Crispin's Study

Awesome cover of Buy You a Drank

2009-11-06T10:09:00.000-05:00

Homosexuality and the Bible (Part 4)

2008-06-12T12:31:00.004-05:00

In my last post on homosexuality and the Bible, I made the case that David and Jonathan are portrayed as being in a homoerotic relationship in the books of Samuel. There a number of other people in the Bible that are thought by some to have homosexual tendencies. Here are a few of them.

Some believe that Elisha had some homosexual tendencies. In 2 Kings 4:34-35 Elisha’s healing of a young boy could be interpreted as a homosexual ritual. The passage records, “And he went up and lay on the boy, and put his mouth on his mouth and his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands. And he stretched himself on the boy. And the flesh of the boy became warm.” The staff mentioned in verse 31 could be viewed as a phallic symbol. This passage can also be interpreted to have no homosexual intent, as the passage never clearly states any type of act took place.

Ruth is thought to have attempted to begin a homosexual relationship with Naomi in Ruth 1:14. The verse reads, “And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.” The word “clave” gives some the idea that Ruth may have intended a relationship of a sexual nature. דּבק is used is Genesis 2:4 to refer to the relationship of a husband and wife. Yet it can also be argued that the word has a number of meanings, as it is even used to describe the people of Israel’s relationship to the inheritance they would have.

Daniel and Ashpenaz are said by some to have entered into a homosexual relationship. This is based off of Daniel 1:9, “Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.” The word translated “tender love,” though is רחמים which means “womb,” and figuratively “compassion;” the word is used with this meaning in 2 Chronicles 30:9 as well. To those against homosexuality, there is no reason to assume that the love of David and Ashpenaz was in anyway romantic.

It has been asserted that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with the apostle John. This is derived from John John 13:23, 19:26, 21:7, and 21:20, which refer to John as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” In John 13:23 John is said to have laid his head on Jesus’ bosom. Yet there is nothing that clearly states in the text that that relationship did exist. Furthermore, it can be argued that had it existed, the synoptics surely would have recorded some aspect of it, but such a record does not exist.

Honestly, I have my doubts that any of these characters were intended to be viewed as homosexual. I find the Elisha argument interesting, but ultimately I find it hard to believe that the author of the story intended a homoerotic meaning. Nonetheless, it is an intriguing study.

Sam Harris makes a very interesting joke

2008-06-12T10:56:00.002-05:00

The West Wing on Biblical Ethics

2008-06-03T08:51:00.002-05:00

Homosexuality and the Bible (Part 3)

2008-05-30T08:12:00.010-05:00

Jonathan and David

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
-2 Samuel 1:26

There are number of people who propose that Jonathan and David had a homosexual relationship in the Bible. They suppose that what has been traditionally thought to be a simple friendship was actually homoerotic in nature. I personally doubt that these stories are historical at all, but I do find this interpretation of the literature very interesting.

The first time we hear of Jonathan and David together, it is right after the famous story of David and Goliath. David has just come back a victorious hero, literally carrying the head of Goliath in his hand. David presents the head to Saul, and then we read, “And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:1). This in itself seems particularly homoerotic in nature, but in verses 3-4 the passage continues, “Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.”

The word used for “love” in 1 Samuel 18:1 is אהב, which like the English equivalent has a number of meanings. In the same chapter it describes Judah's love for David (18:6) and the love of Saul's daughter for David (18:28). More interesting is the phrase, “the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David.” The word translated soul is נפשׁ, which depending on the context carries with it a sense of passion, desire, or lust. קשׁרה, translated here as “knit,” simply means “tied” or “bound.” So the text is literally saying that the souls (passions, desires) of David and Jonathan were bound together and Jonathan loved David like his own soul.

After this preface of the love of Jonathan toward David, Jonathan promptly strips off his clothing in front of him. This action can be understood as symbolic, similar to the stripping of Aaron in Numbers 20:28. (And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount.) It could be that Jonathan is symbolically giving David the right to the throne. Though this interpretation certainly seems to fit the context of the story, it certainly does not negate the potential homoeroticism of the act.

Jonathan's interest in David is repeated in 1 Samuel 19:2, “But Jonathan Saul's son delighted much in David.” In this scenario, Jonathan actually saves David's life. The story continues in chapter 20 where David fears that Saul knowns that David has “found grace” in Jonathan's eyes (vs. 3). (Perhaps even more interesting is Jonathan's response, “Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.”) In verse 17 it is reiterated that Jonathan loved David, “for he loved him as he loved his own soul.” And at the end of the chapter we read that “and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” The word translated “exceeded” literally means “grew.” It is not difficult to see the sexual overtones here.

Jonathan's death is recorded at the beginning of 2 Samuel. When David heard the news of this, he of course mourns. But as he weeps, the text records him saying, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” The part most pertinent to this post is of course the phrase, “passing the love of women.” During the entire story of Jonathan and David, never once does the reader see David confess his love for Jonathan while he is still alive. But at this point, after the death of Jonathan, he not only confesses his love, but admits it to be “passing the love of women.”

Though other passages in the Bible clearly condemn homosexual behavior, it seems at least one story actually seems to present the act in a positive light. Neither Jonathan or David are ever condemned for their actions (unlike David's other sexual sin). In fact, they are the protagonists of the story. It seems that there was at least one Biblical author who had a positive view on homosexuality.

Happy Towel Day, Everyone!

2008-05-25T10:02:00.000-05:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towel_Day

Richard Dawkins- "What if you're wrong?"

2008-05-24T16:53:00.002-05:00

Homosexuality and the Bible (Part 2)

2008-05-24T16:48:00.003-05:00

Romans

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
-Romans 1:26-27

This passage seems remarkably clear in its condemnation of homosexuals. Paul refers to homosexual acts as “vile affections” and “against nature.” He considers the act to be ἀσχημοσύνη (here translated “unseemly”), meaning that it elicits disgrace.

It is argued by some that this passage refers not simply to homosexuality, but to the homosexual pagan rituals that took place in Cybele's temple in Rome. Cybele's followers, known as Galli, were known to castrate themselves and dress in women's clothing. They would then lead a type of homoerotic orgy.

It is worth noting that homosexuality is connected at times to pagan practices in the Bible. The prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 takes place immediately after the command, “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech.” And the word frequently translated as “sodomite” in the KJV throughout the book of 1 Kings is קדשׁ, meaning “sacred male,” and it refers to male prostitution in the temple.

Paul's use of the phrase, “changed the glory” (ἠλλάξαν τὴν δόξαν) in Romans 1:23 is extrmely similar to Jeremiah's use of the phrase in the Septuagint rendering of Jeremiah 2:11 (ἠλλάξατο τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ) in which the people's glory is changed bevcause of their worship of Baal and Asherah. This perhaps an intentional parallel to highlight the sin of pagan worship.

Though it is possible that Paul had this ritual in mind when he wrote the passage, the text still condemns homosexuals. Paul viewed men and women together as “natural” and any other combination was considered “against nature.” Paul gives no room for a different interpretation; he believed the act to be sin.

Homosexuality and the Bible (Part 1)

2008-05-19T19:34:00.006-05:00

1 Corinthians and Leviticus

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
-1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Paul is trying to prove a point to the church at Corinth in this passage. He is attempting to show that those who are claiming the name of Christ should not also be involved in sinful activities. Corinth apparently had a problem with iniquity, and Paul intends to rebuke “the unrighteous.” He then decided to list a few of these sinful groups, one of which is translated above (KJV) as “abusers of themselves with mankind.”

