of course evolution. But at this time, I honestly did not even know it was a controversial topic. I just wanted to know more.

The more I dug into the sciences like Astronomy and Biology, the more I started seeing a pattern. The classes I took in these subjects skipped mountains of details. I started to learn how many questions science raised about evolution and how many things biologists disagreed on. How do you disagree on a scientific finding? Apparently, it is quite common.

I started learning that the closer you get to the details, the more questionable the science was. And it was then that I learned that scientists are human. There was no magic formula to display evolution. It was almost all educated guessing. The worst part is that it was educated guessing stacked on top of educated guessing. It was a giant house of cards and if any of these educated guesses were not true, the whole thing would come tumbling down. And then I learned that it already had.

There is no single point of evolution that all scientists agree on. Does that seem weird? I know of no scientist arguing for a different formula to calculate gravity, yet evolution is a flexible science such that scientists can disagree with each other on every single point.

So then I started looking at their track record. How many times have we discovered a living fossil and how many times did that living fossil confirm of deny their hypothesis about it? There are several cases of living fossils and someone can correct me on this if I am wrong, but I have yet to read about one that they accurately predicted things about these animals.

It was science that drove me away from evolution. It seemed that while science can do a great job of predicting the future, it seemed pretty poor at predicting the past. I really just stopped believing we could have a sure answer on the past using what science we know.

At this time, I was wandering around a Family Christian bookstore and saw a book called "Science and the Bible". I had never even thought of these two as something that could be put together so it intrigued me. I bought it and read it.

I would not have labeled myself a Creationist after reading that book, but it certainly confirmed a lot of my beliefs that science was not a good predictor of past events. The other hypothesis presented in the book were intriguing but like evolutionary science, it was little more than a hypothesis.

I find Creationist hypothesis fascinating and I love to read their scientific findings, but they honestly are not why I am a Creationist. They can no more prove Creationism than science can prove or disprove Evolution. Origin science simply is too plastic and too much guessing for anyone to say anything for certain using what science we know.

I am a Creationist because Jesus is. After finding out how unsure our science is, I decided to reference the man who sacrificed himself for his creation and I would take on his point of view.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female...'" -Matthew 19:4

I do not think anyone would argue that billions of years later is the beginning of anything. Jesus clearly believed the literal Genesis account of creation and since he knows more than me, I will trust him.

This is not anti-science. I am a big fan of science and I have studied this topic a great deal over the past 15 years or so and I have yet to find any solid science that contradicts the literal Genesis account. If you believe there is some, let me know, I am more than willing to have a dialog about the topic.

 

Can someone that does not know Jesus be saved?

In the Christian world, many times a question is asked among skeptics and believers both. The scenario usually goes along the lines of, what about the man who never hears about Jesus? Can he be saved? This can vary from being general to being more specific about a tribe on an island that no one has ever visited.

More realistically we can consider the few "uncontacted peoples" of the world. There are a few known tribes of people in the world who are "uncontacted" meaning no one outside of their tribe has ever spoken or met anyone in their tribe in possibly thousands of years.

There is no quick answer to this question and anyone who tries to give a quick answer, I question their studies.

But I do want to discuss the first quick answer that many Christians give as a default. Many will say one cannot be saved at all unless they believe in Jesus and possibly siting Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9, Mark 16:16, and John 12:46. All of these verses have a common theme and that is to describe that if you believe in Jesus, you will be saved.

These verses are certainly important for establishing that those who accept Jesus' sacrifice as their means of salvation are guaranteed 100% admission into Heaven. However, that is not the end of the story. We cannot believe all that is said about salvation can be summed up in those few sentences.

So then the question is raised, are all who believe in Jesus saved? To this, I will refer to Jesus:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ -Matthew 7:21-23

Let's keep in mind who these people are. These people were able to drive out demons and perform miracles and prophesied. They certainly believed Jesus existed and believed in his power. But when Jesus sends them to Hell, they instantly point to their own deeds to save them. They wanted their own goodness to be worthy of Heaven. Even though they knew of Jesus and his authority, they missed something vital. What was it?

They were missing humility. Their first response should not have been "but we did all these good things!" It should have been, "but your grace was supposed to save us!" Their response shows they did not have faith in Jesus' sacrifice, they had faith in their own deeds.

