Another blog I read brought to my attention today the book Thank God For Evolution, a book which supposedly preaches the idea that evolution and creation can coexist, that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that any Christian who believes in God and Jesus can also believe in evolution...just not the liberal evolution most biologists hold to, but instead a form of evolution that basically says the universe is evolving in some grand way through evolution.
I was curious, so I began to search online for reviews and impressions of the book, and even stumbled across the author's blog.
Then through another blog, I discovered this quote from the author:
"I cannot agree that “Jesus as God’s way, truth, and life” means that only those Christians who believe certain things about Jesus or the Bible get to go to a special otherworldly place called heaven when they die. I used to believe that, but I don’t anymore. In hindsight, I see that my old belief cheapened, belittled, and impoverished the universal glory of the Gospel. What Jesus’ life and ministry were actually about is far larger and more meaningful, and offers more this-world relevance, than my old clannish, contracted “we win, you lose” understanding. More, one need not be a Christian, nor ever have read the Bible, in order to walk what is, effectively, the same path we Christians aspire to—the same “one way”to a realized, redemptive life of fulfillment and service in this world, here and now, while simultaneously blessing future generations."
John 14:6 says "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Anything less than that is not Christianity, not the gospel, and certainly not in line with a Creationist viewpoint. Anyone who denies that basic truth is not a Christian, pure and simple.
Just as with the currently celebrated fictional book The Shack, I am still curious what exactly the author has to say in this piece. But I'd warn anyone who wants to read either book to go into it knowing exactly what not only the author really believes, but also what the Bible has to say. And remember, the Bible is our authority, first and foremost.
Here's something else I discovered on the author's website:
Until churches in America teach and preach evolution enthusiastically, in ways that expand and enrich faith, the battle over teaching evolutionary science in public schools will never end. One of the goals of Thank God for Evolution is to assist religious believers in letting go of attachment to literal interpretations of their otherworldly, supernatural sacred stories/myths in order to wholeheartedly embrace an evidential, empirical worldview. Surely, this turn needs to happen in order for radically diverse religious people to cooperate in service of a just and sustainable future. Anyone who believes that we can achieve a healthy future for planet Earth and its species without billions of religious people being commited to it is simply not thinking clearly.
An interesting fact about the author: his wife is an atheist.
Use discernment.
Aug 16, 2008
Aug 7, 2008
How did Jude quote Enoch?
One of the side effects of me choosing a new Bible translation to read through has been an increased interest in Biblical study. I've been reading the Word a lot more recently, trying to go more deeply too. Every day I seem to see something new and cool, whether its a piece of end times theology, some insight into a misunderstood part of the Deity, or just something unique that catches my eye.
Tonight, one of those "eye-catchers" got me. Jude 14-16.
14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
For those don't know, Enoch is one of the first people mentioned in the Bible, the "seventh from Adam" as it says above. Specifically, Genesis 5:18-24.
The Book of Jude was written roughly 69 A.D., yet Enoch lived on this earth roughly 3100 B.C. That's a heck of a time difference. So how did Jude know what Enoch used to say back then? We don't have any other records of what Enoch might have said, how did Jude find out?
My guess is that it was the Holy Spirit. And Jude had no prior knowledge of what Enoch might have said before he wrote it down.
And on a related note...what is he talking about? Surely there weren't many false teachers in Enoch's day; the earth was essentially Godless anyway, no need of false teachers, plus it's not like there were tens of thousands living.
A hunch? Enoch was prophesying about the upcoming Millennial reign of Christ...an event which still hasn't happened yet.
Crazy stuff.
--------
Oh, and a side WOW moment: Jude 5
5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Can that be any clearer? It was JESUS who brought the Jews out of Egypt! It was JESUS power as GOD that did it!
If the Jews can be used as an example of a Christian's walk with God, then it was also Jesus who saved us from our sin, regenerated us clean in the "Red Sea", led us into the wilderness where we learned to rely on Him and cast off sin, and eventually lead us into the promised land of His riches and blessings!
I realize a New Testament passage out of Jude won't convince any Jews that Jesus is their Messiah, but for us believers already, this is powerful stuff!
"GLORY!"
Tonight, one of those "eye-catchers" got me. Jude 14-16.
14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
For those don't know, Enoch is one of the first people mentioned in the Bible, the "seventh from Adam" as it says above. Specifically, Genesis 5:18-24.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years he fathered Enoch...
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. 22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
Verse 24 could also be translated, "was not found." Meaning that Enoch did not die; God brought him into heaven. In a moment, Enoch was walking on the earth, and the next moment, he was just gone; not dead, but in the prescence of God. In all of Scripture, this has only happened to two people, Enoch and Elijah. (Bruce once pointed out to me that Hebrews 9:27 says that "It is appointed to men once to die, and after that the judgement...", which then raises the question as to when Enoch and Elijah will die and face the judgement we will all face.)The Book of Jude was written roughly 69 A.D., yet Enoch lived on this earth roughly 3100 B.C. That's a heck of a time difference. So how did Jude know what Enoch used to say back then? We don't have any other records of what Enoch might have said, how did Jude find out?
My guess is that it was the Holy Spirit. And Jude had no prior knowledge of what Enoch might have said before he wrote it down.
And on a related note...what is he talking about? Surely there weren't many false teachers in Enoch's day; the earth was essentially Godless anyway, no need of false teachers, plus it's not like there were tens of thousands living.
A hunch? Enoch was prophesying about the upcoming Millennial reign of Christ...an event which still hasn't happened yet.
Crazy stuff.
--------
Oh, and a side WOW moment: Jude 5
5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Can that be any clearer? It was JESUS who brought the Jews out of Egypt! It was JESUS power as GOD that did it!
If the Jews can be used as an example of a Christian's walk with God, then it was also Jesus who saved us from our sin, regenerated us clean in the "Red Sea", led us into the wilderness where we learned to rely on Him and cast off sin, and eventually lead us into the promised land of His riches and blessings!
I realize a New Testament passage out of Jude won't convince any Jews that Jesus is their Messiah, but for us believers already, this is powerful stuff!
