jazzact13

i'm gonna tell!!!!

2009-08-08T11:25:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

I actually hope I get turned in, for posting this in a manner that is (obviously) in opposition to this health care bill, not to mention putting such lib non-think-tanks as sojo to the rod of ridicule, and for thinking that turning your fellow citizens in to the government for simple disagreement is an idea only liberals would love.

spreading the blame for the agenda

2009-06-03T06:47:00.000-07:00

Sojo has commented on the recent murder (please note the word murder) of an abortion provider. Of course, they make use of it by quoting a blog entry elsewhere by Franky Schaeffer (he who blames all on his father).

Abortion: Conversations, Not Killings
The same hate machine I was part of is still attacking all abortionists as “murderers.” And today once again the “pro-life” leaders are busy ducking their personal responsibility for people acting on their words. The people who stir up the fringe never take responsibility. But I’d like to say on this day after a man was murdered in cold blood for preforming abortions that I — and the people I worked with in the religious right, the Republican Party, the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church — all contributed to this killing by our foolish and incendiary words.

Ah, yes, one man acts in an irresponsible manner, and the whole pro-life movement is impugned.

Perhaps Sojo or Schaeffer can tell us, please, how many times abortion doctors have been killed like this man was? Unsure of the number myself, but I'm thinking it must be pretty small, since I can't remember the last time this sort of thing happened. One can think it's blissfully infrequent.

Schaeffer seems to not like that abortion providers are called "murderers". One may assume, I guess, that he would prefer one of the mushy PC titles? Or maybe they are called that because abortion itself is, in fact, murder?

An ancient myth is being played out: You kill me, I kill you, neither of us really knows why. We inhabit a culture where violence is taken for granted. It’s on the air so much it feels like it’s in it. Acts of violence occur at the end of a continuum that begins with how we talk about being human. Moral denunciations, even when focused on people who do awful things, need to be handled with care. Bill O’Reilly isn’t going to change if only enough liberals will shout at him. People aren’t going to stop killing people they disagree with if only our culture can isolate them further than they already are.

Wow, reading that, one would think that the streets are running red with blood, that one can't go out of one's house without having to duck behind the nearest car or other obstacle so that the shooters won't get you.

Seriously, the reason this murder is making the news, and is such a big deal, can perhaps be summed up in two reason.

1. Pro-lifers attacking abortion doctors happens infrequently, so those who see a way to cash in on it are trying to make the most of.

2. It fits the present mindset and attempts to set the agenda by the liberal media and liberal politicians.

It's all about spin.

Schaeffer wants to spread the blame. Sorry, but I do not accept blame for the actions of a loon, not matter what that loon's position. Schaeffer can repent of his own sins (one would wish he truly would), but he does not speak for me.

Because while one man murdered an abortion doctor (a crime and one that deserves justice, which I hope is give), that same abortion doctor murdered many others (a travesty that is currently legal). That abortion doctor deserves justice, too, but you must pardon me if I do not consider him a saint or martyr.

jim wallis' double vision

2009-06-02T12:04:00.000-07:00

Last week, Jim Wallis had this to say about former Vice-President Dick Cheney.

The Good News About Yesterday’s Duel

I will leave the judgment of Dick Cheney’s soul to God, who alone is in the position to render that judgment on all of us. But I will say the vision of America that Dick Cheney offers, and did again yesterday, is decidedly evil, and has helped to spread even more evil around the world. Dick Cheney represents the dark side of America, a view of the world dominated by fear and self-righteousness—always a deadly combination. It accepts no real reflection or self-examination, the evil in the world is always external, and the threat ever present. There is only certainty, and never humility. And, when the dark side goes unchecked, what it leads to is a state of permanent warfare, which will only be won by using any means necessary; and where the ends always justify the means. At the end of his breathtaking speech, the former vice president was so full of admiration and praise for those who used “enhanced interrogation” against America’s suspected enemies that you got the impression that he would happily preside over those brutal sessions himself.

I suppose it's pretty clear that Wallis disapproves. Very well, such is his right. Frankly, I think he exaggerates and misrepresents.

For the moment, I'll confine myself to his comments at the end, where he refers to the for Vice-President's remarks about "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

Frankly, I'm more than willing to respect anyone who may be uncomfortable with some of those techniques. I've written elsewhere about that.

But a few weeks ago, Wallis had this to say about someone else.

Thoughts on Obama’s Notre Dame Address

Perhaps this president’s willingness to confront controversy with an appeal to common values can also change the way we address other divisive and controversial issues. We live in a country in which we know everyone will not agree on everything. In fact, it is quite an accomplishment to even get half of the country to agree on anything. Our differences, and our ability to maintain this union in spite of them, are some of our country’s greatest strengths. It’s been a long time since I have heard a president be able to articulate so well a positive vision for how people of faith, and a nation as a whole, can work together to face the difficult moral issues of our time in both disagreement and unity.

Wallis claims to be pro-life. While I have no real reason to doubt it, I find it odd that he should be oh-so-ready to make excuses for a president who has approved not only of abortion of the the infanticide of those babies who had the audacity to not decently die in the abortion process, while ranting against a former vice-president who approved of interrogation techniques that may have caused physical discomfort or even pain but that were not intended to kill.

If he wishes to stand so strong against the one that isn't meant to kill, perhaps he should do so against the one that is out-and-out murder as well.

Or does being a socialist cover a multitude of blood?

he should stop trying so hard

2009-05-29T04:19:00.000-07:00

A sojo writer is again trying too hard, trying to read too much into modern-day things and the Bible to make his liberal point.

He tries to use the account in the book of Ruth as a way to bludgeon the US, particularly conservatives, and it just won't work.

What if the Bible’s Ruth Came to America Today?

In the biblical story, Ruth was a foreigner from the nation of Moab, which was despised by all patriotic and God-fearing Israelites. Yet when she came to Israel as a widow, companion to her widowed mother-in-law, Naomi, she was welcomed onto the fields of Boaz, where she gleaned what the regular harvesters had left behind. Boaz made sure that even this despised foreigner had a decent job at decent pay. When she went one night to the barn where the barley crop was being threshed, he spent the night with her — and decided to marry her.

First, I will say that the most distasteful thing here is the insinuation (which is repeated later and more clearly) that the time Esther met with Boaz on the threshing floor was a sexual encounter between the two of them.

When she boldly “uncovers the feet” of Boaz during the night they spend together on the threshing floor, has she violated the “family values” that some religious folk now proclaim? Or has she affirmed that love engages the body as well as the heart, the mind, and the spirit, and that sometimes a loving body comes before a wedding?

The Bible does not say that, and for this writer to say that reveals his agenda. He is clearly insinuating that moral bounds have no place where "love" is concerned--in other words, that sex outside of marriage is ok so long as the two "love" each other (one may also wonder if he is working in the "love" argument of the homo/trans/whateversexuals, too.)

In the biblical story, Ruth was a foreigner from the nation of Moab, which was despised by all patriotic and God-fearing Israelites. Yet when she came to Israel as a widow, companion to her widowed mother-in-law, Naomi, she was welcomed onto the fields of Boaz, where she gleaned what the regular harvesters had left behind. Boaz made sure that even this despised foreigner had a decent job at decent pay. When she went one night to the barn where the barley crop was being threshed, he spent the night with her — and decided to marry her.

Here is a bit, from the biblical account.

1 Now Naomi had a relative on her husband's side, from the clan of Elimelech, a man of standing, whose name was Boaz.
2 And Ruth the Moabitess said to Naomi, "Let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favor."
Naomi said to her, "Go ahead, my daughter."
3 So she went out and began to glean in the fields behind the harvesters. As it turned out, she found herself working in a field belonging to Boaz, who was from the clan of Elimelech.
4 Just then Boaz arrived from Bethlehem and greeted the harvesters, "The LORD be with you!"
"The LORD bless you!" they called back.
5 Boaz asked the foreman of his harvesters, "Whose young woman is that?"
6 The foreman replied, "She is the Moabitess who came back from Moab with Naomi.
7 She said, 'Please let me glean and gather among the sheaves behind the harvesters.' She went into the field and has worked steadily from morning till now, except for a short rest in the shelter."
8 So Boaz said to Ruth, "My daughter, listen to me. Don't go and glean in another field and don't go away from here. Stay here with my servant girls.
9 Watch the field where the men are harvesting, and follow along after the girls. I have told the men not to touch you. And whenever you are thirsty, go and get a drink from the water jars the men have filled."
10 At this, she bowed down with her face to the ground. She exclaimed, "Why have I found such favor in your eyes that you notice me—a foreigner?"
11 Boaz replied, "I've been told all about what you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband—how you left your father and mother and your homeland and came to live with a people you did not know before.
12 May the LORD repay you for what you have done. May you be richly rewarded by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge."

One wonders if this blogger would have approved of Boaz, if this were to happen today. After all, Boaz seems to have based his decision on allowing Ruth to continue gleaning on her character, not her status as poor/immigrant/foreign/whatever PC label may or may not fit. He knew of Ruth's support for Naomi, and of her leaving her home (and perhaps by extension her false gods) to come to Israel. I could as easily see this blogger saying Boaz was being discriminatory in his hiring, because he took her actions and character in account in his decision.

In ancient Israel, everyone had the right simply to walk onto a field and begin to work, begin to use the means of production of that era. And then to eat what they had gathered.

I would like to see what scripture he has in support of that position. Perhaps it's there, but he gives nothing for it here.

Here is a bit about the gleaning that Ruth did.

Levitcus 19
9 " 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 23
22 " 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.' "

One thing that isn't in dispute in these passages is that the one who owned and worked or paid workers was entitled to the lion's share of the harvest, and even the first of it. And even with the gleaning, it was hardly a "wait for a check in the mail" type of thing--the poor people had to actually get out and do some work to get the food, not expect the government to do the work for them.

Parts of the blogger's entry are simply ridiculous, as he tries to vilify the US.

Would she be admitted at the border?
Or would she be detained for months without a lawyer, ripped from Naomi’s arms while Naomi’s protest brought her too under suspicion — detained because she was, after all, a Canaanite who spoke some variety of Arabic, possibly a terrorist, for sure an idolator?
Would she be deported as merely an “economic refugee,” not a worthy candidate for asylum?
Would she have to show a “green card” before she could get a job gleaning at any farm, restaurant, or hospital?
Would she be sent to “workfare” with no protections for her dignity, her freedom, or her health?
Would she face contempt because she and Naomi, traveling without a man, might be a lesbian couple?
Would she be waterboarded — drowned again and again, revived at the point of death to be drowned yet again — until she confessed that she had supplied a foreign enemy with mass-destruction weapons to attack America?

Perhaps he should go out into the real world, and see how immigrants are actually treated here, instead of relying on biased sources that have their own political leanings and agendas (though this man has them himself, so I doubt he's going to look hard to see contrary evidence, no matter how obvious it is). And his comments about waterboarding her can only be seen as a stretch, as that was done only to known terrorists.

This blogger's article is silly to the point of hilarious. Whatever point he's trying to make is lost in his biases and agendas and poor support for whatever scriptural claims he's trying to make (and, again, the fact that he's saying that premarital sex is ok only makes one wonder what other bad interpretations he's using).

This Sojo article is Total Fail.

guess i need to find that Alabama disc...

2009-05-15T16:31:00.000-07:00

I'm not a huge country music fan. There have been songs I like, like Alabama's "I'm in a Hurry to Get Things Done", and a few others. There's also some painful ones, too, but that goes for almost any music out there. In fact, some types are almost nothing but painful.

But I give it kudos for ticking off the right people.

Country Music: Too Much Freedom-Loving?

The Post music critic going by the name Josh Freedom du Lac – that just can’t be his name – doesn’t really seem to like patriotic music, despite the patriotic byline. He worries that songs like Jason Aldean’s “Hicktown” or the Zac Brown Band’s “Chicken Fried” do something wrong: They are “narrowcasting to a specific community: the core country audience, whose roots aren't exactly in America's urban centers.”

That claim in itself sounds silly. Aren’t people who make rap music or big-band music or polka music “narrowcasting?” Maybe du Lac just doesn’t like this particular niche audience. He doesn’t like the message that’s offered, either.

“The symbolism and prideful sentiments of the songs are intended to create a sense of belonging among people with similar backgrounds and lifestyles, or at least people who romanticize life in the rural South,” he wrote. “To some listeners, though, it might sound as if the artists are closing ranks.”

As the writer later shows, du Lac likes groups like the Dixie Chicks and The Coup; you know, the anti-patriotic and anti-American kinds of music groups.

So, maybe it's time I started re-learning the Electric Slide.

sojo misrepresents, for their own agenda

2009-04-30T14:48:00.000-07:00

'Religious Left' agenda advances on hate crimes

A person who follows religion and politics more closely than I tells me the decision of two major conservative Christian leaders, Joel Hunter and David Gushee, to sign on in support of legislation outlawing "hate crimes" against gays and lesbians, is a pretty big deal:

Jim Wallis, President and CEO, Sojourners:

A fundamental Christian belief is that every person is created in the image of God. Too often in our country when violence has been directed against gay and lesbian people, most Christians have been painfully silent. The hate crimes legislation now in the House is designed to strengthen our society's ability to prosecute these crimes. It contains additional explicit protection for free speech and religious liberty, rights which are already guaranteed by our Constitution, and allows for continued free expression of speech about controversial issues around homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. Regardless of the theological differences we may have on these issues, Christians should all agree on the fundamental protection of human rights. That is why I support this legislation.

The problems with "hate crimes" laws is this, that they make some wrongs "more equal than others".

What Sojo and other "progressive christians" (note the non-capitalization, which is not accidental)(is that an example of hate on my part?) don't see or don't want to say is that simply being against "hate crimes" laws does not mean one is for the crimes; rather, it is about treating some crimes as worst than others based on factors not related to the crime.

For example, murder is murder, and those who murder should be punished. If someone murders a straight man with a wife and four kids, the crime is no more serious than someone who murders a lesbian woman. But "hate crimes" laws have us look at them differently, trying to kind some kind of motive of hate behind the murderer of the lesbian woman, and so treat it as a more serious crime than the other murder.

What it is about, really, is not the crime itself, but the intent or supposed intent of the criminal. Perhaps what it is most about is how people see the crime. As an example of that, check out this article.

ABC Debunked Matthew Shepard Murder as No Hate Crime, MSNBC Savages Republican for Repeating

But, on the November 26, 2004, 20/20, ABC host Elizabeth Vargas ran a report in which a number of figures tied to the case, including the prosecutor, were interviewed, and made a credible case that Shepard was targeted by Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson not because of anti-gay sentiment, but because McKinney was high on methamphetamines, giving him unusual violent tendencies as well as a desire for cash to buy more drugs. Vargas not only found that a meth high can lead to the kind of extreme violence perpetrated against Shepard, but that McKinney had gone on to similarly attack another man, causing a skull fracture, very soon after his attack on Shepard. Additionally, McKinney’s girlfriend and another friend of McKinney’s even claimed that McKinney himself has bisexual tendencies, although McKinney himself denied it.

Vargas appeared on the November 16, 2004, The O’Reilly Factor on FNC and summarized her findings:

The prosecutor who prosecuted these crimes says that he never believed it was a hate crime. He believes it was a drug crime. Aaron McKinney, according to Aaron McKinney himself and to several other witnesses, was coming down from a five-day methamphetamine binge. He freely admits he not only used methamphetamine but dealt them, sold them. Five days up with no sleep, strung out on drugs, desperate to buy more, desperate to rob somebody to get money to buy more drugs. This was the motive, according to Aaron McKinney and the other witnesses.

Shepherd is the poster boy for hate crimes laws, and the current hate crimes bill is named after him, as the Newsbusters blog points out. And one can see how some lefties react when the truth of the matter is pointed out.

Hate crimes laws don't promise more justice, but less. It's a political tool, not a matter of justice. Murderers and thugs should be dealt with, no matter whom they murder or beat. Treating them differently based on whom they murder or beat will not bring about justice, but instead cause injustice.

That is why the attempts by such as Sojo to paint us against hate crimes laws as being unloving and unchristian is a joke, and they should be ashamed of themselves for stooping to such blatant lies.

what the supposed "tell-all-ers" aren't telling us

2009-04-27T12:30:00.000-07:00

ht http://bibchr.blogspot.com/

As should probably come to no surprise, Sojo has voiced it's opinions of the latest "Blame all the world's problems on the Bush administration" antics by the current administration. In this case, it's about the ways used to get information from captured terrorists.

Torture Memos: ‘What Is Done in the Dark’

Some things they aren't telling us, though, are...

First, that many of their own lib leaders were in the know on what was going on, and were not only not unhappy about it, but even encouraged it.

Fair-Weather Hawks

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then on the House Intelligence Committee, and others knew of the tough methods as long ago as 2002. A December 2007 Washington Post story revealed that in September of that year, Pelosi attended an hour-long meeting in which she "was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk."

In fact, top Democrats like Pelosi and Rockefeller sat in on about 30 such bipartisan private briefings. One of those in attendance, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman and former CIA Director Porter Goss, remembered: "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing." According to the onetime Florida GOP congressman, "the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Statements from Pelosi and other Democrats suggest maybe they were dozing off when the briefers described waterboarding. Such excuses, if the expression can be excused, hold little water.

The fact is clear: Top Democrats in Congress chose not to object to getting tough with terrorist prisoners because the poll ratings told them it was politically dangerous not to be an anti-terrorist hawk in 2002 and 2003.

Second, that such tactics may have succeeded at getting important information.

Extraordinary redaction

President Obama's national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country," Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

For my part, I'm willing to agree that there may be a need for more consideration in regards to what is acceptable and what not in regards to ways of getting information from these terrorists. I suppose all of us would agree there are lines that should not be crossed. The problems come when we try to consider what would be acceptable.

For example, there are people out there who would likely consider a parent spanking a child a form of torture. Making those kinds happy would likely only involve making sure the terrorists have cozy cells and satellite TV access. These would be justly laughed out of the discussion.

Equally bad would be the "anything goes" types. A "whatever works" mindset may lead to some ugly abuses.

But my own thought is that politics is going to play too big a part in the discussion. It's going to be about painting the last administration in a bad light, and not about really fixing anything.

drinking the taxation flav-r-aid

2009-04-20T12:32:00.000-07:00

A Christian Argument for Progressive Taxation

I can't help but think of this post of Butler-Bass' as awful. Whatever her own take on "tax day" (one wonders if she's ever been audited, and how such an experience would effect her)(or, considering how evasive libs try to be on taxes (consider the current president's own nominees for offices), what a look into her own tax situation would reveal), some of her arguements for "progressive" taxes are rather hypocritical, if not scary.

No, taxes aren’t such a bad deal. Nor are they, as might have been heard at the ersatz “tea parties” around the country, at odds with Christianity.

As one commenter asked on her blog, where did she hear anyone claiming the taxes are at odds with Christianity, among any of the Tea Party goers? If she cannot show where any of them said such a thing, her statement is irresponsible and a deliberate misrepresentation.

Indeed, tax day is a day that progressives should celebrate — as we participate in one of the greatest social reforms of the 20th century: the progressive income tax.

"Yea, we progressives are happy, because we take from the people who work for it, and give to those who don't!!!"

Thus, progressive theologians developed a Christian argument for taxation. They believed that a progressive tax would increase the overall morality of society.

Isn't Butler-Bass among those types of people who get learly about 'legislating morality'? But apparently, you can make people moral by taxation, and that's fine.

For example, Scudder pointed out that “the Church, like her Master, is in a way more concerned over the spiritual state of the prosperous than over that of the poor” because the rich “countenance unbrotherly things.”

"We progressives take from you, you filthy rich scum, because we care about you."

Although many progressive Christians understood the spiritual dimensions of taxation, other church people lagged behind. “Again,” she insisted, “no Christian can remain indifferent or non-partisan toward movements for the protection of the weak.” The church should — and must — be on the frontlines of social justice.

First, I do not believe in social justice, and this is one reason why--they idea that one should take from those that have (irregardless of how they attained) and give to those who do not (irregardless of reason why or why not) is a prime example of bad and shallow thinking.

And trying to make 'progressive taxation' a matter of "spiritual dimensions" is asenine, a way of playing the "We're more spiritual than you are" card.

the compromisers, of course, support compromise

2009-04-10T07:00:00.000-07:00

Be Not Afraid: Faith and Reason in the Notre Dame ‘Scandal’

I'm not Catholic, and have more than a few concerns about things that particular church says and does. I have no big feelings this way or that about Notre Dame, particularly in regards to their football team.

I'm no so ambiguous abot Sojo, so it's a safe rule that anything they support likely has something ugly behind it.

The Cardinal Newman Society, a watchdog group for perceived breaches of orthodoxy on Catholic campuses, calls it an “outrage and a scandal” and has circulated a petition admonishing Notre Dame to “halt this travesty.” Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, warns that the commencement would represent the “cultural rape of true Catholicity.” These stark responses betray a rich Catholic intellectual tradition revered for centuries for promoting the values of civil debate, prudence, and reasoned engagement.

It's always amusing how pomo's hate to call a spade a spade, unless they are the one's doing it, like the Sojo big guy himself, Jim Wallis, quoting this about Rush Limbaugh...

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as ‘losers.’ With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence…

As another rule, one should be ware when one comes on those who whine when they receive what they dish out. If you're going to engage in such vitriol, or quote those who do, you should be be sensitive when you receive it back in return.

The Catholic university is not a defensive fortress walled off from diverse ideas that flourish in a pluralistic democracy.

Being open to new ideas is one thing, but the President's views and supported positions one many things are rightly considered anathema to many Catholics, and they are right to see this as a serious breach.

Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins is facing furious backlash after inviting President Barack Obama to give the university’s commencement address next month.

One would assume that being invited to give a university'e graduation commencement is a thing that is an honor to do, that since these the university's last charges to the graduates (not counting student loan payments :-)), that the person asked to give it would be someone for whom the university largely approves, and doesn't disapprove of in any serious ways.

Some critics of Notre Dame have expressed their disagreement in measured tones that foster fruitful debate.

I suppose the question is, why should debate be fostered? What is there to debate? Does Obama not support abortion and even infanticide?

Sadly, this controversy has largely been exploited by ideologues and culture warriors more interested in scoring political points than advancing common ground and principled dialogue.

Exploited, perhaps, but by those like the Sojo writer.

The president’s commitment to a budget that uplifts the poor, universal health care as a human right, and finding common ground on divisive issues reflects traditional Catholic values in the public square.

A budget that merely spreads the poverty? Universal (bad) health care? Perhaps the writer should get his head out of his socialist hole, and look at the real world. A world where such budgets do far more damage than good. A world where universal government-run health care as he sees it has been an abyssmal failure.

Faithful Citizenship, the U.S. Catholic bishops’ election year political responsibility statement is clear that “direct assaults on innocent human life and dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war,” are also actions that “can never be tolerated.”

I’m still waiting to hear from outraged culture warriors when it comes to those moral scandals.

"Direct assaults on innocent human life and dignity". Someone who supports the current Presidents has lost a lot of credibility when it comes to any of those issues. Someone who thinks that it's ok for a person who supports abortion and infanticide to have the honor of giving a commencement address has no grounds trying to "call out" others.

And anyway, if he'd again get his head out of the little liberal socialist enclave he obviously lives in, he's likely to find that we conservatives are doing more than just have nice little protests about those things. We're actually doing stuff about them.

not-god's hypocrites

2009-03-14T07:39:00.000-07:00

It says a lot about Jim Wallis, who has the audacity to call his blog by the misnomer "God's Politlcs", to see whom he honors, and whom he attacks.

This passed week, he attacked Rush Limbaugh.

I Hope Rush Limbaugh Fails

And he does so in personal ways.

I have two boys, a five-year-old and a 10-year-old. And Rush Limbaugh ranks as one of the worst role models in the country for mine and other people’s kids. As a Little League baseball coach, I spend my time teaching my players values that are the direct opposite of the values of Rush Limbaugh—like respect for each other and other people, like helping each other out when somebody needs help, like lifting somebody up when they’re down, treating our opponents the way we would like to be treated, and knowing that there is more to life than “winning.” Rush Limbaugh is an almost perfect anti-role model for a Little League baseball coach.

Yep, as a Christian and even a Little League baseball coach, I hope that Rush Limbaugh and the world of values he stands for will fail. Limbaugh does not represent the vast majority of Republicans, and I don’t know any conservative parents that would hold up Rush as a role model for their children. The president shouldn’t waste his valuable time in debating Limbaugh. But I would like to make that offer. Hey Rush, I’ll debate you about the kind of country and world we want—especially for our kids. Bring it on!

Last year, he had this to say about someone else.

The Lion of the Senate

The nation got a shock this week. Edward Kennedy, the lion who has been in the U.S. Senate for nearly 50 years, was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. I know Ted Kennedy and his wife, Vicki, and have enjoyed personal conversations with them on a number of occasions over a wide range of issues, including the application of Christian faith to public life. I’ve found them both to be serious Catholics. And I have worked with Sen. Kennedy on a variety of issues, including legislation for a long-delayed increase in the minimum wage and for comprehensive immigration reform.
This genuine and generous outpouring of love and concern for Sen. Kennedy proves a very important thing. It shows that one can be an advocate, a passionate and relentless champion for clear and controversial causes and yet still be a bridge-builder, a reconciler, and a seeker of common ground. The conventional wisdom says you must be one or the other, an advocate or a bridge-builder, but never both. Ted Kennedy, once again, proves the conventional wisdom wrong. It is because he is a lawmaker who genuinely wants to get things done, to find real and concrete solutions — especially for people who really need them. Kennedy is known as a senator who truly wants to be effective and not just right, as so many others, on both sides of the aisle, are too often content to be.

Here is the kind of person Wallis thinks so highly of. Emphases mine.

Ted Kennedy

While still in law school, Kennedy met Virginia Joan Bennett, known as Joan, while delivering a speech at Manhattanville College in October 1957.[15] She was a senior there, had worked as a model and won beauty contests, but was unfamiliar with the world of politics.[15] After their engagement she grew nervous about marrying someone she did not know that well, but his father insisted the wedding not be put off.[15] They were married by Francis Cardinal Spellman on November 29, 1958, in Bronxville, New York.[2][7] They had three children together: Kara Anne (born February 27, 1960), Edward Jr. (born September 26, 1961), and Patrick (born July 14, 1967). By the mid-1960s, their marriage was troubled by his womanizing and her growing alcoholism.[16] They would divorce in 1982.

On the night of July 18, 1969, Kennedy was on Chappaquiddick Island at a party for the "Boiler Room Girls", a group of young women who had worked on his brother Robert's presidential campaign the year before.[35] Leaving the party, Kennedy was driving a 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 with one of the women, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne, as his passenger, when Kennedy drove off Dike Bridge into Poucha Pond between Chappaquiddick Island and Cape Poge barrier beach. Kennedy escaped the overturned vehicle and swam to safety, but Kopechne died in the car. Kennedy left the scene and did not call authorities until after Kopechne's body was discovered the following day.

On July 25, Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and was given a sentence of two months in jail, suspended.[35] That night, Kennedy gave a national broadcast in which he said, "I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the police immediately," but denied driving under the influence of alcohol and denied any immoral conduct between him and Kopechne.[35] Kennedy asked the Massachusetts electorate whether he should stay in office, and after getting a favorable response, he did

Various interest groups have given Kennedy scores or grades as to how well his votes align with the positions of each group.[104] The American Civil Liberties Union gives him an 84 percent lifetime score as of 2009.[105] During the 1990s and 2000s, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood typically gave Kennedy ratings of 100 percent, while the National Right to Life Committee typically gave him a rating of less than 10 percent.[104] The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Kennedy a lifetime rating of 100 percent through 2002, while National Rifle Association gave Kennedy a lifetime grade of 'F' (failing) as of 2006.[104]

Perhaps this explains Wallis' infatuation with an other distasteful person--he supports all the right (read: left) things--abortion, gay marriage, socialistic health care and economic policies, the disarming of the American people. All that hides the womanizing, the morally repugnant positions, and so on.

I would much rather children gain a respect for Limbaugh then for Kennedy. Yes, Rush's life has been far from perfect, but at least he has stood for what is right. Kennedy isn't even close.

movie review--watchmen

2009-03-09T17:30:00.000-07:00

"Watchmen" is a long movie. It's a serious movie. There are occasional chuckles, but few laughs. It tries to deal with some rather serious matters. It has it's moments, and even has a couple of characters I rather respected.

But in the end, it's essentially an empty movie with an empty and depressing story whose moral is essentially a variation on "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

It's set in some kind of alternate history, which I guess most comic books are. In "Watchmen", the famous photo of a soldier kissing a nurse in a victory celebration is turned into a lesbian kiss. The US wins the Vietnam War, though one wonders if that was a good thing. Nixon has somehow redone the Constitution so that he could be elected President for well passed the 2-term limit.

And costumed heroes have been outlawed for several years.

Probably the character the movie focuses most on is Rorschach, a 'crime noir' type of man who wears a mask that has ink blots on it that constantly shift, I don't recall really being told how or even why he chose that name and gimmick. He's street-wise, hard as nails, and while probably the weakest of the lot in terms of physical strength, tech gimmicks, or powers, he's probably also the one with the strongest character. Much of the movie is shown as entries to his journal, so is also told largely from his perspective. Comparisons to the Batman in the last two movies is almost unavoidable, considering that the actor uses much the same kind of husky gruff voice that Bale uses when in costume as Batman, but a better comparison may be with the Punisher or Wolverine.