The word used here by Paul is ἀρσενοκοίτης, which comes from ἄρσην (male) and κοίτη (bed).This word is never seen in any Greek literature before this point, and a number of scholars believe the word was invented by Paul. Because if its root word, some believe it to mean homosexuality (men in bed together), while others hold that it could simply refer to a man having sex immorally (or perhaps as a form of pagan worship). It is probable in my opinion that Paul makes reference to Leviticus 20:13, which contains both words in the Septuagint (ἄρσενος κοίτην). The word probably referenced whatever Paul interpreted the Levitical passage to mean.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
-Leviticus 18:22

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
-Leviticus 20:13

Leviticus clearly condemns homosexuality. It refers to the act being תּועבה, or an “abomination.” Some attempt to get around the passage by claiming that this was not about morality, but Jewish ritual. Pastor Steve Payne is a clear example of this. He writes, “Arguments in Leviticus are religious, not ethical or moral. No thought is given to whether the sex in itself is right or wrong. All concern is for keeping Jewish identity strong!” This is absurd in my opinion. First, nothing in the text seems to indicate that this was anything but a set of moral laws. These were the ethics that Israel lived by. Second, if this was simply a matter of Jewish identity, the punishment for violating the rule (death, for those of you playing at home) seems a little harsh.

Both 1 Corinthians and Leviticus condemn homosexuality. In Leviticus it was considered to be a sin, punishable by death. Paul never condones killing homosexuals, but he does state that they “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Paul's punishment for these people is eternal damnation. In both scenarios, the act is not looked on kindly.

Quote by Steve Payne taken from his article, “Leviticus and the Holiness Code,” http://www.whosoever.org/v5i2/steve.html

Gay Marriage

2008-05-18T09:31:00.005-05:00

Apparently, the recent ruling on gay marriage has further split America on the topic. Within hours of the decision, campaigns had already begun to overturn it. Opponents are vowing to fight the ruling to the bitter end. Arnold supports ruling; Romney hates it.

What interests me most about this is the divide among Christian leaders. Some Christians think homosexuality is ok. I agree, of course; I see nothing wrong with a same-sex relationship. But I don't get my morals from the Bible. Supposedly, they do. So, I am going to devote at least one or two posts (possibly more) to homosexuality and the Bible.

Dr. Robert Price on Paganism in the Gospels

2008-05-14T22:27:00.006-05:00

Interesting Quote

2008-05-10T14:13:00.002-05:00

Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue with that; I’m right and I will be proved right.
-John Lennon

Sam Harris on Morality

2008-05-09T17:12:00.004-05:00

I found this very interesting considering my recent interest in morality in atheism. Sam Harris is the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. He is a self-proclaimed atheist.

The Impersonal God

2008-05-07T09:42:00.006-05:00

I think what stuns me most about the world is not how much we see God, but how little. If God created the world for humanity and had every intention of interacting with people in their daily lives, you would think that he would be doing just that, interacting with us. Perhaps we would hear God. Perhaps he would embrace us. Perhaps we would know him more than we do now. Perhaps all the debates about religion that we have would be non-existent, for we could simply ask God what he wanted.

But this simply isn't the case. We talk to God, but he never seems to reply. We desire a relationship with God, but he's never there. We want to know who he is and what he wants of us, but we have no means to ask him this.

I believe that there is a God. (I have a number of reasons for this, but that's not the purpose of this post.) I do not believe that he is involved in our daily lives, though. And I certainly do not believe that he is holy. (I use "holy" in the Christian sense of the word of being sinless, clean, and perfectly good. I do agree with the ancient Hebrew concept of God being "other.")

Perhaps the most convincing proof of this is the problem of evil.

Evil exists.
An all-good, all-powerful God would not allow evil to exist.
An all-good, all-powerful God does not exist.

The first premise is perhaps the most obvious. Evil does exist. Whether it be moral evil (things happen that no one thinks is morally acceptable) or general evil (natural disasters, starving children, disease, etc.), it becomes very obvious that bad things happen. Evil is alive in well.

The second premise asserts that an all-good (I define "good" here by human standards) God would want everything to be good, and an all-powerful God could make everything good. Simply put, if there is evil, then either God doesn't want to get rid of it (in which case he is not all-good) or he can't get rid of it (in which case he is not all-powerful).

The conclusion is obvious. There is evil, therefore an all-good, all-powerful God does not exist.

I tend to believe that God is all-powerful (how else could he cause the universe to exist?). If this is true, then God cannot be all-good. In fact, I tend to to think that he is either indifferent towards our suffering and evil or intentionally inactive when it comes to resolving it. Perhaps to God, the greatest good is for us to simply be and act without interference. As I noted in my previous post, God defines his own morality, so why not?

Is there a purpose to life if there is no God?

2008-05-06T11:23:00.006-05:00

One of the more interesting points often brought up by Christians is that if atheism is correct when it denies the existence of God, then there is no true purpose in the existence of the human. Since the atheist cannot gain his existence from a higher power, he must then define his own purpose. But if he defines his own purpose, it is essentially arbitrary, and therefore there is no definite purpose at all.

I have to admit that I was convinced of this argument until recently. As a deist (well, probably a deist), this hits home for me. Only a personal God gives purpose to every individual. Therefore the deist also must define his own purpose. And according to the logic used in the preceding paragraph, he really has no purpose at all.

But while discussing the classic "fate vs. free will" argument with some of my friends at Trinity, the thought popped into my head: why does God exist? What is God's purpose and where does he derive it from? Unless there is an authority above God, the answer must be that he defines his own purpose, and it is therefore completely arbitrary. Meaning that for the Christian, his purpose is completely arbitrary as well since his purpose is defined by God's purpose. If the atheist has no purpose in his life, then the theist also has no purpose.

The same principle can be applied to morality. Where does the atheist gain his ethical values? From himself. Where does God gain his ethical values? From himself. Unless God is bound by a higher moral authority (which he cannot be or he would not be God), then God is simply making up the morals he binds humanity with.

This view changes the traditional ideas of purpose and morality. They become more like art then science. There is no definite right, wrong, or even purpose in living. These things are only as true as you make them. They are, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

2008-05-06T06:38:00.005-05:00

It is a time of desolation, chaos, and uncertainty. Brother pitted against brother; babies havin' babies. Then one day, from the right side of the screen came a man. A man with a plastic rectangle... I MEAN LAPTOP COMPUTER!

Source: hrwiki.org

Yes, I now enjoy the luxuries of a Vaio notebook. Even at this moment, I am at my local Panera Bread, sitting on a comfy chair, and imagining that every single person that walks by is secretly envying the awesomeness that is my computer. This, my friends, is indeed a triumph.

In other news, I'm going to attempt to start updating this blog steadily again. I've actually had about two or three posts that I've been meaning to write, but simply could not because I was living with everyone's favorite Trinity Baptist College student (now graduate), Joshua Harvey. I now of course have graduated from Trinity and am currently living with David, a man who is the antithesis of all that is Baptist. I like the way my life is going right now. Now I just need a girl. (Let me know if you happen to know any intelligent, beautiful girls who happen to have a thing for theology geeks.)

Cemetery full, mayor tells locals not to die

2008-03-07T14:23:00.000-05:00

BORDEAUX, France (Reuters) - The mayor of a village in southwest France has threatened residents with severe punishment if they die, because there is no room left in the overcrowded cemetery to bury them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0552076620080305

This is the man New Hampshire elected?

2008-01-11T12:58:00.001-05:00

The Nativity

2007-12-25T16:13:00.000-05:00

Only two of the four canonical gospels mention the birth of Christ. John finds it sufficient to mention only that the “Word was made flesh.” Mark on the other hand begins with the proclamation of John the Baptist. Either the authors of these books are completely unaware of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth, or they simply find nothing out of the ordinary about the stories they had heard. Certainly Mark, being the earliest gospel, would have mentioned either a virgin birth or angelic proclamation had he heard of it, but it seems that he was unaware of any of these happenings.

Matthew and Luke, though, are very interested in the birth of Jesus. Mark’s ignorance to these stories was no hindrance to these authors. Both find the need to identify Christ as a part of the linage of David. It is no surprise then to find genealogies near the beginning of both books.