"GLORY!"
Andrew Murray - The Indwelling Spirit
This hit me really hard tonight. Really hard.
"The first step on the way to true spirituality is faith. We must seek the living, all-consuming conviction that the Holy Spirit is in us; that He is the power of God dwelling and working within us, that He is the representative of Jesus, making Him present within us as our Redeemer King, mighty to save. In the union of a holy fear and reverence before the tremendous glory of this truth of an indwelling God, with the childlike joy and trust of knowing Him as the Paraclete, the bringer of the divine and irrevocable presence of Christ, this thought must become the inspiration of our life: The Holy Spirit has made His home within us; in our spirit is His hidden, blessed dwelling place."
Wow.
Side note - I really need to study the Paraclete more.
"The first step on the way to true spirituality is faith. We must seek the living, all-consuming conviction that the Holy Spirit is in us; that He is the power of God dwelling and working within us, that He is the representative of Jesus, making Him present within us as our Redeemer King, mighty to save. In the union of a holy fear and reverence before the tremendous glory of this truth of an indwelling God, with the childlike joy and trust of knowing Him as the Paraclete, the bringer of the divine and irrevocable presence of Christ, this thought must become the inspiration of our life: The Holy Spirit has made His home within us; in our spirit is His hidden, blessed dwelling place."
Wow.
Side note - I really need to study the Paraclete more.
Aug 3, 2008
Quick Study of Bible Translations
Since it has been brought to my attention that a few people don't know why I was looking for a new Bible, because some people believe that a Bible is simply just a Bible, any one will do...I thought I'd point out a few different things.
First off, the Bible is not simply just THE Bible. There is actually a difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. The main difference is that the Catholic Bible has extra books not found in the Protestant Bible. These books are known as the Apocrypha books. For various reasons these books are not considered Scripture, but can still be beneficial to readers. They are just not the inspired word of God.
Since I'm Protestant, I'll focus a little more on common Protestant Bibles.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Bible was written by many different authors over many centuries, and yet they all flow together and were all inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's one of the main reasons we know that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Bible was written in three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and a small bit of Aramaic (the Book of Daniel). We do not have ANY of the original texts; all we have are copies and translations. From the sheer multitude of versions we have, we are able to determine exactly what the originals said; there might be some variations, but if we have 3 manuscripts, and 2 agree, odds are the original was in line with those 2.
There have been various "authoritative" texts throughout time, such as the Latin Vulgate and others. Jesus himself used a translation and not the original texts. He used the commonly accepted Scriptures at the time. In the last few hundred years, we have our own translations of the original texts. I'm going to go over a few of them, but not all.
King James Version. Some would call this the "Authorized" version...all that means is that King James authorized it's translation way back in 1611. Jesus didn't authorize this version, just some English monarch. Many will claim that the King James is the only Bible worth reading, that all other versions are demonic and heretical. The funny thing that these people don't realize is that the KJV they are reading is the 11th or 12th version; the original original sounded more like Shakespeare.
When it comes to the KJV, I have a hard time accepting KJV Only people as Christians. That might be a hold over from the days I was surrounded by legalistic people, but I still have my doubts. I respect people who prefer it over other translations, but the instance they start saying that it is the ONLY inspired word of God, I just have to laugh at them.
Funny cartoon about it.
New King James Version. I have not read this one extensively, but it reads very similar to the KJV but without all the "thees" and "thous". Still pretty high English and hard to read at times, though. Expect to be doing your own translations on the fly for this one.
New Internation Version. This is the version I read the most growing up, this and the KJV; KJV was at church and school, and the NIV was what I read at home. Very readable, it's been the favorite of many over the years, yet it also is one of the more controversial for various reasons.
The Living Bible. A paraphase, this is not a translation of the Bible. It is similar to The Message, in that someone is trying get thoughts and ideas across; saying what Jesus meant to say rather than what Jesus really said, for example.
The New Living Bible. This is actually a true translation that reads similar to the Living Bible or The Message, but is closer to the originals. Very readable, it's a great translation for devotions, but not really suited for traditional Bible study.
New Revised Standard Version. Sometimes hailed as the "Gender Neutral Bible", this one is 'free from man-made theological viewpoints', as my professor used to say. I like to call this the "liberal Bible" because of the many liberal theologians that perfer it. It's a VERY literal translation, very wooden, hard to understand at times.
English Standard Version. The latest translation on this list, this is the Bible I have decided to start reading extensively from the most. It's a very readable translation, and also the most faithful to the originals that also try to utilize all modern English. It's not awkward to read at all, I'm really enjoying it!
So that's a brief reason why looking for a new Bible is a complicated affair. Not only do you need to choose what translation you want, but you have to look for different features too, such as a concordance, illustrations, maps, etc.
Hence, I decided to get a ESV Study Bible. It's on order and will be delivered to me when printed. Here's a link, I believe I ordered the ESV Literary Study Bible.
Any questions? I could talk more at length on this subject, this was the bare minimum.
First off, the Bible is not simply just THE Bible. There is actually a difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. The main difference is that the Catholic Bible has extra books not found in the Protestant Bible. These books are known as the Apocrypha books. For various reasons these books are not considered Scripture, but can still be beneficial to readers. They are just not the inspired word of God.
Since I'm Protestant, I'll focus a little more on common Protestant Bibles.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Bible was written by many different authors over many centuries, and yet they all flow together and were all inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's one of the main reasons we know that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Bible was written in three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and a small bit of Aramaic (the Book of Daniel). We do not have ANY of the original texts; all we have are copies and translations. From the sheer multitude of versions we have, we are able to determine exactly what the originals said; there might be some variations, but if we have 3 manuscripts, and 2 agree, odds are the original was in line with those 2.
There have been various "authoritative" texts throughout time, such as the Latin Vulgate and others. Jesus himself used a translation and not the original texts. He used the commonly accepted Scriptures at the time. In the last few hundred years, we have our own translations of the original texts. I'm going to go over a few of them, but not all.