Second in emphasis would be Dr. Manhattan. While Rorschach is a mostly normal man with a hefty amount of cynicism and rage, Manhattan is a man transformed in a scientific accident into a blue being, essentially manshaped, with powers of material manipulation, abilities to see his past and future, transportation, and others I think. Some in the movie seem to see him as a god-like being. His demeanor is calm, only once in the movie does he 'lose it'.

Although he's killed in the first few minutes, the Comedian haunts the movie by his death and by the things he did in life. I don't think it would be unfair to characterize him as a 'hero' in name only. He's at least as cynical as Rorschach but without the core of decency.

NIght Owl and Silk Spectre are kind of there to provide sexual tension, and of course the obligatory sex scene. Throw in the world' smartest man, a former hero who's gone corporate and then gone mad scientist, and that about round's out the main players.

One issue I had was with the sex and nudity. The scene with NO and SS doesn't skimp on the footage, and there are several scenes showing Manhattan's business (if you know what I mean).

The other issue I had was with the ending. It does recall "The Dark Knight", where someone blameless takes the rap for the real criminal because of some kind 'greater good'. It goes further, though, when one of them is killed so that he would not be able to tell the truth (though the movie ends with the impression that he had crossed them up on that front).

And that is one of the reason the movie ends on an empty and depressing note, because the 'peace' at the end of the movie is based on lies and manipulations, and when that is realized, nothing good can come from that. The illusion of world peace, based on the existence of a supposed common enemy, will not last.

Because the core issues have not been dealt with. The one 'hero', the smart corporate mad scientist, thinks that it's resources, particularly fuel, that is cause of wars, and that if he and Manhattan can solve the problem of energy, then the world will be a happy-go-lucky place. How that explains wars before cars, I don't know.

And the solution he does come up with--blowing up several of the world's major cities, killing millions of people, and doing it in such a way that Manhattan is blamed for it--is so shallow as to be almost laughable. Nothing is truly 'fixed', no one is truly 'changed', and while for a while the superpowers may be in agreement to stop what is the greater threat, when that is passed they will eye each other again.

It's all washing the outside of the cup, and not dealing with the filth inside it.

I think I can recommend it, though just barely. It is violent, and while that didn't bug me so much, for others it may be a problem. The nudity and sex are there, and they are graphic, and they add nothing to the story. It does give some things for thought, though, so if you can handle a bit of stuff, go for it. If not, you haven't really missed much.

a spin on how to win

2009-02-04T19:31:00.000-08:00

If you were asked about World War II, and about the things that led to the victory of the 'good guys' (or the not-so-good guys, in thinking about the Soviet Union), what events may come to mind?

Perhaps Pearl Harbor? Iwo Jima? The landing at Normandy? The people of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) who resisted through extreme situations? Those who kept the Reich from occupying Moscow?

Very likely, most people would think that the ones who were most instrumental in defeating the Nazis are those who took up arms and fought back, with a special nod at those who aided the fighters in various ways--supplies, arms, encouragements.

But here, we're not dealing with history, but revisionist history. Here's what I mean.

Nonviolence Begets Nonviolence

In 1940 Germany was vastly stronger than Denmark and occupied Denmark with hardly a shot fired. The Danes resisted in subtle ways but mostly gritted their teeth and tolerated the Germans. This largely passive acceptance of Germany ended in 1943 when the Germans tried to arrest the Danish Jews, and the Danes rose up as one and actively, but nonviolently, resisted. More than 95 percent of the Danish Jews were spirited away overnight. In the next six months, almost all of the Jews were smuggled across the bay into neutral Sweden. The Danes reacted heroically, but the German army’s role in all this was most curious.

The German Schutzstaffel (SS), originally formed as Hitler’s bodyguards, was a fanatical and ruthless elite. They were tireless and effective in pursuing the Jews and persecuting the Danes. On the other hand, the Wehrmacht were the ordinary soldiers, the draftees, and these soldiers were a far different story. A number of high-ranking Wehrmacht officers actively helped the Jews escape, and many more looked the other way. Similarly when the Nazis tried to starve Copenhagen into submission, the Wehrmacht basically ignored the large-scale smuggling of food occurring right under their noses. Since there were only a few of the SS in Denmark and the Wehrmacht had become sympathetic to the Danes, the Nazis were severely constrained in what they could do to punish the Danes. The Danish nonviolence begat nonviolence by subverting the Wehrmacht to the point that it would not use violence against the Danes.

This writer wants to make the Danish turn in 1943 about Nazis arresting Jews. Here's Wikipedia's page about Denmark during WWII

Occupation of Denmark

In March 1943 the Germans allowed a general election to be held. The voter turnout was 89.5%, the highest in any Danish parliamentary election, and 94 % cast their ballots for one of the democratic parties behind the cooperation policy while 2.2% voted for the anti-cooperation Dansk Samling.[35] 2.1% voted for the Nazi party, almost corresponding to the 1.8% the party had received in the 1939 elections. The election, discontent, and a growing feeling of optimism that Germany would be defeated led to wide-spread strikes and civil disturbances in the summer of 1943. The Danish government refused to deal with the situation in a way that would satisfy the Germans, who presented an ultimatum to the government, including the following demands, on 28 August 1943: A ban on people assembling in public, outlawing strikes, the introduction of a curfew, censorship should be conducted with German assistance, special (German military) courts should be introduced, and the death penalty should be introduced in cases of sabotage. In addition, the city of Odense was ordered to pay a fine of 1 million kroner for the death of a German soldier killed in that city and hostages were to be held as security.[36]

The Danish government refused, so on 29 August 1943 the Germans officially dissolved the Danish government and instituted martial law. The Danish cabinet handed in its resignation, although since King Christian never officially accepted it, the government remained functioning de jure until the end of the war, but this is a technicality. In reality all day-to-day business had been handed over to the Permanent Secretaries, each effectively running his own ministry. The Germans ran the rest of the country, and the Danish Parliament didn't convene for the remainder of the occupation.

He tries to make it seem like Denmark was committed to non-violence. Here's more to what really went on.

As the war dragged on, the Danish population became increasingly hostile to the Germans. Soldiers stationed in Denmark had found most of the population cold and distant from the beginning of the occupation, but their willingness to cooperate had made the relationship workable. The government had attempted to discourage sabotage and violent resistance to the occupation, but by the autumn of 1942 the numbers of violent acts of resistance were increasing steadily to the point that Germany declared Denmark "enemy territory" for the first time.[34] After the battles of Stalingrad and El-Alamein the incidents of resistance, violent and symbolic, increased rapidly.

Sabotage, unencumbered by government opposition, grew greatly in frequency and severity, though it was rarely of very serious concern to the Germans. Nonetheless, the Danish resistance movement had some successes, such as on D-Day when the train network in Denmark was disrupted for days, delaying the arrival of German reinforcements in Normandy.

The author does note how the people of Denmark reacted when the Nazis tried to arrest the Jews in the country, and it is worth noting here, too, as an example of heroism of a different sort, though I think neither greater nor lesser, to those who took up arms.

After the fall of the government, Denmark was exposed to the full extent of Nazi terror. In October the Germans decided to remove all Jews from Denmark, but thanks to an information leak from German diplomat Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz and swift action by Danish civilians, the vast majority of the Danish Jews were transported to safety in neutral Sweden by means of fishing boats and motorboats. The entire evacuation lasted two months and one man helped ferry more than 1,400 Jews to safety

My point in this is not to either denigrate or praise the Danish (though there is admiration for their response in helping the Jews escape). My point it to point out what seems to be a blatant attempt at rewriting history to fit an agenda.

World War II had many heroes, some widely known but likely the majority unknown. Many took up arms, many let or told those close to them take up arms and supported them, some resisted in other ways.

But for all the respect one may feel for the Danish, one would have a hard time trying to make them the true 'heroes' of the war over those who actually fought the Nazis and kept them from their homes and cities and drove them back. And it is madness to make them the model for nonviolence when 1. they surrendered more because they had no army with which to resist, and 2. they weren't really completely nonviolent in their resistence.

No. No matter what this man and his ilk try to say, the Germans were defeated on battlefields, by men with guns and tanks and warplanes. And that should never be forgotten, and never disparaged.

one of the better legacies a president can leave behind

2009-01-19T12:02:00.000-08:00

No doubt, much will be debated about the good and bad of the Bush II Presidency. Personally, I think it was mostly a good one, up until the end with the bailouts that I fear mark an end to the US as it should be.

For all of that, here's a part of his legacy that is worth remembering with gladness, though maybe also with the wish that it had been stronger. Still, maybe it was about all he could have done.

Another thing is, it puts the lie to the libs who say that he did nothing concerning abortion.

Bush Had Best Pro-Life Record of Any President, Say Pro-Life Groups

made of fail 4

2009-01-16T08:31:00.000-08:00

Obama Interior Nominee to Consider New Ban on Oil Drilling in USA

(CNSNews.com) - President-elect Barack Obama’s secretary of the interior nominee, Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), said he will consider restoring parts of an expired federal ban on offshore oil drilling, but told CNSNews.com that he has “no idea” how much of the drilling restrictions should be reimposed.

“I think there is no question that the elimination of the offshore oil drilling ban was one of the biggest accomplishments of the not so accomplished 110th Congress,” said McConnell. “It would be a step in the wrong direction to restore the ban. Obviously, I and my colleagues are going to oppose that and hope that does not happen.”

Rep. Barney Frank said that though he is focusing on financial issues right now, he hopes the administration will try to restore a “general ban.”

“Obviously many of us want to have a general ban,” said Frank.

movie review--the unborn

2009-01-15T09:03:00.000-08:00

Horror, as a movie genre, suffers from a lot of baggage. Some of the previews that were shown when I saw "The Unborn" highlighted some of them--violence, gore, and sex that add nothing to the story but are gratuitous.

I'm not a big watcher of horror movies, with the expection of some of the older classics, like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein". In recent years, the two movie I've seen that I would consider the most effective horror movies would be "I Am Legend" and "Silent Hill".

"The Unborn" comes close to them. Perhaps if some of the crudity and sexual stuff were taken out of the first half-hour of it, it would have reached the same level, because it was a fairly well-though-out and well-made movie.

I do wonder how much of the mysticism references is really in the Kabbalah, though I did recognize the one kind of prayer or chant the group at the end was speaking from another thing I saw not long before, the anime series "Silent Mobius", though there were a few differences.

The story could be summed up in a typical fashion (as could most movies, I would guess)--girl is haunted by some strange being, seeks help from a spiritual guru-type who at first doesn't believe her but then has his own encounter with it, some people die, there's a creepy kid (though not a little girl this time, for a change), there a big final encounter where the big evil spirit-dude gets cast back to wherever, and our heroine lives, though not exactly happily ever after.

It does well in setting the mood, and I must give kudoes to the actress who played the heroine. Once the movie got going, she did pretty well in convincing me the viewer that she was a fairly rattled and on-the-edge person who was fighting a losing battle (much like the character's mother) unless she got some help.

Another big plus in the movie was Gary Oldman, playing the guru. I do think that he is one of the more under-rated actors out there--you could line up the characters he's played, and be not a little surprised that one person had done all of them. Unlike a Tom Cruise (whose characters seem to be all the same), Oldman seems to become the character rather than the character becoming him.

In this movie, though, I would guess the character wasn't a very difficult one to do.

And in a movie season where the main theme seems to be fighting Nazis ("Valkyrie", which I refuse to watch (yeah, Cruise has a really convincing German accent in the ads, right?) and the other with the new James Bond actor in it (who does sound rather Slavic)), "The Unborn" probably gets extra kudoes for finding an original way of working in the Nazis (though I don't know if such experiment were actually performed by them) as the ones responsible in a primary sense for the troubles.

Here are some thing of special interest to me.

When prepare to perform the exorcism, Oldman's character, a Rabbi, calls in an Episcopalian (can't remember if he was a bishop or not) to help with it. When the exorcism goes bad, we see the Episcopalian kneeling and praying right before the evil spirit things jumps into him to take over his body for further mayhem.

I don't know if there was suppose to have been any meaning behind that or now--given that the Rabbi was there at the final confrontation to dismiss the spirit, perhaps there was a certain pro-Jewish religion and/or an anti-Christian thing showing through. Hard to say that, though, since they played the Episcopal as being essentially a pretty good guy willing to add his two-cents to help the girl.

And while I have my doubts about this, I would guess there's a chance, a remote one, that it's a bit against Episcopals. Maybe the statement is that some Episcopals don't really believe and so are open to being manipulated by such beings. And for myself, I think, well, isn't the Bishop Spong an Episcopal? And Eugene Robinson? If so, well, I would find myself in agreement, at least to some extent.

But that's a stretch, I know.

Perhaps the thing that struck me, and that gave me pause, was right at the end. The spirit had entered the girl's boyfriend, and she and the Rabbi had finished reciting a Psalm that had the effect of dismissing the spirit (or so we think), but in doing so the boy is thrown from a second floor down to the first, and with the girl holding his head he's dying. His last statement was in a since one of the more chilling ones I've ever heard in a movie. It was something like "Will I ever stop falling?"

I was uncertain at the end if the movie resolves everything or not. I don't know if the discovery of the condition that caused the haunting to begin was now safe and the haunting over, or if it will go on to another generation.

But, despite some things I didn't particular care for and maybe some plot weaknesses, overall it was pretty good. If you like horror, you'll probably like this movie.

ramblings from watching too many bowl games

2009-01-03T12:12:00.000-08:00

The game isn't over yet, but I'm watching lowly Utah put a scare into the 'Bama Crimson Tide, and for all that I'm an SEC fan, I'm loving it.

For one thing, I'm not a big fan of Saban. He hasn't exactly struck me as being one of the more charactr-filled of persons out there, most especially with his short-notice leaving of the Miami Dolphin head coaching spot.

Also, it's merely another reason to consider the college football BCS games as jokes. Utah has a 12-0 record, and if they win this game, their claims to the national title should be taken seriously. Of course, it's an 'if', but even so, the fact that they're playing as well as they have so far should be worth more than a little bit.

(and if you throw in Ole Miss' win against former #1 Texas Tech, whom Alabama beat to win their SEC division, than the whole thing just gets more deliciously messy)

I have an observation. There are three things in college football that are useless, or even worse than useless.

Marching bands, cheerleaders, and dance teams. This observation also applies to basketball, though the band there isn't marching.

The time of the marching band if passed. Perhaps it served a function at one time, but now it's nothing but a big out-of-tune noise, and needs to die a merciful death. It adds nothing to a game.

Cheerleading needs to end, and any father who values his daughters would agree. Maybe in the past, cheerleading was a good thing, but that time is passed, and now cheerleading has become nothing more than an excuse for young women to show off some flesh for the camera and the spectators. And it anything, it's even worse in the pros.

And what is the use of dance teams? Really, are they anything more than just a way to raise up a next generation of pole dancers?

Gottasayitgottasayitgottasayit!!!

HOW ABOUT THEM CATS!!!

It's been a strange and difficult year, with graduation and injuries taking a lot out of the UK football team. And towards the end of the year, it seemed like the team ran our of gas, or out of heart, or something.

But in the Liberty Bowl, they showed a lot of heart, and in the end came out ahead. And at the least this Cat fan is happy about that.

Oh, and Utah just finished putting a major whooping on Bama.

And the whole championship picture just got uglier and messier.

And I'm loving every minute of it.

made of fail 2 and 3

2009-01-02T14:09:00.000-08:00

Schools Led by Obama's Education Secretary Designee Failed No-Child-Left-Behind Standard for Five Years

Chicago Homicides Exceed U.S. Iraq Deaths: Is It News?

so, how sick is the liberal mindset...

2008-12-21T15:48:00.000-08:00

Wonderful? Sorry, George, It’s a Pitiful, Dreadful Life

ht, Newsbusters, NYT's City Editor Rips Into 'It's a Wonderful Life'; A Rare Window Into a Deeply Cynical Media Mind

Anyone who can take this move, about doing one's responsibilities and making a quiet but important difference in one's own world, and try to say it's pitiful and dreadful, obvious has some serious issues and needs to see some professional help.

“It’s a Wonderful Life” is a terrifying, asphyxiating story about growing up and relinquishing your dreams, of seeing your father driven to the grave before his time, of living among bitter, small-minded people. It is a story of being trapped, of compromising, of watching others move ahead and away, of becoming so filled with rage that you verbally abuse your children, their teacher and your oppressively perfect wife. It is also a nightmare account of an endless home renovation.

I suppose he must think that way, because how very non-pc is the movie!! Instead of living life as a care-free ne'er-do-well, George Bailey shoulder's responsbilities even when he would rather not do so. Instead of seeing the sites in far-off places, he comes to find things of infinite worth in his home town. Instead of being the known hero, he's the everyday hero. While those around him are fighting the war to keep the Germans and Japanese at bay, he's fighting a war to make sure that those off fighting have something at home worth fighting for and coming home to.

George isn't a perfect here, and when things start to fall apart around him, his reactions are understandable but still harsh. He's a good man who through no fault of his own is about to be punished for things he didn't do.

The attitude of the writer of this article is sad and pathetic to the extreme. His notion that Pottersville would have been a better place than Bedford Falls is sickening.

business as usual...

2008-12-15T05:18:00.000-08:00

Hamas Meets With Carter, Signals Ceasefire With Israel May End

Former President Jimmy Carter met with the leader of Hamas in Damascus on Sunday, the same day the Palestinian terrorist group marked its 21st anniversary and signaled its intention to end an erratically-upheld ceasefire.

Is there anyone...anyone!!!...out there who can please, please, please, make Jimmy Carter retire and shut up!! I mean, sure, let him built H4H houses to his heart's content, or raise bees, that's fine, but someone please get this man out of the national light! Carter was an abyssmal failure as a president, and why he should think he can do better now is anyone's guess.

And, oh, Hamas is going to break it's cease-fire with Israel. Show of hands, please, for anyone out there who is surprised by that???

After an Egyptian-mediated truce went into effect in last June, rocket attacks dropped off significantly (from a high of 257 in February to just one in July, eight in August, one in September and two in October.)

But since early November, Hamas and allied groups have fired well over 100 rockets and more than 100 mortar shells across the border, according to figures provided by the Israeli foreign ministry. The upsurge prompted an Israeli embargo that has drawn international condemnation.

Yeah, aren't double standards wonderful things??? Hamas starts attacking Israel again, Israel responds, and other nations act as if Israel is the bad guy.

I seriouisly think the world is essentially upside-down. Victims are treated as criminals, criminals are treated as victims, the bad guys are given whatever they demand, the good guys are shafted, absolutes are relativized and political expedients are made into absolutes.

So, how much longer can we go on in such a state of idiocy?

random sports ramblings

2008-12-12T05:46:00.000-08:00

And, so, it's that time of year again.

You know it, you who follow college football even remotely. It's the strange time, that strange three or so weeks between the end of the regular season and New Years, when the so called BCS bowls begin being played.

And why are those games such a big deal? After all, how many of them really mean anything? Only one, maybe two, are of any importance to the championship.

And how did two championship teams get to that game?

Let's be fair, and admit that both Florida and Oklahoma have played well enough to deserve their places in that game. The problem is, so have other teams.

Texas, Texas Tech, Penn State, USC, and Alabama can make strong claims to being just as worthy, not to mention some of the teams not in BCS conferences but who went undefeated (and if you think they aren't for real, just remember the lesson Oklahoma learned from Boise State a couple of years ago).

But they won't have a chance to play for that title. They have to be content to play simply to win a bowl game. Games essentially meaningless and worthless, except as money-making tools.

So, like last year, I'm going to propose again a way the fans can effect this situation. It may be a kind of counterintuitive way, but it's perhaps the only real way to do it, because it effects the main reason such bowl games are still going on--the money.

And my solution is, simply, don't spend money for these meaningless bowls. Fans of Texas, Texas Tech, Penn State, USC, and Alabama should simply stay home. These teams deserve a real shot at the title, but are being denied it by a system that simply isn't set up to find a real champion, so their teams are being done wrong. The system is not worthy of being supported any more.

If those meaningless BCS games were played before empty stands, the BCS powers-that-be would get the message very quickly, and we'd likely get a playoff in no time.

Sometimes, listening to sports talk radio is almost too revealing.

I've noticed something in recent times. I've noticed when I've heard sports people seem to be either bored or even actively against a team like the San Antonio Spurs making it again to the NBA Championship, or when they may as well be cheering for the Red Sox because no one cares about a Philadelphia and Tampa Bay World Series. Or when they may as well have already have had Lebron James leaving the Cav and going to the Knicks (who happen to be in New York).

I'm not sure what to label it. Maybe it's arrogance, or maybe it's a sense of putting their business before the games, or maybe it's them wanting what they perceive to be best for the sport (and for their business), but it's distasteful to me.

Because I wonder, "Why do they even want small-market teams?"

After all, if for them it's best for New York and Los Angelas to have the best teams, why have any others? Maybe Chicago can keep theirs, and maybe Houston, and Boston and Atlanta and Dallas, but real, why have any others? If having small markets teams be good and keep large markets from getting in playoffs and championships is so bad for the sports and for business, than why should those teams even exist?

Are they only poor relations, there to bring in the small-town fans and maybe add the occasion bit of drama and nice story (like Tampa Bay this passed year)? But who betide them if they happen to go toe-to-toe with the Red Sox and have the gall to actually win their playoff series, because in the end, the main thing isn't to determine the best teams and best players, it's to have as many people watch the series as possible.

Yeah, I guess that qualifies as arrogance.

more on "'social justice' wackiness'

2008-12-11T11:46:00.000-08:00

More about this topic.

Chicago Schools Administrator: Homosexual High School Is 'Necessary'

A proposed homosexual-friendly Chicago public high school is “necessary” for the well-being of students, a Chicago Public Schools administrator told CNSNews.com Wednesday.

Joyce Brown, who is in charge of the public school district’s high school counselors, said the “Social Justice High School – Pride Campus” is necessary because “the issue (of homosexuality) is out there.”

The proposed school would offer taxpayer-funded support for homosexual and lesbian students. The school proposal was to be voted on by the Chicago Board of Education on Nov. 19, but the plan was pulled at the last minute.

So much of what this lady Brown says is the usual sickly-saccharine-sweet stuff one expects of these feelings-oriented pc types.

It appears, though, that the school is only proposed, and not yet a reality.

One must wonder, how would such a school really work? Does a student have to be glbtwhatever before being allowed to attend? What would the classes teach? If a hetero student was allowed to attend, how much would he or she be allowed to voice opinions against the school's credo?

In other words, is this not just another attempt to raise up immorality and silence those who want to speak out against it, and all in the name of that modern virtue "social justice"?

Were I a betting man, I would put my money on it being another waying of putting down and quieting those who believe in biblical morality.

'tolerance' is a one-way street

2008-12-08T07:01:00.000-08:00

Go the other way, and you're likely to get your windshield sledge-hammered (and maybe not just metaphorically, either).

Creation Museum Disappointed by Cincinnati Zoo Withdrawal

After working for months with the Cincinnati Zoo on a special cross-promotion package to elevate local and regional tourism during the Christmas season, the Creation Museum learned that the zoo—after a 2 ½ day business relationship—has pulled out of the arrangement because of a high volume of complaints.

“My family and I have been Cincinnati Zoo members for more than 10 years now, so I am also personally saddened that this organization I esteem so highly would find it necessary to back out of this relationship. At the same time, I have learned that the zoo received hundreds of complaints from what appear to be some very intolerant people, and so I understand the zoo’s perspective. Frankly, we are used to this kind of criticism from our opponents, and so being ‘expelled’ like this is not a huge surprise,” Ham continued.

“Our museum will continue to promote this excellent zoo on our website and also in the printed material we pass out inside the museum. We are committed to promoting regional tourism. It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith. Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity,” Ham added.

made of fail 1

2008-12-02T09:13:00.000-08:00

Obama Could End Abstinence Education in Fight Against AIDS

Promoting abstinence played a significant role in President George W. Bush’s efforts to combat HIV/AIDS around the world, which could be a key part of his legacy. However, some conservatives think an incoming Barack Obama administration could scrap the abstinence portion of the AIDS fighting program.

“Around the world, we've also supported care for more than 10 million people affected by HIV, including more than 4 million orphans and vulnerable children,” Bush said in a speech Monday from the White House.

“More than 237,000 babies have been born HIV-free, thanks to the support of the American people for programs to prevent mothers from passing the virus on to their children,” he added.

The president of Uganda and other African leaders have been receptive to abstinence education, McClusky said.

Further, a decrease in sexual activity among unmarried young people in Kenya has helped reduce that country’s HIV infection rates by about two-thirds over the last decade, according to the White House.

That should be enough to refute critics of abstinence education, said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America.

But never let moral absolutes and proven success get in the way of your liberal and unbiblical agenda.

After Obama’s victory in the presidential race last month, one of his advisers on women’s health, Susan F. Wood, told Bloomberg News that an emphasis on abstinence and monogamy over condom use has not helped prevention efforts.

“We have been going in the wrong direction and we need to turn it around and be promoting prevention and family planning services and strengthening public health,” Woods said.

not-judging ourselves to death (literally)

2008-12-01T05:09:00.000-08:00

Religious Leaders: Churches Should be ‘Nonjudgmental’ about Behavior That Transmits HIV

At a telephone news conference in advance of World AIDS Day, AIDS activist groups and representatives of various religious groups said that counseling teens and others to be abstinent and restricting sex to marriage just isn’t “realistic,” and called on churches and the incoming Obama administration to deal with HIV/AIDS in a “truthful” and “medically accurate way.”

What I find most inane is that while they don't want churches to tell teens to save themselves for marriage (which would likely put an almost total stop on the spread of such diseases), they want the issues dealt with in a "truthful" and "medically accurate way".

Which means, in lib-speak, condoms and abortions all over the place. Let the high school quarterback have as many cheerleaders as he wants (which they want us to not call immoral) just so long as he doesn't commit the modern sin of not using a condom. And let the cheerleader be with the quarterback as much as she wants (because it's unreasonable to not expect her to act that way) just so long as she has access to abortion when she gets pregnant.

And, well, we all know that not all cheerleaders are girls, so if the QB goes that way or both ways...

But churches shouldn't comment on that, these people seem to think. Better to use political correctness as the measure of right and wrong, then what God has said is right and wrong.

Rev. Michael Schuenemeyer, United Church of Christ: I think your question exemplifies why we are struggling with stigma and discrimination in our culture, because it betrays a bias about what is moral and immoral. So, I think we’ need to take a public health approach; we need to be nonjudgmental when we speak to people and we need to make sure people have accurate information.

Stigma and discrimination keeps people from getting the information that they need. It’s often fear-based. And when people are faced with judgment they don’t get what they need to respond effectively. So I think we need to take much more of a public health approach for their concern.

It’s not about whether people are engaging in moral or immoral acts, that’s a personal judgment that is being made. It’s about realizing what behaviors cause transmission and preventing those behaviors.

And I sit here, and wonder...when did supposedly smart people become this idiotic???

a (so-called) pro-lifer suffering from hallucinations

2008-11-20T12:50:00.000-08:00

A Pro-Lifer Who Welcomes the Obama Presidency

And with a title like that, we head for the mountains of madness...

In many situations I’m hesitant to use the term “pro-life,” as for a lot of people it really means nothing more than “anti-abortion.”

Gee, we wonder why. Could it be because THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS!!!

To be pro-life should mean doing all that one can to protect life from the womb to the death bed.

If you want to be like that, that's all well and good, but FIND YOUR OWN TERM!!!

(yes, I am using all caps, because I do want to shout that at them)

Seriously, their attempts to hijack the pro-life position to fit their liberal agenda is distasteful to the core.

My happiness was not naive.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he works very hard at blinding and deafening himself from reality.

On the other hand, I expect a presidency that will do more community building,

Let's see, what could that be lib-speak for? The Fairness Doctrine? Hate crimes laws? a 'spreading the poverty' socialistic economic policy?

care more about the poor

Actually, that's probably the lib-speak for the socialistic economic policies.

strengthen relations with allies

Translated--play footsies with the Muslims and throw Israel overboard, to a greater or lesser degree.

listen more carefully to cautions and criticisms

Lib-speak for "Try to please everyone before doing anything", probably with an unhealthy dose of compromising with the UN thrown in for good measure (like restarting support for the UN group that supports China abortion policies).

and not engage in a “shoot first, ask questions later” foreign policy.

Lib-speak for "No matter how or how much you harm us, we'll not respond in any significant way. We'll let the UN pass resolutions that we all know you'll ignore, or some variation on that theme".

selling out (and it looks like they didn't need to)

2008-11-20T07:16:00.000-08:00

eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service After Lawsuit

Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new Web site — "Compatible Partners" — for gay and lesbian users, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General announced.

Created as part of a settlement with Eric McKinley, a gay man from New Jersey, the Web site will provide services for users seeking same-sex partners by March 31, New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo said.

eHarmony, which was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren in 2000, said the settlement was triggered by a Law Against Discrimination complaint filed by McKinley against the online service on March 14, 2005. As part of the agreement, eHarmony will pay McKinley $5,000 and will provide him a one-year complimentary membership.

eHarmony — which was not found in violation of the law — also agreed to ensure that same-sex users will be matched using the same or equivalent technology used for its heterosexual clients. It will also post photographs of same-sex couples in its "Diversity" section of its Web site and in advertising materials.

I was a member at eHarmony not so very long ago, and while it was a kind of up-and-down experience, in the end I thought it was ok.

