Hp 2420 Windows 7 64 bit driver issue

Ok, so tried to install the driver for a networked HP 2420 installed on a Windows Server 2003 (PLC6) onto a Windows 7 64bit.  The system said something to the effect that no driver could be found and "windows cannot find suitable driver".  So what you do is this.

Download the "HP Universal Print Driver for Windows PCL6" and install it on the system.  Install it as a universal device, not as specific printer.  Then in the printers folder, double click the printer icon.  In there you should be able to specify which printer to use and even install it as an icon in the Printers/Faxes folder for use in other applications.

Email me if you have issues with this printer specifically.

More on Christian Liberty

I was just reviewing Romans 14 with my Bible study group, it was evident that the point Paul is making is that while we as Christians have the liberty to eat/drink whatever we want, we should curb that liberty for the sake of the weaker brother. The weaker brother, in Rom 14, is a Jew who thinks eating pork, or foods sacrificed to idols is improper because of the Jewish law. 


Therefore, as stronger believers, it was imperative for the Gentiles not to look down on their fellow believers for their choice to honor God by not partaking. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians, Paul encourages believers not to worry about foods sacrificed to idols, but, if a fellow believer is troubled by it, to abstain in their presence. So the basic theme of Paul's writing in these instances is that the one stronger in the faith in regards to liberty, should voluntarily, and out of love, abstain in those instances. 


Paul, however, has a completely different message regarding those who TEACH abstinence of foods and beverages God has made holy. Paul does not tell Christians to lovingly put up with or curb freedoms for those who mishandle the Word so as to teach holiness comes through abstinence, rather he calls such the "teachings of demons" and says those who follow them are "depart[ing] from the faith". In Col 2 Paul exhorts: "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism..." and says "These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."


Paul's point cannot be clearer. In regards to fellow believers who are troubled by the holiness of specific foods, drinks, and activities not expressly forbidden by Scripture, those who are stronger in the faith are to lovingly forego their own liberty. Paul's writing, however, went to the entire church, weak as well as strong. They all read what he wrong and must recognize that indeed God made these things for us to enjoy, and that the weaker position is not one intended for believers to remain in, but to grow in strength in the faith. 


But in regards to teachers who use their stature and pulpits as a means by which to teach and enforce abstinence from foods God intended as a blessing to believers, Paul did not preach patience and compassion, but scorn and separation. For those who teach that the discussion of, use of, celebration of foods and beverages God gave us as a blessing to enjoy are somehow detrimental to the faith or the witness of Christians, for those who teach ahistorically that the wine in scripture was "watered down" or less potent of that today, for those who teach that the expression and celebration of our liberty from the bondage of man made rules and regulations is somehow evil in itself, Paul doesn't tell us to lovingly endure, or even put up with it for a moment.


Paul in fact tells Timothy to not mince words: "If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus...

New "Evolutionary" Find

Scientists have recently hailed the discovery of some fossil hominids in Africa, dubbed, "Australopithecus sediba".

The species is known from at least four partial skeletons discovered in the Malapa Fossil Site at the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site in South Africa, one a juvenile male (MH1, the holotype), an adult female (MH2), at least one other adult and an 18-month-old infant. - Wikipedia

Keep in mind that a 'holotype' is "a single physical example (or illustration) of an organism, known to have been used when the species (or lower-ranked taxon) was formally described."  Thus the most complete and clear example is a "juvenile male".  Here's what the critter looked like:

The cranium of Malapa hominid 1 (MH1) from South Africa,
named "Karabo". The combined fossil remains of this juvenile
 male is designated as the holotype for Australopithecus sediba.

There is much debate within the scientific community as to the placement of this creature within the supposed time-line of hominid evolution, but the thought is that this is a predecessor to modern homo sapiens. 

Notice, the angle and setting of the skull above, this skull was from a crushed specimen and glued back together and photographed at that most humble angle. This skull is also of a juvenile, which is important regarding the morphology of the creature as it ages. 

Now consider what is thought to be one of sebida's closest known relatives:

Australopithecus afarensis recreation

Australopithecus afarensis of the famed "Lucy" afarensis' is one of the most famous of these kinds of creatures. No complete skulls of afarensis have been found, the above photo is a recreation, however partials have been unearthed. 

Australopithecus afarensis

Note the wide and high brow ridge, the wide cheeks and the hint of a worn-down saggital crest (the tall, thin bony portion on the top of the skull) that is missing completely from the recreation.

It's evident from these fossils that afarensis would be quite similar in appearance to modern apes, chimps specifically. 