King James Version. Some would call this the "Authorized" version...all that means is that King James authorized it's translation way back in 1611. Jesus didn't authorize this version, just some English monarch. Many will claim that the King James is the only Bible worth reading, that all other versions are demonic and heretical. The funny thing that these people don't realize is that the KJV they are reading is the 11th or 12th version; the original original sounded more like Shakespeare.
When it comes to the KJV, I have a hard time accepting KJV Only people as Christians. That might be a hold over from the days I was surrounded by legalistic people, but I still have my doubts. I respect people who prefer it over other translations, but the instance they start saying that it is the ONLY inspired word of God, I just have to laugh at them.
Funny cartoon about it.
New King James Version. I have not read this one extensively, but it reads very similar to the KJV but without all the "thees" and "thous". Still pretty high English and hard to read at times, though. Expect to be doing your own translations on the fly for this one.
New Internation Version. This is the version I read the most growing up, this and the KJV; KJV was at church and school, and the NIV was what I read at home. Very readable, it's been the favorite of many over the years, yet it also is one of the more controversial for various reasons.
The Living Bible. A paraphase, this is not a translation of the Bible. It is similar to The Message, in that someone is trying get thoughts and ideas across; saying what Jesus meant to say rather than what Jesus really said, for example.
The New Living Bible. This is actually a true translation that reads similar to the Living Bible or The Message, but is closer to the originals. Very readable, it's a great translation for devotions, but not really suited for traditional Bible study.
New Revised Standard Version. Sometimes hailed as the "Gender Neutral Bible", this one is 'free from man-made theological viewpoints', as my professor used to say. I like to call this the "liberal Bible" because of the many liberal theologians that perfer it. It's a VERY literal translation, very wooden, hard to understand at times.
English Standard Version. The latest translation on this list, this is the Bible I have decided to start reading extensively from the most. It's a very readable translation, and also the most faithful to the originals that also try to utilize all modern English. It's not awkward to read at all, I'm really enjoying it!
So that's a brief reason why looking for a new Bible is a complicated affair. Not only do you need to choose what translation you want, but you have to look for different features too, such as a concordance, illustrations, maps, etc.
Hence, I decided to get a ESV Study Bible. It's on order and will be delivered to me when printed. Here's a link, I believe I ordered the ESV Literary Study Bible.
Any questions? I could talk more at length on this subject, this was the bare minimum.
May 30, 2008
What do you look for in a Bible?
Found this helpful thought provoking article through the ESV Bible Blog.
This morning I finished reading completely through the New Living Translation. I'd read the New Testament and Poetry books countless times, but finally decided to just go through the whole Old Testament. Lots of good (and boring!) stuff in that section...Malachi contained several verses this morning that I really needed to hear, maybe even memorize.
So now I've completely read through the KJV (church and school), the NIV (my old standby, the one I read devotionally growing up), The Message (a novel), the Living Bible (a children's novel), and the New Living Translation (my church uses it). Also have used the NKJV extensively but feel no read need to read it. And I need another Bible to read through.
Everyone says they love the NASB. I know a bunch of folks who swear by the newer ESV. And I have a copy of the NRSV sitting around from classes at the U of M.
It's been quite a while since I really had a good quality Bible in terms of construction. My old beloved NIV was like that, but fell horribly apart and is gathering dust somewhere at my parents. I'm willing to fork over money for a good Bible now, not just a cheap Half-Price Books version. Something that I will like, read, and that can last forever. Might even start marking it up for once.
Any recommendations?
This morning I finished reading completely through the New Living Translation. I'd read the New Testament and Poetry books countless times, but finally decided to just go through the whole Old Testament. Lots of good (and boring!) stuff in that section...Malachi contained several verses this morning that I really needed to hear, maybe even memorize.
So now I've completely read through the KJV (church and school), the NIV (my old standby, the one I read devotionally growing up), The Message (a novel), the Living Bible (a children's novel), and the New Living Translation (my church uses it). Also have used the NKJV extensively but feel no read need to read it. And I need another Bible to read through.
Everyone says they love the NASB. I know a bunch of folks who swear by the newer ESV. And I have a copy of the NRSV sitting around from classes at the U of M.
It's been quite a while since I really had a good quality Bible in terms of construction. My old beloved NIV was like that, but fell horribly apart and is gathering dust somewhere at my parents. I'm willing to fork over money for a good Bible now, not just a cheap Half-Price Books version. Something that I will like, read, and that can last forever. Might even start marking it up for once.
Any recommendations?
Mar 26, 2008
Final word on the Expelled debacle
A final word. Everyone, please read this before leaving comments.
http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/a-notable-follow-up-to-the-dawkinsexpelled-post/
The most important part of the text:
http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/a-notable-follow-up-to-the-dawkinsexpelled-post/
The most important part of the text:
I wanted to thank you for posting Stuart’s comments on the Expelled issue and — most of all — for noting and complementing his gracefulness in reply.
He is a student of mine this semester in a class I’m teaching about Biblical arguments. He is more conservative than I am, too be sure. All the more reason for me to note that in person he is as civil as his postings to you were. Very even tempered person. He tells me he has received a large amount of hate mail and threats that he should be expelled and so on. Amazing.
I used to cover some of the Harris and Dawkins books in my Analysis of Argument class, but they are so shoddy and mean-spirited it hardly seemed worth the time. Hans Kung wrote a “does God exist” book and you could take his set-up of the various anti-God arguments, combine that into one book and you’d have something far superior to Dawkins’ effort.
Again, thanks.
–
John Nordin
Lecturer, Communication Studies
Mar 22, 2008
Noapathyplz, fellow attendee of "Expelled", writes...
Taken from their comment left on Looking Closer:
I must say that I was at the screening and thought that the film was quite well done. A bit refreshing as well. I also find Stuart’s comments refreshing, even though we are all still sorting through the facts of ‘expulsions.’
I was very pleased to see Dawkins there…it shows to me an open-mindedness from the film’s sponsors to allow this. As far as I am concerned, since it was a special engagement with security and all that jazz, they get the final say in who attends. I personally received an email invite and so did Stuart. In fact, I am the one who requested for his name to be on the list, which it was.