But this is distasteful to me, especially sense, as the article says, they were not found to have violated any law.

It's a sell-out, plain and simple. It's validating the intimidation tactics used by many in the gay-(special)-rights position, letting them know that they can threaten and people will cave.

And while I think the end results from my time with eHarmony is positive, it makes me ill now that I've supported them, even if it was a bit before this happened.

movie review--quantum of solace

2008-11-18T06:34:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, I gave in to a bit of curiosity, and from the library checked out an old James Bond movie. It was "You Only Live Twice", and was from the time when Sean Connery was in the role of the super-spy.

So, I took it home, and an evening or two later, watched it. At the end of it, I sat in my chair thinking "Ok, what was the big deal?"

The few times I've heard disucssions about Bond movies, the common opinion seemed to have been that Bond was at his best when Connery was Bond. I haven't watch many Bond movies. I do remember seeing one, I think it was "Live and Let Die", once when I was traveling. It was, if I may be blunt, a rather ridiculous movie. I expected something more from YOLT.

I'm not sure I got it. Oh, it as better, which may not have been all that hard to do, but it was still just very iffy. The character of Bond in the movie was rather unlikeable. He was selfish and chauvinistic (a PC word, I know, but in this case very true), and with little to any emotional display. Even when his first lover in the movie is poisoned and dies while sleeping with him, he didn't show much in the way of regret or grief or consternation.

I've seen the Brosnan Bond movies, and thought them ok. Rather too clean and super-hero-ish, maybe, but the character was at least likeable at time.

So, last week, I took a gander at "Quantum of Solace", and left it rather impressed indeed.

This new Bond is very different from any I've seen in my admittedly limited experience with the movies. Of coures, he wears tuxedoes and nice suits, but they don't seem to be a part of him as much as they were with Brosnan.

There was almost no use of the kind of techno-tricks that seemed common with Brosnan's Bond. No Q to come up with gadgetry. I rather liked that, it keeps the movie from that super-hero type of feel.

Perhaps the best parallel to this Bond that I can think of is to be found in the Tom Clancy novels, in the character of Clark. A kind of stoic, intense, super-competant killer.

Though, really, the character is more involved with that (that same with Clark as well).

This movie is a direct sequel to the last, Casino Royale, and even brings back many of the characters from it. Bond is still in some state of grief over the betrayal and death of his love from CR, Vesper, and still trying to discover what and who is behind it. At the same time, on the outside, he is denying it to others, perhaps even to himself.

Trips to rough and exotic places are, of course, in order. Haiti is shown as a poor and rough place, though I would guess not as much as the reality. There is an important scene in some kind of opera house, which reminded me a bit of scenes from "The Godfather" movies. Things finally come to an end in South America, not counting a short finale in Russia.

One thing that makes Bond hard to like for me is the philandering and womanizing nature of the character. It was present in YOLT and LaLD and in the Brosnan movies, and sadly even here, though this one seems far more interested in his tasks at hand then in flirting. In QoS, there is the obligatory bedroom scene, sadly, though even it was rather downplayed. I rather think they did it almost as an afterthought, as if thinking "Well, we have to, because that's what Bond does".

As opposed to the Bond in YOLT, this one seems to care for the women who cross his path. His feelings for Vesper still haunt him, and he also seems to care for the Argentine woman whom he meets and rescues in Haiti.

And his relationship with M is given some new twists. They disagree and knock heads, as per usual, but they seem to have a true concern for each other.

I'm really liking this new Bond a lot.

DON'T ASK THAT QUESTION!!!!!

2008-11-10T06:15:00.001-08:00

(my pardon for the all-caps title, but that was my take on the article in question here, and the spin applied to it)

I Am Barack Obama

Whenever John McCain and Sarah Palin would ask: “Who is Barack Obama?” I would cringe. The implication to me was pretty clear. Obama is an outsider. Obama is not your typical American. Obama is not like “us.” He’s an Arab. A Muslim. A Terrorist.

He would cringe? No doubt. Considering how Sojo pretty much sold their souls for him (check how they try to shift blame on the Rev Wright hate sermons), anyone asking legitimate questions about their candidate-of-choice would no doubt cringe when questions about said candidate are raised.

Obama an outsider? What that may mean.

Obama not your typical American? Perhaps. The typical American doesn't pal around with people who tried to bomb government buildings, or sit in sermons where the pastor referred to his country as "US of KKK A".

Not like us? See above.

Arab? Can't say I ever heard that.

Muslim? That was around a bit.

Terrorist? Please. When someone like William Ayers is at the least an associate, then one should expect that to be brought up.

I cringed because I am Barack Obama.

Umm, there's a picture of the writer at the bottom of the page. And let me say, he doesn't look much like Obama at all.

I too am a child of immigrants. My father also immigrated to the U.S. from a nation that begins with K and has five letters. I too have a funny sounding name. I too grew up in a single parent home. I became a Christian in a church that would be considered outside the boundaries of a typical white evangelical church. Obama and I graduated from the same undergraduate college. We hold graduate degrees from the same institution. We have both worked in community organizing. We’re both married to strong, independent women. We are both fathers of two elementary-aged kids. We both live in Chicago.

I am Barack Obama.

So, a bunch of surface similarities are suppose to make us think that is why he feels so close to our president-elect?

Yeah. Sure.

So when Obama was portrayed as someone not worthy of trust by the typical American, I took personal offense.

So??? I've never heard of the author before (though his associating with Sojo isn't a plus in my mind), but last I checked, questions about Obama had nothing to do with the author. Trying to make this somehow 'personal' to him is illegitimate and distasteful, a twist on the politics of race. Do get it over, sir.

I was stunned that my fellow Christians would question the faith of an individual whose testimony of conversion is about as evangelical as you could get.

And who was so pro-abortion he was even pro-infanticide towards those babies who didn't have decency to die when trying to be killed in the womb (even though the question of whether an unborn child is human or not is "above my pay grade"). He wants to legitimize so-called gay marriage.

Joe the Plumber is not the face of America.

More cheap shots at the man who did the most to expose Obama as the socialist he is.

I am Barack Obama, and Barack Obama is America.

Then may God have mercy us, because we will need it.

so this is tolerance???

2008-11-07T07:12:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles Interfaith Leaders Support Mormon Church Against Attacks by Opponents of Prop

I'm not going to say that Mormons are Christian, not even close. But to their credit, they are pro-family. Which puts them in the opposition to those who think themselves 'ahead of the curve'.

The peaceful faiths, families, educators, activists, and community servants who make up the Protect Marriage Coalition are saddened to hear of the continued targeted attacks on the Mormon people during and after the conclusion of this fair and certified election. Like many churches, the family is the anchor of the LDS faith and it is no surprise that its members in California joined other faiths in giving everything they had to Proposition 8.

Many California churches have also experienced harassment, drive-by attacks, obscenities and defacement of property. Such acts do not build trust with the voters of California.

And then there's this...

“Gays” Call for Violence Against Christian Supporters of Prop 8

In a blog entry titled “You’ll Want to Punch them” on Queerty.com, poster “BillyBob Thornton” wrote, “… I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our Equal Rights, But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one.” “Stenar” asked, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.” “Angelo Ventura,” said, “… hope they all rot in hell, those servants of a lying, corrupt devil!

BAN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM!” And, “Jonathan,” warned, “I’m going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”

Meanwhile, over at JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, “World O Jeff,” said, “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” While, “Tread,” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.” “Joe,” stated, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”

Let's not make more of it then what it is (it's quite enough as it is). It's a few voices, and maybe all they're doing is letting off steam. But maybe not, either. If the first link above is to be believed, then there is already stuff going on that goes beyond simply disagreeing and expressing it.

considerings

2008-11-07T04:53:00.001-08:00

It's been a couple of days since election day. Trying to figure how to think about it has not been easy.

Falling into extreme pessimism has been most tempting, and not without reason. That such a person was chosen for our highest office is something that I still cannot comprehend. Although I say that the media is complicent in it because of how they tried to hide and spin all the things about him, in the end the people knew what he was. They knew what he said to Joe the plumber, and knew what it meant. They knew his stands on abortion and even infanticide. They knew the type of person he was, and they chose him anyway.

Very well. The people have spoken. Now we shall see what comes of it.

I am not completely pessimistic. For one thing, he is, after all, a politician, and one of the cheapest currencies in the world is a politician's promise.

Also, I am not forgetful of things in Scripture. Although not a king, perhaps there is something to be said for "The king's heart is in the hands of the Lord, and He turns it wherever He wills". I have consoled myself a time or two with that thought that "What has been intended for evil, God can turn to good".

But let us not be naive and dreamy, either. Even if he only accomplishes a bit of what he has said, it will be quite damaging enough. If he sets up the economy the way he wants, the damage will be serious. If he gets something like the Fairness Doctrine passed, free speech will be damaged, and I can't help but think that hate crimes laws will not be long in following and will be used to further restrict speech. If he passes the abortion legislation he wants, then any gains done in recent times will be set back. If he makes immorality normal and legal in marriage, then we will have lost all claims to being a moral people.

So, what now???

It is easy to use Scripture out-of-context here. I could pull out "If my people...will humble themselves, and pray...then I will forgive their sins, and heal their land". And there is much to be said for what is being said there. We do need to humble ourselves, pray and seek God's face, and turn from our sins. We need to repent.

I'm not going to say that passage is necessarily applicable to us. If we do those things, perhaps God will heal our land. If we repent, he will forgive our sins. But I think that promise was given to a certain people, a people called Israel, and we the church aren't them. But the passage still gives good advice.

Now, if the repentence were to be truly national, then maybe our land could be healed. But I'm not a pollyanna, and if anyone reads this, they are likely already Christ's, or at least think they are.

We need to repent. I couldn't care lesser about having big services in large churches or stadiums with lots of people gathered and weeping on each other's shoulders. I couldn't care less about the theatrics. We need real repentence, not a show. And by 'we' I mean myself as much as anyone reading this.

We, the church, need to repent. If others who are not Christians can be led to repentence, then all the better for them and for us.

We need to repent of abiding the presence of wolves among the sheep. No small list could be made of those wolves, and no doubt disagreements would arise in some cases of which is which, but let us start with some that are obvious--those who are ecumenical to the degree of saying that all religions are ways to God; those who would deny or abide the presence of those who deny basic biblical doctrines such as the Godhead and Christ's death and resurrection and ascension; those who make the Gospel about health and wealth and manipulating God into blessing them; those who would trade eternal life for some kind of supposed utopia on earth.

How often have we seen the dark and ugly side of things like the Word of Faith preachers? It is to our shame and those scam scum can not only still do their thing, but get wealthy doing it.

How often have we seen how shallow and wrong this new apostolic and prophetic movement is? I wish there were prophets, but if there are any, they aren't in Kansas City, or Pensacola, or Toronto, or any other such place. How many more trainwrecks like Bentley do we need to see that there is something deadly wrong with what their saying and doing? It is to our shame that we have abided such things, falling for their supposed manifestations, trading in sound doctrine for barking like dogs in church aisles.

There are no doubt other things that we need to repent of. Some may point out how divorce in the churhc is no better than in the world, and maybe they are right, but I am cautious about that. How many of those people turned to Christ after being divorced? How many are cases of Christians who fell but have repented and been restored? We must be wise in how we view such stats, while also considering that they may be showing us a problem.

We need to return to the Bible, and what it says, and preach that.

I cannot promise the same blessing that the passage above promises, except the part about God forgiving those who repent, because I do not think that will happen, at least at this time, and I've already given one reason why, that those promises are not really directed to us. Perhaps a day will come when our land will be healed, but it will not come until Christ returns. But I'm not speaking to a nation, but to the church.

I am not a Word of Faith sycophant, nor a dominionist of any stripe. What I see in the Bible is "If they hated Me, they will hate you as well" and "All those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". Some I have heard and read seem to say that if we get right with God, we can expect favor with the world and even a sort of christianization of the world. I think that much the opposite is what would happen.

I am not a bold man. I am not a preacher. I don't know how all of this will work out for any of you, or even myself. The threads that surround us are huge, I would even say worldwide. The fact that we may have a bad and even ungodly leader is not new in history, but the seeming global quality of it all is new. And we shouldn't ignore that.

Before our God, we must be humble and pray and turn from our sins. Before people, we must stand firm, and expect persecution and ridicule and rejection. Some will hear, and repent and believe. Many will not. Let's go ahead and accept now that it will be so.

The time is short. I can give no advice on what specifics any of us should do outside of what I've said above. God will be with us, though, if we are with Him.

how to continue doing what kills you

2008-11-06T09:40:00.000-08:00

Still trying to deal with what happened Tuesday. Am not surprised, but not happy either.

At any rate, I'm not the only one doing so, and so perhaps such ideas as these are to be expected. Expected, but shown the door at our earliest convenience.

Should the GOP Double Down on Social Conservatism?

So the question for the GOP is: Will it pursue them? To do so will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will involve potentially even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues. That’s a future that leaves little room for Sarah Palin – but the only hope for a Republican recovery.

This argument makes sense to us, and we’ve been holding forth in our comments on this very topic. If the GOP decides to go in the Bobby Jindal direction (fundamental Christianity, creationism, hard-line anti-abortionism, aggressively anti-gay rights), it will be committing political suicide. As much as anything else, this election was a referendum on the social conservative agenda, and the social conservatives did not win.

The first paragraph above is from an article linked to on the page linked to above.

The GOP will be committing political suicide if it continues on its present course of trying to placate the liberal media, play nice and compromise with liberals, and basically try to be good little centrists. If it returns to what it should return to--biblical morality, pro-life, and true justice--then they would be surprised at how many will back them. But it's hard to find much respect for a jelly.

If the GOP follow the advice given above, then we conservatives need to jettison them.

coincidence???

2008-11-03T04:51:00.000-08:00

At the risk of seeming like some kind of coast-to-coast conspiracy nut...

I have a seeming 'coincidence' I want to point out.

I remember, a mere few weeks ago, driving by gas stations, and seeing a rather terrifying sight. The sight was of gasoline prices at around $4.00 a gallon. And I think that our prices around here were about average for the nation, or even a bit under.

Stories and theories were flying, discomfort and even fear were everywhere. I even sat in a Sunday School class were one man started a short rant about gas reaching $7.00 and how he was looking to get a horse-drawn buggy or wagon. It reached it's apex, at least for me, when one morning stories of a sudden and steep hike caused many people to fill their tanks toot-sweet, which caused many station to have all of their gas used up.

That was only a few weeks ago. In August or even Septmeber.

Now look. Gas prices around here are about half what they were at that time. I've seen prices under $2.00 a gallon. For the moment, that 'crises' has passed us by.

(but lest you get complacent, look here.)

But what has happened since the time gas prices started going down? We've had the Big Bailout!! 700 billion dollars, something that to an outsider like me seemed to happen almost out of the blue. I know that there have been those who warned about this for some time, but the actual crises itself seemed to come with great suddenness and great urgency.

And it's still with us.

Why do I note this? Let's pretend for a moment, that I'm a conspiracy theory nut, particularly of a political sort. Let's pretend that when people talk about a 'vast right wing conspiracy', they are actually setting up a smoke screen to cover up a vast left wing conspiracy. Let's pretend that when liberal news agencies don't adequately cover the facts about a particular left-wing presidential candidate, they are actually trying to adequately cover up those facts.

Attempts at trying to make the high gas prices a winning liberal issue failed, and failed resoundingly. The motto for that time became, to quote our esteemed conservative veep candidate, "Drill, baby, drill!!!" People were enthused and even demanding about wanting to start exploring new oil reserves now, or even yesterday, and they weren't listening to liberals talk about how it wouldn't help in the current crises because of time. The people were ready to learn from today's crises by preparing for tomorrows.

So, now that gas prices have gone down, there is suddenly little said about it. That is now not so much of an issue to hold over liberal candidates.

But the bailout is, and that is one that, unjustly, liberals have managed to spin in their favor. Not without help from real and so-called conservatives, it should be pointed out.

So, it has been conveniently overlooked by the media that it was a few conservatives who a few years ago tried to warn us about this and tried to do something about it. It was been conveniently overlooked at the was liberals who were in charge of those institutions when they started going under, who profitted from them, who received political donations from them, who have been hailed as heroes of the situation even though they were the ones who created the mess.

It is a complex situation, not one so easily fixes by looking for new oil reserves. And it has been one that liberals have been able to seemingly use to their advantages.

So, am I a conspiracy nut for seeing the "coincidence" that the one issue that was harmful to liberals has been lessened at the same time that another that is useful to them has been brought forward? Or dare I think there is more then mere "coincidence" going on here?

'social justice' wackiness

2008-10-30T10:05:00.000-07:00

PETA Wants Proposed Homosexual High School to Have ‘Vegan’ Cafeteria

In the name of “tolerance,” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wants a proposed Chicago public high school designed for homosexual and lesbian students to offer a vegetarian-only menu.

“The school in Chicago is in a very unique position in aligning its cafeteria with the social justice message that they’re teaching in the classroom,” PETA Director of Media Relations Michael McGraw told CNSNews.com.

IFI opposes Social Justice High – Pride Campus, Higgins said, because taxpayer dollars will go to fund the “controversial and unproven socio-political theories” behind the school’s founding.

Ok, let's see...

This is a PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL!!!!! As in, tax payer money is going into creating a public high school based solely on the students supposed sexual orientations!!!

As in, if I lived in Chicago, my tax money would be used to build and run this travesty???

Then, there is the name...Social Justice High.

Yes, that's right, the words 'social justice' front and center in the name.

And, finally, there's PETA sticking it's furry little nose in, trying to make the school meatless.

I find this sick and sad.

real justice

2008-10-30T04:52:00.000-07:00

I put up a post yesterday, telling about how Obama, and I think by extension those in the current 'social justice'movement, are looking at using the courts to implement their own agendas, which involve among other things a version of class warfare--courts are to be to favor the 'have-nots' over the 'haves', championing the poor, playing favorites based on real or perceived economic conditions.

By way of counterpoint, consider these, please.

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge you neighbor fairly.
Leviticus 18:17

Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd,

and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.
Exodus 23:2-3

Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike.
Deuteronomy 1:17a

There is no denial here of the fact that the Bible says much about caring for those who can do little or nothing to help themselves--the orphans and widows, for example. Such acts of mercy are good things.

But that is not what we are seeing put forward nowadays. We are seeing rather the injustice of favoritism. On the surface, it's favoritism for the poor. To repeat what the article yesterday said...

For Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, Supreme Court justices should champion the weak against the strong.

This is injusticed, plain and simple.

If he were saying that judges should favor the strong and great over the weak, people would see the injustice right off (I hope) and have nothing to do with it. But because it's suppose to favor the 'little man', then it's put under the misnomer of 'social justice' and becomes acceptable by many.

This must be avoided by us. Justice must be just, meaning it must judge cases fairly, no matter the party's social standing.

who says there is no "culture of death"?

2008-10-29T13:11:00.000-07:00

Is Forced Death Coming to Washington State ... Again?

Every so often, I come one someone, usually in my reading, that says that there is no "culture of death". This, despite the numbers on abortion, attempts to not save the lives of babies who survive abortion attempts (thank you, Mr. Obama), Kevorkian and assisted suicide.

I do think these people are blind. Perhaps not willfully (though one does wonder).

But now, the voters in Washington have to make a decision again regarding who should live and who should die. And as the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide makes perfectly clear, Initiative 1000 has huge problems, which is why they are working night and day to encourage voters in the state to vote against the Initiative. Make sure to check out the powerful ad on the Coalition's web site, featuring recently deceased Barbara Ann Wagner.

For starters, Eileen Geller, R.N., B.S.N., points out what could and probably will happen if this Initiative becomes law:

· Spouses and family members do not need to be told before – or after – a loved one is given lethal drugs.
· Persons suffering from depression can be given a lethal overdose without any psychological counseling or treatment – nothing in the Initiative requires an assessment of potential depression by a qualified professional.
· Health care insurers and HMO's could exploit I-1000 to save costs, since a bottle of lethal drugs costs far less than other end-of-life care.
· Heirs to a patient's estate are allowed to participate in the assisted suicide and to witness the request for lethal drugs. This would contravene existing practice governing wills and estates, a scenario that worries law enforcement because of the real potential for abuse.

Protecting the vulnerable, the ill and the dying is a never-ending struggle for each of us who realize that a human being's life, including one's own life, is a gift from God and not a thing to be used or abused at will. So, in this politically volatile year, I believe it is time for every person with the right to vote and a properly formed conscience to assess carefully what President Ronald Reagan once said: “What America needs is spiritual renewal and reconciliation – first, man with God, and then man with man.”

what they mean when they say "social justice"

2008-10-29T07:33:00.000-07:00

Obama Sees Supreme Court Justices as Champions of the Weak Over the Strong

For Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, Supreme Court justices should champion the weak against the strong.

“He’s talking about the Court being a liberal activist body, a tool for social change,” said Robert Alt, deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank.

But deciding who is powerless and who is powerful isn’t the question, says Alt. Instead, justices should judge cases based on which side presents the more compelling legal argument, regardless of who the plaintiff is.

“The judges and the courts should not be playing favorites,” he said. “They shouldn’t be paying attention to who it is who’s making the arguments, they should be deciding who has the better legal argument.”

What this pretty much comes down to may be labelled in a few different ways--rule of sympathy, rule of emotions, rule of emotional blackmail or emotional manipulation, rule by perception.

But it's not Rule of Law. And it certainly is not justice.

audio of obama's desire to redistribute the wealth

2008-10-27T09:55:00.000-07:00

Daily Kos Desperately Spinning Obama 'Redistribution of Wealth' Audio

The audio is linked to on this page. It is well worth listening to.

what sojo seems to want us to ignore

2008-10-20T07:55:00.000-07:00

Obama's Abortion Extremism

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

...

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! "pro-choice"-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

...

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

It's a long article, there is much more in it then I'm giving here, but it's well worth the read. Anyone thinking this man is in any way pro-life has voluntarily put their head in the sand, or is making a political compromise that is beyond sickening, and for the supposed 'pro-life' Sojourners to try to push this man on us only shows how far down the road to compromise (and worse) they have gone.

disgusting compromising

2008-10-17T05:46:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to link to this article, because it sickens me too much to want to give it any amount of bump. If you want to verify it, it's called "A New Conversation on Abortion" and it's found at Sojourners.

In last evening's presidential debate, the first steps were taken toward a new national conversation about abortion. For too many years, the old one hadn't changed very much. It came up every four years during elections and seldom in between. The Republicans repeated that they think abortion should just be completely illegal; and the Democrats repeated their only mantra of a "woman's right to choose." And the number of abortions remained mostly unchanged.

Oh, so we should stop, because we haven't made much progress? So you want sell out, Mr. Wallis? You want to put this issue behind you, I guess, so you can focus on more important things, like how to spin Obama's "spread the poverty" tax plan?

Abortion reduction is the clear common ground that could unite the pro-choice and pro-life polarities and bring us together to find some real solutions and finally see some results

I wish I has an angry red-faced smiley here, because if I did, I would put a whole line them right here, to express how I think and feel about this 'abortion reduction' crap.

Let me put it this way...

Let's say that all we asked from Nazi Germany was only a reduction in the number of Jewish people put into extermination camps and killed off and put into mass graves. How does that sound to you?

Let's say that all we adked from al Qaeda was a reduction in the number of planes they flew into buildings. How does that sound?

Let's say that all we asked from Arafat and the Palestinian terrorists is a reduction in the number of people killing themselves in suicide bombing attacks against Israel. How does that sound?

Let's say that all we asked from the KKK of years ago was a reduction in the number of racial attacks and killings on their part. How does that sound?

Let's say that all we asked of Stalin or Pol Pot or any other commie-dictator-mass murderer was a reduction in the number of people they put into gulags and mass murdered. How does that sound?

No, Mr. Wallis, this is not an area of compromise. Murder is murder, whether it's 10 or 5 or those numbers in millions. Murder is absolutely wrong, and we ask not for the reduction of it, but the absolute banning of legalized murder via the legalizing of abortion.

Your attempts at compromise are sickening and disgusting, Mr. Wallis. You do not speak for me and such as myself.

more kiddie indoctrination

2008-10-16T09:40:00.000-07:00

Calif. First Graders ‘Indoctrinated’ in Visit to Same-Sex Wedding, Critics Say

(CNSNews.com) – Nearly five months after California’s Supreme Court issued a decision creating same-sex marriage, a class of first graders was the first to be officially exposed to a same-sex marriage ceremony in San Francisco.

It’s a move that some say is “indoctrination.”

“This shows that homosexual ‘marriages’ are designed not just to gain public approval of the homosexual lifestyle, but designed to indoctrinate children to be ‘better’ than their ‘bigoted elders,’” Randy Thomasson, president and founder of the non-profit Campaign for Children and Families, told CNSNews.com.

“‘Get them while they’re young’ is the goal of homosexual activists, and they’re succeeding in San Francisco,” he added. “Now parents and grandparents have a vivid example from San Francisco of how children are already being indoctrinated to support homosexual marriage and see this as an acceptable ‘relationship’ based on ‘love,’” Thomasson told CNSNews.com.

of course, why stop at indoctrination...

2008-10-14T09:45:00.001-07:00

...when the grandkids can be used to put pressure on grandparents to vote for...you know who.

CBS Promotes Pro-Obama Video by Sarah Silverman, Censors and Ignores All Its Profanity

Be warned, the above does contain language used by this...person...in her video. It's pretty bad, which is one thing the Newsbusters' article is pointing out.

PRICE: So forget the stump speeches and the big crowds. This election may all come down to a one-on-one conversation with a grandson.

SILVERMAN: If they vote for Barack Obama they're going to get another visit this year. If not, let's just hope they stay healthy until next year.

[LOUD LAUGHTER FROM SMITH AND CHEN]

One thing to point out it the double-standard and hypocrisy shown here. Who else but a liberal could get away with calling on parents to use their children to influence the grandparents? Who else but a liberal could get away with saying the things she says about Jews and blacks in the video? And who else but a liberal would have those things not just ingored by the media, but laughed at?

The more this campaign goes on, the more sick it becomes.

get them indoctrinated early

2008-10-14T04:58:00.000-07:00

Obama Pushed on Our Kids in Lit Textbook

Over at RealDebateWisconsin Fred Dooley was contacted by the mother of a Racine Unified School District 8th grade student in Wisconsin public schools about an outrageous thing she found in her son's school textbook. Apparently, in this textbook supposedly teaching about literature, one of the books being pushed as a perfect example of that subject is Barack Obama's memoir Dreams from my Father. That's right, a book by a current political candidate for president is being pushed on our children as "literature." It also seems probable from campaign donation records that a principle member of the publishing company is a large Obama donor.

My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son's new (copyright 2008) Wisconsin - McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.

I was shocked - No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush - Just Barack Obama. I'm wondering how it is that Obama's story gets put into an 8th grade literature book? It would be one thing, if it was just the tidbit about his boyhood days, but 15 pages, and they talk about his "Life of Service". Honestly, what has Obama really done to be included in this book? Not only that, but on page 847 there is a photo of Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention with at least 8 Obama signs in the background! Front & center is an www.obama2004.com sign.

obamania keeps getting scarier

2008-10-07T08:16:00.000-07:00

Militant Obama youth march to 'Alpha, Omega' chant

Obama commandos' teacher disciplined

leaving the big two

2008-10-06T11:32:00.000-07:00

This presidential election has provided a rather classic no-win situation for someone like myself.

On the one hand, there are the Dem Leacherals (a name I'll explain later). Voting for Obama is, for me, not an option.

On the other hand, there are the Rep Compromiservatives. I simply cannot trust McCain as a politician, which is sad, because although he's had his failings, as a man he seems to be one that can be admired and respected.

But McCain the politician isn't one I can trust. He has shown too often a habit of compromising with leacherals on almost any issue.

The choice of Palin for his Vice-President was unexpected, and gives some life to his campaign. Before selecting her, I was anticipating him picking someone like Lieberman, who despite being a Liberal who can be partially respected is still a Liberal, and that I would in essence not be left with a choice. Choosing Palin at least gave me pause in that regard.

But maybe not enough. The truth is, McCain is still the one running for President, and while the VP pick is important, it doesn't supercede the Presidential choice.

As now, McCain has voted for the bailout. This is touchy, because it's about things I don't understand well. But I think I do understand that the government essentially owning mortgages is a very bad idea, and that this bailout is essentially socialism sneaking in the back door. None of that is good.

So, what is a conservative like me to do?

The thought of not voting at all is there, and one I don't readily dismiss. It isn't enough to say that I'll be voting for "the lesser of two evils", because I would still be voting for an evil. An Obama presidency has the strong potentially of being shameful and a disaster, but a McCain one doesn't promise to be much better.

I think that my vote has some worth. Not in a monetary sense, but in a sense of approval and favor of what the person and the party stand for. It would take a very un-Democrat Democrat to have me vote for such a one, seeing all of the things the Democrat Party supports--legalizing immorality, the continuing of abortion, weakening of the military, higher taxes and the redistribution of wealth. A Democrat would essentially have to not be a Democrat in order to get my vote.

My vote, then, is simply not to be given to one I do not deem worthy of it. Obama is not, and I have my serious doubts about McCain.

So, what's left.

Not voting, as I said, is an option. Not because I do not value the right to vote, but because I do, and I must exercise that right with wisdom. And if there is no canditate I can approve of with my vote, then for me to vote just because there is an election with no one I can approve is to essentially waste that right.