I am sure some of you are wondering how this ties into the people who do not know Jesus at all, but stick with me.

This points to the very first criteria of salvation. I find it funny that it's kind of the first step in a 12 step program. The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that you have one. Similarly, the first step to salvation is admitting that we need it.

This is actually more widely known and accepted than most realize. While I am not an endorser of the sinner's prayer, the first line of it is "I know I am a sinner." This line is it. It is the prompting of the Holy Spirit to recognize we are bad people. We do not need the Bible to recognize we are bad. No one has to tell us how good God is for us to recognize how bad we are (though the second thing that happens when you do realize how good God is, is to recognize how bad we are).

Jesus seems to suggest this very thing when He is questioned by the pharisees.

When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” -Matthew 9:11-13

And again Jesus tells of a man justified when says:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Luke 18:9-14

Jesus says here about a tax collector who the only thing he did was confess he was a sinner, that he went home justified.

Jesus does not call the religious or the strong or the patriotic. He calls the down trodden, the poor, and the sinner. None of these things are specific to ethnicity or religion or creed. Jesus does not care about your background, He cares that you know you need Him.

So let us dig a little further. Can a person be saved without knowing Jesus? While a knee jerk response to say "no", no Christian truly believes that. I know because all Christians believe Abraham and Moses are in Heaven (because Jesus says so). They did not know Jesus. Had they known his name, they would have surely recorded it. Had they known exactly what He would do, they would have told us more specifically. But they did not. They knew they would be saved and that faith was credited to them as righteousness, not their deeds (Romans 4).

So now we know that people can be saved who did not know Jesus. So how do we know these people know God? It is from the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit came, he prompts people (everyone in the world without discretion) to do the following things:

When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. - John 16:8-11

When a person (anyone at all regardless of their ethnicity or religion) is convicted of their sin or wrong doing and humbles themselves to admit they are a bad person, they are following the prompting of the Holy Spirit, of God himself. To over simplify it, they are listening to God.

I believe anyone who listens to this prompting and truly understands that they are not worthy of any kind of reward and deserve punishment for their wrong doing, will find Jesus' grace.

Do not in anyway misunderstand what I am saying. We cannot and will not be saved without Jesus' grace but I do not believe you need to know Jesus' name to receive his grace.

So then the question usually follows, what is the point of evangelism if people who do not know Jesus can be saved? However, hopefully it is pretty obvious by now what that answer is.

What a miserable existence it would be to follow the prompting of the Holy Spirit and recognize how sinful and wretched we are and never get beyond that. How horrible to live one's whole life knowing he has done wrong and live in guilt his entire life without knowing God has sent his own Son to save him. And that is why we evangelize. That is why we bring the Good News to the world!

Jesus' message has always been to the poor in spirit and the down trodden and the sinner. The arrogant and righteous have always opposed Jesus and will continue to. Some have even tried to use Jesus' name to prove their own righteous deeds. I'm usually reminded of those who spend their time pointing out other people's sins without ever acknowledging their own.

I believe their are Muslims who believe they are sinners and unworthy. Despite the fact that Muslims teach a salvation based on works, there are many who know they cannot and will not live up to such standards and there are many who would never acknowledge such a failing. For those who do acknowledge they cannot earn their salvation and are miserable and unrighteous I believe that Jesus will comfort them at the end of their lives as He has been calling them the whole time. To them who do believe they are worthy, Jesus is more than willing to let them try. But so far the track record of people who have worked their way into Heaven is not good.

Indiana's Freedom of Religion law is good and bad.

When I read about the new law, I felt initially that it's sad that a law like this needs to exist and I was sad for the people that are going to abuse it.

When people started suing businesses for not participating in gay marriage I definitely felt like they were infringing on their freedom of religion. But this new law includes not serving them at a restaurant. To me that is certainly not a biblical thing to do.

Any Christian should be willing to serve all sinners of any kind in their business. There is a difference though when a business is supporting an event. If I owned a bakery I would have no issue serving and selling anything in my store to a homosexual couple, but if they wanted me to make a cake to celebrate their marriage, I would refuse.

As a Christian I don't feel that would be serving them at all but rather being a part of encouraging them to continue down a sinful road. It would be the same as making a cake for a husband's mistress celebrating 2 years of adultery.