Matthew’s genealogy traces Jesus through Joseph’s line back to his believed Davidic ancestry. This seems perfectly logical until we read the phrase in Matthew 1:20 “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Why is Matthew proving Joseph’s Davidic linage if Jesus is not even the son of Joseph to begin with? The answer may very well be that Matthew inherited the genealogy from an older Christian source that knew not of Jesus’ virgin birth.

Regardless, Matthew decides to use the genealogy and even plays with a little divine arithmetic. Matthew 1:17 states, “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.” Matthew when counting the generations from Abraham to David finds that there are 14 generations; the same is thought to be true when counting from Josiah to Joseph. Therefore when reciting the line of David to Josiah, Matthew intentional omits Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoikim in order to arrive at another set of 14 generations. This of course proves unnecessary, for it seems he miscounted the names in the third set of generations, for there are only 13.

Luke’s genealogy differs from Matthews drastically. He also attempts to trace Joseph’s line, but contradicts Matthew’s list by stating that Joseph’s father was Heli, not Jacob. Tracing back from Heli, one sees a completely different genealogy that has no resemblance to Matthew until the name of Zerubbabel is mentioned.

Once the David line is established, Matthew seeks to tell of the virgin birth of Christ. When Matthew had nothing to draw from in Mark, he moved to on of his favorite sources, the Old Testament. Matthew justifies the story of the virgin birth by claiming the miracle was done in fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Unfortunately for Matthew, this passage has little to do with the coming messiah. When placed in context, the verse reads,

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

This passage refers to the problems of Israel and Syria. Isaiah is stating that a woman will have a child and before that child is old enough to be held morally accountable for his actions, both Israel and Syria would be desolate. This of course refers to the kingdom of Assyria who would conquer both nations.

Furthermore, the word translated “virgin” is the Hebrew word almah which refers to a nubile woman (typically young). It does not necessarily mean “virgin.”, Matthew, though, quotes the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which used the word parthenos, meaning “virgin.” He was probably blissfully unaware of the original meaning in the Hebrew.

Yet this text is not the only source for the virgin birth. Luke also records the birth and nowhere does he find the need to refer to this text. The story probably originates in paganism. Asclepius was believed in Greek mythology to have a divine father and human mother, as was Hercules. Plato’s supposed father, Ariston, was said to have had a vision stating he was not to have sexual relations with Plato’s mother until the child was born. This is very similar to Joseph who “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son.” (Matthew 1:25)

Both Matthew and Luke record Jesus being born in Bethlehem. This is of course because early Christianity interpreted Micah 5:2 as a reference to Christ. The verse reads, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” It is not difficult to see why Christians read Christ into this verse. The passage is in reference to the hopeful restoration on the throne of David, something that both Luke and Matthew believe Jesus fulfilled. This is of course a unique interpretation to Christianity. We don’t see thousands of Jews looking to Bethlehem for their coming messiah. John seems to summarize the average opinion in this matter in John 7:27, “Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.”

Finding God Through Fiction

2007-12-19T11:53:00.000-05:00

Anyone who has known me for the past few years is probably aware that I tend to change religious perspectives frequently. In the past four years I have decided to become Baptist, non-denominational, Catholic, Anglican, Catholic again, agnostic, Anglican once more, and finally my current position, which is somewhat of an agnostic theist. In other words, there is a God, but I highly doubt that we can know too much about him.

Simply put, the argument is this:

God is infinite, and man is finite.
Finite beings cannot truly comprehend infinite beings.
Man cannot truly comprehend God.

I don't think that there is any doubt to the first premise. God (by definition) is infinite. And man is certainly finite. The second premise is equally true. How can a finite being comprehend the infinite? He cannot. This is comparable to fitting over 1000 tons of sugar into a 1 pound bag. It simply cannot be done. If these to premises are true, than the conclusion must follow. Man cannot truly comprehend God.

Furthermore, if God is infinite in all ways, than his attributes must also be infinite. And if that is true, we cannot really understand any of God's attributes either. For instance, If God is loving, he is infinitely loving. This means that we really can't understand God's love. If God is just, he is infinitely just. If he is powerful, he is infinitely powerful. There is not one quality of God that we as humans can really comprehend.

This means that all religions are somewhat wrong. Religion consists primarily of three concepts: words, works, and worship. It attempts to speak truth about God, act on those truths, and reverence the source of truth. The problem is that the "words" about God will always be flawed, for we cannot truly understand him. And how can we really describe what we do not understand? Even if God had delivered his truth to us verbatim (something held by many religions), we wouldn't understand it. It may be true that "God is love," but do we really understand what that means?

This of course still leaves religion with its works and worship. The problem is that without the words to guide, there is no standard for either works or worship. This leads to two possible conclusions. Either all religions are completely useless and should be avoided, or all religions still offer some form relationship with God, though it may not be complete. I prefer the second option.

There seems to be in every person the desire for God. We all desperately need there to be a deity. This is probably why religion is the dominant force through most of history. It can be argued that the desire for God is just as embedded in humans as the desire for food or sex. To imagine a world without God is similar to imagining a world of men who strangely desire sex with a woman, even though there never was and never will be such a thing. Similarly we can imagine the absurdities of a people who are always hungry and yet there is no such thing as food. There must be God; we desire a relationship with him too much for him not to exist.

This leads me to believe that God is not all that interested in how much we know about him. At the end of the day, we do not really have the ability to understand him anyway. Therefore it seems completely reasonable that he allows man to seek him through religion, as false as it may be, for it provide a means for mankind to gain a relationship with him. It may also be argued that God accepts the seeking of a scientist, who looks for truth, or the seeking of a virtuous leader, who looks for goodness, or the seeking of an artist, who looks for beauty. After all, one would hope that God's chief virtues are truth, goodness, and beauty (are these not the virtues that he instilled in us?).

John Mayer - Neon (acoustic)

2007-06-14T10:44:00.000-05:00

Wow. A Republican that I might actually like....

2007-06-12T10:41:00.000-05:00

"You appear to have consistent principled integrity.... um, Americans don't usually go for that."

2007-06-10T07:33:00.001-05:00

Just click on the picture to see it enlarged.

Didn't see this one coming....

2007-05-20T12:32:00.000-05:00

HONG KONG (Reuters) - More than 800 Hong Kong residents have called on authorities to reclassify the Bible as "indecent" due to its sexual and violent content, following an uproar over a sex column in a university student journal.

A spokesperson for Hong Kong's Television and Entertainment Licensing authority (TELA) said it had received 838 complaints about the Bible by noon Wednesday.

The complaints follow the launch of an anonymous Web site -- www.truthbible.net -- which said the holy book "made one tremble" given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest...

If the Bible is similarly classified as "indecent" by authorities, only those over 18 could buy the holy book and it would need to be sealed in a wrapper with a statutory warning notice.

2007-05-18T09:20:00.001-05:00

Mary in the Bible

2007-05-03T14:20:00.000-05:00

The blog Evangelical Catholicism has a wonderful set of posts entitled Mary in the Bible. It shows a scriptural basis for many of the Marian dogmas. I highly suggest reading the posts if you get a chance.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Preliminaries
Part 3: Mary in the Gospel of Mark
Part 4: Mary in the Galatians and the Gospel of Matthew
Part 5: The "Firstborn" of Mary
Part 6: The Archangel Gabriel Sent to Mary
Part 7: Zechariah's Pomp and Doubt Illuminating Mary's Simplicity and Faith
Part 8: What's in a Name?
Part 9: Salutations
Part 10: God has left the building

The Justification of Abraham

2007-04-15T14:20:00.000-05:00

The book of Genesis spends eleven chapters in a rushed history of the world. It blends oral stories and myths together that show two distinct creation accounts, a strange story about the sons of God and daughters of men, the flood of Noah, and the tower of Babel. Then all the sudden, the book slows down. A genealogy is given, and we switch to Abraham. We know little about this Abraham at this point, but the intended readers had probably heard of Abraham all their lives by oral traditions. The stories of Abraham became very important to Judaism and because of that, they later influenced Christianity. Abraham was a source for the New Testament authors to explain salvation.