There are also other, smaller parties. I'm not Libertarian, and certainly not a Green. I have read the positions of the Constitution Party, though, and while I'm not in complete agreement with them, I am enough to at least consider casting my vote for their candidate.

For any who may be interested, here's the Constitution Party's Platform.

There is still time. We'll see how these last few weeks go. Perhaps McCain can avoid pulling defeat from the jaws of victory, though how much of a victory that would be for all of us is doubtful.

And if we elect Obama, then, well, we'll only have asked for what's coming.

hoisting oneself

2008-09-24T11:49:00.000-07:00

Try these two quotes on for size, both from the same person.

The first is found here (warning: may expose you to Palin Derangement Syndrome).

A call to arms

When I got home from church, I drank a bunch of water to metabolize the Dove bar and called my Jesuit friend, who I know hates these people, too. I asked, "Don't you think God finds these smug egomaniacs morally repellent? Recoils from their smugness as from hot flame?"

And he said, "Absolutely. They are everything He or She hates in a Christian."

The context shows that "these people" are the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

And no comment on the Jesuit's inability to decide what God is. These are, after all, progressives.

The second quote comes from this source.

Anne Lamott

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." (Traveling Mercies; although on page 22 of Bird by Bird she attributes this quote to "my priest friend Tom")

The irony here is great.

cultural suicide

2008-09-15T17:23:00.000-07:00

Sharia Courts "Legally Binding" In UK

It is reported today that Islamic Sharia courts are exploiting a loophole in British law and pronouncing judgements on cases including divorce, financial disputes and even domestic violence...

"In one recent inheritance dispute in Nuneaton, a Muslim man's estate was spit was between three daughters and two sons with each son receiving twice as much as each daughter - in keeping with sharia law."

A mainstream court would have demanded equal treatment...

Similarly, two Christian preachers were booted out of a Muslim neighbourhood in Birmingham. The officer, who was very aggressive, told the preachers

"We were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station."

There have also been reports of Pakistani police officers and government officers failing to help women fleeing their families in "honour crimes" cases, even returning them to their families in the knowledge that they face harsh punishment.

I'm really starting to think that our cultural has a death wish.

Granted, this is Britain, but it's close enough to be in many ways similar to our culture. And all too often, as goes Europe, so too do many in the US wish to go.

Seriously, who in their right minds thinks this is a good idea???

And now the foot is in the door, or even more then just the foot. Now they make legal ruling descriminating against women. Now they can tell Christian ministers that their right to free speech doesn't apply to Muslim communities.

All that in a theoretically 'free' country.

Now I'm just waiting for the libs over here to start touting this as the next wave of progressiveness.

and the redefinings continue to creep in...

2008-09-10T13:29:00.001-07:00

California bans 'brides,' 'grooms

ROSEVILLE, Calif. – "Brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California.

That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.

The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was denied

And never minding that it makes marriage sound like business arrangement...

But, that's Cali for you. The fruitier and nuttier, the better, I guess is their thought.

when peaceniks attack!!

2008-09-02T06:55:00.000-07:00

Anti-War Protest at GOP Convention Turns Violent

Five people were accused of setting fire to a trash bin and pushing it into a police car, St. Paul police spokesman Tom Walsh said.

A group of protesters came toward the delegation and tried to rip the credentials off their necks and sprayed them with a toxic substance that burned their eyes and stained their clothes, delegate Rob Simmons told KMSP-TV.

One 80-year-old member of the delegation had to be treated for injuries, and several other delegates had to rinse their eyes and clothing, the station reported.

Up to 200 people from a group called Funk the War nosily staged their own march. Wearing black clothes, bandanas and gas masks, some of their members smashed windows of cars and stores. They tipped over newspaper boxes, pulled a big trash bin into the street, bent the rearview mirrors on a bus and flipped heavy stone garbage bins on the sidewalks.

Protesters were seen lying on an interstate exit ramp to block traffic in the downtown area and linking arms to block other roads.

On the weekend, authorities seized weapons and devices from a self-described anarchist group called the RNC Welcoming Committee, which was not among the organizers of the march. The devices were designed to disable buses, the sheriff’s office said. Five people from that group were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to riot, conspiracy to commit civil disorder and conspiracy to damage property, the sheriff’s office said.

Because nothing says "Stop the war!!" quite like senseless violence against senior citizens and police, and the smashing of car and store windows.

Zheesh, can anyone say "Hypocracy!!!" really loudly?

another reason republicans are now not conservatives

2008-08-29T07:28:00.000-07:00

GOP Platform Draft: Global Warming is Man-Made

(CNSNews.com) – A final draft of the Republican Party platform includes a first-ever plank on global warming that says human activity has contributed to climate change.

"The same human activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere," the draft reads. "Increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth."

“I am not surprised that it’s a plank in the platform, because that’s part of McCain’s platform, but it’s disappointing, because it’s an example of Republicans playing ‘me too’ rather than leading,” Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com on Thursday.

the throwing of the tomatoes :-)

2008-08-28T10:50:00.000-07:00

And I thought Spain was famous only for bull fighting!! I had no idea they had this event!

Spanish Town Holds Annual Tomato Fight

Bunol, Spain (AP) - Spanish revelers have pelted each with 113 tons of ripe tomatoes in an annual food fight. Town hall says an estimated 40,000 people took part in the hour of messy fun in the village of Bunol near Valencia. The ritual dates back to the 1940s.

obama lied, children died

2008-08-19T05:54:00.000-07:00

Campaign Admits Obama Lied About Abortion Vote, Media Asleep

As NewsBusters reported on August 13, the media pretty much ignored the great work by Jill Stanek in uncovering the truth that contradicted nearly 6 years of claims that Obama made concerning his vote on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act when he was in the Illinois State Senate. Obama claimed that the Federal "neutrality clause" wasn't in the Illinois bill and that if it were he would have voted for the bill instead of against it. Stanek proved that the exact same clause Obama said wasn't in the bill was actually placed in the bill by the very committee Obama chaired. Yet he still voted against it.

So, even with the same "neutrality clause" in the bill, placed there by the very committee of which he chaired, Obama still voted against the bill. Even though for 6 years he has claimed he would have voted for the bill if the "neutrality clause" was there -- that he has been saying this whole time that the lack of that clause made him vote against the bill -- even with that claim being proven a lie, the media stays silent.

The fact is, Obama's abortion record is far more extreme than he and his willing Old Media accomplices are allowing for. Obama is in favor of allowing babies to die from neglect even if born completely healthy, but unwanted by the Mother. This is an extreme view.

But, of course, he doesn't make enough money to say whether these just-born children (not to mention those still in the womb) are really human or not.

another example of cali fruit-and-nuttiness

2008-08-15T08:47:00.000-07:00

L.A. adopts day laborer rules for home improvement stores

The Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved an ordinance Wednesday requiring certain home improvement stores to develop plans for dealing with day laborers who congregate nearby in search of jobs.

The ordinance mandates that proposed big-box stores obtain conditional-use permits, which could then require them to build day-labor centers with shelter, drinking water, bathrooms and trash cans.

The issue is also part of the wider debate over illegal immigration.

Marvin Stewart, president of the Minuteman Project, said the ordinance was another example of how the city condones illegal immigration. "All of this is flying in the face of what the city is supposed to be doing in terms of upholding the law," Stewart said.

For my part, my thought is that if (IF) these types of stores want to put us such shelters, that is their own business, though the issue of whether they are helping illegal immmigrants does come into play as well.

But for a city council to say that such businesses must build such shelters goes beyond what they should be allowed to mandate.

This is another example of government creep, another example of liberals taking away our rights.

cultural relevance, off the deep end

2008-08-13T11:01:00.000-07:00

New Indian Bible Draws Fire over Hindu References

A new Indian version of the Bible recently, published by the Catholic Church, has run into controversy over its inclusion of verses from the Bhagavad Gita, a form of Hindu chant, and references to the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.

An illustration in the new version, New Community Bible, depicts Jesus, Mary and Joseph as poor Indian villagers. Mary wears a simple sari and has a bindi on her forehead alongside Joseph in a turban and loincloth.

Pastor Vijay Thomas, who heads a Bible college in Chennai, told Christian Today, “By making it appear ‘Indian’ with references to Hindu scriptures and great poets, people will not come to the truth. This is a complete turn back from the real Bible."

when good is called bad...

2008-07-31T09:58:00.000-07:00

Dems attack Sen. Coburn for delivering babies for free

How afraid is the Democrat leadership of truly maverick conservative GOP
Sen. Tom Coburn, who is waging war with Hapless Harry Reid over binge spending
and secrecy?

They’re so afraid of his effectiveness that they are trying to kneecap
him with bogus Ethics Committee complaints about his practice of not charging
for delivering babies at the Muskogee Regional Medical Center. Coburn continues
to serve as an OB/GYN in Oklahoma.

Jill
Stanek read my mind: If Sen. Coburn were aborting babies for free instead of
delivering them, he’d be getting awards instead of ethics complaints.

Heck, if he were aborting babies for free, he'd likely be a hero of the Dem, pro-choice, and fems (maybe not really of Planned Parenthood, though, as it may take away from the profit margins they may get from the mall abortion outlets).

Really, this is the best 'scandal' the Dems can come up with? The guy must be saint, in that case.

movie review--the x-files--mulder is mulder, scully is house

2008-07-30T12:52:00.000-07:00

When I saw last year that this summer there would be an "X-Files" movie coming out, I was quite happy about the prospect. "The X-Files" numbers among my very favorite TV serieses, and the hope of a continuation of it, even in movie form, was a nice hope indeed.

The summer has seen some very good movies so far. Sadly, I cannot put "I Want to Believe" really among those.

It's not awful. It's not garbage. It's actually pretty interesting, in it's ways. But...how should I put this...it didn't feel much like an X-File. If anything, it seemed more like one of those investigation shows, like a "Law and Order" or a "Criminal Minds", with a bit of "House" thrown in when it came to Scully at the hospital.

The movie does bring us in after the events of the series' end. It's been a few years, Scully is now a doctor at a hospital, and Mulder is still in hiding from the FBI. That same FBI comes to Scully looking for Mulder to help them find a missing agent, with the offer that all will be forgotten if he helps. Scully convinces him to do so, and they are off.

Perhaps one problem with the movie is that it tries to do too much. There are things about hospital ethics, doctor-patient relations, experimental cures and stem cell research, a pedophile former priest and far-reaching consequences to his actions, what prayers God hears and what sins He forgives, and the creepy people performing Frankenstein-like experiments in the scrap yard.

Which brings up another problem, the feel of the movie. The usual X-Files episode succeeded in bringing about such things as creepiness, drama, a sense that things are not just not normal, but not normal is an way that is not easy to say--conspiracies within conspiracies, strange creatures, aliens, cover-ups.

The movie tried, I think, but it didn't really have that. We do see the one patchwork man, but only on an operating table. To go with the Frankenstein theme, it would be as if the villagers burned down the castle before the monster rose and did havoc. It may be smart of them, but it makes for a not-as-interesting movie.

On the plus side, there was Mulder and Scully. And they brought back Skinner, too. Nothing is said about the others from the end of the series, no mention made of what happened to Reyes or Doggett or Kirsch.

No alien bounty hunter roaming about. No black oil roiling over people's eyes. No mysterious lights in the sky. No Gibson Praise. No supersoldiers. And I guess Cancerman is still dead.

It's not a bad movie, it's just...unsatisfying.

movie review--the dark knight--'24' lite

2008-07-25T07:42:00.000-07:00

For those of you who need your '24' fix after the writer's strike put a stop to the coming season, I can recommend "The Dark Knight" to you.

Granted, Batman isn't Jack Bauer. In fact, I think if Batman were to ever meet Jack Bauer, he would start whimpering. Well, maybe not, that's probably an exaggeration.

Rather, think of "The Dark Knight" as Bauer lite.

The movie has many of the elements that make '24' so very much worth watching. Crises and dilemmas, explosions, races against time, moral and ethical questions, impossible choices, looks into the high cost of doing what is right, betrayals and people changing, good people who are killed or twisted.

It's shorter, so there's not the many layers of conspiracy that a '24' season has, but it does have the twist in the middle, where it looks like it may be over but is only just starting to fire up.

There are times when Batman shows how far he will go to try to find his enemy, in this movie the Joker, and stop his havoc. Although he doesn't seem to have planned it, he lets Dent pretend to be him in order to lure out the Joker. An interrogation gets rather rough. In the leadup to the finale he uses a form of city-wide spying technology to find where the Joker is hiding.

And the parallel's continue even into the life of Wayne. His 'job' comes between him and Rachel from the first movie, he is given the choice of whether to save Rachel or Dent at one point (and unlike in 'Batman Forever', he is not able to be both), and his use of the spying tech may have driven a friend from him.

And finally, in the last scenes, we see him taking the fall for crimes he didn't commit, in order to preserve the reputation of a man who had been heroic until becoming deformed. Perhaps that is the most Bauer-ish thing he did.

This is a very good movie, with lots of stuff going on in it, and lots of things one could point out. I'll mention in passing the idea of how choices take a role--Rachel must choose between Bruce or Dent, Batman must choose to save Rachel or Dent, two ferry boats full of people must choose which will die. And in a twist to that, Dent in the end, as Two-Face, gives up making choices and relies on the flip of his coin.

I don't know if I can say it's better then, say, 'Iron Man'. I do think it's much more intricate and not an simplistic. It's very different, and is well worth watching.

be afraid...

2008-07-24T12:58:00.000-07:00

Richard Simmons — Congressman?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Fitness star and effervescence extreme Richard Simmons is on Capitol Hill today, tackling the issue of childhood obesity and pushing for increased school exercise programs. But as he testifies before the House Education and Labor Committee, the 60-year-old is nodding toward that celebrity siren song: political office.

In a half-serious, half-jocular tone, Simmons described his approach to the hearing, saying, "I want to have the respect of a congressman, I want to talk like a congressman, and maybe, someday, I'll be a congressman."

Ok, when and how did he turn 60???

"After this congressional hearing, I will go home," Simmons said, "I will talk with my Dalmatian dogs, I will pray to God and then I'll see what else I can do to help."

Yeah, if that doesn't strike into your heart, I'm not sure what will.

perhaps all reason has not left us yet

2008-07-14T07:54:00.000-07:00

Bush to Lift Executive Ban on Offshore Drilling

It's a very short article, maybe because it looks to be recent news (see, who says I don't do cutting edge :-)).

The White House says President Bush is planning to lift an executive ban on offshore oil drilling.

In a Rose Garden statement on Monday, the president plans to lift the ban. But by itself, the move will not lead to more drilling off America's coastline.

So, it may not be enough to finally start the drilling, but one can hope it will be a step in the right direction.

when real life is stranger then fiction

2008-07-09T09:36:00.000-07:00

A father undermined

A Gatineau judge's bizarre attempt to undermine a father's authority sends a frightening message to all parents: When it comes to raising children, the state knows best.

Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court sided with a 12-year-old girl who challenged, in court, her father's decision to ground her. The girl had been living with her father -- the parents are divorced -- and he forbade her to attend a school trip after she disobeyed his instructions to stay off the Internet.

...

This was hardly an instance of cruel or arbitrary authority. There was no abuse involved, not even close. The father, it seems, used clear and consistent warnings, letting his child know that there would be consequences for inappropriate behaviour. This is how you raise responsible children who understand the results of their actions. It is an approach to discipline that should be encouraged, not outlawed by the state.

Although such a thing is not yet here in the US, I fear it will only be a matter of time. And while the paper does say that the judge's decision was "aberrant" and unlikely to be followed, one can wonder if that will really be so.

At the least, it's another foot in the door, and there are those who would not mind forcing that door open even further.

enter the thought police

2008-07-08T04:46:00.000-07:00

Toddlers who dislike spicy food 'racist'

The National Children's Bureau (this is from a UK newspaper, but given how the left in the US seems to like the bad decisions made in Europe, well, just wait a bit...), which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

Wow, I'm glad I didn't have those people behind me when I was in other countries. Let's be honest, a lot of the food I had in my time in Russia was very good, but some things just weren't to my taste. The one kind of soup, for example, which was served cold. I tried a few times to eat it, but eventually had to give up. Or the fish gelatin dish, a delicacy where I was I think, but one I couldn't develop a taste for at all.

And if these people actually did some thinking (not that I expect too much of them), they would realize that children are just as likely to say "yuk" to foods of their own country as to foreign foods. Very likely their responses to foods have less to do with any culture behind the food as to things like how the foods look, smell, the child's own tastes in foods, any tempermental issues the child may be having at that time, or whatever.

Warning that failing to pick children up on their racist attitudes could instil prejudice, the NCB adds that if children "reveal negative attitudes, the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes".

Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council. The guide added: "Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case."

So, yeah, report your local toddler to the nearest authorities if they refuse to eat something from a foreign land.

Why does this seem like these people are only trying to create a problem, and then have people report incidents so that they can justify their own existence?

But it's still scary. This whole 'thought police' thing would be ridiculous if I didn't think they were serious about having people report incidents to the local council, and the more the merrier.

movie review--hancock--a bit of a mess

2008-07-07T11:46:00.000-07:00

"Hancock" is a mess. Some, I know, haven't like it. I remember hearing last week a person on a local radio station who gives brief reviews of movies, and his take on "Hancock" was rather low, a mere one-and-a-half out of five stars.

My take on it is a bit higher. I actually enjoyed it, and thought it pretty good. Not great, but worth a viewing.

The character of Hancock is indeed a mess when the movie begins. He's obviously a 'good guy', but of a rather rough sort. He's obvious out to get the 'bad guys', but his methods are clumsy and destructive, and his way with people not very good. For example, in one scene he saves a man from being killed by a train, but in doing so causes the train to wreck, and while it looks to have been only a freight train, it was still quite a wreck.

The man he saves is some kind of PR guy, and in return for the save he tries to help Hancock improve his image and people skills. That is one big part of the rest of movie, and the other is how this encounter with the PR guy leads to another encounter with someone like Hancock.

In one sense, Hancock is like a Superman with an attitude problem. He flies, he's bulletproof, though he doesn't seem to have things like x-ray vision or heat rays. He isn't an alien, and is much older then he appears, but doesn't seem to know what exactly he is due to a head injury and amnesia.

One way in which the movie is a mess is that it doesn't explain things very well. We never really learn what Hancock is, or the others like him, or really what their role was suppose to have been.

There is quite a bit of language in the movie, little of it really bad. There is some crass humor. There is no sexual stuff that I remember, except one thing at the beginning.

The part of the story where the PR guy tries to persuade companies to give away their products, such as medications, is one of interest. I don't know how much money such companies would put into research, or how much testing would be needed for such things to be approved, but it does strike me as naive to expect such companies to give away their work for the little reward of putting a certain logo on their other products.

The rights and wrongs of company's policies, charitable works, and how to really help people, are beyond the scope of a review such as this. Suffice it for now to say that 'Hancock' is rather simplistic in this regard.

All told, though, it's a pretty good movie. Maybe a little more thought could have been put into the story, but it doesn't really take away from it.

liberal arrogance over DC gun ruling

2008-07-02T13:55:00.000-07:00

Don't Shoot!

"Don't shoot -- I want to grow up," read the protest sign an 11-year-old boy held in the wake of 30-plus shootings of Chicago schoolchildren this school year.

Typical liberal tactic--bring out the kids who don't have the ability to grasp the issues (just don't show the ones butchered in abortions, that's just distasteful).

The affirmation of the individual's right to bear arms must also be countered by us

Wow, there's is one of the most crystal-clear examples of liberal elitist thinking I've ever seen. Thank you, ma'am, for showing us so succintly how low and mean you think of us, and how you think it's your job to protect us from ourselves. Such arrogance is rarely accompanied with such candor these days.

ok, maybe we now need to ask, what ISN'T offensive

2008-07-02T13:23:00.000-07:00

Because when we can't have pictures of puppies without offending Muslims, then what can we have?

Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman's hat advertising a Scottish police force's new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims

The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Coming up in the news in the next few months, they'll starting protesting shops that sell calendars with pictures of puppies.

are we really this nuts (or, dare I say, bananas)???

2008-06-30T07:06:00.000-07:00

Spain calls for ape’s rights

On Wednesday, the Spanish Parliament called on Spain to protect the great ape’s right to life and freedom. Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Ape Project called it an “historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades.” The Project works to remove the great ape “from the category of mere property” and to “provide these amazing creatures with the right to life, the freedom of liberty and protection from torture.”

While the Great Ape Project laments “the arbitrary denial of fundamental rights and protections to non-human great apes,” it is difficult not to notice arbitrariness of another sort in such fervent defense of animal rights from a nation that sanctions(and subsidizes) some 92,000 abortions annually.

And who, we may ask, is one of the people behind this madness?

The Project’s chief philosophical proponent, Dr. Peter Singer, doesn’t see the inconsistency. In a 2007 article in the Melbourne Herald-Sun, Singer argued that though “the opponents of abortion are right to say that abortion ends a human life…mere membership of our species doesn’t settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life.”

Singer argues that consciousness (and thus the ability to experience pain) is the proper criteria for evaluating “personhood.” Thus, for Singer, an adult ape has more intrinsic value than a human infant, more consciousness, and thus more of a right to life.

Yep, Peter Singer.

maybe there's a conflict of interest?

2008-06-27T12:55:00.000-07:00

Ok, first, there's this.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/06/a-call-for-evangelical-rhetori.html

Perhaps 30 years later, evangelicals, because of "an increase in
questionable rhetorical practices in the nonprofit sector," need to form the
ECRA: The Evangelical Council for Rhetorical Accountability. Those of us who
have a lot of pew time know ... not to mention those who listen to religious
broadcasting and partake of religious literature, Web sites, and blogs (!) ...
that such accountability is sorely lacking.

The need for an ECRA became clearer than ever to me this week when a
beloved elder in the evangelical broadcasting community spoke out against Sen.
Barack Obama. What is evident to me in this interchange is not just a difference
in policy, but also a ...

.. difference in rhetoric, defined as how one attempts to argue and
persuade. In times like these -- dangerous times, election seasons, and so on --
we must not only scrutinize what people say and whether we agree with it, but
also how they say it and whether we agree with their means of persuasion. I'm
suggesting that we sharpen our sense of rhetorical accountability just as we
sharpen our sense of financial accountability.

The specter of censorship notwithstanding...

Then, there was this.

Faithful in pews might not be voters in November

Meanwhile, Obama's campaign is aggressively reaching out to evangelicals.

The Illinois senator dispatched former 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer to meet with fellow Roman Catholics. He sent Brian McLaren, one of the country's most influential pastors, to meet with fellow evangelicals. And aides have conducted more than 200 "American Values Forums," soon to be followed up with house parties and town hall-style meetings aimed at young Catholics and young evangelicals.

And a bit later, a response from McLaren.

link

Of course, we all know that I'm not one of the country's most influential
pastors. Nor was I sent to meet with fellow evangelicals on Obama's behalf,
although I'd be happy to share with anyone of any faith persuasion my hopes,
concerns, and commitments regarding the presidential election.

I was invited to speak on faith and politics at one of Senator Obama's
"faith and values" forums in Iowa last year. And I am an enthusiastic supporter
of The Matthew 25
Network, which is supporting Senator Obama, and which you can read about here and here. And I plan to be more
outspoken about the election in the coming months, here and elsewhere - not as a
spokesperson for any organization, but as a responsible private citizen. In
fact, I just said good-bye to a CNN crew who was here filming a story about
Evangelicals who support Senator Obama, tentatively to be aired on
Tuesday.

I think I'll wait for the AP article writer to have his or her say about McLaren's claims. My point here is simply point out that McLaren calls for some kind of niceness when it comes to political rhetoric, at least when it is directed agains the man he is out there campaigning for (which he admits to, whether Obama "sent" him or not).

Btw the God's Politics blog (which has much more politics then God, on may think) was one that quite vigorously defended the statements of Obama former pastor Jeremiah Wright. As seen here.

Putting Rev. Wright's Preaching in Perspective
Why America Needs the Uncensored Prophetic Voice of the Black Church

I think it's a case of these people being quite willing to dish it, but not so much ot take it.

book review--the shack--concluding remarks

2008-06-27T05:12:00.000-07:00

A work like this is difficult to deal with, in terms of whether to recommend it or not.

On the one hand, in many ways it is far ahead of much of what passes for 'Christian' thought today. The author's bold statements about the Trinity, about Heaven after death, about the resurrection of Christ, are statements made in the face of attacks on those same doctrines from various fronts. In that sense, the book is well worth reading.

On the other hand, when he says things that smack of universalism, or tries to make us think that God is our servant, well, those are some pretty serious things, too.

And it's not so easy to simply say to take the good and bypass the bad. Not all errors are equal. How one views the Creation account, for example, may be counted a small matter (though I sometimes wonder about that), but how one views the resurrection of Christ is quite another matter. So when people like Crossan and Borg try to tell us that there was no real resurrection, I have no qualms about saying they have no part in the faith. In that sense, Young is well inside it, and I am glad.

When he tries to tell us that God is our servant, however, I can only raise the eyebrows. I fear how such a mindset would be in some people. Isn't that very much how Word of Faith views God, even up to the point of commanding the Spirit to do thing, and using Scripture almost against God in order to make Him do things?

I think this points to where one of my mains qualms is in the book. His portrayal of God is not one that would cause a Moses to take off his shoes before Him, or make a Job be quiet with unanswerable questions, or strike down a man for having the audacity to touch the Ark of the Covenant, or send plagues upon plagues upon a people for the stubbornness of their ruler, or rain fire and brimstone on some wicked and immoral cities, or give His prophets words about coming disasters and conquests if the people didn't repent.

In other words, the God in Young's book is a rather tame, rather nice, rather domestic diety. Papa in the Shack is usually in the kitchen, cooking, talking about being especially fond of people. It's not exactly the type of being who feels any kind of holy awe or even fear before.

If put to the question, I guess I would say that "The Shack" is by a narrow margin a recommend. It's a book to read with one eye's open, so to speak. If one does so, there is much to consider in it, and some good may be gained from it. If one simply accepts what it says because it sounds good or makes one feel good, then the book has become a stumbling block, and would have been best avoided.

article about faith in US

2008-06-25T05:02:00.000-07:00

Americans: My Faith Isn't the Only Way to Heaven

book review--the shack--the not-so-good

2008-06-23T05:10:00.000-07:00

"Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or ar enot part of any Sunday monring or religious institution. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christians, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, in my brothers and sisters, into my beloved."

"Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you."
p. 128

I've seen this part of the book references in a few places as well, in regards to some questionable things in the book, and frankly I think they have a point.

For me, it's a bit unclear. It depends on what he means when he says that "Those who love me...They were...".When he says "They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims...", it is easy to read that as him saying that people in those religions were among those whom the author classifies as having loved Jesus. But when he then says "I have followers who were murderers...", it does kind of give pause to that conclusion. Is he saying that those who loved Jesus also committed murder, or that people who had committed murder then came to love Jesus?

Yet for all of that, I not so certain the author isn't saying that in his mind Mormons, Buddhists, and Muslims were among those whom he considered "Those who love me (Jesus)". Not that they had been in those religions before coming the Christ and becoming Christians, but that they were in those religions and still fall into Young's notiong of those who loved Jesus.

So, it seems in his mind, a Muslim who thinks Jesus just another prophet, who doesn't believe that Jesus was really crucified, and that God really spoke to some man named Mohammed, is one who loved Jesus. A Mormon who thinks God was once a man and that he will some day be a god and populate a planet with his children is one who loves Jesus.

Young doesn't explain his position here very well, and certainly doesn't deal with the Scriptures against his notions.

Such notions always surprise me. Upon what basis does he make such a statement? How does he determine the truth of it? What is his measure, his standard? What about the commands to take the Gospel to the world? What about Jesus being the only way to God?

And to say that Jesus isn't concerned that about those people becoming Christians is wrong. One may say that He isn't interested in htem only having the name Christian, that may be fair, but if the author is saying that Jesus isn't interested in people putting their faith in Him and trusting Him is unbiblical to the core. Belief in Christ is one of the main things in really loving Him.

"Honey, you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world."

"The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?"

"The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally."
p. 192

This raises some questions. How was it that God needed to reconcile Himself to the world? What had God done wrong, and the needed to be reconciled?

Rather, I can think of passages in Scripture like this, emphases mine

So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
II Corinthians 5:16-21

Romans
5:10 For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;
5:11 and not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Colossians
1:19 For it was the good pleasure [of the Father] that in him should all the fulness dwell;
1:20 and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, [I say], whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.
1:21 And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works,
1:22 yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him

Why is reconciliation a two-way street? Isn't it the one who has wronged who must be reconciled to the one wronged?

God did not need to be reconciled to us; rather, it is we who need to be reconciled to God, and the way for that to happened has been performed through the death of Christ.

Finally, for now, there is this, a statement made in regards to the man who kidnapped and murdered Mack's daughter...

But he too is my son. I want to redeem him.
p. 224

I've not doubt that God would want to redeem such a man, like he redeemed Saul who persecuted Christians, and others who committed crimes and did horrible things. And haven't we all done horrible things, even if no human court would say so?

But is such a man, who has not repented of such deeds, really a son of God? Are there not people who are not children of God?

Jesus, for example, tells the Pharisees, "You are of your father, the devil". I John 3:10 tells us "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."

In John, we are told of those who are children of God.