Now compare the above fossils with the following images:

Pongo pygmaeus - juvenile male

Pongo pygmaeus - juvenile female

These two skulls are plastic copies of juvenile creatures as well. Much more familiar are the shapes and morphology of these creatures, nearly human in appearance, in fact. Notice also just how different these two skulls are from one another.

Now consider the similarities with the above skulls to that of Homo sapiens:

These are ancient Homo sapiens skulls, but they certainly show much more similarity with the photos immediately above as compared to the others at the top, and yet, the photos immediately above these are of Pongo pygmaeus, the Orangutan. In it's adult form, the Orangutan's skull structure looks incredibly different and much more similar to the best Australopithecus afarensis example:

Pongo pygmaeus - Male Orangutan

My point is this: When looking at images of hominid ancestors, take into consideration the age of the individual when considering what it looked like. Do not accept multiple-specimen recreations verbatim as describing the species as a whole. Given science's difficulty exactly defining species, the rush to declare "new human ancestors" seems intended only to serve furthering evolutionary theories, rather than provide good science.  

Keep these things in mind when reading the rabid comments of atheists touting this new find as evidence against Biblical creation. 

Rev. Paul McCain and Louis Berkhof

On his November, 2010 blog post titled "Where Calvinism Goes So Deadly Wrong with the Law of God", Lutheran Paul McCain claims to quote from Louis Berkof's Systematic Theology, saying:

“Calvinists view the Law as necessary in securing justification. To secure is to establish, to make sure one’s status. The Law-keeping of sanctification is the basis on which the justified person receives benefits from the relationship he or she has with God. Calvinists say that “holiness, or conformity to the divine law, is the indispensable condition for securing favor, attaining peace of conscience, and enjoying fellowship with God” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1941, p. 472).

I can find no evidence of this quote. It's not in my copy of Berkhov, it's not anywhere on the Internet, and others (in the comment box) also question the quote.  Unfortunately it's been picked up by the official LCMS q/a site and a few other sites quoting the LCMS site.

The quote above is completely incompatible with Berhof's own confession of faith as with Reformed theology in general. It is, of course, completely in line with McCain's constant claims about Reformed theology, that we think we're justified by the law and so forth.

McCain is well known for his anti-Calvinist rhetoric. I've sparred with him in the past, as has Dr. White and others. He's well known for quoting things without checking sources and generally shooting his mouth off.

I believe this quote to be spurious. And I encourage McCain to provide direct physical evidence of this quote from original sources or publicly retract it, and see to it that the LCMS site also takes it down.

What do Calvinists actually believe about the Law of God and it's role in our lives?

Heidelberg Catechism

115. Q. Why, then, will God have the ten commandments preached so strictly, since in this life no one can keep them?

A. First, that all our life long we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and so become the more earnest in seeking remission of sins and righteousness in Christ; second, that we may constantly endeavor, and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be renewed more and more after the image of God, till after this life we arrive at the goal of perfection.

Why Confessions matter...

@JohnPiper God humbles Charismatics by making their children Calvinists; and Calvinists by making their children speak in tongues.

"In biblical times, wine was necessary for health reasons.... The result was a greatly diluted wine that had virtually no potential for making anyone drunk. This tendency to emblazon oneself with symbols of carnal indulgence as if they were valid badges of spiritual identity is one of the more troubling aspects of the YRR movement's trademark restlessness." - John MacArthur

 "On occasion I see things...it's the supernatural. It's a whole other realm. It's like 'The Matrix', you can take the blue pill, you can take the red pill. You go into this whole other world, and that's the way it works....I've seen women raped, I've seen children molested..."  - Mark Driscoll

Belgic Confession
Article 7
We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house.




What did the folks in the Old Testament do to false prophets? Oh, yeah... they stoned them.

Bank of America - Loan Modification - Process Hell

Disclaimer:  We incurred other debts while buying the home, however, we're on track to have those paid off within a couple years.

We were current on our mortgages until Bank of America told us they couldn't discuss a modification until we were behind. I do not believe in making covenants, promises, or contracts with people and then reneging on them... however my loan was made with Countrywide Financial, no one discussed Bank of America's purchase of my mortgage. No one discussed anything about our mortgage during any of this time, unless we demanded to know it. Feel free to email me to debate the ethics of this situation, however, I believe this loan was made in bad faith, by corrupt individuals intent on collectively scamming the American public. Bank of America, in fact, was bailed out by the American taxpayer for billions of dollars... this is what the American taxpayer can expect in return:

 

In 2007 my wife and I bought what was going to be our dream home. A modest little 2 bed, 2 bath house in the Central Valley of California, not far from her aging parents.
At the time we bought the home the market had dropped a bit, and I felt it was the right time to buy.

We paid roughly $440,000 for the home, everything included, in May, 2007.