Paul is a wonderful illustration of this in Romans 4:1-5.

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Paul was addressing the issue of justification. He was attempting to refute those who held the incorrect view that the works of the law were necessary for salvation. He has already dethroned the holy rite of circumcision in favor of a circumcision of the heart. He claimed that the God of the Jews was also the God of the Gentiles. He states that man is justified apart from the law, and to prove this he uses Abraham's own justification.

Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 saying, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." He equates Abraham's (or more properly at this point, Abram's) faith in God to give him a great nation with justification. Paul believed that Abram's simple belief in God was enough to justify him. He then uses this text to prove his overall point. In other words, if Abraham was justified without the law, you are too.

In James 2:20-24 we see a another example.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

James wrote with a different motivation than Paul. Whereas Paul dealt with those who put emphasis on the Jewish law, James was dealing with people who believe that simple intellectual ascent of God was salvific. James argues otherwise saying that "faith, if it hath not works, is dead." In fact he opens up the passage in verse 14 with a rhetorical question asking, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" The answer is suppose to be obvious.

So to prove his point, James draws upon father Abraham. He refers to the familiar story of the sacrifice of Isaac. James shoes that this work of offering his son was what justified him. But then he makes a very curious reference to Genesis 15:6 (the same passage the Paul used). James claims that the faith of Genesis 15:6 was fulfilled by his works. So this work of justification in Abraham's life was made complete by his actions.

The author of Hebrews makes a similar observation in Hebrews 11:8-12.

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

As well as in Hebrews 11:17-19

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

The author of Hebrews looks further into Abraham's history than either Paul or James. In fact, this author looks back all the way to Genesis 12, where we first pick up the Abrahamic narrative. While listing various saints who have passed through the years, that "great a cloud of witnesses," the author finds it helpful to reference three distinct times in the life of Abraham.

He begins with the earliest account in Genesis 12 and actually summarizes the entire story in two sentences. He ends the short summary on a very odd note, though, saying that Abraham searched for a city, "whose builder and maker is God." This is completely unsupported by the Genesis narrative. We must assume that the author is basing this statement on an oral tradition. Furthermore, we must ask what the author means by this obscure reference to a city made by God. This us probably answered later in the book (11:16; 12:22; 13:14) to be heaven. The author suggests that Abraham set off by faith to make a journey that would eventually lead to heaven.

The second account is of Abraham and Sarah when they had their child, Issac. The author refers to the faith of Sarah (which is odd considering her response in Genesis 18:12) and once more of Abraham in verse 12 by referring to "him." The author then references the promise made to Abraham that he believed back in Genesis 15:6. He shows that this promise was fulfilled in Isaac .

The last account is once more of the sacrifice of Isaac. But this time the author speaks of the story in remembrance of the promise that Isaac was suppose to fulfill. This action showed the great faith of Abraham. So much faith in fact, that the author states that Abraham thought Isaac would be raised from the dead. This raising of the dead is missing from the original narrative and we must once more assume an oral tradition is at work here. But in bringing up the raising of the dead, the author makes a hint to the resurrection of Christ, which is in essence a reference to our salvation. The idea is once more that Abraham's faith would lead to his salvation.

The authors of the New Testament refer multiple times to the salvation of Abraham. Being that he was apparently justified at least three times, we must assume that justification is in fact a process and not a one time event. Abraham believed and it was counted for righteousness, and yet that belief was made perfect in his works.

Jon Stewart On War Czars and Reverse Progress

2007-04-14T14:24:00.000-05:00

Credit: http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Barack Obama on Religion

2007-04-14T14:03:00.000-05:00

I'm a bit surprised at this video of Obama. Not only does he show problems in both the Republican and Democrat views of religion and politics, but he also affirms that he is himself religious and in fact Christian. Of course, I don't agree with everything that he says (especially near the end of the speech), but I have to admit that I'm impressed.

2007-04-13T17:26:00.000-05:00

Just click on the comic to see it enlarged.

Back to the Church

2007-04-12T22:26:00.000-05:00

I think the search is finally over, and I'm right back where I started: Catholicism. And I am overjoyed about it. After spending a couple months in the darkness that is doubt, I have seen the light that is the Church, which is in reality the light of Christ. Thank you, Lord.

This is just a short post, but I just wanted to let you guys know that I finally have peace again about religion. :-)

Baby Got Back

2007-03-18T21:15:00.001-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltjbnyvq_SI

Swiss Accidentally Invade Liechtenstein

2007-03-02T23:51:00.000-05:00

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MISTAKEN_INVASION?SITE=WWL&TEMPLATE=STRANGEHEADS.html&SECTION=HOME

ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) -- What began as a routine training exercise almost ended in an embarrassing diplomatic incident after a company of Swiss soldiers got lost at night and marched into neighboring Liechtenstein.

A Religious Journey

2007-02-22T15:28:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I just wonder why God made religion so confusing. I don't mind not understanding concepts to high and holy for me, but I would like to know which concepts are high and holy and which are not. But unfortunately, I'm lost when to comes to this. And as much as I would like to think that I know what I'm doing, I don't.

So I'm left searching. And I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to be able to learn it all. I can't learn Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Arabic, Sanskrit, and whatever the hell Buddha spoke. Maybe two or three, but not all. And that's just the languages. How am I suppose to read the writings of philosophers and mystics, become familiar with all the scriptures of the various religions, discern which is true, and still have time to devote anything left of my life to God when I'm done? I can't do it.

I am therefore forced to guess. I have to assume things. I assume Christianity is true because of great thinkers like Lewis and Augustine. "If they believed it, there must be something there," I tell myself. And yet I am plagued with inner doubt and fear because I don't know for sure that I'm right. A million what-ifs haunt me. 99% of me is ok with Christianity. 99% knows that it's true, but that 1% is the most frightening thought I have ever had in my entire life.

And even with the assumption that Christianity is true, which denomination? Logically, I have to rule out all Protestants (Sola Scriptura makes absolutely no sense at all). So I'm left with three groups: Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholics seem to give the bishop of Rome more authority than the early church ever dreamed of, so they're out. Anglicans can't trace their linage to the original Church, so they're out. This leaves only one choice, Eastern Orthodoxy, the church I know the least about. So now it's on to scrutinize their doctrine and practice. Hopefully they're pure in both.

I'm tired of not knowing where to go. I want to find my church and devote myself to it wholeheartedly. Please pray for me.

A New Blogging Venture

2007-02-19T13:12:00.000-05:00

LostGroup.blogspot.com
An entire blog devoted to Lost. Why didn't we think of this before?

So Donnie, Matt, Leona, Angie, Brock, and I are starting a new blog. (I know I just listed approximately 91% of all my readers, but I'm posting this anyway.) As I previously mentioned, the blog is all about Lost (the wicked-awesome-cool-super-sweet tv show). It will hopefully have posts on theories, awesome moments, funny Hurley moments, and random comparisons to 24 ("I can't believe they both have a character named Jack!").

So there you have it. The Lost Blog. It should be fun. :-)

Wisdom from Lewis

2007-01-30T14:19:00.000-05:00

Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbour; act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you presently come to love him. -Mere Christianity

Ready to give up

2007-01-23T22:15:00.000-05:00

Why the hell am I still at Trinity? That's the question right now. The reasons not to go to school there are numerous (reasons like: I'm not a Baptist, I have no intention of being a pastor, Trinity doesn't offer the major I wish to major in nor the minor I wish to minor in, and a good number of the classes suck). So why am I still here? One reason: my dad only pays the $300 a month to help my tuition if I go to Trinity. I don't qualify for bright future scholarship (I didn't live in the state of Florida long enough) or government aid (my parents make too much money for that), so I have to pay for my schooling. So essentially, leaving Trinity means adding more years of schooling and receiving no financial aid from my parents. And yet I am seriously considering doing just that.