1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Here are some things the Bible calls those who are not children of God

Colossians
3:5 Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry;
3:6 for which things` sake cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience:
3:7 wherein ye also once walked, when ye lived in these things;

Romans
9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
9:23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
9:24 [even] us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

I think these show that God does not view such people as sons or children of Himself. It may be a hard truth, but if it is true, and it is, then there is no use in trying to make Him say otherwise, no matter how nice it sounds.

This becomes especially important in regards to the episode with Wisdom, when she asks Mack to choose which of his children will go to Heaven, and which to Hell, and likens it to how what it would be like for God to send people to Hell. Whether or not Young believes in Hell is unclear.

The problem with the parallel is that, where does the Bible say that God will send His children to Hell? Where does it say that all of the people are children of God?

I think his idea is misleading.

book review--the shack--the questionable

2008-06-21T07:01:00.000-07:00

In this take on the book, I want to deal with some things that are, to my mind at least, a bit iffy.

...Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her.
Submission is not about authority and it not obedience; it is all about
relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same
way.
p. 145

One thing Young goes on about is some kind of anti-authority, anti-heirarchy notion of love and relationship. One can see it some in the above quote, and in a few other places in the book.

Once you have a heirarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then
you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of
chain of command or a system of order that destroys rather then promotes
it.
p. 122-123

I find such a statement rather...strange. Does the Bible ever give the hint that there should be no rules among us, no laws, no heirarchy or leaders?

Did Jesus not lead his disciples? Did the Apostles not lead the early church? Did Paul not tell husbands that they are the head of their family? Did he not tell wives to submit to the husband, and children to honor their father and mother?

Does the NT say nothing about church governance? About the roles of pastors and bishops and elders?

Does the NT not tell us to obey those over us and to submit to them? Does it not say to even obey the civil authorities, except insofar as it would mean being in disobedience to God?

And if one looked to the OT, one could find God establishing modes of government, the priesthood, family, laws and rules, moral codes, kingdoms.

And as a final bit of surreality, to say that God submits Himself to us seems an almost unbelievably arrogant statement. We're dealing with God, which means right off that there is a heirarchy--God is infinitely above us.

I don't create institution--never have, never will.

What about the institution of marriage?

Marriage is not an institution. It's a relationship
p. 179

This is one of those cases when a definition of what is meant by 'institution' as it is used each time would be helpful. I get the impression that the meaning is being changed a bit, maybe not intentionally, but still changed. Much like how evolutionists can use the word 'evolution' in different ways. Such is a danger with a word that has similar but still very different meanings.

And now, as per usual, a bit of Chesterton, to give another take on the matter...

The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every
pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the
pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the first fear of
death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow
of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of
the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and
contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this
instant of potential surrender.

In everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no
one would do it, except for necessity or honor. It is then that the Institution
upholds a man and helps him on to the firmer ground ahead. Whether this solid
fact of human nature is sufficient to justify the sublime dedication of
Christian marriage is quite an other matter, it is amply sufficient to justify
the general human feeling of marriage as a fixed thing, dissolution of which is
a fault or, at least, an ignominy. The essential element is not so much duration
as security. Two people must be tied together in order to do themselves justice;
for twenty minutes at a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage In both cases
the point is, that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and
force himself to be happy. Coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or
what
some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is essentially
discouraging. If we all floated in the air like bubbles, free to drift anywhere
at any instant, the practical result would be that no one would have the courage
to begin a conversation.
From "What's Wrong with the World"

The truth of the matter is, marriage is an institution, and it is a good thing that it is. What it may have been in a perfect world, we cannot really say, except insofar as we may determine from Adam and Eve, and that is scarce little. Perhaps with them, it would have been different. Perhaps Adam could have looked upon another woman, naked as Eve, and not have felt the sexual urge he would have felt when looking upon his wife. Perhaps if even the thought of intercourse with another woman would have crossed his mind, it would have horrified him to a degree that we cannot comprehend.

Yet we are weak, shallow, sinful creatures. Young speaks against chains, metaphorically speaking, at one point in the book, but the reality is, love is a chain. If I, being a man, love a woman to the point of marrying her, I am chaining or binding myself to her, and freeing myself from considering or being considered by any other woman.

And such a binding is necessary, for the thrill of the honeymoon would run out, and the dullness of common drudgery would no doubt seep in. She who was the darling of my eye may become simply another face around me.The practicalities of life together would grind at us, wear us down. The romantic edge would wear off.

When such may happen, then the institute of marriage must come in, as Chesterton says, to keep us together, to help us get through the difficult to the joys beyond, to a deeper love for each other.

My words are alive and dynamic--full of life and possibility; yours are dead,
full of law and fear and judgment. That is why you won't find the word
responsibility in the Scriptures.
p. 205

I did look in a concordance, not a full one I think, and while yes I didn't find the word 'responsibility' in it, I did see a few instances of the word 'duty', and some of the word 'account', as in giving account of ourselves to God.

There is one other thing in the story that kind of rubbed me wrong.

The basic premise of the story is this--our hero Mac gets a letter from God inviting him to meet Him at the shack at a certain time. Mac makes the trip, which leads to the events of the rest of the book.

As the conversations progress, reference is made to Mac's wife, the mother of the missing child (Mac is the father), in ways that seemed to hint that something was wrong. Towards the end, we learn that her being there was expected, or something, too, and that Mac should have brought her with him, or at least have tried to do so.

What bugs me about this is, the letter he received was addressed specifically to him, asking him to come. There was no mention made of anyone else, and given the nature of the message and the possible dangers, not to mention the idea of God sending a letter, he judged it best to not tell her of the invitation and his trip.

Upon what basis was Mac to assume that the invitation, addressed to him alone, was also meant for his wife? Assuming we are not dealing with a general invitation to come to Christ for forgiveness and salvation, why should Mac have thought that God didn't want just him to come, when only he is asked?

These are a few of the things that raised the eyebrows. They may not be things I'm willing to get too intensely into, but they are there, and I think they need to be questioned, and answered.

book review--the shack--the good

2008-06-19T04:47:00.000-07:00

There are some things, in reading the book, that struck me as good. One is that he takes the Trinity seriously.

In saying that, I'm not disregarding what his personifications of the persons of the Godhead may mean. I don't think it's an accident that his Godhead, and also the wisdom personification that makes an appearance in one chapter, are given racial appearances that in the US would be considered minorities--African-American, Asian, Jewish, and wisdom is Hispanic. Much like how McLaren puts his words into the mouth of the Jamaican Neo in some of his books. One could point out that the last appearance of the Father was of an older man, though even with it we are not given anything about the race of the appearance--are we to assume the Father in this appearance is Anglo because no other race is given, or is He still African-American like previously because nothing is said about it?

Having said all that, though, I have to admit I was impressed that he takes it seriously, and seems to put forth the Trinity as being true.

We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker. I am one God, and I am three persons, and each of the three is fully and entirely the one
p. 101

I think that statement is pretty strongly trinitarian.

There are some interesting occasions in the book, when Mack is talking to one of the persons only to have the conversation continued with another of the persons, which disconcerts him a bit.

Another thing that I could appreciate was what was said about good and evil. It really is quite an insight into the nature of relativism, and in defense of absolutes

Then it is you who determine good and evil. You become the judge...And then beyond and even worse, there are billions of you each determining what is good and what is evil...

And if there is no reality of good that is absolute, then you have lost any basis for judging. It is just language...
p. 135

Perhaps no plainer judgment and conclusion could be made against the whole postmodern trend.

One more thing to note, positively, are his views on Heaven.

This life is only the anteroom of a greater reality to come. No one reaches their potential in your world. It's only preparation for what Papa had in mind all along.
p. 167

If you've read some of the more recent emergent writings, or what I've posted here about them, you'll know that they are pushing the view that redemption is something here on earth, the kingdom of heaven is something here that needs to be made reality, and even from McLaren are hints that he thinks along the lines of full preterism, that all prophecy has already been fulfilled.

These are a few things I agreed with in the book, and they're not small things, either. His views on the Godhead, on absolutes, on Heaven, and on other things as the resurrection, put him miles ahead of many of the louder voices out there--the emergents, the Jesus Seminar nuts, the postmoderns. In that regard, I find it reassuring that this book is rather more popular then any of their works have yet to be (I can imagine one emergent author calling it something like "jejune", like he did the Left Behind books).

book review--the shack--overview

2008-06-17T10:39:00.000-07:00

I have mostly missed the hype behind "The Shack", not always by plan, because for whatever reason the book still hasn't made it to the library I frequent.

But I finally caved, and bought a copy of it last week.

It's an easy read, not overly long, and I finished it in a couple of days.

My impressions of it are mixed.

For one thing, comparing it to "Pilgrim's Progress", as one reviewer seems to do, is to my mind premature. It's not yet a classic, and I have my doubts that it will reach that status.

Story-wise, much of the first part of the book is interesting enough. He creates a good premise, and develops it rather well, up to a point. I'll not spoil it, and for that matter my concerns are not with the story itself.

There is a touch of un-real-ness to parts of it, though. The characters are perhaps too nice, too cooperative. The only evil character in the book, the kidnapper, isn't even really in the book per se. There is brief mention of some people having seen him, but he is distant, though his actions are of great consequence.

In truth, though, the book is less about the story then it is about the talks between the main character, Mack, and the persons of God. It is here that his ideas become clearer, and such are what I'm most concerned about here.

I think I will treat this differently from other books. There are things that I found to be good in it, and as well things that were at least questionable. I want to deal with the good things first, because they are pretty important things, and then with the other things after that.

There is one thing that I want to make mention of here, though, before anything else.

There is always a problem when dealing with spiritual and supernatural elements in novels, especially I would suppose Christian ones. And if one goes so far as to have Jesus or even the Father act or speak, that difficulty only increases.

And so, there are often work-arounds. For example, in the Narnia books, the Christ-like character is given a different name and different form. In Lewis' Space books and Peretti's Darkness stories, angelic beings are used. Dostoevsky puts a silent Jesus into the story of the Grand Inquisitor, but that is actually a story told in the overall book.

To my mind, Young, the author of The Shack, made a mistake in putting his words into the mouths of the persons of the Godhead. This simply gives them more weight then they may otherwise have had. I'm not going to say that what he did was unique, but that it's something that is questionable at best.

movie review--the incredible hulk

2008-06-17T10:37:00.000-07:00

There is a question I've asked, a bit of a humorous one, in regards to the two Hulk movies.

What do the two main actors in the Hulk movies, Bana and now Norton, have in common?

They've each played characters that have beaten up by Brad Pitt (Fight Club and Troy).

Well, not that it has anything to do the movie itself, but it's a bit of something. Not much.

Anyway, back to the movie...

It's not really a sequel to the movie that came out 4 or 5 years ago. The intro to the current movie gives a very brief telling of the Hulk's origins, different then the one from the first movie. It's as if they didn't want to retell the origin story of the first movie, but still wanted to have that story out of the way.

In many ways, the movie seemed based mostly on the old tv series, and it gives several hints to it. There is the brief appearance on Banner's tv of a movie or series with Bixby in it. Some of the music in the movie was taken from the series. And, in common with the first movie, there was Ferrigno (sp) who made a cameo as a guard.

As in the series, Banner is a wanderer, though it seems in foreign lands.

Norton as Banner seems to have been a good choice. Like Bixby, he's of average or even below-average build. He's also a very good actor, and does well with Banner in this movie.

One difference I didn't like was with General Ross. The one in this movie was a bit extreme.

The Hulk was different in this movie then in the last, too. Not as cartoonish, and while still much larger then human, he's not as huge as he was a few times in the first movie. Nor as polished. Although he didn't speak except one time, to say the obligatory "Hulk smash!!", he seems more intelligent.

The Abomination gives the movie something the first one lacked, which was needed--an enemy. The one in the first movie was undefined, not very specific, and I'm still not sure how it was defeated, while the Abomination was rather clearly an evil version of the Hulk.

And as an added point of interest was the last few scenes, where Banner seems to be gaining control of his transformations, and Stark from the 'Iron Man' movie shows up telling General Ross about the team 'they' are forming. One thing that connects with is the "Super-soldier" project mentioned before in the movie, which would lead up to Captain America and, one would say eventually, the Avengers, mentioned in 'Iron Man'.

What wasn't clear, though, was if and how the Hulk fits into it. I had thought it likely the Hulk would be part of the Avengers, but since Stark was talking to Ross, it may also mean the Hulk could be part of the problems. Or maybe he won't be in the Avengers' story at all.

At any rate, 'The Incredible Hulk' is a good movie, with lots of action and a good story. It's one I recommended.

book review 5--a christianity worth believing

2008-06-11T05:29:00.000-07:00

Jesus' message wasn't centered on individual people leaving this world and living in little rooms of glory in heaven. It was about the kingdom of God thriving on earth, just as it was in heaven. And this heaven was not another place but anywhere Gods agenda was fulfilled.
p. 220

So, is Pagitt really trying to say that there is no such place as Heaven, let alone Hell?

..."Do you know where you will go?" has this limited sense to it. It clearly implies that there is a place. Embedded in the question is the expectation of a location called heaven as opposed to a location called hell. So to answer the question, one has to build a congruent view of these places called heaven and hell, of life and eath, of God and faith and works. The question assumes an entire worldview
p. 221-222

What about things Jesus said, such as about going to prepare a place for us?

While it might not seem like it a first glance, even Jesus comments about "going to prepare a place for you" and "in my Father's house there are many rooms" come from the rabbinic tradition and are meant to create a picture of God's redemption on earth.That's the way Jesus intended it and the way the disciples heard it.
p. 223

Perhaps the one thing I most notice about this statement of Pagitt's is that he gives no source for such an opinion. There is no footnote, he does not refer to any commentaries or any other thing. He refers to "rabbinic tradition", but does not tell us where he gets such a claim. I find such silence telling.

Here is another example of such a thing, and of someone wondering where the emergent 'interpreter' got his take on a passage. This one is about McLaren's statements in "Everything Must Change", where he tries to say that the Revelation 19 prophecy about Jesus' return, a prophecy filled with imagery of judgment and violence, is actually about some kind of pacifistic non-violent non-judgmental thing probably having to do with Jesus' first coming. Here is what some asked about McLaren's claims.

http://thevoyages.blogspot.com/2008/06/mclaren-and-revelation-1915-part-5.html

Now this is more than ironic because one can find numerous commentaries by people who are experts in apocalyptic literature and they do not deny the theme of what McLaren has pejoratively dubbed 'the jihadist Jesus'. I, for one, would be interested in knowing if McLaren has found any seasoned commentators who so reverse Revelation 19 so that it is a peaceful non-violent second coming.

I think that's a fair question to ask, both of McLaren, and of Pagitt in what he's saying. If he has sources, where are they? He uses footnotes several times in the book, why is this passage without any support?

The early Christians saw heaven not as a place we go to but as a reality that comes to us. They talked about redemption and healing coming through God's creation, not apart from it.
p. 229

Now, is this true? Did Jesus and the early Christians not think of Heaven as another place?

(And is it an accident that Pagitt's book doesn't capitalize Heaven or Hell in some of those passages I referred to? I haven't capitalized them in his quotes because his book doesn't have them capitalized. I can't help but think that such a thing is not accidental.)

What about Jesus' account of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar? Was that only a story? Was it not telling us anything about what happened to those two men after their physical life ended?

What about the words Jesus said to the thief who was being crucified beside Him? Was the promise of being that day in Paradise with Him an empty promise? Was there no Paradise for them to go to? The man was dying, one may say as good as dead, it being only a matter of hours. When he asked for Jesus to remember him when He comes into His kingdom, one may safely think that he wasn't thinking of some kind of far-off earthly reality.

What about Jesus' statement in Matthew 7

21. Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23. And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Quite a bit said here. There is certainly an element of judgment here, one may think as well that such things take place some time after physical life has ended. There is as well Jesus rejecting people, telling them to depart from Him, something Pagitt's holism cannot allow.

But here the kingdom of Heaven is obviously something not of this world.

What about in Acts, when Steven is about to be martyred, and he has the vision, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!", Acts 7:56

What about II Corinthians 12, where Paul tells us about a man, perhaps himself or someone else, "such a one was caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows--how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."

Pagitt's holism has already been shown to be questionable, and it is so here, too.

In his book "Christian Beliefs", Wayne Grudem points out some places in the New Testament where there is support for the ideas of separation.

II Corinthians 5
1. For we know that if our earthyly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2. For this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitations which is from heaven,
3. If indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.
4. For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.
5. Now he who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us his Spirit as a guarantee.
6. So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.
7. For we walk by faith, not by sight.
8. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

Philippians 1
21. For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
22. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell.
23. For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be Christ, which is far better.
24. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.
25. And being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy of faith.
26. that your rejoicing for me may be more abundant in Jesus Christ by my coming to you again.

How very different this is from Pagitt's claims. How does he explain this away, by claiming "Hellenization" and that Paul is introducing Greek dualism here? That Paul didn't really believe any of that stuff about being separate from the body and being present with the Lord? Is he going to say that Paul is not speaking truth, that it's some kind of culturally acceptable lie he's saying in order to make thing palatable for those Greek-thinking people in Corinth and Philippi?

So much in the Bible refutes almost everything Pagitt teaches in this book. So many, perhaps all, of the dualisms Pagitt wants to do away with are in the Bible, and even supported by Christ--Heaven and Hell, body and soul, material and spiritual. For Paul, this body is a tent, a dwelling but not a permanent one, and instead of this life being the end of it all, we actually are not at home here, but long to be at home with our Lord.

I'm actually rather embarrassed that I had to reference another book to find these passages. I knew about them, though, and had been taught this, but did need a refresher.

book review, part 4--christianity worth believing

2008-06-09T05:51:00.000-07:00

It's an occasional criticism levelled by these emergent-types, that those "others" (whom they disparage, as opposed to the "other" whom they seem to think can do no sin) who call themselves Christians are not nuances enough. They don't take all of the ins and outs, or try to balance everything like angels on the points of a needle.

I suppose it goes without saying that the reality is very much the opposite of the emergent fairy tale.

Let's take, for example, Pagitt's take on the Fall.

...If we lived out a theology of depravity, we would have a very different society. One could argue that the logic of every person being born depraved and living as a sinner until being released from sin at the point of death makes infertility a sign of God's kindness--one less child will have to live with the scourge of sin.
p. 125

To say that Pagitt logic is sick and sickening is to pay it a kindness.

This statement is in a chapter called "Wonderfully Made". I would assume that he takes that statement from the Psalm that says, "I will rejoice, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvellous are Your words, and that I know right well".

I suppose, then, that means that he doesn't care much for other statements in the Psalms, such as "I was born in iniquity, and in sin my Mother conceived me".

Or this, in Romans 3

9. What then? Are we better than they? By no means, for we have proven that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin.
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one.
11. There is none who understands, there is none that seeks after God.
12. They are all gone out of the way. They are all unprofitable. There is none who does good, no, not one.
23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

One part of that is taken from a Psalm, number 14. It has these cheery words about the condition of man.

1. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable things, there is none that does good.
2. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there were any that understand, and that seek God.
3. They are all gone aside, they have all become filthy. There is none that does good, not one.

One may guess that Pagitt doesn't like that Psalm, either.

Or what about this, from Isaiah?

64: 6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

And these, from John 1

10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

and John 3

19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather then light, because their deeds are evil.

And one I remember, though the reference escapes me at the moment.

For by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. So death passed among all men, because all have sinned.

(I wonder if he would consider that as an example of using Scripture as a weapon, something he whines about in another part of the book. I hope he would, I would hate if he got the wrong impression.)

Taking the overwhelmingly negative (and realistic) view that Scripture gives of the human condition, what do we then get from Pagitt?

The Biblical story is one that inspires us to live out God's love for us as we interact with one another. It's the one that reminds us that people are good and kind and creative.
p. 121

Umm...no. One may well ask, in the phrase "there is none that does good", what part of "none" does Pagitt not understand.

you don't have to believe in God to believe that it's wrong to be cruel to another human being.
p. 119-120

Is Pagitt that ill-informed about human history? How many millions (billions? trillions?) of cruelities have people done to other human beings throughout history? How many slaveries, how many tortures, how many rapes and molestations, how many robberies and murders, how many scams and cons, how many humiliations? How many death camps and holocausts? How much true hateful rhetoric? How many deaths for enjoyment? How many lies and beatings and name-callings even by little children? How many mutilations? How many martyrs?

For Pagitt to say what he's saying here shows a blindness that is staggering to the dark and evil depths to which people can fall. And it isn't just the Hitlers and Stalins of the world who are so evil. It was only a few weeks ago that we heard about a man who kept his daughter locked in a basement for something like twenty years, raping her and having children by her, and keeping those children locked away.

We have stories of mothers drowning babies, of school kids taking guns and shooting classmates. We have fathes and husbands abandoning their families.

I can remember things from my own childhood, of being on the receiving end of schoolmate's cruelties. I can remember some of my own cruelties, as well. I know the truth of the fallenness of even the youngest of children.

Pagitt's blind if he thinks his nice words do anything to change the reality of the human condition. We don't need nice words, we need salvation. We need someone to tell us how filthy we really are, and to point us to the One who died for us to so we can be "cleansed of all unrighteousness".

What about his claim that the idea of depravity makes human life less valuable? It's nonsense. The same Psalms that speak of the filth and corruption of mankind also tell us that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. The truth is that Pagitt, the great theologian of holism, thinks that since the one, positive statement is true, the the other, negative ones must be, well, less true, I would suppose, or at least must be ignored lest they rain on his positive and holistic parade.

If you've read me enough, you probably know that I may have some Chesterton to throw into this post. Here we go, from "Orthodoxy".

In one way Man was to be haughtier than he had ever been before; in another way he was to be humbler than he had ever been before. In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners... Christianity thus held a thought of the dignity of man that could only be expressed in crowns rayed like the sun and fans of peacock plumage. Yet at the same time it could hold a thought about the abject smallness of man that could only be expressed in fasting and fantastic submission, in the gray ashes of St. Dominic and the white snows of St. Bernard. When one came to think of ONE'S SELF, there was vista and void enough for any amount of bleak abnegation and bitter truth. There the realistic gentleman could let himself go--as long as he let himself go at himself. There was an open playground for the happy pessimist. Let him say anything against himself short of blaspheming the original aim of his being; let him call himself a fool and even a damned fool (though that is Calvinistic); but he must not say that fools are not worth saving. He must not say that a man, QUA man, can be valueless. Here, again in short, Christianity got over the difficulty of combining furious opposites, by keeping them both, and keeping them both furious. The Church was positive on both points. One can hardly think too little of one's self. One can hardly think too much of one's soul.

The phrases above I think puts it quite well, "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." This shows man's dual state (which is real despite Pagitt's holism), that we are both God's creation and fallen from God. To have one without the other is to become a monster, and perhaps even to lose the other. Emergents want us to lose the fact that we are the "chief of sinners", and so they are becoming pagans who would have us fall into earth worship and so lose our status as "chief of creatures". If you think I'm making that up, go over to here. There are four entries in this series, I'll link to the first one. Read it, and learn what's going on.

http://herescope.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-everything-must-change.html

That is why it is so important to say "all our righteousness is a filthy rags" and "there is none that does good", and also to say "for God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son". That is why the message must be about human sinfulness and God's salvation available to sinful humans. To have sinfulness without salvation is despair, and to have salvation without sinfulness is blindness and pride.

book review, part 3--christianity worth believing

2008-06-06T12:15:00.000-07:00

The Bible gains its authority from God and the communities who grant it authority.
p. 64

Does it?

Now, let's grant the idea that a person may not recognize the authority of the Bible. That's not hard to imagine, it's only a large majority of the human race.

Does that mean that the Bible does not have authority,then, over them?

Pagitt here says "The Bible gains its authority from God...". Perhaps there are more accurate ways of putting it, but that'll do for now. Granting this, upon what basis does the Bible need to gain "its authority from...the communities who grant it authority"?

This is of more then academic importance.

For example, before His ascension Jesus told His disciples "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth". From that moment until now, has even a large percentage of the human race recognized Jesus' authority? Does that mean that Jesus does not have authority, particularly "all authority"?

I will put it this way--if ever the day should come when absolutely no person on this earth recognizes the authority of the Bible, that would not mean that the Bible has no authority, anymore then a world full of atheist or pagans would negate God's authority.

Like many people, I believe in the Bible because I believe in God. But I know plenty of people who think it ought to happen the other way around, that a person needs to believe the Bible in order to believe in God. So they'll give a Bible to a non-Christian in the hope that by reading about God, that person will be enlightened. Certainly that can happen, but it seems kind of backward to me. I mean, what possible reason would someone have for believing this story if they didn't already believe in God?
p. 64

I wonder, then, what kind of God he expects them to believe in if they do not want to learn about God from the Word that He Himself has given to us?

Really, I think Pagitt has it backwards. No, not everyone who reads and knows the Bible is a believer, in fact Jesus' temptations show that even Satan can make use of Scripture for his own ends. But without Scripture, what kind of God is someone suppose to believe in?

Pagitt may point to his own upbringing and conversion as examples. But would that be an example? He may not have had a typical religious or Christian upbringing, but even by his own telling, he had some knowledge of God, even if it was only rudimentary. For all of its faults, he was raised in a culture permiated by Christianity, where Jesus and God are often talked about--maybe too often without much real knowledge, but still mentioned and considered. He may not have gone into churches, but he likely saw many of them, and had some idea of what they were about.

And more then that, Pagitt himself relates his conversion to seeing a Passion Play, a play about the death and resurrection of Christ, taken from the Bible. He says that it showed him about the crucifixion and the resurrection.

As such, then, Pagitt had some knowledge of the Bible. To give a counter-example, if he had been raised in the Middle East, brought up from birth on the Koran and to pray to a god named Allah, then his ideas of god would have been much different.

It is as the Bible says, "So then faith comes by hearing the Word of God".

book review, part 2--christianity worth believing

2008-06-06T12:11:00.000-07:00

If there seems to be one thing that all of these emergent 'thinkers' have in common, it's that they go to great lengths to put into question the reliability and authority of the Bible.

I just don't think the Bible is always the best starting point for faith.
p. 64

And just to show you that I'm not taking anything out of context, here's the whole paragraph where that quote can be found. It trails over onto p. 65.

I just don't think the Bible is always the best starting point for faith. Abraham didn't believe the Bible when God claimed him to be a righteous man because it hadn't been written yet. Moses didn't read the lived history of his people as devotional material. David didn't meditate on the words of Isaiah. The disciples didn't read the letters of Paul in between conversations with Jesus. The Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, came along in the midst of the story. It is the result of the story of faith, not the cause.

Scripture is the Word of God. Abraham believed the Word of God, as did Moses, David, and the disciples. As did Isaiah and Paul. The fact that Abraham may not have had much of the Scripture does not negate the fact that he believed what God said to him. The fact that David did not have Isaiah's prophecies did not mean that he did not have the Law to meditate on. God's Word, then, was to them very important, I would dare say of the ulmost importance.

Their faith was not in what they thought, or in things they imagined. Their faith was not based paintings, or poems, or things in the temple to false gods, or idols, or false doctrines. As the Bible says, "faith comes by hearing, and that through the Word of God".

I don't think I'm overexaggerating a bit when I say that Pagitt's statement that "I just don't think the Bible is always the best starting point for faith" is one of the really real corkers that I've ever seen. I suppose he would rather they get their faith from the books he and his emergent friends write?

This is usually the point in a conversation where someone starts accusing me of a low view of the Bible, of stripping it of its authority.
p. 65

You think??? Wow, we wonder why??

Maybe because...that's exactly what he does have??

book review, part 1--christianity worth believing

2008-06-06T11:55:00.000-07:00

I bought this book, A Christianity Worth Believing by Doug Pagitt, yea few days ago.Read through it in a cople of evenings.

I still have a hard time believing someone would write some of this. Well, no, I'm not, but I really do have a hard time believing that someone who calls himself a Christian minister would write this stuff.

Much of the first part of the book is only him talking about growing up, his conversion, and things directly afterwards. It's not that there are not points of interest, but at least for the moment, I'm not going into them.

One may say that Pagitt's main point in the book is that Christianity, as we know it, has become too Greek. And we need to get back to a more Hebrew understanding.

It's really not the first time I've heard such a thing. There have been people who have talked about how the introduction of Platonic and Aristotelian thought has had a not-good effect on Christian and even world thinking.

Where Pagitt goes with it, though, is for me rather new.

See if any of this soudn familiar. The Greek philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates believed that god was an abstract force, not a personal father figure. This notion was built on the assumption that there were two forces in the world--flesh and spirit. Spirit was perfect and good. Flesh was limited and needy. The spirit and the flesh were distinch and separate. This all transferred to Greek thinking about God, suggesting that God must be wholly Spirit. Plato concluded that God was perfect, unchanging, and in need of nothing. God existed apart from humanity in a state of divine purity. God's perfection had to be timeless, and therefore God must exist outside of time. God, then, was the best we could imagine, the Ultimate.
A Christianity Worth Believing, p. 46

I suppose one could point out that the ancient Greeks were pagans who didn't believe in God. They had their own pantheon.

Look at what he's saying. "This all transferred to Greek thinking about God, suggesting that God must be wholly Spirit". What is that suppose to mean in light of John 4:24, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth"? These are Jesus' words, and He's talking to a Samaritan woman. Is Jesus using Greek-speak to give an inaccurate description of God to this woman? Or is this something some writer later inserted that conformed to accepted thinking?