It didn't take long for our investment to vanish. By early 2009 our home was estimated at $140,000.  Our neighborhood had turned over twice, with all our neighbors having been replaced by new neighbors. We believed that we were doing the "right thing" by continuing to pay mortgage, but felt we should investigate loan modification options.

When we first called Bank of America (who bought the loan from the defunct Countrywide), they told us that we were current on our loan and that they could not even start the loan modification process until we were behind on the loan. That's right, as good folks, doing what was right, scraping by to pay the mortgage... they couldn't help us or even talk to us about it.


We stopped paying our first mortgage (we have a smaller, second mortgage), and began the loan mod process with Bank of America. Our first round with them was difficult, sending them documents several times because "they didn't get it".

Our neighbors suggested we hire a company they knew of to help, they claimed this company saved them a lot of money.  I was against it, but my wife begged, so we paid a company $2500 to work with Bank of America to help through the process of the loan mod. This company promised to "get the loan modified or your money back".  Well, a year later, that company and the law firm they were working with have vanished.  They did do a lot of footwork, so I'm not totally unhappy about it, but we're out $2500.

Meanwhile, Bank of America robo-called us, daily, asking for money.  The first few times I called back I was connected with a teen-ager who asked me to pay my mortgage. He asked "how much can you pay today", and I replied, "Well if I become current on my loan, the loan modification process stops, right?"  About that time, they'd look up our details (why in the heck they didn't have them already available, who knows?) and tell us that we were under review and let us go, only to call us again, sometimes twice a day, the following day.

The American Dream - or not... our home, 2007

In the middle of 2010 we were denied our first loan modification as we were not "making enough money." My wife and I received substantial raises that year and our loan went back under review. We were then denied a modification, they told us, because we "made too much money."

We went again under review, providing them the same paperwork, over and over and over either because they needed updates or because they lost it. (You'd think a company that makes billions of dollars would be more careful with customer's paper work, but alas.)

Finally, in August of 2011 we were told that we'd exhausted our loan modification possibilities.  President Obama's "making home affordable" plan wasn't able to make home affordable, and Bank of America seemed intent on losing money on a short sale or foreclosure.

At no time during this process did anyone from Bank of American explain, discuss, negotiate, or even mention what was going on apart from vague references to the modification. We often received request for documentation after it's supposed due date, and, as I stated, had to re-fax items they claimed to have lost.

We're considering our options, hoping to hear from Bank of America as to how to get the short sale process going, so we can move on with the next chapter of our life. We were told in a letter from Bank of America that even coming current now with the loan will not save the home!

Consider this last tidbit... if not for the Home Foreclosure and Debt Consolidation Act of 2008 we would have to pay taxes on the loss the lender took on the short sale or foreclosure auction of the home.  That means in all likelihood we'd have to pay income taxes on the forgiven debt, of  about $300,000. In fact, if the house is not foreclosed or sold by 12/31/2012, we will have to pay taxes on the forgiven debt...  think about that.

The Happy Homeowners - 2007

UPDATE 8/16/2011

I spoke with Bank of America today, after tweeting my displeasure, they contacted me directly.

Here's what's up. Since my wife and I together make enough money to scrape by and pay our mortgage as it stands, Bank of America won't modify the loan.

That is, even though our home lost 69% of it's value in 2 years, Bank of America's goal with loan modification is to make MONTHLY PAYMENTS affordable for the home owner, NOT to deal with the fact that the home's value is gone.

I understand this viewpoint, if it were the other way around (say, it GAINED 60% of it's value), no one would be complaining. That said, the fact that my neighbors bought the SAME EXACT HOUSE for 1/3 the cost, less than 2 years after we bought ours, is no concern of theirs.

We still have to talk to their short sale department to see if a short sale with eliminate both first and second mortgages...

UPDATE 8/17/2011

I spoke with Denise Hayes in Bank of America's Short Sale department and she explained the process to me:

1. Get a real estate agent
2. List property
3. Get offer for property
4. Agent sends offer to Bank of America
5. Loan approval process for buyers 
6. Walk away...

Denise did not mention if we had to qualify or anything of that matter. She said there was no reason would not qualify (this remains to be seen.) She said the basis of the sale was on the offers, not on our qualifications.


Short Sale concerns:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104990739271023.html
http://homebuying.about.com/od/4closureshortsales/qt/021208_BuyShort.htm
http://homebuying.about.com/od/shortsale/f/Will-The-Bank-Approve-My-Short-Sale.htm

UPDATE 1/25/2012

A few weeks (in December) after our agent placed the sign on our lawn, a sign appeared on our door stating the house was going under "trustee's sale" (read: auction).  They STAPLED this to our door.  I contacted our agent who didn't seem concerned, she told us to give her the papers. I tweeted again to @BofA_Help, they got right back to me and explained that even though we were approved for the short sale process, BofA still moves forward with their foreclosure process.(!!!)  Even though THEY told us to short sale, they may still foreclose and auction the house. They said, however, that this was normal and that our agent needed to request an extension so that the auction would be postponed.