I'm tired of maintaining the facade; I'm tired of paying money and receiving a mock education in return; I'm tired of going to chapel services; and I'm tired of being forced to go to a Baptist church.

I don't know how I'm going to swing it financially. But to be quite honest, I don't really give a damn at the moment. I just have to get out. So if you don't see me in class next week, you know why.

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on 2006 Emmy Awards

2007-01-23T15:15:00.001-05:00

For all you Princess Bride lovers

2007-01-22T15:02:00.000-05:00

More ramblings about theology

2007-01-04T23:04:00.000-05:00

Not long ago I put up a post on why I have now abandoned Biblical inerrancy. Because some of you seemed interested in the topic, I've decided to expound a bit more on the subject. This post will show an early view of God, one that differs from our own in many ways.

"In the beginning...."

Genesis contains two separate creation accounts. The first in chapter one was in all probability written after the second account. The second accounts differs from the first in a number of ways. The first is very structured while the second is less organized; the first gives equal time to all the days of creation while the second speeds through the creation process in order to focus on the creation of man; the first talks of Elohim while the second uses the more specific Yahweh.

These two accounts also view God in different ways. The earlier account in Genesis 2 sees a very creative and errant God who is experimenting a bit with his creation. We see him first making the heavens and earth in a day (vs. 4). He then takes the dust of the ground and forms man and breathes into him the breath of life (vs. 7) He decides to plant a garden (vs. 8) and in it he puts rivers and trees which are good for food and just plain good to look at; most importantly, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is planted (vs. 9-10). He gives man freedom to do anything he pleases in the garden, except for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vs. 16-17). Then God decides that what he did wasn't good enough for him and that man shouldn't be alone (vs. 18), so he makes a woman from man's rib (vs. 21-23).

The later account in Genesis 1 views God in a different way. It sees God to be a high creator who makes no mistakes. It begins boldly using a plural form of God to show his power (vs. 1). Everything that this God does is orderly. Furthermore, this God says only that his creation is "good" (vs. 4) and "sanctified" (ch. 2 vs. 3); never does he have to go back and fix things like the early account recorded. This God makes man the very image of God (vs. 26), not out the dust that we saw before. Then he gives man the freedom to rule over the earth and eat of every tree (vs. 29). The entire business about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is absent; there are no accusations of error made about God in the account, only high glory.

In the earlier account we see a God who is capable or error. He doesn't make a mate for Adam which is viewed as "not good" and he makes a tree that ends up coming back to haunt him. In the later account not hint of error or mistake can be traced to God. He is viewed as perfect. These two accounts show how man has changed his view of God over the years. The scriptures reflect this elsewhere too.

The Patriarchs

It is easy to make the error of assuming that the patriarchs knew as much about God as we do. After all, we don't even think about the fact that there is only one God, and that he is holy, and that he is all-powerful. But how much of this was known to these men?

The patriarchs seem to follow God because he works for them. He helps them along on their way. The best example of this is Jacob, who promises God ten percent of all he has only if God promises safety, food, and clothing for Jacob (Gen. 28:20-22).

In Genesis 18 God comes to Abraham in the form of a man with two angels with him. It turns out that God might destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but first God sends his angels to look at the city to see if it really is as bad as he has heard (vs. 21). Abraham feels pity for the city (or perhaps for Lot) and asks God not to destroy the city for the sake of the righteous (vs. 25). Notice first, that God is not seen here as all-knowing; he has to send angels to find out if the city is really that bad. Secondly, Abraham feels that he must convince God to do the right thing.

Golden Calf

It is also hard to find a monotheistic statement anywhere in the early Torah (save perhaps the later creation account). In fact we seem to see just the opposite the book of Exodus 32. While Moses is up on Sinai talking with God, the children of Israel convince Aaron to make a golden calf. After he makes it, he tells them "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (vs. 4). And then to make matters worse, Aaron announces that the next day will be a festival to Yahweh (vs .5). Yahweh is viewed as just another god. Perhaps the highest God, but still one of many. This is why God had to begin the commandments with "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:1). Nowhere does it say that there are no other gods, only that Israel is to have nothing to do with them.

Yahweh and Chemosh

This view would explain why the Israelites fall by worshiping other gods so frequently; it wasn't until later that they learn that there is only one. The author of the book of Kings tells a very interesting narrative in 2 Kings 3. Yahweh promises to hand over Moab to the Israelites (vs. 18) and also says that every Moabite town will be overthrown (vs. 19). In other words, Moab was gone. So Israel goes to battle against Moab and slaughters them. But when the King of Moab sees the battle going against him, he offers his son to Chemosh, his god, and they escape. Yahweh promised destruction of all Moab. The author seems to give credit to Chemosh for allowing the Moabites to live.

One God

Later, we find statements like the on in Deuteronomy 4:39, "...the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else." Isaiah 45:5 also echoes "I am the LORD, and there is none else." The point is simply that this view developed over time. The prophets are much more monotheistic than the earlier writers, and by the time Jesus arrives, the Jews are done with any thoughts of deity other than Yahweh.

Blake Moore: Your Missionary to Starbucks Coffeeshops

2007-01-01T16:53:00.000-05:00

2007-01-01T11:22:00.000-05:00

Just click on the image to see it enlarged.

Giving up on Biblical inerrancy

2006-12-31T13:47:00.000-05:00

I was always raised to believe that the Bible was totally inerrant, that it was 100% accurate in all manners of faith, science, and history. This is a view I can no longer call my own; there are simply too many contradictions in the texts. This is not to say that I am abandoning the Bible completely. I still believe it to be inspired by God, and that it contains the word of God, but since God chose to use man to write the books, it is also completely human, and therefore it contains error, contradiction, and even some inaccurate words about God himself (i.e. Abraham's view of God was not the same as Moses', whose differed from David's, whose differed from the prophets').

In fact, it may be accurately stated that our understanding of God has evolved over the years. Abraham apparently was unaware that God was capable of all miracles, for he laughs when God tells him that Sarah shall have a child (Gen. 17:17). Furthermore, he believes that God might get angry at Abraham for making a request (Gen. 18:32), and that he must convince God to be just (Gen. 18:25). Moses has a higher view of God. He knows him to be the "I AM" (Ex. 3:14). The name YHWH is said to be revealed to Moses first, a name that was never known to any man before Moses (Ex. 6:3); this is in contradiction to Genesis 15:2, 27:27, and 28:13, which state that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all knew the name of YHWH.

The author(s) of the books of Samuel and Kings apparently believes that God is capable of evil. In 1 Kings 22:23, God gives prophets a "lying spirit." In 2 Samuel 24:1, God moves David to sin by numbering the people; this is in contradiction to the author of the Chronicles, who later recorded that it was Satan who moved David to sin (1 Chr. 21:1). It is possible that the author of Chronicles did not believe YHWH capable of sin, and therefore recorded that it was Satan who moved David to sin.

Over the years of human history, man has changed his view of God. The Bible (especially the Old Testament) reflects those cultural views. This human element of error must be accounted for when reading and studying the scriptures.

I know that the majority of the readers of this blog are faithful Baptists who will no doubt disagree with this view entirely. I understand this and make no attempt to change your thinking. My purpose is simply to show why my views on this issue are changing.

2006-12-16T02:15:00.000-05:00

Holy Night, Batman!

2006-12-14T15:29:00.000-05:00

O, Holy Night

Believe it or not, this is a real audition for special music in a church. So before you begin emailing me hatemail for killing music, enjoy!

Note: This was originally posted on December 6, 2005. It has been reposted because of the return of the Christmas season. :-)

Way too cool

2006-12-10T22:20:00.001-05:00

Florida 2006 Gubernatorial Election

2006-11-04T15:27:00.000-05:00

In a couple days I'll be voting for a candidate for the next governor of Florida. Although the idea that my vote actually counts scares me a bit (why should a 20 year old college student have the same influence as say a 55 year old professor of economics?), I still think I should take the responsibility seriously and cast my vote with care. With this in mind, let us examine the candidates.