I think we must digest Stuart’s comments as one person’s account of what he saw. Sure, I agree he went a bit far in his characterization of the Meyers incident, but he was there and that is what he saw. I am sure that Myers is right when he says he signed up online because I saw this feature available the day of the event. Registration was closed at the time of that inquiry, although.
There is no reason do deny that Myers signed up online and was ‘on the list’ but I am sure that the sponsors still reserve the right to allow admittance to those whom they wish. Mark Mathis said it best…paraphrase…”I actually want Professor Myers to put his ten dollars down after the release and see it then.” Sounds fine to me. It is their film and it hasn’t been released to the public yet, so they call the shots. He also explained the change of name and interview correspondence with Dawkins and others. There were no objection by Dawkins or others to the answers of Mathis in this regard. Please, people, go see this for yourselves on April 18th and then make conclusions.
Maybe, as Dawkins eludes to, we’ll all come to the understanding that possibly aliens designed us and started the process of evolution along as we know it today. He was bending over backwards in this regard, and I appreciate that from him, but we still have the right to critique these presuppositions.
One final thing…Dawkins made it sound like Myers was being expelled from the discussion. On the movie’s own website there are links to Myers’ blog and his arguments on this issue. They are encouraging discussion, not editing it. I read Professor Myers’ comments for myself and found them to be wanting.
Stop being so close-minded, my macro-evolution-yet no idea on origins friends. Thank you Stuart, keep fighting the good fight.
"Here's how it is..."
Thursday night, Grant and I went to see an advanced screening of Expelled, the new movie by Ben Stein documenting the lack of academic professional when it comes to the concept of Intelligent Design (ID). Originally, the pastor of our church was invited, but due to travel plans, gave his invitation to Grant. Grant then RSVPed for both him and I to attend this free, no tickets required, screening.
Before the movie, I witnessed from no more than five feet away a man being asked to leave because he wasn't invited and, according to theatre management, "didn't have a ticket." I thought nothing of this at the time; security was already tight, actual police officers were present, and we had been warned previously not to bring in any bags, cameras, or cell phones. It wasn't til after the screening that the importance of that man being turned away was revealed.
Following the film's conclusion, one of the producers of the piece, Mark Mathis, hosted a brief Q&A. The second question was asked by a rather eloquent British gentleman, who we all had just seen projected on the theatre screen: Richard Dawkins, premiere atheist, neo-Evolutionish, and professor at Oxford. Perhaps you know him as the author of The God Delusion. Having Dawkins show up at a screening of "Expelled" would be the equivalent of having George W. Bush show up after a screening of "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Dawkins initially asked two questions. The first was why was his friend Dr. Myers, a professor at University of Minnesota - Morris and another person interviewed for the film, not allowed to attend and was in fact that same man that was turned away? Mark Mathis answered this question by simply stating that Myers was not invited, and neither were you, Dr. Hawkins. Hawkins second question was more of a protest, really. He claimed that everything he said in that movie was in fact under the assumption that he was being filmed for a different movie known as Crossroads, a movie that supposedly was not "pro-Creation" and was more evenhanded.
Mathis politely explained that "Crossroads" was the working title of the film at the time, and it and many other titles were debated until "Expelled" was finally chosen. (Since then, it has been revealed that "Expelled" was registered months in advance, and "Crossroads" never was. But how does that contradict anything Mathis said? Are you not able to copyright multiple prospective titles for a film in advance?) Mathis also appeared to continue an old argument him and Dawkins had had before, that Dawkins was not in any way deceived, knew full well what movie he was being interviewed for, etc.
Overall, a pretty exciting and eventful night. Grant and I even managed to snag one of the posters they had hung up for the evening.
When I got home, I wrote up a brief review of the film and the events surrounding it and sent it off to Jeffrey Overstreet, who published it on his Looking Closer blog.
I went to bed shortly thereafter. When I woke up, the first thing I checked was of course Jeffrey's blog. Seeing several dozen comments was a bit daunting. But then I checked my email, and discovered that many people had discovered my "Stu Station" blog, and had seen fit to leave many hateful spam messages on numerous blog posts. You know, the usual "why are you a liar??", "God is just as fictional as the grinch" (irony on that one, ask Grant or I sometime), and of course the base "you should be ashamed of yourself for defaming this man!"
I deleted most of them. I left at least one, which appeared to be the form letter "inviting" Dr. Myers to the event. I assume he left it, although it was of course unsigned, as were most of the comments (although I did recognize the blog name of one, as I had read him once or twice).
Cowriter of the film, Kevin Miller, picked up the story. Christianity Today picked up the story (woohoo!). Other film reviewers, such as Peter Chattaway, picked up the story and reported it. Later on, so did the Pioneer Press and the New York Times, but I didn't get any love from them. (Why should I? I wrote about the opposite thing they wanted to report on.)
Ok, Blogger is screwy. PZ Myers wrote a quickie blog post detailing his "joy" at getting kicked out of the movie. That is not all he wrote though:
Stuart Blessman, the student at UM who made that claim at the lookingcloser blog, is a liar.
So what's the bottom line of all this? Free publicity for "Expelled" of course...more book sales for Richard Dawkins...name recognition, and a victim complex, for PZ Myers...and a new record on Looking Closer for unique visitors (you are so very welcome, Jeffrey! Lets do lunch sometime).
BTW, for a really decent review of the content of the film, with many SPOILERS, you can't do much better than PZ Myers' own daughter's blog. (EDIT - I guess this is his daughter's blog. I just read the post about the movie, and the site I used to find her article said it was Myers' son who wrote the blog. My sincere apologies.) I'm sure you can tell that the review is slanted, a little, but you gotta respect a kid who stands up for his own dad. It is interesting that of all the reviews and pans of the film I've read online, they are almost all focused on the quality of the film making itself, and not on the content or ideas expressed in the film. (Just to cut off a comment or two - perhaps the reason for this is that the content is not worth "even insulting a child with", to quote a professor in "Expelled.")