(Which reminds me, there's some things about Pagitt's take on the Bible that could be brought at a not-too-much-later date. Now, back to your special feature.)

For the moment, I'm going to concentrate on things he says in chapter 8. It has to do with his concept of holism.

Although the integration model I was finding in science and natural health was exciting and inspiring in many ways, it also put me at odds with my faith. The Christianity I'd been taught was built around a dualistic disconnection: we are to be "in the world but not of it". The world is not our home. There are those who have the spirit of God and those who don't. We are one thing, and those other people are, well, other.
p. 81

And a bit later on that same page.

The language of separation is ingrained in the way many of us think about and talk about Christianity. And it isn't accidental or unintentional. It is often a crucially important starting point to faith...This is the kind of separation-based thinking that made sense for those who held to the Greek idea of the distinct, divided nature of flesh and spirit...But once we have an understanding of the interconnection of all things, that dualism ceases to be useful.

Would I be wrong in thinking that this sounds more like an eastern "all is one" type of thing? That I could read this kind of statement in a any of the new-agey writings of Chopra or Wilbur?

(Is it an accident, then, that Bell and McLaren have spoken in support of Wilbur? That Bell even suggested a rather length study of one of his books? And that Pagitt is rather deeply connected with Bell and McLaren?)

Does Pagitt realize that the phrase "in the world but not of it" is an idea Jesus expresses? In John 17, we have these statement...

17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee.
17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

And just we can know what we're walking into...

17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

He tries to tell us that this "language of separation" comes from Greek thinking, but this claim is not supported, either in the book or in Scripture. It is from Jesus, for example, that we get such "language of separation" concepts as--the narrow way and the broad way, the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares, the four types of soil, those who are with Him and those who are against Him, those who gather with Him and those who scatter, the Pharisees who boasted of his own 'virtues' in prayer and the tax collector who only beg for God's mercy. From other places in the New Testament, we can find such examples as--those who believe and are saved and those who don't and are damned, those whose names are written in the Book of Life and those whose names aren't.

In other words, the New Testament is filled with this "language of separation". To say that it's some kind of Greek import seems like an artificial way of explaining away these separations, but they do not so easily go away.

It is Pagitt's attempt to inject some kind of 'holism' or 'interconnection' that is unwarranted and without bibilical support. This will no doubt be looked into as we get more into his book

movie review--indiana jones

2008-06-01T09:57:00.000-07:00

So far, May has been a good month for movies, at least up until this weekend, when the big release has been "Sex and the City", for which I have no intention of darkening the cinema doors.

Last weeks offering was "Indiana Jones...". Sorry, but I'm nor sure what the rest of the title is, expect that involves a crystal skull.

This movie was fun, I enjoyed it. It had it's share of action and thrills, as well as humorous remarks and situations.

The story was maybe a little convoluted at times. I'm not sure that the whole alien thing was out-of-place, although it did give the movie more of an "X-Files" feel then a "Raiders..." one.

The characters were certainly interesting, too. What do you call it when someone double-crosses a double-cross, and then double-crosses that double-cross? If I could remember the line from the old Disney "Babes in Toyland" movie about that, I'd give it here, but I can't remember it, sorry.

Reintroducing the love interest from "Raiders..." was an interesting twist.

The movie isn't perfect, and there are some things that could be questioned. There wasn't any sex that I remember, and little bad language. The issue of Indy backing out of the marriage several years before, especially with the lady pregnant with the son who shows up in this movie, is mostly glossed over. And the idea of trans-dimensional aliens as bringers of progress and enlightenment does raise the eyebrows.

Nevertheless, I can say that I enjoyed it, and I recommend it.

lengthy response to controversy elsewhere

2008-06-01T09:33:00.000-07:00

I have found myself in a controversy, a heated discussion, on another blog, and considering the nature of such a discussion in such a place, there is little if any chance to deal with the topic in a reasonable way there. So, in order to get some measure of reasonableness into it, and to give a reasonable defense to my ideas concerning it, I have decided to do so here.

A few weeks ago, when the whole Cyrus photo stink was going on, I knew about it, but didn't go out of my way to know more about it. I did listen to an Albert Mohler radio show podcast where he dealt with it, and thought he gave some good thoughts, such as why wasn't it treated as a case of child pornography, but outside of that it mostly came and went without much notice by me.

And to an extent, most of that is unimportant in the present discussion elsewhere, in which I am embroiled. Although she is mentioned, the discussion is much less about her, then it is about what someone else said about her, and how the people at this other place by-and-large think of those remarks.

The blog I'm commenting on is called CRN.info, and the one the comments were taken from is called Slice of Laodicea.

For the record, I'm not a huge fan of Slice. In an earlier incarnation of the Slice blog, one which had moderated comments, I made some comments in disagreement with some things said there by the blogger. One involved some comments about churches which have nice chairs instead of pews, which I considered a non-issue, and another was a rant against Veggie Tales, which I happen to like and think are good. A recent controversy involving Ravi Zecharias and the National Day of Prayer was one that I think got out of hand, and caused far more damage then the issue was worth. It was one thing for Slice to voice disagreement, but someone like Zecharias has proven his stripes, and in that issue a degree of grace even in disagreement would have been good.

Enough for that. I've already said that the current controversy involves things said about a celebrity, one still in her teens. Here are links to the articles in dispute.

Where Have All the Little Girls Gone?
**Update 4-28**On Reporting in an Age of Liars

And here is the discussing I'm in the middle of.

Miley Cyrus 2 1/2 Ingrid 1/2

I want to try to sum up the controversy in a few question or things we are contending over, so as to make things clearer. Please read what we are saying, in order to discern whether I am doing this accurately.

1. One point being made is that Cyrus is still very young, only 15 years old. But even if that is so, should we still have a reasonable expectation that a girl of such an age should know better then to pose in that way for such a photo? Or to put it another way, is a 15-year-old morally responsibly for such actions?

2. Another point being put forth is somewhat unclear. Are the commentors at CRN.info telling us that we should not say anything about the controversy? Since CRN.info has at least two threads about it, I doubt that is what they are saying. Are they saying that we should not be critical of her? I doubt that, too, though not as strongly as the first. Perhaps to put it broadly, we are debating about how such a controversy is to be handled.

So, for example, should we discuss the actions of a 15-year-old differently then we do the actions of an adult? Does that girl's celebrity, fame, and potential influence warrant a more public discussion? What about that girl's claims to be of the Christian faith, and the potential her actions may have to influence Christian kids of her age to act as she does, in good and bad ways? Is rebuke of her and/or those who are suppose to be watching out for her warranted when she stumbles in such a public and obvious way?

3. Another point of controversy is what responsibility a blogger has when a cited source turns out to have been wrong. Such is what seems to have happened at Slice. Not having read that first article, I can't comment directly on it, but apparently Slice started out with one entry which cited a news source, which then proved to have had incorrect information. Slice acknowledged that in a later entry, took down the entry with the link to the incorrect information, but did not give an apology for the other article, and still gave other information which supported their original contention.

Questions that could be asked about that, then, are...Does a blogger have the responsibility to apologize when a theoretically trustworthy source gives wrong information? If the blogger owns up to the mistake and tries to correct it, is that enough? Especially when the mistake is not their own, but the sources? And must that blogger back down and be forced into silence on a issue when such a thing happens, especially if other information is available and can be cited? Is it reasonable for someone not in that blogger's sphere to demand more of an apology?

4. When might one's rhetoric go over the line? Who decides whether it does or not? What right does one blogger have to comment on the rhetoric of another blogger? What about when comments are made about the supposed intentions of another blogger? And are those who express outrage at one blogger's strong language then allowed to use similar language in response even as they say the first is wrong to have done so?

Concerning no. 1 above, there is a tricky element to the age question. I think that the contention that "She's only 15" is only half a point, if that. I think that we are right to have a reasonable expectation that a girl of 15 years of age should know better then to pose in such a way for such photos, and that she is morally responsible for her actions. And to link in no. 2, considering her fame and influence, the possibility that it could mislead other kids of her age should not be downplayed.

Aren't most teens these days already oversexed? Do they not already have to deal with sexually charged messages on tv, in books, in movies, in their classes even, and from their own classmates? For those who may have seen Cyrus as a good example, does this not tear down that view? How does that effect them? Even if, as with her, we must seem them as responsible for their actions, doesn't the influence of a Cyrus not have some effect, too?

As such, then, it is certainly something that people should be concerned about. And in regards to Christian bloggers, one would hope they would comment about it in a disapproving way, even as they may feel pity and concern for the girl.

Because the "She's only 15" argument does have some part of a point. She is responsible for her actions, as much as any other 15 year old is responsible for sleeping with a boyfriend or girlfriend, or for dressing in revealing and provocative ways, or for doing drugs, or even for simply cheating on an exam. But she is still not an adult either, at least by our cultural standards, and the adults over and around her still have authority and influence over her, as well as responsibilities to and for her, and in this case something happened, and it broke down, and she was left both literally and figuratively exposed. One may in fact be grateful that worse didn't happen, though what did happen is certainly bad enough.

So, I think that it is a fit subject for online debate and comment. Her age, while taken into account, does not preclude her from rebuke. She is a celebrity, one of the most popular and public figures in this country, and perhaps even the world, at this current time, and whether wisely or not many kids of roughly her age look up to her and see her as an example. As such, then, her actions have a large degree of influence on them, so her allowing herself to be photographed in such a way has influence on them, and sends a message to them. And it is a message that she should not have given.

To her credit, she has issued apologies, and as far as I can tell, they seem to be sincere. There is grace, then, that can be shown, for we have all sinned and stumbled. Hopefully what was intended for evil God will turn to good.

Having dealt with 1 and 2, let us now deal with 3, the issue of how Slice should have handled the circumstance of having learned that a cited source gave incorrect information.

In regards to this, I would point out how Slice did handle it, which is in one of the links above. Slice acknowledged that error, and took down the entry where that information was cited. Slice did not now, however, apologize for having used a source that they considered to trustworthy. Here are the comments...

The source lied about the pictures and every major media outlet reported it as
truth. I have deleted the story accordingly on my blog. The story, that is,
about the photos. The Fox News story that reported on Miley’s erotic dance moves
at the concert remains fact, as there have been no reports of a body double at
the event. Yet. I will not apologize for linking to stories from major media
that are presented as fact.

I am operating somewhat in the dark here, because I did not read that original post, and so do not know what news source was cited that later proved to be incorrect. Was it a major news source? The comment above says it was. Was it one the most people would expect to be accurate in its news accounts?

Since I can't say anything for certain about the source, I can only give a somewhat broad statement. If the source was one that we could expect to be accurate, then if an apology is owed, it is an apology from them, not necessarily from anyone reading their news and thinking they were reading a true account.

Does Slice owe its readers an apology? I would point out that Slice did acknowledge that the source was wrong, and did take steps to correct things. As such, I think responsibility was taken for their own actions. Should an apology have been given as well? To my mind, it may have been nice, but I'm not sure I can say it's necessary. As long as the mistake was fixed, I'd have been happy with that, and would not feel the need to demand a apology.

In regards to the concerns raised in 4, we are dealing with a realm that is more subjective. By that, I mean it depends much one's level of comfort and experience with some rhetoric that may be considered strong. I do not mean profane, or vulgar, but simply strong.

Here are the two main things that were written at Slice, that seem to have provoked the most response on CRN.info...

Miley is the archetypal evangelical today. Holiness of living, separateness from
the world and its value system, a narrow way described by Jesus? No. Jesus is a
fashion accessory. He’s a life enhancer. He rocks, Miley says. This is the
evangelical spirit of the age and it is antithetical to biblical
Christianity.

and the other...

I grieve for the painted little girls of Sodom today. Their mothers and fathers
have not protected them but have thrown them into the dangerous stream of
popular culture. They will be destroyed by that stream—pulled under by the
powerful currents of lust and greed and hedonism that wait beneath the
glittering surface.

The consensus at CRN.info is that Slice's rhetoric was in these places is, to put their opinions mildly, too hard. Is that so? Upon what basis can such a judgment reasonably be made?
I'll deal with the second one first, since that seems to be the one that has the CRN.info most riled.
The idea over there was that in using the term "painted little girls of Sodom", Slice was refering to Cyrus. Or if one factors in the plural, then that at least she was included. In reading the entire article, though, I think such an interpretation may not be true.

Read the whole thing, please, but I'll give some excerpts here, emphases mine...

Over 12,000 fans screamed in ecstasy this last week as rocker Miley Cyrus, aka
Hannah Montana, strutted her stuff on stage at the CenturyTel Center outside
Shreveport, Louisiana. Most of the fans were little girls between the ages of
6-12. Outside the arena before the concert, thousands of little girls gathered
in anticipation as speakers blared their favorite star’s biggest hits. Swinging
their hips and mouthing the words to the hit, these girls could easily have been
years older in their behavior and dress. One anxious fan, still missing her
front teeth, lisped to a reporter how she was preparing to "go nuts" when she
saw her beloved rock star. Huge earrings and eye shadow were the norm among
these small girls. Their entire world had obviously been shaped and molded by
the media-created sensation of Hannah Montana. As I watched the news video of
the event, I was struck with sadness at what has become of the world of young
girls today. The word "tragedy" comes to mind.

The era when little girls were allowed a latency phase in which to grow up
emotionally and physically is gone. Sexuality and its burden did not used to be
a part of childhood. Those who sexualized children used to be called criminals.
Now they are called pop stars. Today we have stupid mothers and fathers who push
their little girls onto the latest consumer bandwagon designed by marketers to
make money. Who cares what little girls are learning? Who cares what messages
they are receiving about their worth? Not Mom and Dad who are online buying
tickets for the latest kiddie rock concert.

Our daughters need to seek to please Jesus alone and to turn their backs on the
world’s value system. They cannot do that if what they learn about girlhood
comes from the entertainment media. Parents will be held responsible by the Lord
for the influences they allow and the examples they set in their homes. It is a
very serious matter.

Considering the context, then, the phrase "painted little girls of Sodom" is not about Cyrus at all, but about those young girls who act and dress as described above, those who are fans of hers. It's about those young fans who look up to her, emulate her, think highly of her and celebrities like her (the article also makes mention of the Spice Girls and the influence they had).

Still, does such rhetoric go too far? I certainly will not blame anyone for not being comfortable with it, and for myself it is a turn of phrase that I would not be comfortable using. But as someone who has some experience with truly hateful and insulting rhetoric, I have to say that it doesn't fit that bill at all. I think it is not insulting, but her trying to show how she sees how the pop culture is causing these kids to lose their innocence.

That article was posted last year, well before the currect flak over the photos. But are the concerns expressed there unreasonable ones?

I am struck as well by the insertion of the word "grieve" into the statement. To put it bluntly, that whole article is more a plea for parents to judge wisely concerning the things their kids, particularly daughters in this case, do, and the people they look up to and emulate, as well as expressing sadness at what is happening to such young girls today.
One of the other commentors on CRN.info asked this of me...

Show me one clear sentence from Ingrid in all this that show reconciliation and
love for the "painted little whores" or whatever Ingrid calls these girls

I would say that the answer is right in front of him when he visits that link, if he would bother to really read it.

Now, in the interest of fairness, Slice's comments may be rightly critiqued, too. Whether such an idealized vision of childhood as is expressed in one paragraph ever really happened, or was widely available, is a just subject for debate. The past, I suspect, had it's own share of problems and trials, though it may not be unfair to say that things have escalated since then. I could look at my own childhood experiences, and see things that were far from any ideal. And whether allowing children to listen to such music and go to such concerts is a sign of bad parenting is a judgment I am not comfortable making, though the charge to parents to be more discerning and involved in what their kids are listening to is not unreasonable.

The first statement can also be better understood in it's context. Again, please read the whole article.

I further stand by my contention that Ms. Cyrus has no business displaying
herself in a carnal manner in front of millions of impressionable little girls
and a whole lot of adolescent boys and then attributing her sexy moves and
humanistic song lyrics to her "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ". As Napoleon once
told a wayward soldier who bore his same last name, "Change your name or change
your ways." I think the same here. You can’t love the world and love the Lord at
the same time. Flesh and spirit do not mix. Self-promotion does not go with the
command from Christ to deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow him. Miley
is the archetypal evangelical today. Holiness of living, separateness from the
world and its value system, a narrow way described by Jesus? No. Jesus is a
fashion accessory. He’s a life enhancer. He rocks, Miley says. This is the
evangelical spirit of the age and it is antithetical to biblical Christianity.

In the article is a video of the dance that is suppose to have raised eyebrows by any and all. View it, and determine for yourself if such are appropriate.

All things considered, then, I am surprised that these statements have generated the heat at CRN.info that they have. The one about "painted little girls" has been taken out of context there, perhaps not intentionally so, but if any had bothered to really read them they would have seen it. But considering the nature of the site, their "interpretation" fits their own view, and so it was accepted by the consensus.

I will, then, point any reader who wished to go there, to how those same CRN.info people who got all twisted in knots over Slice's comments, themselves have in their comments said things far worse then that about the writer at Slice, Ingrid. That discussion is linked to, and you can read those things if you have the stomach for it, but here is some examples.

I wonder if Ingrid ever has angry dreams where she walks around the house
slapping herself and mumbling things like "Hannah
Montana….argghfieifhfgargle…naughty dancing …..bberghahtgrgleldjfjkfkd….No,
daddy, that’s my pony, you can’t ride it! bhafdhflakfhdlfldhfld…"

ME: Sweetheart - when you get a chance to do a photo-spread for Vanity Fair,
please make sure that the photographer and your publicist don’t do anything that
would look racy. Also, I need to remember not to leave the set before the photo
shoot is done, because our publicist, as nice as he is, doesn’t have your best
interests in mind.
HER: What’s a publicist?
ME: Sweetie, I need you to
know not to do what Miley did.
HER: Oh - OK. When do I get to be in Vanity
Fair?
ME: Never. But I need you to know that Miley did something wrong and
all of the salacious details so that I can ~~be self-righteous about it~~ warn
you.

Ingrid should be ashamed to place herself as one that acts like the Grace God
gave to all of us who are not righteous… ("no one is righteous not one") She
acts like ssince she recieved Grace she still can go out and bully people…

Miley Cyrus wears underwear?!?! And she has friends?!?!
Ingrid would never
wear underwear or have friends!
(This condemnation thing is so intellectually
incoherent…)

As someone who received a decent share of the bile as well, and since it has been a public debate and those remarks can be viewed by the whole world on the blog, I have few qualms about sharing those examples with any who want to see them.

And that doesn't even deal with some of the bad thinking going on there. Such as that on a blog whose very reason for existence it point fingers and accuse certain other websites, the notion that we should not accuse has been put forth and even supported. Or the fact that some of those who have spoken out most strongly against Slice rhetoric have not spoken out over such remarks as are above, or worse did so in a way that can only be considered mocking and insincere. And the repeated notion that since one side is using such rhetoric, then they are allowed to use it too, even though they condemn the other side for using it.

A few months ago, I left off writing on that blog for a while, because of the feeding frenzy and hate-fest they had concerning a man who runs an organization working to keep gay marriage legislation from becoming reality. That opened my eyes, and sickened me. My feelings have not changed, and this latest bash-fest of Slice has only confirmed it and may even have made those feelings stronger.

When I was leaving that time, one of my last statements was that they are becoming the things they hate. In that, I may have been inaccurate (should I apologize for that?)--they are in fact becoming worse then the things they hate.

If I had one hope for all of this, it's that the CRN.info people would wake up and see that they can't continue like that. Perhaps the role they have taken for themselves has its place, but if so, it is one that demands fairness and integrity, and at the moment their desire to score points (which no one counts), and to mock and ridicule, has trumped the need for truth and accuracy, not to mention real concern for those they think are wrong.

Where I a betting man, I would lay odds that such a thing will not happen. Instead of examining what I've written and examining themselves in light of it, one or two things of a real or imagined nature will be latched on to, I will be labelled, my statements and claims dismissed, and they will continue as before, if not become worse because that is the nature of such errors.

But as I think it was Han Solo put it, "Don't quote me the odds". If there is even a small hope for something good to come of this, let that hope remain, until such time as it is either fulfilled or shot down.

The rest is now in God's hands.

mclaren's mistake about "framing stories"

2008-05-30T12:09:00.000-07:00

4. The failure of the world's religions, especially its two largest religions,
to provide a framing story capable of healing or reducing the three previous
crises. We'll call this the spiritual crisis.
McLaren, 'Everything Must
Change', p. 5

I think it is right about here that McLaren's book, and perhaps his views in general, start drifting away from truth and reality.

Let's go ahead and assume that his insights about the 'suicide machine' may have some points to them. Having read a good bit of this book, I can say there is something to be said about some of his diagnoses. Not all, of course, but a bit.

There is a quote I use a good bit from Chesterton, from "What's Wrong With the World" which addresses this concern...

This is the arresting and dominant fact about modern
social discussion; that the quarrel is not merely about
the difficulties, but about the aim. We agree about the evil;
it is about the good that we should tear each other's eyes cut.
We all admit that a lazy aristocracy is a bad thing.
We should not by any means all admit that an active aristocracy would
be a good thing. We all feel angry with an irreligious priesthood;
but some of us would go mad with disgust at a really religious one.
Everyone is indignant if our army is weak, including the people
who would be even more indignant if it were strong.
The social case is exactly the opposite of the medical case.
We do not disagree, like doctors, about the precise nature
of the illness, while agreeing about the nature of health.
On the contrary, we all agree that England is unhealthy, but half
of us would not look at her in what the other half would call blooming
health. Public abuses are so prominent and pestilent that they
sweep all generous people into a sort of fictitious unanimity.
We forget that, while we agree about the abuses of things,
we should differ very much about the uses of them.
Mr. Cadbury and I would agree about the bad public house.
It would be precisely in front of the good public-house that our
painful personal fracas would occur.

This is meant to show that even in the areas where I or anyone else may agree with McLaren's ideas of what the problem may be, his solutions may be such as to my mind be worse the the problem itself.

As well, sometimes he says something is a problem when, in reality, it's not.

I think that one of those times is in the above, in the fourth of his list of what he considers to be global crises, or dysfunctions.

He doesn't explicitly say what the world's two largest religions are, so it seems he assumes the reader has an idea of what those are. It's a bit of an assumption, but I do know that they are Christianity and Islam.

And perhaps right there, we start having a problem. He criticizes the world's religion, and while he singles out those two he doesn't exclude the others like Hinduism and Buddhism, for not having what he call a "framing story" that addresses the other crises. A bit later, he defines "framing story" as such

By framing story, I mean a story that gives people direction, values, vision, and inspiration by providing a framework for their lives. It will tell them who they are, where they come from, where they are, what's going on, where things are going, and what they should do.
p. 5-6

So, the first problem seems to be that he seems to expect those other religions to provide a "framing story", whether one from each or one in total, that will do those things in a good way.

But these religions cannot do those things in a truthful way, because they are false religions, and the 'dieties' behind them are demons. It is unreasonable to expect them to produce good fruit, not to mention fruit to eternal life.

Another mistake he makes is in saying that none of the world religions have a "framing story" that addresses the issues in either his list of crises or in the quote above. Christianity does.

Consider these...
"It will tell them who they are..." The Bible does so. It tells us we are creations of God, who are fallen and sinful and unrighteous and unable to help ourselves, unable to make ourselves clean.

"...where they come from..." The Bible does this. It tells us that we began in Eden, in a state of sinless perfection, in right relationship with God, and that we through willful disobedience fell in sin and into a state of rebellion to God.

"...where they are..." The Bible does this. It tells us that we are born into a fallen state, rebellious against God and under His wrath.

"...what's going on..." The Bible does this. It tells us that sin has consequences, and that the world is in the state it's in because of man's disobedience and rebellion against God. Light, the Gospel, has come into the world, through Christ, but men have loved darkness rather then the light, because what they do is evil.

"...where things are going..." The Bible does this. Prophecy tells us some things about the end, and more then that it tells us the ultimate end of each human person--Heaven or Hell.

"...and what they should do." The Bible does this. It tells us that Christ has died for us, and that we need to repent and believe in Him--in His life, His death, His resurrection. After that, we should live in obedience to Him, as the Bible tells us to live.

The problem, then, is not that there is no "framing story" that could be of true benefit to people, it's that this story, rather this truth of Christ's life and sacrificial death and resurrection of the dead, is rejected.

The Bible gives us no false hope in regards to human nature. It does not say that we are basically good creatures who have been corrupted by some kind of social pressure or societal dysfunction. It tells us, with bluntness, that none of us does good, that we are all unprofitable, no one is righteous, all have sinned.

And in regards to the Gospel, the Bible is under no illusions about how people as a whole will respond to it. The account of Jesus' life and death should itself be enough to show that His message will not be well-recieved by all, or even by many. And as He said, if the world hated Him, it will hate those who follow Him. Elsewhere we are told that all those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecutions.

And so, I must reject McLaren's premise as stated in the first paragraph above. The Bible does provide what people need--truth about themselves and their condition, and the truth that God has provided hope and salvation for rebellious people. The problem is not the Bible's claims, but rather how people have rejected them, and gone their own ways.

This hope and salvation will not be found in anyone else, in any other religion or philosophy or social program. It is found in Chrst only. Any attempts to improve the world without acknowledge mankind's need to be repent and be converted will only end in failure.

star wars novels--why we need to say good-bye to luke, han, and leia

2008-05-25T13:18:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I read the last book in the newest Star Wars series. The whole series was actually very good, with some interesting character developments and twists. Still, it kind of brings in to focus a lot that is wrong with the way the whole Star Wars universe is going.

The main problem is this--the big three characters from the first movies, Luke, Han, and Leia, are still around, and still have to be dealt with by the writers.

Keep in mind, they are now pretty old. It's been roughly 30 years since the events of Return of the Jedi, so they are well into their retirement ages. Leia is no longer in politics, Luke though is still the head of the Jedi order, and Han is, well, still Han.

But through the store thus far, the next generation of Jedi was being developed and matured. Han and Leia had three kids--the twins Jacen and Jaina, and the youngest Anakin. Early on, in fact, it was hinted at the Anakin was suppose some kind of super-Jedi. Also, we now have the son of Luke and Mara, Ben, who's no slouch in his own right.

Now, Jacen and Anakin are dead. Jaina is still around, but I think most of us readers would most welcome if they would finally quit trying to play her relationship angst all over the place and have her and Jag finally settle down, or do so for at least as much as either of them could. On the other hand, there is the daughter of Jacen around now, too, and who knows how they'll make use of her.

But as well, in the Jedi order, there is the next generation that still has to play behind Luke in all things. The other supposed super-Jedi, Kyp Durron, is slowly approaching middle age and was almost a non-entity through most of this last series. Others were around but were not used much. The future was suppose to have been Jacen, but with going all Darthy and Sith, that's now out the window.

In other words, in stories like these, eventually the good guys have to lose people. In the Vong war, for example, characters like Chewie, Anakin Solo, and Ackbar were lost. In this last series, Mara Jade Skywalker and Jacen Solo were lost.

But outside of Chewie, none of the main movie characters have become one with the force. And it's starting to hurt the stories, as they are killing off the next generation in order to preserve the old ones.

Let's be fair here. When Salvatore wrote the story that killed off Chewbacca, it was not well-received, and by some things I've seen, Salvatore got some responses that were far from nice. Given that, it can be understood why other authors would be reluctant to do anything involving the death of one of the other popular characters.

But at the risk of sound callous, it's high time and even passed time. And the readers are just going to have to deal with it. These characters, as beloved as they are, simply cannot be kept around in the stories forever. If, say, you don't want Luke to be killed off, he can pull a Yoda and go off somewhere and not be central character anymore, but I have my doubts about such a thing really working.

It's time to bid our farewells to them, and welcome the new leaders and villains in the Star Wars stories. If given a chance, I think it could prove to be as good a thing as what has been.

But it needs to be done soon, before too many more newer characters don't make it through the editing process.

a twist on Christ's temptations

2008-05-18T08:37:00.000-07:00

For Jesus, God's natural ecosystem is not only one of care, but alos of limits. So when Jesus is tempted (Luke 4:1-3), he refuses to turn stones into bread (which would subvert God's natural system of provision)...
Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, p. 139

Luke 4

4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led in the Spirit in the wilderness
4:2 during forty days, being tempted of the devil. And he did eat nothing in those days: and when they were completed, he hungered.
4:3 And the devil said unto him, if thou art the Son of God, command this stone that it become bread.
4:4 And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone

Matthew 4

4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he afterward hungered.
4:3 And the tempter came and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.
4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

One can seriously question where in either of these accounts McLaren finds any support for his contention. And if you consider Jesus' other works, his idea simply folds.

For example, Jesus taking water and making it into wine at the Cana marriage. Or Jesus calming storms. Or Jesus healing sick people and raising them from the dead (since sickness and death are a part of nature as well). Or His killing of the fig tree. Perhaps mosts telling, we twice have Jesus taking small amounts of food, enough to feed maybe one or two people, and miraclously increasing it to the point where it fed thousands.

And there are instances of God providing miraculously in the Old Testament, too. Jesus would have been very familiar with, for example, God providing Israel with manna, as well as with water coming from a rock. And Elijah being provided food by birds at the brook. God miraculously provided water for Samson after a battle.

Why, then, did Jesus not make the stones into bread? Very likely because the wilderness and His fasting was in obedience to His Father, and the temptation would be for Him to do something against His will. It's not that turning the stones into bread would be in itself wrong, any more then eating was wrong for Adam, but at that time for Him to have done as Satan tempted would be sinful, and Jesus would have none of it.