Jim Davis

Davis is the Democratic candidate for governor. As of November 2, the polls show about 44% of Florida in support of him. He is currently a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and was once the majority leader of the Florida House of Representatives.

His platform according to Wikipedia:

Balanced Budget

Education

End of life decisions

Environment

Gay Rights

Healthcare

Internet

Job Training

Prescription drugs

Small Business

I think it also important to note that Davis is pro-choice and in favor embryonic stem cell research.

Charlie Crist

Crist is the Republican candidate for the governor. As of November 2, the polls show about 50% of Florida in support of him. He was appointed as Deputy Secretary of the Deparment of Business and Professional Regulation by Governor Jeb Bush. He was elected to the office of Education Commissioner of Florida in the 2000 election, in which capacity he served from 2001 until 2003, when the office was eliminated in accordance with a 1998 constitutional amendment, and all responsibilities turned over to the appointed Secretary of Education. Crist had by that time already won the attorney general's position.

His platform according to Wikipedia:

Abortion

The Tampa Tribune

Adoption

Death Penalty

Education

Eminent Domain

Environment

Foster Care

Gay Rights

Gun Rights

Hate Crimes

Health Care

Immigration

Legalized Gambling

Lawsuit Reform

Property Tax

Right to Die

I also think it important to note that Christ is in favor of embryonic stem cell research, and that some activists who had pushed for government intervention in the Terri Schiavo case strongly criticized Crist when he did not attempt further legal action to keep Schiavo alive.

Max Linn

Linn is the Reform Party candidate for governor. As of November 2, the polls show about 1% of Florida in support of him.

His platform according to Wikipedia:

Education

Immigration

Developement

Prison Reform

Enviroment

Gun Rights

I think it also important to note that Linn is pro-choice and in favor embryonic stem cell research.

So there are the candidates for the 2006 Florida Gubernatorial election. Personally, neither Davis nor Crist have impressed me. Davis is too liberal for my tastes, and as much as I want to like Crist, he always seems so much like a politician. Furthermore, his statement about abortion worries me a bit, and I really don't like his stance on the death penalty. I'm not sure yet, but I think my vote will end up being cast for Linn. I don't agree with him on everything, but he does have some great ideas, and I like the concept of a third party.

Caption Contest!

2006-10-23T21:17:00.000-05:00

Winner: "P-O-P-E Who quotes our favorite liturgy?, The Pope!, the Pope!, oh yeah!"

Andy Griffith for Sheriff?

2006-10-20T05:10:00.000-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061019/ap_on_fe_st/sheriff_andy_griffith;_ylt=Ak8Y8zBdDZLgAHUeP14XW43tiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

COMING THIS SUMMER

2006-10-10T15:11:00.000-05:00

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/007231.php

Why grammar matters....

2006-09-29T12:51:00.000-05:00

Absolutely amazing

2006-09-22T21:27:00.000-05:00

I've always love listening to Peter Kreeft lectures, but this interview is even more wonderful than usual: Prayer for Beginners. If you get a chance, listen to this audio. It is a brilliant reminder of the essentials of prayer and sainthood. It's almost as good as his lecture on ecumenism.

The next big 2006 campaign issue

2006-09-13T05:35:00.000-05:00

Pluto: Planet or Not?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060911/sc_space/plutoisnowjustanumber134340

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.

2006-09-13T05:09:00.000-05:00

Doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-wah.

The urge for jazz has returned; it's a wonderful thing. I have this amazing desire to grab my trumpet (which is unfortunately at my church) and start improvising on a blues scale. This is quite odd, becasue I haven't had the desire to play my trumpet outside of church for about two years now. But for some reason, the urge is back.

For those who don't know, I used to live in Mandeville, Louisiana (about 30 minutes above New Orleans). While I was there, I learned about playing jazz. I was in an awesome school jazz band. (No, seriously, we were awesome. Like, if you had heard us play, you would have cried sweet tears of joy.) I actually considered a career in music for a small time.

After I moved to Florida, though, my trumpet playing became less important and by the time I graduated high-school, I simply was not in the same shape musically that I was before. But now I have this insane urge to grab my trumpet and hammer out some serious jazz (and I'm not really sure why). So if you'll excuse me, I have some serious scatting to do.

Now that's just awesome.

2006-09-03T14:42:00.000-05:00

Brock enters the blogging world....

2006-08-24T04:49:00.000-05:00

http://www.brockmoore.blogspot.com/

Yes, it seems my brother has finally gotten in on some of this blogging action. Most beautifully, he began his blog with a parody of Strong Sad's. I strongly urge you to check it out.

I'll have a number two with a side of McRoadRage. Yah, supersize it.

2006-08-14T23:29:00.000-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/mcdonald_s_attack

Police have been looking for a disgruntled McDonald's customer who ran into two other customers with her car after a dispute over who was next in line.

Dumb has a New Definition....

2006-08-10T11:59:00.000-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/spain_traffic1_dc

The Real Results of Our Lanning Parties

2006-08-09T21:41:00.000-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/...gamesnumbplayerstoreallifebrutality

Of course, we usually end up playing more poker than Halo anyways....

On Political Parties

2006-08-08T22:19:00.000-05:00

Election time again. It's amazing how quickly it comes. In honor of this, I've taken the time to examine the main political parties in the United States. Namely, I'm speaking of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Warning: This is full of my own opinions, which are of course subject to change. Read with that in mind.

The Value of Human Life

Democratic Party: Democrats seem to fail here for a couple reasons. The first of which is abortion. Let's be honest, if you believe it to be okay to kill an unborn child, you don't completely value human life. Related to this is the issue of stem-cell research. The same arguments apply to both issues.

Euthanasia also plays a role here. Democrats as a general rule seem to be in favor of this form of death. Some call it mercy, I call it murder. It's not Christian.

Republican Party: Republicans don't do well here either. The allowance for unnecessary war is appalling. Lives are being lost, and many do not care.

Furthermore, the death penalty seems to be an issue here. John Paul II called the death penalty "cruel and unnecessary." I heartily agree. The fact that a man kills someone does not justify another murder. Put criminals in prison; send pastors out to talk to them. But don't kill them out of rage.

The Environment

Democrats: Democrats have done a decent job in this area. Sometimes, I actually believe them to take this to far. For instance, drilling for oil in Alaska. I see no problem with this; they do.
All in all, though, the I have to give the democratic party a thumbs up on the environment.

Republicans: To be honest, most Republicans don't give a care about the environment. This is unfortunate, for God does care about his creation. This isn't to say that Republicans would be in favor of tearing down rain forests for the fun or it; only that they don't really care about the rain forests until forced. Apathy is the key word here.

Promoting Family Life

Democrats: Not a good topic for Democrats. The real question for them is, "What is the family?" Gay marriage issues ruin any hope for them on this issue. Until they learn what marriage is, the family structure is hopeless.

Republicans: A+ With the exception of a few random congressman, Republican have done a brilliant job on this issue.

The Economy

Democrats: I'm not thrilled with the economic policies most Democrats endorse. A couple of my pet peeves here are raising minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich.

Republicans: Republicans do a good job here, though the small band of libertarians present in the party drive me nuts with their ultra-capitalistic thought.

----------------------------------------------

In conclusion, there is no perfect party. I used to be a hard-core Republican, but I'm not so sure anymore. Voting on the basis of my party is not an option for me anymore.

May God bless our Church, and through Her, bless our nation.

Kill, Double Kill, TRIPLE MAJOR!

2006-08-06T22:25:00.000-05:00

Yes, the title is a horrible Halo joke.

I am toying with the idea of adding a couple majors to my current Pastoral Theology concentration. Namely, I am considering English and History. Of course this would mean either adding another year to my undergraduate studies or cramming 104 credits into the two years I was previously planning. The second option would only be possible by many summer courses and the grace of God.