It appears that several people are interested in continuing this discussion on my blog. I welcome good comments related to "Expelled" and my account of what happened at the screening...but as soon as people start attacking my other blog posts (other than rational, debative thought) and IMMEDIATELY if anyone says "U2 SUCKS" or some variation, I am shutting it all down.
Who knows? Perhaps Bono or even Edge is following this with some interest. If he is, he should be in the studio rerecording the Pop album, dangit. We can discuss later (and I would love to cut a new edit of "Mofo", incidentally).
"And now you know the rest of the story..."
Before the movie, I witnessed from no more than five feet away a man being asked to leave because he wasn't invited and, according to theatre management, "didn't have a ticket." I thought nothing of this at the time; security was already tight, actual police officers were present, and we had been warned previously not to bring in any bags, cameras, or cell phones. It wasn't til after the screening that the importance of that man being turned away was revealed.
Following the film's conclusion, one of the producers of the piece, Mark Mathis, hosted a brief Q&A. The second question was asked by a rather eloquent British gentleman, who we all had just seen projected on the theatre screen: Richard Dawkins, premiere atheist, neo-Evolutionish, and professor at Oxford. Perhaps you know him as the author of The God Delusion. Having Dawkins show up at a screening of "Expelled" would be the equivalent of having George W. Bush show up after a screening of "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Dawkins initially asked two questions. The first was why was his friend Dr. Myers, a professor at University of Minnesota - Morris and another person interviewed for the film, not allowed to attend and was in fact that same man that was turned away? Mark Mathis answered this question by simply stating that Myers was not invited, and neither were you, Dr. Hawkins. Hawkins second question was more of a protest, really. He claimed that everything he said in that movie was in fact under the assumption that he was being filmed for a different movie known as Crossroads, a movie that supposedly was not "pro-Creation" and was more evenhanded.
Mathis politely explained that "Crossroads" was the working title of the film at the time, and it and many other titles were debated until "Expelled" was finally chosen. (Since then, it has been revealed that "Expelled" was registered months in advance, and "Crossroads" never was. But how does that contradict anything Mathis said? Are you not able to copyright multiple prospective titles for a film in advance?) Mathis also appeared to continue an old argument him and Dawkins had had before, that Dawkins was not in any way deceived, knew full well what movie he was being interviewed for, etc.
Overall, a pretty exciting and eventful night. Grant and I even managed to snag one of the posters they had hung up for the evening.
When I got home, I wrote up a brief review of the film and the events surrounding it and sent it off to Jeffrey Overstreet, who published it on his Looking Closer blog.
I went to bed shortly thereafter. When I woke up, the first thing I checked was of course Jeffrey's blog. Seeing several dozen comments was a bit daunting. But then I checked my email, and discovered that many people had discovered my "Stu Station" blog, and had seen fit to leave many hateful spam messages on numerous blog posts. You know, the usual "why are you a liar??", "God is just as fictional as the grinch" (irony on that one, ask Grant or I sometime), and of course the base "you should be ashamed of yourself for defaming this man!"
I deleted most of them. I left at least one, which appeared to be the form letter "inviting" Dr. Myers to the event. I assume he left it, although it was of course unsigned, as were most of the comments (although I did recognize the blog name of one, as I had read him once or twice).
Cowriter of the film, Kevin Miller, picked up the story. Christianity Today picked up the story (woohoo!). Other film reviewers, such as Peter Chattaway, picked up the story and reported it. Later on, so did the Pioneer Press and the New York Times, but I didn't get any love from them. (Why should I? I wrote about the opposite thing they wanted to report on.)
Ok, Blogger is screwy. PZ Myers wrote a quickie blog post detailing his "joy" at getting kicked out of the movie. That is not all he wrote though:
Stuart Blessman, the student at UM who made that claim at the lookingcloser blog, is a liar.
A shameful liar and a disgrace to the university...We do have some idiots who get enrolled at this university. I like to think that they're a minority, but I'm rather surprised that someone so ethically challenged is a student here.
Yup, that's me. Can't say I'm really ashamed of anything though.So what's the bottom line of all this? Free publicity for "Expelled" of course...more book sales for Richard Dawkins...name recognition, and a victim complex, for PZ Myers...and a new record on Looking Closer for unique visitors (you are so very welcome, Jeffrey! Lets do lunch sometime).
BTW, for a really decent review of the content of the film, with many SPOILERS, you can't do much better than PZ Myers' own daughter's blog. (EDIT - I guess this is his daughter's blog. I just read the post about the movie, and the site I used to find her article said it was Myers' son who wrote the blog. My sincere apologies.) I'm sure you can tell that the review is slanted, a little, but you gotta respect a kid who stands up for his own dad. It is interesting that of all the reviews and pans of the film I've read online, they are almost all focused on the quality of the film making itself, and not on the content or ideas expressed in the film. (Just to cut off a comment or two - perhaps the reason for this is that the content is not worth "even insulting a child with", to quote a professor in "Expelled.")
It appears that several people are interested in continuing this discussion on my blog. I welcome good comments related to "Expelled" and my account of what happened at the screening...but as soon as people start attacking my other blog posts (other than rational, debative thought) and IMMEDIATELY if anyone says "U2 SUCKS" or some variation, I am shutting it all down.
Who knows? Perhaps Bono or even Edge is following this with some interest. If he is, he should be in the studio rerecording the Pop album, dangit. We can discuss later (and I would love to cut a new edit of "Mofo", incidentally).
"And now you know the rest of the story..."
Mar 3, 2008
Ruminations on the Gospel of Mark
So the Gospel of Mark might have been written around 68 AD. One theory has it that Mark, the author, was an associate of Peter who wrote down many of Peter's teachings (and in this case, remembrances of Jesus). Some also think that Mark might have been the young man who ran away naked after being seized by the Romans.