So while I feel most of the law is good, I definitely don't like that they can refuse to serve them at all in a restaurant if they are gay. If that's the case then they should ban all sinners from their restaurant and then they'd go out of business.

Hopefully it is either not abused or reformed. Though honestly, I'd rather see Christians sued for refusing service than to see Christians kicking people out of their restaurant because they're sinners.

Update: A bill is now in the works to clarify that businesses will not be able to refuse service to anyone.

http://m.hannity.com/articles/news-476261/audio-gov-pence-on-religious-freedom-13459250/

nVidia Shield console brings Android into the gamer realm.

I have read a lot of criticism of the new nVidia Shield console this morning, but nothing I read was very concerning. It was mostly people comparing Shield to previous attempts at entering the console realm and immediately dismissing it.

What they missed was the fact that this Android console will have launch titles that appear on the current gen consoles (notably Borderlands Prequel). Not a dumbed down version, but the same version you would get on the PS4 or Xbox One. This means the console has the same capabilities as current gen consoles at a significant discount.

The $199 price tag sold everyone. Nintendo can't even hit that price point. But what is really going to make this succeed is the games on it. Nvidia has a close relationship with all of the big name game developers so when they release this console, you know they had some big names up on the stage. They hit some beautiful games from the FPS, RPG, and puzzle genres. Running Crysis 3 really put it over the top. Can it run Crysis? 3? Yes, and at 4k resolution! This was not a Grid stream, it was playing it straight off the device.

So does it have games? Yes and in abundance.

It is also running Android TV which means it has access to the Play Store and also their Shield Store (which looked a lot like the Play Store). This also opens it up to much hackery. Android TV can install APKs which opens it up to just about anything people want to install on it.

It has two USB 3.0 ports along with an SD Card expansion to allow virtually unlimited storage. I, personally, have a USB 3.0 500gb HDD just waiting to be hooked up to it. This is extremely important for this console because it is disk-less and will download all games to it. Current gen games can be greater than 10gb a piece easily so the stock 16gb will obviously not be enough.

In addition to that, it will also come with access to Grid. This is nVidia's version of cloud gaming and it looks great in theory. I should point out that I truly believe cloud gaming is the future of gaming. Instead of 1 teraflop of current gen console's power, Grid offers a platform with 5 teraflops. I cannot even think of a PC that can touch those speeds. The "PC Master Race" is dwarfed by Grid capabilities. The only problem is, it streams.

Grid is an amazing service that works flawlessly. The problem is the same cannot be said for my ISP. I already get throttled for using Netflix too much, streaming Grid games will only make it worse. When Google finally gets to my area and I can use them for an ISP, this will be perfect, but until then, it will remain a future dream.

One thing I found interesting is that almost every developer who stated they were porting their games to Grid (games like Batman Arkham Knight and other yet to be released games) they said they were also porting it to a downloadable game for the Shield also. So most of the upcoming games that will be on Grid will also be available for download via the Shield Store or Play Store.

The Android gaming revolution begins this May. Welcome to a new free and open gaming choice with no holds barred development. This riding on the heals of Unreal Engine 4 becoming a free Engine and Valve's Source 2, this year should bring some extremely cool things.

UPDATE: Notable features not mentioned in the presentation are that it is confirmed to have NVIDIA GameStream to stream your PC games to it. It also has an IR blaster to control your TV and Receiver.

Why Net Neutrality is an important issue.

One of the reasons I rarely post about politics is because honestly, most of the issues today are First World Problems. Everyone has an opinion about what is important and what is not important about gay marriage and marijuana legalization, but do you really think Ethiopia or Egypt or other struggling countries care about these issues? They have more important legislation to focus on.

Net Neutrality, on the other hand, is an issue that every country cares about and effects everyone in the country. It is up there with Freedom of Speech and Human Rights. On one extreme we have China that filters all of their media via ISPs and culls mass gathering organization via ISP firewalls and keeps out other countries news in order to control the masses. The Egyptian government shut down the internet when they felt the population was organizing a revolt. The Middle East filters out and persecutes those who post anti Muslim content.

Prior to the FCC ruling we had no such restrictions on our ISPs and they could literally do whatever they wanted. The idea was that ISPs could self regulate and be reasonable and ethical all on their own without government intervention. If they wanted to filter out media from a specific political party they could, but we trusted them not to. We assumed they were ethical enough on their own to not do such things.