...refuses to take a religious shortcut to authority and kingship (which would subvert God's natural system of gaining honor through humble service)...

Luke 4

4:5 And he led him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
4:6 And the devil said unto him, To thee will I give all this authority, and the glory of them: for it hath been delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship before me, it shall all be thine.
4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Matthew 4

4:8 Again, the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
4:9 and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

In responding to McLaren's contention, look at how Jesus responds to Satan's temptation. One could argue that the world and all its kingdoms were already Jesus'. Jesus responds against the notion of worshiping anyone other the the Lord our God.

One could see it as Jesus refusing to give in to the temptation to compromise, and refusing to cooperate with an Satan-inspired initiative, which would only have made things worse in the end.

After all, if Satan had really given Jesus all those kingdoms, especially for such a seemingly small price, then would it not have been better for them? There isn't even the hint that Jesus would need to fight for them, they would simply be given.

But is that not the type of temptation many emergents fall in to, when they try to tell us that any who worship other gods, such as Allah or any in the Hindu pantheon or whatever it is Buddhists worship, can be as much worshipers of God as those who believe in Christ? Are they not then compromising with satanic ideas, and even if they are only trying to do what they think is good, would that excuse them?

...and refuses to indulge in spectacle to prove himself (which would subvert Gods natural system of being proven through trials and experience).

Luke 4

4:9 And he led him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
4:10 for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, to guard thee:
4:11 and, On their hands they shall bear thee up, Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.
4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.

Matthew 4

4:5 Then the devil taketh him into the holy city; and he set him on the pinnacle of the temple,
4:6 and saith unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and, On their hands they shall bear thee up, Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.
4:7 Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.

Again, Jesus answers a completely different temptation then McLarens says He does. Many of Jesus' miracles were very publicly done, and did provide proof of His divinity. One could, for example, look at the healing of the paralytic to show how Jesus used a miracle to also affirm His power to forgive sin, something only God can do.

But for Jesus to have done the miracle in the passages above would have bene to do something against the Father's will. As with the making of stones into bread, it's not about the act itself, but about the will of God, and whether an action is according to it or not.

So, I contend, and I think rightly, that in this paragraph from the book, we see examples of McLaren's poor interpretative skills, or maybe more likely, his attempts to read what he wants into the texts. His assertions have little to no backing by what the texts really say; instead, it seems his interpretations are influenced by ideas he wants to find in them.

movie review--speed racer--look at all the colors!!

2008-05-14T14:50:00.000-07:00

A word of caution; if you go to see "Speed racer", make sure you've had nothing stronger then caffeine, and preferable as little of that as possible. And as someone who almost swears by caffeine, that's quite a bit of advice.

I remember watching a few episodes of the cartoon when I was very young, but I have little memory of it, so I can't say how the movie compares to it (the short-lived Geico commercial doesn't count, I suppose).

For effects, the movie doesn't bother a bit with trying to make them look real, and somehow that makes it rather more realistic then often happens in movies where it does try for realism. Race course tracks that would make a roller coaster feel envious, cars that do things that no car can do while still remaining drivable, somehow in trying to be cartoonishly outlandish and hyperrealistic, the effects become almost more realistic then normal.

The visual appearance of the movie is one of it's biggest appeals. It really is one fo the better-looking movies I've seen. The brights are very-bright, they are everywhere, and they go by really fast.

Throw in inept ninjas, a not-so-bad bad guy, a not-so-good good guy, pirahnas, a back-stabbing teammate, and a too-intelligent monkey, then what more could you want in a movie?

Well, not much more. Maybe less, like less Susan Serandon. I could handle John Goodman, most of the time. And this movie raises a further question--between "We Are Marshall", "Vantage Point", and now "Speed Racer", when does Matthew Fox have time to film for "Lost"?

Anyway, back on topic...

The story itself could have been all too typical, and it wasn't all that surprising, though it did have some twists too it, like the one racer who uses Speed and Racer X and betrays them after their win. Also how the Racer X thing was left revealed but unresolved at the end was also a twist, maybe to leave something open for a sequel.

It is a hard movie to categorize, though. It is almost a kid's movie, but there are things in it that not very kid-friendly. I'm not sure I would recommend it for kids. It's a little simplistic for a grown-up's movie, though, but they could still enjoy it.

The message of the movie, though, is a bit iffy, at least to my mind.

For example, when Goodman's character starts ranting about how some people have too much money, I could almost agree with it, so long as we begin with the idea that the first person who has too much money is John Goodman. Or whomever wrote that line into the script. Or the Wachowski brothers and Joel Silver.

Or how about the apparent aversion to sponsors. All well and good, until you wonder who's paying for all those crazy race tracks to be built, and who puts up the prize money those racers are racing for? Granting, I didn't notice any of the cars in the movie having a big Tide or Bud logo stenciled on their hoods, but that just means that it's a movie, while NASCAR is, well, almost real-life.

One could find some good things in the family interaction, and Speed and Trixie seem to keep things pretty clean between themselves.

I liked the movie. I recommend it, with some cautions.

movie review--iron man

2008-05-07T14:54:00.000-07:00

It had been a slow time for us movie-goers. I suppose some may disagree, but at least for me, it's been a while since much of interest has come out.

Not anymore.

'Iron Man' wastes no time, but puts us right in the action. It does kind of slow down a bit towards the middle, though that also has some of the more humorous scenes, so it doesn't suffer from a lack of interest. The final minutes are, of course, the big fight scene, which while not as strong as the ones in the Spiderman movies, is good enough. There is a small but possibly significant scene after the credits.

The casting for this movie is mostly spot-on. Downey Jr plays a Tony Stark that is rather layered--outwardly glib and brilliant, busy and demanding, with lots of superficial aquaintences but few people close. His remarks are pithy and funny, but his main commitments are to two things--his own pleasures and his work.

The movie follow pretty closely the original Iron Man origins story--Stark is kidnapped and wounded, and in order to live he has to wear a device that keeps shrapnel from reaching his heart. In order to escape, he creates a suit of armor and fights in it. This leads to his continued modifications and use of such armor, thus the creation of Iron Man.

I've seen at least one place where it is claimed the Stark has a change of heart away from the making of weapons when he is kidnapped by terrorists. I think that is a questionable conclusion. Yes, one thing he does right off on arriving back at his company is try to discontinue the weapons research in his company, but 1) it doesn't seem to be a permanent thing, but more to get to the bottom of why those terrorists were using his company's weapons, and 2) the new and improved Iron Man armor is far from being only defensive and non-lethal, as is shown when he uses it to put bullets into the heads of terrorists holding hostages.

I'm not sure it can be said that Stark has any kind of change of heart. What can be said is that he realizes that there is something rotten in the state of Stark Enterprises, and he works to take responsibility for it and to clean things up.

Another good bit of acting was Paltrow's character, Stark's assistant Pepper. I had seen her before in some movies, and had a difficult time recognizing her as Pepper.

The movie flowed pretty well, didn't bog down much, the effects were very good, and all in all it was a very well done movie with a pretty good message.

Things I would have liked to have seen more of?

Well, maybe Happy. He's a pretty main character in the early Iron Man stories, and while he does get one mention as Stark's chaffeur (sorry if I spelled that wrong), that was about it.

One question that could be asked is, why didn't Stark have the shrapnel removed once he returned to civilization?

Also, how did having the things in his chest effect his heavy social life, especially when he was trying to keep it secret?

Finally, Stark's main weakness in the comic is alcohol. The movie has him drinking a few times, but doesn't show it as being much of a problem for him. There was the scene on his private jet, but even that was low-key in that regard.

The final scene, the one after the credits, adds a final touch of interest both to this movie and to what and how Marvel may be doing there movies in the future. So far, there has been no crossover from one movie to the other--Spiderman does his thing, the Fantastic Four do theirs, and for all we know, they know nothing about each other. But with Nick Fury and SHIELD and the "Avengers Project" he mentions, I wonder if that may change.

I wonder as well if that will be brought up in the coming Hulk movie. After all, the Hulk was one of the original Avengers, though if I remember right he didn't last long.

So, over all, I recommend it.

what is he doing to the second coming? 3

2008-04-30T06:18:00.000-07:00

Here is the main objection, the 'spin' if you would, that McLaren tries to put on the futurist's view of the end times. From page 144

Simply put, if we believe that God will ultimately enforce his will by forceful domination, and will eternally torture all who resist that domination, then torture and domination become not only permissible but in some way godly. The implications for, say, military policy (not to mention church politics) are not hard to imagine

...If we believe that Jesus came in peace the first time, but that wasn't his "real" and decisive coming...then we leave the door open to envision a second coming that will be characterized by violence, killing, domination, and eternal torture...This eschatological understanding of a violent second coming leads us to believe...that in the end, even God finds it impossible to fix the world apart from violence and coercion; no one should be surprised when those shaped by this theology behave accordingly.

I always like how, on the one hand, eschatological futurists, like myself, are accused of encouraging people to check out of earthly matters, but then on the other hand we're accused of encouraging people to domination and torture. Darned if we don't, darned if we do.

Chesterton had some interesting things to say about such situations in Orthodoxy, where he gives many and several examples of how the accusers of Christianity will often make the most raging charges against, but that they are often also contradictory, what he called "The Paradoxes of Christianity" (in a chapter of that name). He notes, for example, that while some accused it of being an instrument of gloom and pessimism, they would then turn around and say that it comforted people with false hopes in a fictition god (page 90), or that some accused it of making mankind weak in its teachings of nonresistence and pacifism, others accused it of having "deluged the world with blood".

"I had got thoroughly angry with the Christian, because he never was angry. And now I was told to be angry with him because his anger had been the most huge and horrible thing in human history; because his anger had soaked the earth and smoked to the sun." (page 91)

But his conclusion was that the accusers thought that Christianity was misshapen not because it really was misshapen, but because they were--those who accused it of excessive pessimism were themselves even more pessimistic, for example. The reason why Christianity looked so misshapen to them was that it was in fact shaped rightly, while the accusers were shaped wrongly.

Much the same thing has happened here with McLaren. We futurists have been accused at times even by the author of encouraging people to check out of the world, of telling them to be concerned only with going to Heaven and to not worry very much about the state of the world, and now here we are accused of being so concerned about the state of things here that we will use domination and torture to get what we want.

I would say, though, that in trying to make sense of these contradictions, that it isn't futurism that is wrong, but McLaren.

Consider this, from the quotes above...

This eschatological understanding of a violent second coming leads us to believe...that in the end, even God finds it impossible to fix the world apart from violence and coercion

...but this would only be bad if we are to believe that God is the commited pacifist that McLaren wants us to think He is. If He isn't, though, then the accusation doesn't stand.

If nothing else, one could look at pretty much the entire Old Testament as a refutation of that position. God tells His people many times to take up arms and fight, and even leads them in a campaign of conquest in the Promised Land. If McLaren's position is correct, then God was telling people to commit acts of evil, then God was commanding them to sin.

We looked in the last entry at Revelation 19, at a passage where much that is war-like is said about Christ--in righteous He judges and makes war, He treads the winepress of the wrath of God, an angel invites birds to feast on the slain flesh of those who fight against Him at His coming.

One could as well point out passages in Jude and Zechariah, which tell us that His coming will be a time of violence and wrath and judgment.

In other words, McLaren can insinuate, but he can't prove from the Bible that Jesus' second coming will not be a time of God pouring out His wrath on rebellious mankind. All he can do is paint little pictures of horror which have no basis in the Bible and little in reality, but which are probably more politically motivated then anything else.

Even if he goes the way of preterism, and wants to say that most of the wrath prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70, then it doesn't help him much, because the destruction of Jerusalem and the events leading up to it lead to millions of people being killed. If Jesus' return, literal or spiritual, was at the time that the Romans fought against Israel, it was still a time of war and violence, and doesn't fit his ideas.

what is he doing to the second coming? 2

2008-04-29T04:23:00.000-07:00

I want to deal a bit with something I made mention of in the last post, but in another context. It has to do with his ideas about Revelation 19. From page 145.

For example, they misread Revelation 19:15, where Jesus, in a blood-stained robe, "strikes down the nations" using a sword; they fail to notice that the sword comes out of his mouth--a rather unmistakable case of symbolism to a reasonable adult reader, I would think, unless he imagines Jesus actually thrashing his head around, slinging a sword between his teeth like a giant cigar of mass destruction.

...Jesus' "striking down the nations" with a sword "coming out of his mouth" has a different meaning. Jesus' word--the unarmed truth of the gospel of the kingdom--is the force that overcomes the "kingdom of this world", the dominant system, the suicide machine. It conquers not with physical weapons but with the message of justice (Revelation 19:11), and the blood on Jesus' robe is not the blood of his enemies, but his own blood (12:11, cf. 5:6).

Now, read the passage for yourself.

19:11 And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteous he doth judge and make war.
19:12 And his eyes [are] a flame of fire, and upon his head [are] many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself.
19:13 And he [is] arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
19:14 And the armies which are in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white [and] pure.
19:15 And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.
19:16 And he hath on his garment and on his thigh a name written, KINGS OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in mid heaven, Come [and] be gathered together unto the great supper of God;
19:18 that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses and of them that sit thereon, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, and small and great.
19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat upon the horse, and against his army.
19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought the signs in his sight, wherewith he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast and them that worshipped his image: they two were cast alive into the lake of fire that burneth with brimstone:
19:21 and the rest were killed with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, [even the sword] which came forth out of his mouth: and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

How...unlike...the McLaren jesus is the Jesus we are shown in this passage. And I hope I may be excused from being "a reasonable adult reader", but I don't think that one can cry "Symbolism!!!" over all of that.

I have to admit, it takes some...audacity (not an accidental word)...to try to spin this verse here...

19:15 And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.

...to mean what he wants it to mean. I mean, really, rod of iron, treading out the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, whodathunk all that really means...

...we have a poetic description of the way the gentle First Coming Jesus powerfully overcomes through his nonviolent "weakness" (cf. I Corinthians 1:18-25), a prince of peace whose word of reconciliation is truly mightier than Caesar's sword.

Or even how this verse...

19:11 And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteous he doth judge and make war.

...could come to mean, in his mind, this...

It conquers not with physical weapons but with the message of justice (Revelation 19:11)

..., but maybe that's his way of dealing with the idea that anyone, even Christ, can "...in righteousness...make war." He would, after all, have to try to explain it away, to preserve his ideas about such things being evil and wrong and how Jesus really doesn't do that type of thing, or at least his jesus.

Because aren't those ideas more important then what the Bible really teaches?

I can't say what it will look like that Jesus has a sword come out of His mouth. Even given that the sword comes from His mouth, that may not mean it stays there, but He takes it in hand for combat. At any rate, McLaren's reinterpretation, basically an attempt to make the text say the exact opposite of what it's saying, doesn't hold. To make a passage about God's wrath and judgment try to mean some kind of "poetic description..." is funny, but rather nonsensical.

what is he doing to the second coming? 1

2008-04-28T04:47:00.000-07:00

Some of the most heated discussions I've had online have been about the end times. To an extent, I don't understand that, as I've tried to maintain the position that as a rule end-times views are not all that fundamental (with the possible exception of full preterism, which says that all biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, even those about the second coming of Christ).

But they are important, as even McLaren realizes in "Everything Must Change". From page. 143

Theologically, I think we could say, "Eschatology always wins."

I think that's an overstatement, and a pretty large one, but not completely without merit.

He has his strong feelings against a particular form of eschatology, and expresses himself against it in no uncertain terms (surprising for a postmodern, so we may say that he must be strongly against it indeed). From p. 144

This is why I believe that many of our current eschatologies, intoxicated by dubious interpretations of John's Apocalypse, are not only ignorant and wrong, but dangerous and immoral.

(I find it ironic that he considers an end-times view immoral, but waffles with all his might on real moral issues like homosexuality)

And even worthy of ridicule. From that same paragraph but on the next page.

(about Revelation 19:15)--a rather unmistakable case of symbolism to a reasonable adult reader, I would think, unless he imagines Jesus actually thrashing his head around, slinging a sword between his teeth like a giant cigar of mass destruction.

So, what is that view that makes even him fall into sarcasm? Although he doesn't explicitly make mention of Left Behind and Dispensationalism, there is little doubt such and similar views are what he means.

And his arguments are...

The phrase "the Second Coming of Christ" never actually appears in the Bible...

That someone who claims to be "a reasonable adult reader" would make such a statement is, well, ridiculous. It's a childish argument, on par with those who try to deny the Trinity because the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible.

I would go so far as to say it's a dishonest argument, meant to influence the reader to think that scripture says little about Jesus' second coming and that it's not really that important of an issue.

But the New Testament says much about Christ's return. In his book Christian Beliefs, Grudem has a chapter about the second coming, and makes mention of such passages as John 14: 3, "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself...", and Acts 1:11 "who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven." And the closing of the Revelation, where Jesus says "Surely I am coming soon". There are other passages mentioned in that chapter, too, such as I Thessalonians 4 and II Peter 3.

Perhaps that latter passage, in II Peter 3, may explain why McLaren must downplay this teaching. Consider it, please.

3:3 knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts,
3:4 and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
3:5 For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God;
3:6 by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
3:7 but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
3:8 But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
3:11 Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in [all] holy living and godliness,
3:12 looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
3:13 But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Consider how much this doesn't support, even contradicts, much of what McLaren teaches. Consider this statement, on page 79

Purpose of Jesus: Why is Jesus important?
Emerging View: Jesus came to become the Savior of the world, meaning he came to save the earth and all it contains from its ongoing destruction because of human evil. Through his life and teaching, through his suffering, death, and resurrection, he inserted into human history a seed of grace, truth, and hope that can never be defeated. This seed will, against all opposition and odds, prevail over the evil and injustice of humanity and lead to the world's ongoing transformation into the world God dreams of.

And this, from page 296.

We believe the vision of the new Jerusalem, like all prophetic visions, seeks to inspire our imaginations with hope about what our world can actually become through the good news of the kingdom of God.

In this emerging view, the "new heavens and new earth" (Revelation 21:1) means, not a different space-time universe, but a new way of living that is posible within this universe, a new societal system that is coming as surely as God is just and faithful...

The new Jerusalem represents, then, a new spirituality, a new way of living in which the sacred presence of God is integrated with all of life and not confined to temples...We haven't evacuated teh dark earth for the light of heaven or eternity: no, the light of heaven has come down, come down to us, down to earth.

So, McLaren says that Christ is the Savior of the world in the sense of the literal earth, that we will somehow change the world (a fearful thought indeed). Peter says that the world is "stored up for fire" and "shall be burned up".

My money's on Peter being right.

There's more to McLaren's case against what I will here call a Futurist view of the coming of Christ, meaning simply that the prophecies about Christ's return and the event leading up to and surrounding it will be fulfilled in the future. But this entry is quite long enough, so I'll deal more with it later.

it's really not meant to be shocking and controversial, really

2008-04-25T04:15:00.000-07:00

From another site, I found a link to this entry. My interest in it is not the same as the other's, though I'll admit that their point is a good one. Just in passing, here's what struck their eye.

Person after person that I have talked with have commented that this is the way church ought to be. Walking in the door there were smiling faces, tables of food, wine flowing, great live music. Right away you knew you were entering a party and you were welcome.

Certainly an interesting atmosphere for a church service, I must say. I haven't seen all of the movie "Dumb and Dumber" (a fact for which I have no regrets), but maybe from the snips I have seen or from somewhere else, there is the quote that comes to mind when I read that, "and the beer flowed like wine".

Seriously, the sheer shallowness of those statements is laughably pathetic. People the world over risk life and limb to meet with other Christians and worship God and learn about Him, and these over here say that church should be like a party. Sad.

But, that's not my point for writing this. My point has to do with this.

He asked Rob Bell to talk about his new book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians (Zondervan) coming out in Fall 2008 Everyone there loved his talk, so much to think about.

Quite a...provocative title. It reminds me of a couple of things, from that (in)famous interview he gave a few months back for Relevant Magazine.

One thing that it reminded me of just now is this.

Secondly, I have not set out to be shocking or controversial. That's a horrid goal--and, I believe, a very unredemptive one.

Well, it's all well and good for him to say that; however, if you're going to name your book Jesus Wants to Save Christians, then you probably just put paid to the idea that your not trying to be shocking and controversial.

(In fact, probably naming his last book Sex God showed how that statement really just doesn't hold water)

The second has to do with this statement, which is actually in that same answer.

...when followers of Jesus can think of nothing better to do with their time than to pick apart and shred to pieces the work of other followers of Jesus who are trying to do something about the world, that's tragic, and I don't owe those people anything...When a Christian can find nothing better to do with their time in the face of this much pain and heartbreak, you start realizing that some Christians need to be saved.

So, does this mean that Bell and Co. are finally going to drop the facades? Does the title of his book imply that he will tell us straight-out that he thinks us orthodox evangelical types who are more concerned about beliefs then nice feelings and know that the Bible tells us there is a hell and that salvation is found by grace through faith in Christ and don't say that the Dalai Lama is all that holy and don't think that diapers are an assault on the earth, that people like us are really not even really Christians?

I'd welcome it. From a confirmed and dedicated postmodern as him, I would so welcome such a clear statement.

Of course, that's a lot to take from just a title. Still, there does seem to be a trend.

One other concern of mine is, has the Vineyard been hijacked by these people? I've visited one in Lexington a few times, and while it seemed ok, their small book section did have some things by Bell and a few other questionables in it. I hope not, I know some people in the Vineyard, in fact I went to a Vineyard church in Perm, and have a good bit of respect for them, and I'd hate to think they've either succumbed to this crap, or are fighting it in their own fellowship.

looking at mclaren's misinterpretation of judgment verses

2008-04-23T04:41:00.000-07:00

Some will be quick to note that Jesus also used strong language of exclusion--being thrust into "outer darkness", for example, where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth". But in any irony that is so powerful it can hardly be overstated, Jesus applies that language to the typically exclusive (religious scholars, Pharisess, etc.), and asserts that the typically excluded (prostitutes, sinners, even Gentiles) will be included before them (Matthew 23:13; Luke 13: 28-30; Luke 4: 24-27). Clearly, Jesus is deconstructing the dominant system of exclusion--not fortifying it
McLaren, Everything Must Change, p. 126

Interesting thoughts. Here is one place where such things are said by Jesus.

Matthew 8
10. When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!11. And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.12. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

For one thing, it must be scandalous to McLaren that Jesus would say these words to man of war. After all, he was a cog in the whole Roman Empire "suicide machine", to use a phrase McLaren uses, and why Jesus didn't try to sell him on peace and love and Woodstock instead of praising his faith and doing what he asked is, well, one of those things that must be deconstructed until it can be explained away and spun to fit their preconceived notions.

The only thing that might support his contentions in this passage has to do with the phrase "sons of the kingdom". But just as likely, if not more so, that has to do with Israel as a whole, especially in contrast with the "many (who) will come from the east and west..."

Here is another place, again in Matthew.

Matthew 22
11. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.12. So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless.13. Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'14. For many are called, but few are chosen."

The context is one of Jesus' parables, about a man throwing a wedding party for his son, and when those invited did not come and even abused his servants, he destroyed them and invited others, those in the "highways and hedges". Apparently, someone got into the party who did not have a wedding garment, and when found out, he is kicked out.

First, you'd find a much better parallel between the religious leaders of Israel (if not Israel as a whole) between those who despised the invitation to the wedding, then between them and the man without the garment, especially if the king sending people to destroy the abusers and murderers of his servants and burn down their city is connected with what happened in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

But I don't think you'll find much support for what McLaren wrote.

A third is in Matthew 25, and is in the parable of the servants and the talents. The one who simply hid his talent is cast into outer darkness. I'm not seeing much of a connection between that guy and the Pharisees.

Here are the three passages he uses to support his claims. Two have added context, the Matthew 23 one doesn't because it pretty much stands on it's own.

matthew 23
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut
the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither
suffer ye them that are entering in to enter.

luke 13
22 And he went on his way through cities and villages, teaching,
and journeying on unto Jerusalem.23 And one said unto him, Lord, are
they few that are saved? And he saidunto them, 24 Strive to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say untoyou, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the masterof the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to standwithout, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us; and he shallanswer and say to you, I know you not whence ye are; 26 then shall ye
begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in
our streets; 27 and he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye are;
depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be the weeping
and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast
forth without. 29 And they shall come from the east and west, and from the
north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And behold,
there are last who shall be first, and there are first who shall be last.

luke 4
14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and a fame
went out concerning him through all the region round about. 15 And he
taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. 16 And he came to
Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom
was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And
there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he
opened the book, and found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit
of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to
the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And
recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the
synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them,
To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears. 22 And all bare him
witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his
mouth: and they said, Is not this Joseph’s son? 23 And he said unto them,
Doubtless ye will say unto me this parable, Physician, heal thyself:
whatsoever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in thine own
country. 24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is acceptable
in his own country. 25 But of a truth I say unto you, There were many
widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three
years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land;
26 and unto none of them was Elijah sent, but only to Zarephath, in the
land of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. 27 And there were many
lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was
cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian. 28 And they were all filled with
wrath in the synagogue, as they heard these things; 29 and they rose up,
and cast him forth out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill
whereon their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.
30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way.

Matthew 23:13 was addressed directly to the scribes and Pharisees, though it does lack the exclusion language he seems to want to emphasize. But let's at least say that Jesus was not happy with them, and that He calls them out by name.

But in the others? Who is He addressing?

In Luke 23, all we are told is that a person, called "one" or "a certain one", asked the question. We aren't told it was Pharisee or Sadduccee or any other kind of religious ruler. It seems to have been simply a person, normal or not normal is unclear.

Luke 4 is certainly interesting. A synagogue was a place of public worship, so it's very likely that people of all kinds were there, formal religious teachers and common people.

Is Jesus deconstructing--a word I am coming to hate, because it is essentially meaningless but used to play politically correct games by those who need such supposed support--no, let us use a different word, a word with meaning and accuracy. Was Jesus setting right the dominant system of exclusion? Perhaps. As He said elsewhere, He did not come to call the righteous (or those who thought they were righteous), but sinners (those who knew themselves to be sinners) to repent.

So, when Jesus "hung out" with tax collectors and sinners, did He do it because He approved of their way of life? Or did He want them to repent and trust in Him?

One could point to the account of Zachaeus, who in encountering Christ changed his ways in a quite interesting moment of repentence. He may have remained a tax collector, but if so, he became an honest one, who collected what was required but no more.

One could point to the woman caught in adultery. Jesus' response to her is both a statement of forgivenss ("Neither do I condemn you.") and a command to not continue in her sinful ways ("Go and do not sin like this any more").

So, yes, ones like those would get in before such as the Pharisees, because they were changed by Jesus, repenting and being forgiven by Him, while such as the Pharisees trusted in their works and keeping of the law.

I'm not impressed with his argument. A look at the places where "outer darkness" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" are used, as well as the three references he makes when taken in their contexts, do not support his claim that such rhetoric was directed exclusively at those he calls "typically exclusive".

movie review--the forbidden kingdom--almost all I could have expected

2008-04-21T04:37:00.000-07:00

I've been looking forward to this movie since hearing about it. After all, any movie with both Jet Li and Jackie Chan in it already has a lot going for it.

And I was pretty well satisfied with it. It delivered pretty much what one can expect, and it did it well, with only a few real snafus.

If you're familiar with the Narnia story, particular "The Silver Chair", or George McDonald's fantasies such as "Lilith" and "Phantastes", you'll find the basic plot to "Forbidden Kingdom" to be similar--boy from modern times is sent to a kind of historical-fantasy realm where he must complete a quest, then is sent back to modern times where he sets some things right.

For Chan, it's probably the best movie of his that I've seen for a while. He is given an absolutely perfect character for his style of acting, a master of drunken fighting, and he doesn't spend much time trying to be a dramatic actor that he really doesn't do very well. His character quite makes the movie.

For Li, he actually has two roles. One is such that if you have seen "Hero" you will be familiar with, the quiet and stoic warrior (actually a monk) who says little and lets his actions speak for him. The other, as the Monkey King, is a definite switch, a free-spirited and humorous character that is much different from anything I've seen him play before.

The other two that round out the gang of misfits is our hero, the south Boston boy misplaced in time and space, and a Chinese girl named Sparrow who is out for some reckoning against the movie's big bad guy.

One thing the movie relishes in, and for which I approve it, is the one fight scene between Chan and Li. I think it goes on for at least 5 minutes, and is pretty much everything one can want from it.

Of course, there are things in it that can be complained about, to more or lesser degrees. Although religion is not a big part of the movie, it isn't completely absent either. Chan's character is called at one point something like a "Daoist immortal", though the immortal part is a bit problematic at one point, and Li's seems to be some kind of Buddhist monk. The idea of humans who have become immortal through some means is a main thing in the plot. When teaching our hero his kung-fu, there are scenes where the teachers, Li and Chan, are giving various philosophical nuggets that seem to have a kind of Buddhist twist to them.

I may not have liked that, but I can accept it. What else can I expect, really? It's a part that is questionable that goes along with the good in the movie.

Perhaps most disturbing for me, though, was that the main modern-day thug, the one who leads the gang that robs and shoots an old man, has a necklace with a cross on it quite well-displayed around his neck. What am I to think of that? In a movie of carefully-crafted martial arts choreography and elaborate set and costume designs, am I to think that giving the thug a cross necklace was not intentional? That it was maybe overlooked, or not meant as a slam against things the cross represents? Or even that it was meant to say that the thug epitomizes what the cross represents?