It is possible that Mark might have been all of the above. In Jewish culture, a young man was roughly 12 or 13 years old. If he had been that age, and let's say that happened roughly around 32 AD (or even 28 AD), that would make Mark around 48 years old at minimum. So it is highly possible that Peter's disciple Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.
My professor argues that Mark was written in Galilee for Galileans. Not so sure...there is a strong Roman presence in Mark. I'm thinking Mark wrote it for the persecuted Christians in Rome under Nero.
So is Mark a story of Jesus or can we accurately treat it as an eyewitness report, since the majority of Mark would have been from the perspective of Peter? Story vs first hand account, or report, is the question. My professor argues that Mark is a story, written through the lens of one or multiple people, and that the book was shaped by many factors (Roman persecution, nationality, age, etc). Obviously he doesn't subscribe to the belief that the Holy Spirit might have had a hand in things.
Pretty interesting that God used a disciple of an apostle to write a Gospel. So I guess Peter must have laid hands on Mark and baptized him in the Holy Spirit. But I guess that when Mark died, the Holy Spirit died with him. Or at least his "apostles'" power, since as everyone knows, the gifts of the Holy Spirit were only for the apostles and the early church.
Right?
It is possible that Mark might have been all of the above. In Jewish culture, a young man was roughly 12 or 13 years old. If he had been that age, and let's say that happened roughly around 32 AD (or even 28 AD), that would make Mark around 48 years old at minimum. So it is highly possible that Peter's disciple Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.
My professor argues that Mark was written in Galilee for Galileans. Not so sure...there is a strong Roman presence in Mark. I'm thinking Mark wrote it for the persecuted Christians in Rome under Nero.
So is Mark a story of Jesus or can we accurately treat it as an eyewitness report, since the majority of Mark would have been from the perspective of Peter? Story vs first hand account, or report, is the question. My professor argues that Mark is a story, written through the lens of one or multiple people, and that the book was shaped by many factors (Roman persecution, nationality, age, etc). Obviously he doesn't subscribe to the belief that the Holy Spirit might have had a hand in things.
Pretty interesting that God used a disciple of an apostle to write a Gospel. So I guess Peter must have laid hands on Mark and baptized him in the Holy Spirit. But I guess that when Mark died, the Holy Spirit died with him. Or at least his "apostles'" power, since as everyone knows, the gifts of the Holy Spirit were only for the apostles and the early church.
Right?
Feb 10, 2008
Do hymnals affect our worship?
Next time you are at church, try to take special notice of what you do during the music. Are you holding a hymnal? Are your hands lifted up in praise? Do you stare at the instrumentalists, or at the song leader? Perhaps you simply stare at the hymnal or overhead, or maybe at the other church members? Maybe there is that one special someone you watch each week, and think: “I wish I was as free to worship as them”; or “Why can’t they just honor God with their voice? Why do they have to raise their hands and hop around like that? Who are they trying to impress?”Have you ever noticed that we really didn’t have so many problems with singing in church back when everyone used hymnals? According to a simple Google search, the first dedicated hymnals started showing up in the ninth century. Prior to this hymns were collected in the back of other books; they obviously deserved their own special section, just like the Psalms are their own special book in the Bible. Hymnals became the predominant collection of spiritual songs among nearly every denomination of Protestantism. The only things that differentiated were the actual hymns as well as how they were performed.
In many modern churches, the congregation has ditched the hymnal for the overhead. Instead of bending your head to read from a book, you are now encouraged to look above the worship leader or group in order to read the lyrics. This has encouraged more music leaders to take chances on newer songs, as well as providing a sort of uniformity across multiple churches. But what has this simple 45 degree change done for our modern church goer? It has freed their hands.
1Ti 2:8 “So wherever you assemble, I want men to pray with holy hands lifted up to God, free from anger and controversy.”
Does lifting your hands in worship draw you closer to God? The Bible really doesn’t say one way or the other. There are many who have attempted to twist Scripture to prove either argument, that it is either encouraged or discouraged to lift your hands while singing. However, using the Bible to prove whether you should or should not do it can be a tricky thing. The Bible also shows characters such as David dancing and shouting before the Lord, and while there are many churches that frown upon such outward displays of emotion, not once did God rebuke them for doing it. Consequently we have many churches today that encourage such outward displays of joy in God.
But this brings us back to the original question. What do you do during the singing section of your church service? Do you think more people will be involved with the hymns and songs if they do not have a hymnal in their hands? Will it encourage people to show more emotion, to perhaps sing with a smile on their face? Or do we only honor God by providing a worthy performance with our voices?
Next church service, why not try singing without your hymnal. For all you know, it might be a great blessing to you not to use one. Perhaps you could organize a service where everyone already knows all the songs that will be sung, even if you can only sing choruses. It is possible that if more people let go of their hymnals and free their hands in worship churches will start to see a new life and passion that wasn’t there before.
It’s worth a try. It might bring a new spiritual life and revival to your church.
Feb 2, 2008
Biblical Arguments class
I signed up for a Communications class at the U of M that is a "Special Topics" course. The topic being "Biblical Arguments." Taking it purely as an elective, I went into the class not expecting much, other than my professor's vague email warning that a 1000 level Comm class was a prerequisite.
But except for one instance where he was talking about some classic model used in arguments, I've been loving this class! Loving it so much I was eager to go on Wednesday!
The class is set up pretty simply. The professor will basically be a forum moderator, introducing the topic and Scripture passage, assigning two students to be discussion catalysts, and then he lets us talk. We have a pretty diverse group, so the discussions have been lively and multi-faceted. We primarily have Catholics (mix between lapsed and active), one Hindu, one Jew (and she's pretty hardcore), a few Lutherans, couple of agnostics, at least one atheist, and me, representing...who knows anymore. I introduced myself as a charasmatic Wesleyan, but then clarified it as more "Pentebaptistcostal."
Whatever. The Bible is true.
And our topics have been great too! We first went over Genesis 1 and 2, and the 2 separate accounts of Creation. That took the tail end of the first day and the entire second class session. Are there really two separate accounts? Only two of us in the class were unable to see "proof" of two different Creations. But of more interest to me was that God created/designed Adam, but didn't place him in the Garden until a day or more later. So where was Adam this whole time?