Then the Netflix/Comcast thing happened and everyone suddenly realized this trust was violated. Verizon jumped on the money train and CenturyLink did too and it went from one company violating trust to starting down a path no one liked (except big business).

That's when Obama petitioned the FCC to make the Net Neutrality ruling that eventually came to pass.

Since then I have heard some of the most uneducated statements about this than I have ever seen about any topic. That is why I have posted so much about this recently. I am terrified this amazing ruling that will do so much good for our country will be overturned.

The FCC is not governing websites. They are not doing anything with websites. They are governing ISPs. They are essentially saying they cannot block or throttle sites just because they do not like them or because their product competes with something ISP does.

This issue is not party specific. Even though it was Obama that petitioned the FCC to make this ruling, it should not be associated solely with the Democratic party. Absolutely no one stands to gain from being anti-Net Neutrality except for big business ISPs who can (and do) blackmail websites out of their profits.

Even if you don't like the bill being passed right now, for crying out loud, do not be anti-Net Neutrality. It is on the same level as being anti-Freedom of Speech. Even if you want something different passed, that's fine, but do not stop Net Neutrality legislation! The big business ISPs have failed to be ethical and the government SHOULD intervene now because they have violated our trust and will continue to do so with no regrets!

A Plea to Republicans about Net Neutrality

I read a blog from a Republican yesterday that made me feel like there are a lot of people out there grossly unaware of what is going on right now. I found this quote in the blog:

The typical nightmare scenario that gets trotted out goes something like this: Comcast, the giant ISP that controls NBC Universal, will push its own content on users by simply blocking sites that offer competing content. Or maybe it will degrade the video streams of Netflix and Amazon so no one will want to watch them. Or perhaps Comcast will just charge Netflix a lot of money to make sure its streams flow smoothly over that "last mile" that the ISP controls. Or perhaps Comcast will implement tighter and tighter data caps on the amount of usage a given subscriber can use per month, but exempt its own content from any such limitations.

It's worth noting—indeed, it's worth stressing—that essentially none of these scenarios has come to pass over the past 20 years, despite the lack of Net Neutrality legislation.

 My Republican friends, welcome to the nightmare. Every scenario this person laid out has come to pass and is currently happening today.

For years Comcast and other ISPs have been throttling Netflix and YouTube and other video streaming services. They were caught in this act and even confirmed it. Finally Comcast stopped denying it and said "Yeah, we're doing it and if you want us to stop then you'll have to pay us part of your profits... Deal with it!"

Netflix, being blackmailed out of their profits, eventually agreed to pay because what other choice did they have?

But it didn't end there. Now Verizon wants a cut too in order to stream Netflix at full resolution. So again, Netflix has to divy up it's profit to ISPs that do nothing. Where does it end? Are all ISPs going to adopt this extortion tactic? And what about other companies that cannot afford this blackmailing?

I have heard Republicans say this FCC ruling will stifle innovation but I cannot imagine anything stiffing innovation more than if this continues.

I understand that Obama asked the FCC to make this ruling and therefore Republicans are required to hate it, but put down the political walls for a second and see what is happening around us. Big business is clearly NOT capable of making good choices here.

If you think what the businesses are currently doing is okay, I want to tell you my Comcast tale. I love watching Netflix and so does my whole family, we watch it as much as we can. And even though Netflix pays Comcast to not throttle them, they throttle us 1 out of every 4 weeks.

That's right, even though Netflix pays a huge chunk of money to make sure their video gets to me, Comcast still will not let me watch it as much as I like. So even after they have been blackmailed and paid up, they are still holding broadband hostage because Netflix hurts their TV package sales.

This is not a nightmare scenario, this is the reality we are living in today and if you think it's going to get better on its own without government intervention you are fooling yourself as they have clearly demonstrated otherwise.

You can hate all the Democratic bills you like and continue cringing at everything Obama says, but PLEASE do not act or vote against these Net Neutrality actions. Despite the fact that it is supported by Obama, both parties and all of America will benefit from Net Neutrality.