Since then, we've had two buyers attempt to purchase our home in short sale. The first fell through when Bank of America denied the sale. The second fell through just last week when the buyers were unable to get financing (what a difference from 2008.)

We were nearly ready to pack and move when we found out that last bit of information. So we're back to showing the house and hoping someone gets financing and BofA approves the sale.

Keep in mind, our home went from $440,000 (our purchase price) to $140,000 (the current appraised value of the home.)  We make enough money to own the home at $140,000 easily, but BofA is not interested in helping us keep the home.   With that in mind feast your eyes upon this image:

These are a few of the 200+ homes in our immediate area in some part of the foreclosure process. The green dots are foreclosures where the people are still in the homes, the blue are homes in the auction process (including ours) and the red dots are bank-owned homes.

If this is surprising you should see the map of 2000+ homes in Stockton, California in foreclosure.

Remember, Bank of America (and other banks) used taxpayer money to buy our home mortgage and others from the defunct Countrywide for pennies on the dollar...

My suggestions for newly minted Calvinists...

There was a time, over a decade ago, when someone introduced me to the Doctrines of Grace. For a few years after that moment, the amazing truth of God's exhaustive sovereignty was all I sought to talk about. When the church I was attending made it clear that Calvinism was unwelcome, I left and found a church where the pastor was Calvinistic, soon he was out and the Purpose Driven movement took root, I fought what I saw was (and truly is) an affront to God's Word and sovereignty and eventually was pushed to the periphery of the church. My wife and I sought a new church and found one that was confessional, and true to the Word of God.

Given these experiences, I have a few suggestions for those folks who find themselves newly exposed to the concepts of Calvinism, the Reformed understanding of the faith and the Doctrines of Grace in general.

One caveat... most of these points refer to where you are NOW. The intention is to get you solid food, grow you in the faith, and prepare you for your purpose in the economy of God.

1. Realize there is more to Reformed theology then just TULIP. - Reformed theology covers the gamut of theological concepts from soteriology (the understanding of how salvation occurs) to eschatology (the end times.) Don't be so focused on TULIP that you miss the foundations for it.
2. Beware the desire for crusade - You may feel compelled to reform your Arminian or Purpose-Driven megachurch. RESIST THE URGE. While your intention may be good, your methods and understanding of God's plan and purpose is probably muddled. I recommend discussing Calvinism with your elders/pastors and if they're opposed to it lovingly and calmly notify them that you intend to seek membership elsewhere. Put a damper on your desire to fight or argue until you are firmly established and being fed the Gospel weekly.
3. Do find a solid, confessional Reformed church. -Try here, here , here or here. Your initial desire once you leave your old church will be to find a Reformed or Calvinistic church that fits your chosen worship style etc. I recommend getting out of your comfort zone, visit a confessionally Reformed church. Notice the traditions therein and feel free to ask an elder or pastor after the service why they do church the way they do. You may find the hymns stuffy, the service rigid, the prayers long... but there are probably good, Biblical reasons why the church does what it does. Since you're on this quest to conform to a more Biblical position, perhaps there are other areas of theology that you might need to likewise conform.
4. Read, Read, Read - There is a vast treasury of Reformed knowledge and tradition freely available. Do not be afraid to explore concepts outside of your current position. If you're a Baptist, read paedobaptist literature to understand their position, it will help you defend your own. Likewise, if you're a Dispensationalist, read as to why Covenantal Amillennialists believe what they believe.
5. LOVE - You may find yourself debating everyone. Temper this urge. Remember that you are to explain the truth IN LOVE. It is hard to show love when you're yelling at someone. Be aware that what you now believe is completely foreign to most folks, and it will require supernatural intervention for them to accept it. Use the "Columbo method" in discussion, ask questions about passages of Scripture, be slow to interject. Learn to listen.
6. Avoid debates on minor issues. - It's fine to discuss, it's fine to debate, but avoid meaningless debates. Don't debate atheists on minutia, give them the Gospel and move on. Recognize that no matter how good your arguments are, how sound your logic, how eloquent your message... unless the Spirit of God opens their heart, they will not, and cannot understand or believe what you're saying. The only means by which they can come to understanding is through the clear proclamation of the Gospel, and that should be your primary intent. There are times and places for public debate and even those well gifted for it, right after you change positions is not that time.

I'm sure there are more, and others will add some. Think about this and let me know what you think.