The next class session we went over The Fall...specifically, who was to blame? Found out we have some feminists in the group, although that is really no surprise. Still, it was a great discussion. I think we generally agreed that both of them were to blame, although some would still argue that God was to blame for putting the tree in the garden in the first place.
Last class we discussed a passage in Judges, where one of the judges makes a vow before the Lord that he would offer up as a burnt offering whoever came out of his house first upon his return from battle. Alas, his daughter comes out. He sends her off into the wilderness for two months so she can bemoan her virginity, and then she comes back to him so he can fulfill his vow.
So did he kill her? I believe I was the only one in the class who argued that he didn't (and thanks to Johnathan for that: him and I went over it before class), although I don't know what the professor thinks. There are a whole list of reasons why I don't think he killed her, but I do believe he kept his vow. He dedicated her to the temple where she served the rest of her life. It was strange; even the feminists wanted her to die, just so they could stick it to God or Christianity, I think. But then again, no one really cares that babies are getting slaughtered. Or the millions of people oppressed under Islam. Dhimmitude is living death.
Anyways, this has been a great class so far! I've already developed a reputation, but that's nothing new. I had to prove that without the Judeo-Christian worldview womens' rights would not exist as we know them today. I don't think many in the class liked hearing that.
Ah well. Truth, you know?
But except for one instance where he was talking about some classic model used in arguments, I've been loving this class! Loving it so much I was eager to go on Wednesday!
The class is set up pretty simply. The professor will basically be a forum moderator, introducing the topic and Scripture passage, assigning two students to be discussion catalysts, and then he lets us talk. We have a pretty diverse group, so the discussions have been lively and multi-faceted. We primarily have Catholics (mix between lapsed and active), one Hindu, one Jew (and she's pretty hardcore), a few Lutherans, couple of agnostics, at least one atheist, and me, representing...who knows anymore. I introduced myself as a charasmatic Wesleyan, but then clarified it as more "Pentebaptistcostal."
Whatever. The Bible is true.
And our topics have been great too! We first went over Genesis 1 and 2, and the 2 separate accounts of Creation. That took the tail end of the first day and the entire second class session. Are there really two separate accounts? Only two of us in the class were unable to see "proof" of two different Creations. But of more interest to me was that God created/designed Adam, but didn't place him in the Garden until a day or more later. So where was Adam this whole time?
The next class session we went over The Fall...specifically, who was to blame? Found out we have some feminists in the group, although that is really no surprise. Still, it was a great discussion. I think we generally agreed that both of them were to blame, although some would still argue that God was to blame for putting the tree in the garden in the first place.
Last class we discussed a passage in Judges, where one of the judges makes a vow before the Lord that he would offer up as a burnt offering whoever came out of his house first upon his return from battle. Alas, his daughter comes out. He sends her off into the wilderness for two months so she can bemoan her virginity, and then she comes back to him so he can fulfill his vow.
So did he kill her? I believe I was the only one in the class who argued that he didn't (and thanks to Johnathan for that: him and I went over it before class), although I don't know what the professor thinks. There are a whole list of reasons why I don't think he killed her, but I do believe he kept his vow. He dedicated her to the temple where she served the rest of her life. It was strange; even the feminists wanted her to die, just so they could stick it to God or Christianity, I think. But then again, no one really cares that babies are getting slaughtered. Or the millions of people oppressed under Islam. Dhimmitude is living death.
Anyways, this has been a great class so far! I've already developed a reputation, but that's nothing new. I had to prove that without the Judeo-Christian worldview womens' rights would not exist as we know them today. I don't think many in the class liked hearing that.
Ah well. Truth, you know?
Dec 11, 2007
Is this statement offensive?
Wireless internet is down again…thanks Ore…so I’ll just write this in Word then upload it later.
Tell me if this statement is troublesome – “What do atheists and the Grinch have in common?”
This is what we wrote on the whiteboard at the contact table today, including a very well drawn picture of the Grinch. Yesterday we had “Communists and the Grinch.” (I think we should go for broke and write “Atheists, the Grinch, and hundreds of millions dead”) This seemingly innocent question seems to pack a lot of heat. Grant, a former atheist, came up with it.
“That statement is horrible! It really offends me! I’m gonna go report you to the campus union, you shouldn’t be saying such things on public property! Your grammar is incorrect (we had “does” originally). You are turning away people with statements like that; they can’t find Christ because of you! You should change it to “Jews and the Grinch”, that would make more sense. It’s an unfair comparison that presupposes things. You aren’t Christian, you aren’t showing Christ’s love!” Etc etc, just a handful of the things I heard at the table during 45 minutes.
Is that statement really that troublesome? Or do most atheists have such shaky convictions that the littlest thing offends them? We had one guy stop to argue the question (he acknowledged it was a question!), and I asked him if atheism was a religion. To his credit and to my surprise, he answered “yes.” It took me back. We then asked if he was an atheist, and he stormed off after telling us it was none of our business. Still, I’m proud of the guy, and I told him so.
The question was written by Grant primarily as a way to encourage discussion as well as a way for him to share his testimony (former atheist). People automatically became reactionary, viewing it as a statement instead of a question. Not only that, but they seem to only remember parts of the Grinch story. No one knew how it ended.
I found out that a girl I work with in the bookstore is a Christian; she shouldn’t have mentioned she only listened to Christian music. Then I probably shouldn’t have said that I listen to enough Hillsong already, because of church. That set off the discussion. I mentioned I listen to a lot of Christian music too…my favorite band is U2. She gave me a look at that. jjEventually she asked about Maranatha (I mentioned the table and the drama we had today) and what the drama was about. So I told her.
“That is SO offensive!” She then turned to another girl and repeated it. Both of them drew the conclusion that we were saying that atheists had no heart. Wonder how they got to that one. I explained who wrote it (Grant), what his brief testimony was (saved from atheism), what the point of the question was (discussion), as well as what the answer was (Grinch tried to control Christmas, eventually repented, etc). Nevertheless, both of them came to the conclusion that for a Christian organization to say such a thing is not only wrong but offensive and dangerous to other Christians.