Judging God

Today I was speaking to a skeptic and he asked a question I have heard many times. The way I respond is never liked but it is the truth. I do not want anyone to think this is a straw man argument so I will just quote him:

So, let's say I get caught stealing a loaf of bread from a baker. I get taken before the Judge and he asks me how I plead. I plead guilty and offer to reimburse the baker for the bread and do 100 hours of public service.
But instead, the Judge tells me I must choose between getting no punishment at all in return for worshiping him forever, or being tortured and executed.
Does that sound like a just deal to you? Does that sound like a deal I should be thankful to receive?

There are many problems with the analogy. First is the mistake of believing there is "no punishment at all." When we accept Jesus as our salvation, the punishment was taken by Jesus. So the analogy would be better served by having the Judge offer his own son take the torture and execution in his place. The biggest problem though is that the judge is human.

Were this judge human, I could see his point. Seems odd and unreasonable because he is really no better than the person being judged. I can also understand humans because I am one myself. The judge is not omnipotent and can only process so much of the accused's life to make such a judgement. In short, the judge of the analogy is flawed.

So let's change the analogy to a judge who is not human, but an omnipotent all-knowing being. That in itself is not enough, so let's add that this judge created the accused and the world the accused lives in. Now we have a better picture.

Are you omnipotent? Can you see all things and know all things? I cannot. I do not know what that's like. Such a power is far beyond my comprehension. I can, to some degree, create things. I can create programs, and art, and machines. In this sense, I can minutely understand being a creator.

So let's go down that path. What if my programs I write decided one day that I'm doing it wrong and they know better than me. Is this reasonable for my program to do this? What if my graphic told me it had too much blue in it? What qualification does my picture have to make such a judgement?

In the same way, I have no grounds by which to judge God and whether or not He is moral. I cannot fathom all of the things God knows that I do not. It would be like a worm trying to understand how to program Java. No matter how hard the worm tries, it simply is not capable of doing such a thing because it is not on the same level as me.

This is where trust comes in. There are some people who see what God does and determines that God is cruel and unjust and mean. Another sees the exact same actions and drops to his knees with thankfulness of how merciful God is. To me, this is evidence of the Holy Spirit in people's lives.

Some people have set themselves up to be God's enemy by choice. Kind of reminds me of most Democrats and Republicans I know. They predetermine to hate whatever the opposing party does no matter what it is. To some Democrats, Republicans can do no right and some Republicans, Democrats can do no right (sometimes even when they do the same things). The same way to some people God can do no right and to others (like me) everything He does is right.

Is it cruel for God to send people to Hell for eternity for all of the bad things they have done in their life? That's not a question I'm even willing to answer because I am not qualified to judge God's morality.

Skeptics will hate this answer but it's the truth. I just recognize that I deserve Hell for all the sins I have committed and I would worship God for the mercy He gave me from his Son even if He did not ask me to.

Tech Mash: LyteShot + Project Tango VR Headset

Okay Google ATAP, I hope you hear me on this one:

So who are the players in this game of Tech Mash?

In corner one, we have LyteShot. This is a startup trying to reach a Kickstarter for an upgraded version of laser tag. It looks super fun the way it is. With the standard laser tag features you get a "wii remote" type of laser gun and a sensor to put on yourself. You can add attachments to the gun to make it an actually gun or dagger or wand or (in the future) bow and arrow, etc.

They also have a HUD glasses they are working on that can show you the position of the other players, give you a quick look at the scores and have other information you need on the fly.

From there, all players in the game use their smartphones and the game can keep score and play alternative games such as Assassin or capture the flag or any thing others come up with. It's open source so anyone can develop games for this laser tag platform. It really does sound super cool as is.

In the next corner, we have Google's Project Tango with a VR Headset. I always felt that would be an amazing addition to Project Tango as it can sense the world around you in 3D and basically turn your living room into a jungle and you can hunt tigers in your back yard. With the VR headset it would make you feel like you were right there.

One of the things LyteShot boasts is the ability to create different rules and classes for it's players playing in the real world. So basically you can play a warrior class and a wizard class and a military class. All using the same laser gun with various attachments. And while that is for sure, really cool, there are limits since it is real world. You could never be a non-human class.

So what if you hooked these contraptions up to Project Tango VR? Suddenly the boundaries have been eliminated. Tango could potentially overlay a player with any thing. Imagine a LyteShot game where it's all versus the dragon and a physical player is the dragon. Using the remotes they are all attacking the person who is the dragon and with the Tango VR headset, all the players actually see the player as a dragon!