The thought of triple majoring occurred to me some time ago (it was my Shakespeare class that got me thinking), but when I recently found myself reading The Fall of Japan for no apparent reason and correcting my Mom on the use of a gerund, I finally gave into the inevitable. This is what I must do. "Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me!"*

The reasoning behind the History major is fairly obvious. I mean, I always loved the subject. But English is another story. I've always been good at it, but hated it. Recently, though, that's changed. I'm beginning to enjoy grammar (though my blog posts rarely show it), and literature can be fascinating. I think Paul Ray is beginning to rub off on me....

*It's a Martin Luther quote, guys.

"Body envy, actually."

2006-08-02T09:04:00.000-05:00

He may be one of the most influential politicians in the world, but even Prime Minister Tony Blair succumbed to the larger-than-life charms of movie star turned California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060801/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_blair....

Homer MacMillan Does Politics

2006-07-31T20:07:00.000-05:00

Our Pastor is currently out of town (family reunion). Filling in for him on Sunday was none other than Homer MacMillan. I love Brother Mac, but he tends to get a bit sidetracked in his sermons. Now, what he says in the theological realm is great, but such statements of genious tend to be spread out amongst political thoughts and law stories (he's in law school).

But during one of his political rants last night, he brought up an interesting point. Brother Mac claims that the sending of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan are not primarily about Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather, the real purpose is about the nation that lies in between them, Iran. Interesting thought. The US now has a large amount of troops on both sides of Iran. That must help us gain influence over the Iranian government. Smart move. I just hope we don't end up in another war....

A bit more effective than "No Soliciting"

2006-07-31T11:24:00.000-05:00

Woman ordered to take down Jehovah's Witness sign

The Terminator and Jesus?

2006-07-31T11:20:00.000-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnq7N6X4x84&eurl=

Very funny.

Talk about addicting....

2006-07-30T12:34:00.000-05:00

$1.4 Million....

2006-07-28T20:55:00.000-05:00

Priest May have misspent $1.4 million.

A priest who resigned from a church in an affluent Connecticut community misspent up to $1.4 million in parishioner donations to lead a life of luxury with another man, according to a church-directed investigation....

The American church continues to prove itself to be corrupt. Until we learn purity, how can we cleanse the world? God help us.

Greek is over!

2006-07-21T08:42:00.000-05:00

::Does Amazingly Happy Dance::

I took my final in Greek today, and I think I did well. I now rejoice. To quote The Ugly One, "Let's get it on like Diddy Kong!"

::Does Amazingly Happy Dance Again::

Have we missed rapture?

2006-07-19T09:03:00.000-05:00

Every day on the way to class I pass Brannanfield Baptist Church. This church is the home of some of the worst church signs I have ever seen. To give a few examples:

"When you come to the cross, turn right."

"Is it in you? Holy Spirit."

"Do you have too many colts tied to the door?"

And today I couldn't resist whipping out my phone and snapping a picture of the "'Sunday Nite' Revelation Study Sign" as I have come to call it. Have you missed rapture?

I'm not quite sure why, but I had the urge to post this picture.

2006-07-18T13:03:00.000-05:00

Papa Benedict in All His Glory

2006-07-17T05:46:00.000-05:00

Crazy Russian Source

Origianal link provided by Drew of the Holy Whapping.

Suspected thief robs judge at own trial

2006-07-15T06:46:00.000-05:00

Nicely Done.

Dude, You're Getting Married!

2006-07-08T22:41:00.000-05:00

http://knightsof42.blogspot.com/2006/07/announcement.html

New presiding bishop for Episcopal church

2006-06-25T06:49:00.000-05:00

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1403920.html

If you have not yet hears, the Episicipal church in America has elected a woman as the new presiding bishop. I have to wonder if these people are actually trying to drive the Christian world nuts. It was not long ago that this same church elected a gay bishop (a whole issue in itself).

The position of a bishop is one of a shepherd. Someone who leads his flock as a father to them. This has been true through all of church history. In fact, all priests used to be known as popes or fathers. This is the primary reason that women cannot fill this position. Women can't be daddies.

Now that's devotion.

2006-06-23T09:39:00.000-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/...YmhvBHNlYwM-

2006-06-16T11:55:00.000-05:00

What? (click here)

Original link provided by the Shrine of the Holy Whapping.

Kicking off the Season

2006-06-12T05:05:00.000-05:00

Daffy Duck: Wabbit Season!
Bugs Bunny: Duck Season!
Daffy Duck: Wabbit Season!
Bugs Bunny: Duck Season!
Daffy Duck: Wabbit Season!
Bugs Bunny: Wabbit Season!
Daffy Duck: Duck Season!
Bugs Bunny: Wabbit Season!
Daffy Duck: I say it's Hurricane Season, and I say... Fire!

Yes, hurricane season is upon us again. This year is beginning with Alberto, and she (Yes, she. Hurricanes are feminine, not masculine) is moving straight towards Jacksonville, the home of one Blake Moore. It should be another fun year.

Gay Marriage

2006-06-08T10:07:00.001-05:00

Should homosexual couples be married? Well, before the question can be answered, the definition of marriage needs to be stated. Therefore, we whip out the handy Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. (§1601)

Marriage, then, by definition exists only between a man and a woman. "Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron. This is also supported by scripture. Paul calls the homosexual tendencies a "vile affection" in the book of Romans.

But one catch still remains. What about the legal system? Many conservatives support a ban on gay marriage and a federal amendment stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. This sounds all good and dandy at first, but I'm not so sure. Two main objections come to my mind.

First of all, should the government be defining what marriage is at all? I thought marriage fell under Church authority. Now, this is not to say that the United States government can't recognize marriages for purposes of taxation and such, but I don't know that they should possess the authority to define what marriage is.

Secondly, why this issue only? Yes, marriage between a man and man cannot exist in God's realm, but neither can a remarriage when a former spouse is still alive. I hear no one calling for a ban on this.

I'm not saying I'm against the amendment, just skeptical. To be honest, I'm a bit undecided. Any comments or criticisms would be greatly appreciated.

Three Weeks Down, Seven To Go.

2006-06-02T06:12:00.000-05:00

I'm half way through my first semester of second year Greek. ::Rejoices:: Unfortunately, it only gets harder from here. I started Mark last night; it was painful. Screams of agony came from my soul as I began to attempt a translation. In an hour or so, Dr. Cash will take much pleasure out of openly mocking me (as well as the rest of class).

I'm not complaining, though. This will help me in the long run. And to be honest, watching Dr. Cash insult your classmates is actually quite humorous.

Pac Man: The Movie

2006-05-29T09:02:00.000-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWL6j0SvqV00

A tough time for Trinity Baptist Church

2006-05-21T06:16:00.000-05:00

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/....

When Hell freezes over....

2006-05-13T20:10:00.000-05:00

How to find a wife: A Biblical perspective

2006-05-12T22:35:00.000-05:00

Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she's yours.
-- Deuterononmy (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)

Find a prostitute and marry her.
-- Hosea (Hosea 1:1-3)

Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock.
-- Moses (Exodus 2:16-21)

Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal.
-- Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)

Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife.
-- Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)

Have God create a wife for you while you sleep. Note: this will cost you a rib.
-- Adam (Genesis 2:19-24)

Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman's hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That's right. Fourteen years of toil for a woman.
-- Jacob (Genesis 29:15-30)

Cut off 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law's enemies and get his daughter for a wife.
-- David (I Samuel 18:27)

Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you'll definitely find someone. (It's all relative of course.)
-- Cain (Genesis 4:16-17)

Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest.
-- Xerxes or Ahasuerus (Esther 2:3-4)

When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, "I have seen a ...woman; now get her for me." If your parents question your decision, simply say, "Get her for me. She's the one for me."
-- Samson (Judges 14:1-3)

Kill any husband and take HIS wife. (Prepare to lose four sons though).
-- David (2 Samuel 11)

Wait for your brother to die. Take his widow. (It's not just a good idea, it's the law).
-- Onan and Boaz (Deuteronomy or Leviticus, example in Ruth)

Don't be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity.
-- Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)

A wife?... I'm sorry, but it's not for me.
-- Paul (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)

Brilliant

2006-05-02T09:50:00.000-05:00

http://www.slate.com/id/2140682?nav=wp

::Grumbles::

2006-04-23T07:23:00.000-05:00

I have had enough Baptist eschatology! I need no more! It is being covered in my premillennialism class, my doctrines class, and in my Sunday school class at church. It's driving me nuts. I'm tired of hearing about the "pre-trib" rapture, the anti-christ's plan to take over the world, and other nonsense. I'm pretty sure that the Catholic church has condemned the premillennial theory anyways.

