How did people live without headlamps?

I love my Princeton Tec EOS Tactical. I had a headlamp like the Princeton Tec Fuel.  I liked how the FUEL look alike it could be angled down without changing its balance and the broad light of the quad LEDs.  Now it sits on my desk, waiting for another attempt with the super glue. So the EOS tactical wins on durability.  It had been through much and has never failed.  It is my coyote night hunting shotgun bead illuminator and can handle cold.  It is so handy for doing chores at night or working on parts of the house where the lighting is not in yet.  It is amazing how I don't even notice the dark when it is properly focused on what I am doing.

Argument against Pacifism pt.1

When I worked at agricultural training school in Florida we had many young people from Mennonite Central Committee(MCC) come through so we talked about pacifism several times.  One of the staff, who had served as a missionary to Mozambique claimed that MCC’s in country training included teaching people how to work a pump action shotgun.  The racking of the slide, or firing of a blank or rubber bullet was very useful in scaring off assailants.  At first I thought that was a sensible real-world adaption of their pacifist belief.  But then I realized that it only worked to frighten people because there were others who loaded their shotguns with lead and were willing to kill.  It wouldn’t work without those people.  That is how I feel about pacifism in general.  Where do you find pacifists?  Generally, in countries with strong rule of law enforced by violence or the threat of violence.  I have a hard time classifying “true” Christianity as a cultural parasite.

The New Testament gives a very positive pictures of soldiers and those who enforce the rule of law.  John tells them to do their duty and be content with their pay(Luke 3:14), a centurion had greater faith than all of Israel(Luke 7:9), a thief affirmed the justice of capital punishment and Christ, by his silence, gave his assent(Luke 23:40-43), a centurion was an upright, and God-fearing man (Acts 10:22).  Christ said to turn the other cheek but that if he strikes you on your right cheek (Matt 5:39) and the “right” is significant or it wouldn’t be there.  He also tells a parable assuming everyone understands the protection of property (Luke 11:21).

What I find really odd if we are not to be in a position where we might take another’s life is Paul’s repeated use of soldier metaphors.  If being a soldier were inherently wrong, why does Paul refer to “fellow soldiers” and encourages believer to be a “good soldier?”  Could he just as easily encouraged them to be a good rapist for Christ Jesus, getting the seed of the word past all resistance?  Sorry, that is really crass and I ashamed I thought of it but I think the point is valid.  In I Cor 9:7 Paul talks about soldiers, vine tenders, and shepherds.  Are two good and one bad, inherently? Is one good and two bad (because it it wrong to kill people or get drunk)?  Couldn't Paul find three inherently good examples and not muddle things?

Why talk about the armor of God?  It seems odd Paul would point out as example to imitate metaphorically, people who are in disobedience to Christ.  In the wisdom of God, he chose those metaphors because any people through out time who have a language to read God’s word in will, by necessity of the predatory nature of sinful man, be under the protection of the rule of law and will have soldiers/warriors to look to. 

They only point I contending for is that being in the position to enforce the rule of law is not inherently wrong. Terrible atrocities have been committed by soldiers. There are times when we are called to give our lives for Christ.  But persecution is different than crime.  See pt.2 for a biblical example.

A simple argument against premillennialism

The premillennialism rise has corresponded with a decline in the understanding of english grammar.  For example Revelation 20:6 has been cited as proving Christ will reign for 1000 years.  But that is not want it says.  Plug the last part of the verse into a sentence diagrammer and you get this

The subject of the clause is "they" not "him."  They will reign and for a thousand years (a long but not infinite period of time).  If I say I worked with my neighbor for a few hours, that does not tell you how long he worked.  Information provide about the subject of the clause cannot be assumed true of the determiner of the prepositional phrase (a.k.a. object of the preposition).  To determine how long my neighbor worked or how long Christ reigns we need more information.  The Bible provides that...about Christ, not my neighbor.

"Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet and there were loud voices in heaven saying The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ and he shall reign forever and ever" Rev 11:15

"For to us a child is born to us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor Mighty God Everlasting Father Prince of Peace Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end on the throne of David and over his kingdom to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this" Isaiah 9:6-7

"And Jesus came and said to them All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matt 28:18