It's the best of both worlds. Live physical world games with the fantasy advantages of augmented reality. You can either cosplay your character or generate your character by selecting a 3D model to overlay yourself so that when the other players see you, they only see your avatar moving in sync with you.

What do you think? Is this something you'd pay $200 or $500 for?

How to be an Online Apologist

In Christian apologetics, we essentially take the role of a lawyer both pleading and defending the case for Jesus. Many times we forget this and spend far too much time debating on inconsequential things. I hope to share this week some techniques I have picked up over the years that will help apologists stay on topic and focus on the real issue.

Often we assume to much in a debate and those assumptions can lead to easy counter arguments and off topic conversations.

Reply in Love

Remember, we are playing the roles of lawyers in a court case. It is very important to keep your debate professional. Especially as Christians it is important to respond in love, gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). Whenever we post our responses to even the most livid of atheists, we should always make sure our response can pass all of the criteria mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 because we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44).

Keep it Focused

Stay on topic! Skeptics will often respond to Christian apologetics by diverting the topic. For example, I have had people consistently bring up pedophilia among Catholic priests in the middle of a debate. When these type of things happen, ignore it. Don't try to defend it, don't try to call them out on trying to divert the conversation, simply ignore it. It's not relevant and they probably know it, it's simply a way to get around answering harder questions.

Always make sure they answer your questions. Many times if they do use diverting statements, it is because they do not want to answer your question. Other times it is because they may think it answers your question, but always make sure they answer your question. If you need to, ask the question again.

Build a Case

One piece of evidence is not enough. A question I get often from atheists is "What is the one piece of evidence that makes you believe the resurrection occurred?" Whether they intend it to be or not, if you answer this question, you will have walked into a trap. One piece of evidence is not enough to believe anything at all. There is nothing we believe based solely on one piece of evidence. If you give them only one piece of evidence, they can and will be able to counter it, because anyone can counter one piece of evidence. Even if you say "I saw the resurrected Jesus myself" they could counter with hallucinations or many different things which can manipulate sight. One piece of evidence is never enough evidence.

Remember again, we are playing the role of a lawyer. No lawyer can win a case on one piece of evidence alone. We have to build a case based on significant amounts of evidence, not simply one piece. You may want to practice this part and play around with your responses. I rarely answer the question at all and ask them what one piece of evidence makes them believe there is no god. Another response would be to get three or four pieces of evidence you know well and lay them all down at once. It will force the atheist to create a string of counter arguments, to which you can simply reply "Or Jesus was resurrected. Which is the most simple answer?"

They are Watching

You may not be writing these responses for the skeptic themselves. Remember that in public forums many times other people are reading your conversation. This is another reason you want to keep your responses reasonable and professional and loving. Even if the skeptic is being livid, if someone else is reading the conversation, you will lose credibility in their eyes if you are livid right back at them. Rarely have I ever seen a skeptic concede during a debate, but many times I have been contacted days and even weeks later by people who read a debate of mine just to thank me for what I said and how much it encouraged their faith. With this in mind, remember others are paying attention, even if you don't see them.

Keep it Short

Keep it as short as you can. Even if they write 10 pages, I often will only write maybe a paragraph or two in response. This assures a few things. One is that they will read your entire response. Long responses are often not read in forums, many TL-DR it (too long, didn't read). Two, it leaves little room for confusion of what you are trying to get across.

Some techniques I use to keep it short is only responding to one point at a time. The skeptic may have brought up several points of contention, however, if you reply to all of them, then their response gets longer till no one wants to read either response. Keep it focused. One topic at a time, one question at a time. These type of responses seem to keep the case able to move forward.

You Probably Do Not Know Them

It is important to keep prejudices out of the conversation. That alone can be the most diverting topics. Avoid statements like "you probably..." or "I bet you..." Even if you happen to be right about your assumption, it is irrelevant to the conversation and does not help your case. It will most likely make them defensive of themselves and not the issue at hand. Such statements are a waste of time and will get you no where.

"Faith" and "Evidence" are not contradictory terms.

I have heard countless times over the course of debating with skeptics that I cannot have faith if there is evidence because evidence would negate the need for faith. There tend to be a miscommunication as to what "faith" means. Even believers sometimes get the meaning of "faith" wrong by the biblical definition.