Why is this considered so important by Baptists? There are a pair of new believers in our church (they got baptized two weeks ago), and the Sunday School director thought it was needed to teach them (good!). So we start with what are the apparent basics of Christianity: the tribulation, rapture, anti-Christ, bowl judgments.... I think he might be confusing them more than anything else. But we wouldn't want them to be seduced into the herecies of the "mid-tribulation rapture" would we!

Well, I'm off to Sunday School. It's times like this that I wish that I could choose my own church. Two years.

2006-04-21T21:19:00.000-05:00

Just click on the comic to see it enlarged.

Holy Papacy, Batman!

2006-04-20T15:44:00.000-05:00

My good friend, Paul Ray (who incidentally has not updated his blog in four months), recently informed me of this shocking revelation: there was at one time in Church history a Catholic Cardinal by the name of Sin. That's right, Cardinal Sin. It sounds a bit like a cheesy villain on the old Batman TV show. I can see it now:

Robin: Holy Papacy, Batman! It's Cardinal Sin!
Batman: Where Robin?
Robin: I don't know, but the long sheet of paper from our giant computer says he's on the loose!
Batman: What? Have you been playing King's Quest on that thing again? You know it doesn't have the memory-
Robin: No! Look, I didn't expect the freakin' Spanish Inquisition.
Cardinal Sin blasts through the wall.
Cardinal Sin: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Anyways, I got to go eat some serious Gator's Dockside. All you can eat wings night: Ah... a beautiful thing.

::Leaping for Joy::

2006-04-15T22:13:00.000-05:00

Peanut Butter, Jelly Time!

My family just got a new computer, which means that my computer is back into my hands! Mwahahaha!

2006-04-15T22:12:00.000-05:00

2006-03-27T06:24:00.000-05:00

Mary being worshiped by Protestants?

2006-03-20T22:45:00.000-05:00

Click here.

Original link by Drew of the Holy Whapping

God is not our Mother (that's Mary's position). And He (yes, He) is the only being worthy of the worship that is being given by this Lutheran "church" to Mary.

Mary, pray for us. Guide us to your Son.

Coolest Site Ever

2006-03-16T13:10:00.000-05:00

http://n.ethz.ch/student/mkos/pinguin.swf

Just click the Yeti.

Current High Score: 323.4

2006-03-15T14:57:00.000-05:00

Apparently life really does reflect art, or at least movies.

2006-03-15T14:27:00.000-05:00

Just click on the comic to see it enlarged.

"I feel happy."

2006-03-07T06:22:00.000-05:00

Not dead yet.....

CART MASTER: Bring out your dead!
CUSTOMER: Here's one.
CART MASTER: Ninepence.
DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead!
CART MASTER: What?
CUSTOMER: Nothing. Here's your ninepence.
DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead!
CART MASTER: 'Ere. He says he's not dead!
CUSTOMER: Yes, he is.
DEAD PERSON: I'm not!
CART MASTER: He isn't?
CUSTOMER: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
DEAD PERSON: I'm getting better!
CUSTOMER: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
CART MASTER: Oh, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
DEAD PERSON: I don't want to go on the cart!
CUSTOMER: Oh, don't be such a baby.
CART MASTER: I can't take him.
DEAD PERSON: I feel fine!
CUSTOMER: Well, do us a favour.
CART MASTER: I can't.
CUSTOMER: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
CART MASTER: No, I've got to go to the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
CUSTOMER: Well, when's your next round?
CART MASTER: Thursday.
DEAD PERSON: I think I'll go for a walk.
CUSTOMER: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn't there something you can do?
DEAD PERSON: [singing] I feel happy. I feel happy.
[whop]
CUSTOMER: Ah, thanks very much.
CART MASTER: Not at all. See you on Thursday.

Exciting indeed

2006-03-03T06:15:00.000-05:00

From the Shrine of the Holy Whapping (click here):

Benedict, like he said he would do, is laying the foundation for the creation of new patriarchates in the Western Church, which only makes sense: the Latin Rite Church of Asia, or even of Africa, are "Western" in name only. This will have important implications....

The worst 10 religion sites.... ever.

2006-02-26T23:29:00.000-05:00

Some websites drive me nuts. Others are just plain heretical. Blake's bottom ten is as follows:

10. http://www.lds.org
9. http://www.infidels.org/
8. http://www.pagan.com/
7. http://www.watchtower.org/
6. http://www.islam.com/
5. http://www.maryisgod.org/
4. http://www.chick.com
3. http://www.krishna.com/
2. http://www.yourgoingtohell.com/
1. http://churchofspongebob.tripod.com/

And we wonder why Fundementalists get the wrong idea about Catholics....

2006-02-26T21:00:00.000-05:00

http://www.maryisgod.org/

This is blasphemy, not Catholicism.

"We do not accept the interpretation issued by the Vatican"

Another schismatic group....

2006-02-23T13:17:00.000-05:00

Just click on the comic to see it enlarged.

You've Got Mail

2006-02-23T12:17:00.000-05:00

You've Got Mail is one of my favorite movies. (It falls right behind The Princess Bride and above Hoosiers on my list of all-time great movies.) The main idea is that the two protagonists, Joe Fox (played by Tom Hanks) and Kathleen Kelly (played by Meg Ryan), fall in love by way of email. Both are unaware of the fact that they are actually business rivals who cannot stand each other in real life. Joe Fox, the owner of Fox Books (comparable to a Barnes and Noble) is in competition with Kathleen's store, The Shop Around the Corner, a children's bookstore.

The movie takes an interesting turn when the online couple decide to meet at a local coffee shop. Joe sees that Kathleen is the lady waiting for him, and almost leaves. But instead he meets her as promised, though never revealing that he is the internet lover that Kathleen is waiting for. Kathleen, who has no idea that Joe is her online friend, is bewildered as to why she was stood up. Joe, who now knows that his online lover is actually Kathleen Kelly, attempts to befriend his former enemy. Eventually he wins her over as a friend. Near the end of the movie, he reveals that he wants more than a friendship with Kathleen. She obviously loves Joe, but is still in love with her online companion. Later that same day, Kathleen meets her internet lover in real life and finds out that is was Joe all along. She cries saying the words "I wanted it to be you; I wanted it to be you so badly."

The concept of the dream plays an important part of the movie. Though no dreams are ever seen, the theme can be seen throughout it. The majority of songs in the soundtrack mention dreams in some way. Furthermore, Kathleen Kelly at one point refers to her online lover as only "the dream of someone." Even at the closing scene in which both characters finally meet and Kathleen sees that her love was Joe Fox, the music "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" is played (an obvious reference to Dorthy's dream world). The dream had become reality.

The movie asks a very difficult question. Kathleen's mother died some time before the movie takes place, and Kathleen wants to know why bad things happen. Why must we suffer? The answer is never given, but Joe Fox gives some hints to the answer through his wooing of Kathleen. When Joe finds out that Kathleen is the woman of his dreams, he hides his identity. Kathleen is forced to take by faith that her lover had a good reason for standing her up at the coffee shop. She thinks that her lover had temporarily abandoned her, only to find out in the end that he was always there. The parallel to our lives is obvious, though probably unintended. We don't know why, but we know who. Jesus, our lover, will always be with us.

I would highly suggest this movie if you have not yet seen it. It's well worth your time.