Am I reading too much into it? Maybe. But I have a hard time believing that, though. To the best of my knowledge, few things are left to accident in such a movie. If the thug wore a cross, it was because someone in the making of the movie wanted him to wear it.

That's the one thing that really tarnishes what was for me a very enjoyable movie.

a few more thoughs about journey and destination

2008-04-20T09:15:00.000-07:00

I thought this afternoon of a song from several years ago, by the Christian singer Steve Taylor. The song was called "The Finish Line".

I'll not put the lyrics here, I doubt it would be right to do that anyway, but the song went roughly like this...

It was in the form of a story. In the first verse, we are introduced to an unnamed man who was just "born for the second time", he is beginning his life as a follower of Christ and it is given the metaphor of a race. He is confident, sure, ready for the race, and as the verse ends he is "out of the block" and off.

Verse two finds him in a situation that could be described as like in the parable of the sower and the seeds, where cares and troubles of this world threaten to choke him and render his life of little eternal value. He fights (and sometimes fails to) compromises and temptations, and stumbles and grows weary.

In the third and final verse, he is "bloodied but wise", and his eyes are set on the finish line.

It's a good song, and it illustrates again the importance of keeping our eyes on the destination, as that is what is truly important.

Paul uses the analogy of a race when he tells us to "lay aside the weight and the sins which beset us, and run patiently the race set for us. Looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross and despised the shame."

Even here, we see how with Jesus it was the destination, the joy that was set before Him, that was the main thing, that was the reason that He endured that most painful and shameful and truly unjust part of His race, the cross.

Understand, please, I do not want to denigrate the importance of the journey, the race, and how we run it. Paul doesn't, he gives us some guidance on how we can best run it. And in the passage from II Timothy mentioned in the last entry, he tells how it was through his fighting the good fight, finishing his course, and keeping the faith in that race that will lead to his reward.

But the journey is meaningless if the destination is bad.

I can point to Jesus' own words to support that idea. He tells us that "broad is the gate and wide the way that leads to destruction, and many travel that way". Does the fact that way is broad and there are many people on it negate the fact that the destination is destruction? If people have some good experiences on that way, will they remember it when they reach the end of that road, and find that it was for nothing?

And there are more of Jesus' words, such as "What has it profited a man, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?" Such a man's journey may be pleasant, but in the end he will have lost his soul, and the pleasant journey will have been for nothing.

Can you see how misleading, how ignorant, even how evil it is to say that we should not worry about the destination that the journey or the race of our lives is going towards? I invite anyone to correct me, but I can't think of any place in the Bible where even the inference that the journey is more important then the destination, or that the destination is unimportant, can be made.

In truth, perhaps nothing is more important then our eternal destination.

And there is only one way, and Jesus Himself is that way. There is no other way.

what bell said at soc

2008-04-19T06:48:00.000-07:00

For links to the video excerpts and transcripts, which seem to be accurate from my own viewing and listening to the videos, go here http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/04/rob_bell_avoids.html

There are three video excerpts on that site to things Bell said, mostly in answers to questions given to him.

The first was a kind of "tell us a bit about yourself" type of thing, and his response is in answer to a question of that sort, so I'm willing to give a bit of a pass on that one, even credit him a little with a decent insight.

The second is, well, weak. He's answering a question from someone, I think a kid, about how to not be so hard on oneself when one has made a mistake.

Bell makes this observations...

Rob Bell: I think, I think that many people, ah, are—pick up along the way that life is about destination. So they’re taught it’s about arriving; it’s about having all the answers, it’s about creating a nice box that you sit in and defend.

But my fundamental understanding is that life is journey. And journey, is a fundamentally different way to understand life, than destination.

Rob Bell: And on a journey, [Roshi Joan Halifax: That’s right] all I have, am responsible for, is the next step. And that’s all I’m ever asked for—is the next step. [Roshi Joan Halifax smiling and nodding in agreement] I don’t have to have it all figured out; I don’t have to defend it all—I don’t have to have it all nailed down.

And if you can shift from destination understanding, to em[brace]—to journey; it frees you to take life as it comes. Let it be what it is, and then do the next right thing.

For a while, in my signature area at the Christianity.com forms, I had a phrase which went something like this, "To say that the journey is more important then the destination is nonsense. A road's sole value is that it takes you where you want to go".

I think that Bell's idea about life being about journey rather then destination is nonsense on a grand scale.

Consider when God called Abram, and told him to leave Ur. What did God promise to him? That He would lead Abram to "a land that I will show you" (Genesis 12:1). God told Abram about the destination, that was what He wanted him to focus on, not the journey itself. The journey wasn't the end, it was the means to the end.

If fact, it's in Hebrews, where the author talks about the OT faithful, where mention is made that Abraham was destination-oriented, that he "look for a city...whose builder and maker is God".

Consider when God lead Isreal out of Egypt in Exodus. What did God have Moses tell the people? God told them about "a land flowing with milk and honey". God didn't tell that their freedom from Egypt was only about the journey to the Promised Land, but that it was about getting to and taking charge of the land God promised to them. The journey wasn't the ends, it was the means to it.

Consider when Jesus' disciples asked Him to show about the way to the Father. Jesus' answer was "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, except by me". What Jesus didn't say was that their desire was off, that should be more concerned about the journey to see the Father rather then actually seeing Him.

In II Timothy 4:7-8, Paul tells this to Timothy

I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day: and not to me only, but to all those that love his appearing.

One may note, and rightly I think, that Paul does view his life as having been like a course. In that way, viewing life as a journey is not a bad way of viewing it. My problem with Bell, though, is that he uplifts that journey, and denigrates the idea of destination.

Paul doesn't. He looks toward to destination, what awaits him, and encourages Timothy to also look to that destination, that crown of righteousness, and perhaps more then that to the Lord who will present it to him and whose appearing he is to love and look forward to.

The journey of Paul's life wasn't the ends, it was the means to the ends.

What could Bell have said? He could have pointed to Christ, to His death for our sins, to the need for repentence and forgiveness. He could have said that there is forgiveness for sins, not in denying them and not in striving to do better, and not even in getting over them and taking further steps along an unspecified road, but that in Christ is the forgiveness that this kid was looking for.

Instead, he fed that kid garbage.

But why denigrate the idea of destination for the idea of journey? What does it mean that Bell completely disregards where whatever road one is journeying on is leading? Could it be because he thinks that which road one travels on, be it Muslim or Buddhist or Christian, is unimportant? He is one of those, after all, who has poo-poo-ed the idea of hell. If in his mind there is no hell, then it follows that whatever road one is on is irrelevant. There are no real consequences, except maybe in this life and to this planet and physical plane, to what we believe.

The third one is in response to a question about responding to evil acts.

Rob Bell: Ah, when somebody wrongs you; when they commit and injustice, when they do evil—whether it’s something petty or whether it’s the oppression of millions—it’s as if they have handed you this injustice, or evil.

And so you can hand it back, that’s called revenge, that’s when you take the wrong, the evil, the injustice, the hurt, the betrayal, and you simply respond in kind. There is, next to revenge, another option, which is not to hand back the pain, which means that you’re going to have to bear that pain.

And when you choose not to respond with revenge or retaliation, but you choose to respond with forgiveness—and you choose to take it and bear that pain—it is going to be heavy, but it is going to lead to your freedom. It is going to feel like a death, but it is going to lead to a resurrection. It’s gonna feel like a Friday, but a Sunday is going to come.

And I think what we see [motions toward the Dalai Lama] with Archbishop Tutu, and his Holiness, is when people choose not to hand it back, but to bear it, it will always lead to suffering and it will—you will unavoidably become a better person on the other side. An’ I think that’s what we respond to; is that is what changes the world; when somebody chooses not to hand it back.”

If one were stretching, one may almost think that Bell was trying to sneak in something Christian when he talks about resurrection and Sunday coming. I don't know, maybe he was. If so, it was weak, but what the heck, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he was.

Some people have made a big to-do about him calling the Dalai Lama "his Holiness", and they should. The Dalai Lama gets a pass because of Tibet's situation with China, but we are true Christians, let us not put on blinders. Buddhism is a false religion which leads people to hell, and while we may sympathize with DL and his people, we shouldn't let their troubles cause us to say that their religion is ok.

So, for Bell to call the lead man of a false religion "his Holiness" is inexcusable and borderline blasphemous.

seeds (or even the blossom) of compromise

2008-04-18T12:15:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, I made mention of an magazine's interview of Rob Bell. One of the more disturbing and puzzling statements he made in that interview was this one.

The central Hebrew prayer, Deuteronomy 6, says, "Hear O Israel the Lord your God, the Lord is One," so we live with the awareness that all of reality is one. We are connected with all thing everywhere...

Some people object to the idea that he is giving some kind of pantheistic notion of God here by relating the Shema to the idea that "all of reality is one".

So, a bit ago, it was learned that the right reverand Bell was invited to something called Seeds of Compassion, a kind of interfaith dialogue involving people from Buddhism, Judaism, Sikh Islam, and Christianity so-called. In this event, Bell participates in a Q&A session, where one of the Sikh speakers makes this rather curions statement.

Guru Singh,
The Sikh scriptures start with a word Ik Oncar and that is “God is one”. And I think that’s the core thing, we are all children of the same god. It is universal. So when we recognize that feeling that we all are from, whether we believe in a formalized god or an infinite being or a spiritual sense that pervades humanity or cosmos, does not matter.

The transcipt and video can be found here, http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/04/rob_bell_avoids.html

The similarities between the statements Guru Singh and Rob Bell are rather striking. Both use a similar phrase, the Shema and the statement "God is one", to refer to some kind of universal connectedness, that to Bell all of reality is one and to Singh we are all children of the same god.

No doubt there is some difference to those conclusions, but are they not similar, too?

And if they are so similar, then does it not follow that Bell probably has quite a bit in common with the ideas of the SoC group? Seriously, why else was he invited to their shindig? Do you think they would invite just any old country preacher in to talk about a Christianity so-called that would mesh with what they wanted to hear? Would they risk having a true "Jesus is the only way" Christian speak at an event meant to pimp for the notion of religion pluralism and the idea that all religions are ok?

No, they knew Bell's ideas, they knew he agreed with them, they knew he would play nice and not go Old Testament on them. They knew he wouldn't call them idol-worshipers who needed to repent and turn to the living and true God.

I actually entertained a tad bit of a hope that they would be wrong, that he would say something worth saying, that he would turn out to be a strong witness to Christ there. Sadly, that hope was dashed. At least it was only a small hope.

If anything, we can see how his ideas mesh with those of these anti-Christ teachers, such a with Guru Singh.

Added note, here's a bit of some similar thinking, from another participant of that discussion. It can be found here...

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080417/31980_Emergent_Church_Leaders'_InterSpirituality_Talks_Raise_Flags.htm

"We say we are created by one god. We say we are all the human family. That makes us interdependent. That is the basis of compassion because it is the basis of the morality of the world," said Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine Catholic nun.

random ramblings

2008-04-14T04:46:00.000-07:00

I remember watching "Godzilla vs The Smog Monster" (also called "Godzilla vs Hedorah") when I was pretty young, and liking it pretty well. I'm watching it now again, and I'm wonder "What was I thinking?"

Granted, it's still Godzilla, so it's not all bad. But still...

For example, Godzilla's theme music in this movie is different. In fact, it's silly. Then, there're the people, like the psychic-kid who seems to be the only one who knows what's going on. Maybe.

Heck, I haven't even noticed Godzilla being attacked by tiny tanks meant to look full-sized. What kind of Godzilla movie can it be if that doesn't happen?

I know, this is one of those "Godzilla is a nice good guy" movies, thus the non-threatening music, and I'm fine with that, as far as it goes. After all, I did like the movie as a kid, and I probably wouldn't like some of the more modern anti-hero Godzilla ones back then, so it's ok.

Ah, never mind my complaining. Its fine. A bit silly, but ok enough.

And I wouldn't be surprised if it will be re-made sometime in the near future, as something like an anti-global-warming movie.

(Oh, but here at the end, it's just gotten ridiculous--Godzilla's actually using his fire breath to propel himself like a rocket. Come on, stop it, please, I want to like the movie, but that's too much)

There are times when I really wish I had cable tv at my place, and the coming NBA playoffs is one of them. Really, this could be wild, and great.

Of all of the chess defensive systems I could have wanted to study, why oh why did I choose the Sicilian Dragon?

Baseball has only just started, so it's too early to say how it's going to turn out, but I was finally able to listen to most of a Cincy game this afternoon, and it was not a good one.

But really, it was only one game, and sometimes in baseball you lose ugly. There're too many games if the season for that to not happen every so often. Just so long as it's not a regular habit.

Haven't watched any movies for the past several weeks, just hasn't been much out that interests me right now. Had hoped that, for example, 'The Forbidden Kingdom' would be out by now. Any movie with Jackie Chan and Jet Li in it has be worth at least one viewing.

Sometimes revisiting the past is just...funny.

Listened to bit of DC Talk's "Free at Last" a couple of days ago. Wow, and to think we thought that was so cool at the time! Actually, it's ok, but it's so obvious now that those three were a bunch of twenty-something guys who were single and looking for girls. I think about half the songs on that album were about love and romance and such.

To be fair, at the least they treated the topic as it should be treated.

Still, they weren't completely without depth. For example, "Socially Acceptable" is probably as pertinent now as it was then. You can take a bit of lyric from that song like this one...

Times are changing with morals in decay
Human rights have made the wrongs ok

...and see ways in which that is still going on. For example, a book called "The New Christians" that I've been reading relates how a woman in a certain kind of church had the audacity to wear a shirt to that church with this message...

Straight Chrisitians for Gay Rights
(My Bible Teaches Social Justice)

...and we can put that front-and-center to show what kind of whacked-out thinking DCT was talking about. And I'd dare say it's only gotten worse since then.

being set up for a betrayal?

2008-04-13T11:05:00.000-07:00

I remember back in college a friend doing a bit of a comic routine to a song, a funny one, which had to lyrics "we always hurt the ones we love". Looking at it from another direction, it was CS Lewis who made the observations that "To love is to become vulnerable...".

The only person who can truly betray us is the one whom we think is on our side. If an enemy or a stranger acts against us, we may not be so surprised, but if one who is a friend or an ally does so, then we are surprised and what they have done is a betrayal.

Is there a betrayal going on now? Perhaps. At the least, to my mind, it looks like one. Read here...

http://www.faithhousemanhattan.org/faith_house/2008/01/four-stories-of.html?cid=109123708

Orthodox rabbi David Hartman, concerned with the perennial conflict in Jerusalem, insists that different melodies of one God must be cherished: “Each group feels that its way is the only way: there is one God, therefore there has to be one truth. Christians build their story on the Jewish story and therefore feel they are inheritors of Judaism. Muslims built their story on the Bible, and therefore they feel that they are the perfect expression of monotheism. Now, we’ve got to get out of each other’s story. We can’t feel that in order for me to tell my story, your story has to end. . . . In other words, affirmation [of my story] does not require that I demonise those who are different from me. I don’t have to build conviction out of hate and fear.” If my identity depends on annihilation of other stories, I cannot really sing all four songs of God.

I suppose to understand what is meant by "four songs of God" (later the phrase "four stories" is used), one need only look at the logo for that organization. It's found at the top of the page. In it, under a bent line that I suppose is meant to represent something like to roof of a house, are four circles. In three of those circles are symbols representing three different religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The fourth is empty, whether it represents skepticism or athiesm or maybe all other religions is unclear. One may notice under their (NEW) Advisory Council, on the left side of the page, there is one person on it who represents Hinduism.

The four whatevers, then, are these religious views (since the entry seems to deal more with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, at least for the moment I will consider whatever the fourth one to be unimportant). The four songs of God, then, are most likely those four religious views.

So, is what this person said true?

For example, does being a Christian mean that I must also consider the followers of Judaism and Islam brothers? Does it mean that I must think of them as being equally related to God in the same way that I am?

If so, what does that mean?

Consider, then, that at this moment there are in the world many Christians who have dedicated at least a portion of their lives to reaching followers of Islam with the Gospel of Christ. Do they really need to do that? If Muslims, after all, are really a part of God's song, then maybe they shouldn't be evangelized? Then those Christians, perhaps with good hearts and good wills, are actually not doing what God wants them to do? Or maybe they don't even have good hearts and good will? Maybe they are merely tools of cultural dominance and should be soundly rebuked for thinking that any god worth following would condone their actions?

This is the betrayal that I see coming, that soon such as these will be condemning Christians who seek to do Christian evangelistic and missions work in Muslim parts of the world, and no doubt they will eventually condemn those in Hindu and Buddhist places, too. If we are all ok with God in reality, if one can be a Muslim or Buddist or Hindu or even a humanist and athiest and none of it matters, then what is missions work and evangelism but methods of cultural dominance and signs of egoism and superiority over those other cultures.

Here is some of how I see this heading. Missionaries of the past will be lauded, praised for their faith, and held up for respect, even as phrases like "they did what they thought best according to their understanding" are used. Perhaps some examples of cultural abuses, whether real or not, will be brought up, even though yes there were real missionaries who really cared for the people and tried to teach them rightly.

The rhetoric will emphasize, though, how we today are changing, how our understanding of God and of the various sacred texts is changing, and how we through our new lenses can see that in reality this emphasis on people needing to have faith in Christ alone was really not what Christ meant. We need to be more inclusive, more accepting, see the truth and beauty contained in other religions (referred to as "the other"), not be so pushy that they have to believe exactly as we believe. Will God, after all, not accept a just Muslim (at least as we judge one to be just) simply because he or she has not heard of Jesus or even if he or she has has chosen to stay in Islam and follow Allah and the Koran? Really, is the Bible all that much more inspired in the Koran? Aren't they both sacred texts, and both say many good things as well as things that we simply can't agree with nowadays?

Missionary emphasis, then, will change. They will emphasize more the doing of good things then the preaching of the Christian Gospel. They will say that we should push more for their ideas of 'social justice' and not try to force our religion down other people's throats. They will say (are now saying) that it isn't our job to worry about who is going to heaven and hell, and that really our main focus should be on how people live now rather then on where their souls go. Anyway, those old dualistic notions of some kind of far-off heaven and hell may not be right anyway, and we should worry more about bringing heaven to earth then about getting people to heaven.

So all of those evangelistic types of people, preachers and missionaries and soul-winners and street-preachers with bullhorns, they just really need to stop. No doubt they've had good intentions, but their way hasn't really worked. Instead of emphasizing the differences, we need to gather around the things we have in common. Instead of shouting at those other religions to repent and follow our own creeds, we need to shut up and listen and maybe learn something from those others. Instead of insisting on conversion, maybe all we really need is a conversation.

So, if those people, those missionaries, start getting into trouble because of their work, maybe they've been asking for it. After all, they've been disobeying the laws, and while we may not really like those kind of restrictions, we can't really condone the missionaries either. After all, missionaries have done some pretty bad things, and since most of them are focusing more on evangelism and conversion then on 'social justice', maybe they just need to get their act together and get with the program.

Is this far-fetched? Read this, from the link above.

So I find it hard to “give a testimony” today without offending people of my own religion whose identity depends on a divided and conflicted world. As a follower of Christ, I have grown to believe in a world that is larger than Christianity. Jesus called this larger world the kingdom of God...

...In the kingdom of God, these four stories are all really my stories—all at the same time—woven together, giving meaning and life to each other.

Who are these "whose identity depends on a divided and conflicted world"? Is it not those who believe that Christ is the only way, that people must repent and believe in Christ and confess Him as Lord? Is it not those evangelist and missionaries who take the Gospel to other people and other cultures? Is it not these whose "egoism" and "certainty" (so called) make them think that they must preach to those who in reality are already a part of God's song or God's story?

This is what I see happening, and what I see coming. And I think I have good reason to think this. This compromise is coming, and in the name of good things that will be abused by them, they will turn on and devour those who gave up much to take the Gospel to those who had not heard.

That is the betrayal.

Oh, and by the way...

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, except through Me."

"For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved"

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

"He who believes in the Son is not condemned, but He who does not believe is condemned already."

"For those times of ignorance God winked at, but now commands all men everywhere to repent."

Those are what the Bible says. I'd trust it before I'd trust the feel-good ungodly nonsense of Faith House.

But for those who do believe what Faith House is saying, read this, and be warned.

"For in the last days they will not endure sound doctrine, but will take to themselves teachers who will tell them what they want to hear."

vague vacation vagaries

2008-04-12T10:46:00.000-07:00

Travel tips:

As you value your sanity and soundness of mind, never schedule two overnight layovers in an airport in one week. Especially if you are too poor to get a hotel. Really, airports are designed to drive you CRAZY!!! and should be entered only under extreme circumstances.

As you value your sanity and soundness of mind, never schedule two 12+ hour flights in one weeks time. While being very glad that airplanes can take us lots and lots and lots of miles very quickly, one still must essentially sit in one place for most of that time, and watch whatever movie (good or bad) is shown, and eat whatever food (good or bad, and to be fair the food was ok) they have stocked.

You know you've been in a dry place, when for all that you can complain about the over-nighter at the airport on the return trip, you are glad that the airport is humid so that your mouth doesn't feel parched anymore.

Never confuse a stone forest with a dehydrated forest.

Wonders really do never cease.

For example, me, an avowed and committed coffee drinker, went for several days drinking mostly...

teas.

Oh, sure, there was some instant coffee, and that's fine. But really, all that time without something or anything coffee? And even when I got to the coffee shop in the airport in the morning after the second overnighter, what do I get but a...

green tea latte.

I seem to have been knocked for more then one loop on that vacation.

How can such a tiny lady have such a huge smile?

I question a bit when people tell us, especially as a display, that the people of certain racial group or nationalities live and dress and dance in the ways being shown.

It's not that I think it's false information, very likely it's correct, but I suspect that it's incomplete.

It's not that I don't think that those people don't every wear such nicely-made outfits, they probably do, but not all the time. It's not that I think they never do those kinds of dances, but that it's not an everything thing. Such nice clothes and dances are probably done on occasions and for events.

I can imagine that their common days are, well, rather more prosaic. They do what they must to grow or catch and prepare food, to trade for things they want or need from others, to raise and care for families, and basically do the kinds of things we all do to some degree. No doubt their regular clothing looks more work-in and not a nice and shiny. And that's fine.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. Really, all of that is merely speculation, it's not something I've researched. It's only thoughts.

And I hope that such musings don't seem to take away from my appreciation for where we visited. It was a nice place, very unexpected, very interesting. I guess I'm just not wanting to confuse it with what the real lives of such people may be like.

For it being such a few days, it was filled, and I'm glad I was able to go.

What did I take from it, though, or maybe a better way to put it, what did I learn and what do I need to do about what I learned?

I think that the thing that I learned, in a personal sense, could best be expressed in this way, that some things need to change in and with me.

A bit ago, there was a time of self-examination, but I think this trip put some accent on things that are not right in me.

Some of it is stuff that I have half-hearted worked at, but that I now know need to lose the 'half' part of that.

There are other things that I have only taken a passing interest in, perhaps for good reason, but that perhaps they need a bit more focus now. There are things about myself that are not complete, are not right, are in a word disappointing, and that can and should be better.

There is much to consider, and perhaps after that much to work at and plan for, and God's guidance and wisdom will be needed by me so very much.

As a preacher remarked a bit ago, in situations like this, there are often obstacles a guy needs to overcome. From my view at the moment, they seem to be high obstacles, and I'm not sure how to overcome them. I can only pray for God's help and favor.

a bit of quietness

2008-04-02T04:52:00.000-07:00

A bit of a note that I'm taking a bit of a vacation for the next several days, and one thing I'm vacationing from will be the blog. Things have been a bit quiet here anyway for a few weeks, so I doubt that'll be much of a thing. Still, for any interested, that's what's going on, and that's why there will be little to no activity here for a few days.

why what they believe is important

2008-04-01T05:44:00.000-07:00

In an exchange in another place on-line, someone made this comment as part of a reply in regards to the suggestion that emergents finally do something like give a statement of what their beliefs are.

It may look like this:
EMERGENT BELIEVES IN
Hope, Reconciliation, Love, peace, and Unity as the central themes of the Bible, and thus the Christian faith. We believe in the historical person of Christ, and are called to respond accordingly to his ministry and impact in this world, before, during and after his incarnation. We believe that God is continually revealing himself by the work of the Holy Spirit though creation. We believe we are called, as God's creation, to love others, fulfill their needs, and focus on bringing the Kingdom of God into whatever situations they are in in their lives. We believe that The Kingdom of God transcends space and time, but is both "at hand" and "coming". We believe the overall goal of our lives is to become the person into whom God is making us, and all the response and responsibility that goes along with that!

with a later edit in the next comment

In that statement it should say..."believes in both the Christ revealed in the Bible as well as the historical Christ." or something like that...I'm sure someone else smarter will word all of that better!

There is quite a lot that could be made of this "statement", and it should be kept in mind that this is one person's idea, not necessarity something all in that 'movement' would agree with (for good or ill).

Still, it does give rise to some thoughts.

For example, it begins with a list of five words that are suppose to be good, nice, positive. Essentially meaningless words, though, outside of any context.

Take the word hope. A 'hopeful' word, one would say, but what kind of hope? Hope in what? And reconciliing, reconciling who to who? Let me give a reason why that troubles me.

From "The New Christians", p. 78

A generation or two ago, defenses of Christianity that focused on human sinfulness were potent: a common metaphor showed God on one side of a diagram and a stick figure (you) on the other; the chasm between was labeled 'Sin', and the only bridge across was in the shape of Jesus' cross. But emergent's asked "What kind of God can't reach across a chasm? Chasms can't stop God!" Indeed, many emergents will concur that we live in a sinful world...But they will be inclined to attribute this sin not to the distance between human beings and God but to the broken relationships that clutter our lives and our world.

and

Jesus' message and ministry are ultimately about reconciliation: bringing those on the margins back in the center of God's relationship with the world. And the crucifixion, when seen as an act of divine solidarity with the suffering and broken world, becomes the event of reconciliation...But when seen as an event of beauty and reconciliation, even in its tragedy, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the impetus for healed and healing relationship in a world that desperately needs them.

When emergents speak of 'reconciliation', we have reason to question whether they are referring to people being reconciled to God, or people simply being reconciled to each other in some kind of New-Agey,'holistic' idea. The author makes reconciliation between people the main thing, even saying that the main thing about sin is not how it either causes or effects our relationship to God, but how it is caused or results in broken relationships between people in the world.

And this is why I do not trust emergents, and do not consider them worth trusting.

This whole "we don't need a statement of beliefs" idea of theirs has gone on long enough. They've gone far too long with people buying into their "let's play nice and have a conversation which resolves nothing and answers nothing" shtick, and it's getting old.

We can see the problem when we look at the concept of reconciliation above, that if we accept the author's definitions and explanations, when they talk about reconciliation, they mean something different then "be reconciled to God". It is this kind of amorphous, undefined, slight-of-hand refocusing of attention that a statement of beliefs on their part would hopefully make less problematic.

Because if there are problems with the one word, what about the others? Certainly few words are more problematic then 'love', and how we define acts of godly love or charity would well be determined by our beliefs. If we believe that those in other religions needs to know about Jesus so they can repent and trust in Him, then evangelism and missions work can be seen a works of godly love towards them. If we believe that knowledge of Christ isn't really necessary and people simply need to live rightly in their own cultural contexts, that concepts of heaven and hell are really too divisive and give a judgmental view of God and need to be put behind us, then evangelism and missions works may well be viewed as unnecessary and even unwelcome intrusions based more on concepts of cultural superiority then love of God and others.

And peace? If we consider that emergents seem to be attracting the detritus of pacifism, then we can understand a bit what they mean by peace. And unity? Read this

So I find it hard to “give a testimony” today without offending people of my own religion whose identity depends on a divided and conflicted world. As a follower of Christ, I have grown to believe in a world that is larger than Christianity. Jesus called this larger world the kingdom of God. It is the symphony made of all stories, individual and communal, our magnanimous God is involved with in this world.

Only God is God. And Christianity is not. Nor Judaism. Nor Islam. Paradoxically, this realization about the greatness of God is a deeply Christian, Jewish and Muslim teaching.

When I pray the Lord’s Prayer, I begin with the first word, “Our . . .” (see Matthew 6:9) and I stop and ask myself, “Who do I include in this Our?” I remind myself that the story of God is bigger than my personal story, bigger than the story of my religion, bigger than the story of all humanity, and bigger than the story of all creation. In the kingdom of God, these four stories are all really my stories—all at the same time—woven together, giving meaning and life to each other.

You can see the tactics used--those who believe that Jesus is the only way are those "whose identity depends on a divided and conflicted world". The 'kingdom of God' is to this person's mind 'larger than Christianity', meaning it included people in other religions who worship idols and false gods.

God is loving, and is involved in this world, yes. And our message is clear, to tell people to "be reconciled to God", to repent and trust in Christ, not stay in their false religions worshiping devils and false gods.

This is why the opening "statement of beliefs" is hollow and meaningless. It may read nicely, but underneath is the potential for the misleading and unbiblical ideas to find root. That is why they must put aside this perceived need to feel nice and PC, and give us the cold hard facts. Yes, if they follow what those quoted above have said, they will be openning themselves up to controversy (like that's not already happening), but at least they would be being honest.