Mr. Russel is actually wrong. We do speak of evidence when we speak of faith. If anyone has ever asked about having faith in their spouse, they immediately respond with several pieces of evidence, like "she has never lied to me," or "she has never even looked at another man" or "she just gives me this look and I know she loves me." Those things are evidence and because of those pieces of evidence we have faith or trust in someone.

While skeptics would like to use the term to accuse believers of ignoring evidence, that is actually blind faith. Blind faith is faith without evidence. Faith however, almost always requires evidence in order to have it. No where in the bible is anyone ever expected to have blind faith in God.

The word "faith" in Greek (the language of the New Testament) is interchangeable with the English word "trust." The ironic thing is, "faith" by a biblical definition almost demands evidence. You would use the word when saying "I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow." While there is no proof the sun will rise tomorrow, there are certainly substantial reasons to believe it will.

In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), the rich man is told that people should believe because of Moses and the other prophets. The evidence of God's power was seen by so many. Today, we live in an age of archaeology and history that generations were without. With books like Evidence for Christianity by Josh McDowell and other apologetic works, it is not hard to find evidence. Aside from that, science has only scratched the surface of God's amazing creation which gets more complex with each passing discovery. The evidence for God can be overwhelming.

So how can we have faith with so much evidence? Faith, in the bible, has always been in God's promises, not in His existence. His existence is hard to question with the surmounting evidence we find, but faith on our part has always been in God fulfilling His promises. While we know what all God has done, we do not know what He will do. And because of what we know He has done, we can have faith in what He will do.

That is the kind of faith the Bible speaks of. Specifically in Hebrews 11, we find a list of those who had faith that God would fulfill his promise and each one mentioned in that chapter had plenty of reasons and evidence previously that strengthened their faith in what God would do.

So if you ask someone why they believe and all they can say is "I just have faith." They do not understand what the term means. As both Peter and Paul encourage us to be ready with an answer when asked for the reasons of our faith, we too should no why we believe.

We should not have faith that contradicts the evidence any more than we would trust a person who has betrayed us several times. I trust God exists because every where I can test the evidence, it has come through. So now I have faith in the things I cannot test. That is how biblical faith works.

Faith is a gift from God. He has never had to do anything to give us evidence. He could have left us after the garden and given us no reason to believe. Instead He has provided more evidence than we can ever know the extent of.

If you would like some resources to some of these evidences, I recommend the following:
Evidence for Christianity by Josh McDowell
Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace

ARA will do to hardware what Android did for software.

Freedom!

When Android was brand new, many thought Android was just an iOS wannabe. I recognized right away the revolution that Android was bringing. An open platform for developers to play on and do whatever they like with no restrictions. From the individual developer to the large corporations, everyone has an even playing ground.

Over the years, Android matured into a user-friendly OS that anyone can operate. Defaulting to the most user friendly settings but allowing unlimited customization open to anyone to play around with while appealing to normal users.

ARA is following suit and doing this all over again with hardware.

Keeping up in the tech realm, I have seen many things over the years that have pushed the bounds of innovation only to be shelved because not everyone and their mom would want it in a smartphone. Basically if it did not appeal to multi-millions of users then it would never find its way into the tightly integrated smartphone chip board.

ARA destroys those boundaries and opens up everyone to prototype chips and... OPTIONS. For example, if you want a super camera (13mp camera with video capture at 900fps was demoed) you can get it. If you don't care about a front facing camera, leave it off and save money.

In the same way the openness of Android can be ignored, so can ARA's. If you don't want to build your entire phone, you can buy pre-packaged versions (such as a photographer's pack or a hiker's pack). This allows you to get the modules you'd want in an easy to choose way.

You can shop for and buy individual modules exactly like you would buy an app. Google is even working on ways to get same day and next day shipping in many areas.

Google is all over this and while it does have the backing of some big companies, it does not need it. We are going to see hardware makers coming out of the wood works on this one.

I can not wait to get my hands on one and see the many modules I can not even imagine right now.

P.S. If you were wondering about the unique modules, Google reported that 75 applicants applied for the $100k contest to create a module that would be used daily and has not been seen in a smartphone currently. They reported that out of those 75 applicants, 1/3rd of them met those criteria. That means 25 modules of uses for your smartphone that you would probably use daily that is currently not in any smartphone.

I am just itching to see what all of these are!