So I asked the first girl more about her testimony. Grew up in a really large Lutheran church (nothing wrong with that), but didn’t realize that you needed a personal relationship with God. Within the past year or two, she has gotten truly saved and is now attending Mercy Vineyard. She didn’t know any of the names I dropped either, says she’s only been there for about a year and is just now getting involved with ushering duties and stuff.
So…here’s a prayer request. Pray first of all for this girl (don’t remember her name…call her Ms. Blonde), that God would continue to speak to her and help her grow, as well as allow her to realize the importance of asking such questions and engaging other for Christ. And second, pray for the people on campus, not only for those who stopped to talk and here what we had to say (and a few responded!), but also for those who grew mightily offended and yelled at us. They need Jesus too…I think.
Tell me if this statement is troublesome – “What do atheists and the Grinch have in common?”
This is what we wrote on the whiteboard at the contact table today, including a very well drawn picture of the Grinch. Yesterday we had “Communists and the Grinch.” (I think we should go for broke and write “Atheists, the Grinch, and hundreds of millions dead”) This seemingly innocent question seems to pack a lot of heat. Grant, a former atheist, came up with it.
“That statement is horrible! It really offends me! I’m gonna go report you to the campus union, you shouldn’t be saying such things on public property! Your grammar is incorrect (we had “does” originally). You are turning away people with statements like that; they can’t find Christ because of you! You should change it to “Jews and the Grinch”, that would make more sense. It’s an unfair comparison that presupposes things. You aren’t Christian, you aren’t showing Christ’s love!” Etc etc, just a handful of the things I heard at the table during 45 minutes.
Is that statement really that troublesome? Or do most atheists have such shaky convictions that the littlest thing offends them? We had one guy stop to argue the question (he acknowledged it was a question!), and I asked him if atheism was a religion. To his credit and to my surprise, he answered “yes.” It took me back. We then asked if he was an atheist, and he stormed off after telling us it was none of our business. Still, I’m proud of the guy, and I told him so.
The question was written by Grant primarily as a way to encourage discussion as well as a way for him to share his testimony (former atheist). People automatically became reactionary, viewing it as a statement instead of a question. Not only that, but they seem to only remember parts of the Grinch story. No one knew how it ended.
I found out that a girl I work with in the bookstore is a Christian; she shouldn’t have mentioned she only listened to Christian music. Then I probably shouldn’t have said that I listen to enough Hillsong already, because of church. That set off the discussion. I mentioned I listen to a lot of Christian music too…my favorite band is U2. She gave me a look at that. jjEventually she asked about Maranatha (I mentioned the table and the drama we had today) and what the drama was about. So I told her.
“That is SO offensive!” She then turned to another girl and repeated it. Both of them drew the conclusion that we were saying that atheists had no heart. Wonder how they got to that one. I explained who wrote it (Grant), what his brief testimony was (saved from atheism), what the point of the question was (discussion), as well as what the answer was (Grinch tried to control Christmas, eventually repented, etc). Nevertheless, both of them came to the conclusion that for a Christian organization to say such a thing is not only wrong but offensive and dangerous to other Christians.
So I asked the first girl more about her testimony. Grew up in a really large Lutheran church (nothing wrong with that), but didn’t realize that you needed a personal relationship with God. Within the past year or two, she has gotten truly saved and is now attending Mercy Vineyard. She didn’t know any of the names I dropped either, says she’s only been there for about a year and is just now getting involved with ushering duties and stuff.
So…here’s a prayer request. Pray first of all for this girl (don’t remember her name…call her Ms. Blonde), that God would continue to speak to her and help her grow, as well as allow her to realize the importance of asking such questions and engaging other for Christ. And second, pray for the people on campus, not only for those who stopped to talk and here what we had to say (and a few responded!), but also for those who grew mightily offended and yelled at us. They need Jesus too…I think.
Nov 21, 2007
My Friend Stu by Grant Buse
God gave me a brother and his name is Stu
A few rough edges but a faith like glue
When he hears the word it pierces his heart
And even though fear may try to interrupt in part
Not this time and never again
God sends His angels and keeps us from sin
Sure honesty's a treasure that goes deep within his lair
Even though sometimes its hard to get up off that chair
But that's why I love Stu cause God showed him the meaning of true
And he said, "That's what I'm gonna do."
Love it, live it, be it for You
Jesus, for You
Cause my name is Stu
Thanks Grant. Love you, brother.
A few rough edges but a faith like glue
When he hears the word it pierces his heart
And even though fear may try to interrupt in part
Not this time and never again
God sends His angels and keeps us from sin
Sure honesty's a treasure that goes deep within his lair
Even though sometimes its hard to get up off that chair
But that's why I love Stu cause God showed him the meaning of true
And he said, "That's what I'm gonna do."
Love it, live it, be it for You
Jesus, for You
Cause my name is Stu
Thanks Grant. Love you, brother.
Nov 17, 2007
Hard hitting sermon
I'm not sure if it will be posted or not, but Bruce's sermon tonight is powerful and hard hitting. Basically, he's taking our church to task. He knows that some stuff has been going on that shouldn't be...sexual immortality and the like...and he is preaching it hard. 1 Corinthians 5.
Do we want to be a church with standards and rules based on the Bible? Or do we just want to be a place where we can meet and gather and gossip and fellowship and try to pick up a date?
I know my answer.
I remember having a confrontation back during my Campus Crusade days. I proved through Scripture that it is Biblical to kick unrepentant believers out of the church, and a few people got extremely angry over that idea. Grace trumps all, they said. True, but Christ still has standards for living.
For those of you who have never visited Maranatha...download this podcast, November 17, whenever it gets posted off of Spiritformed.com. THIS is why I go to this church. I'd have never heard this anywhere else.
http://web.mac.com/spiritformed/spiritformed/Spirit_Formed_/Spirit_Formed_.html
Thank you Lord...and thanks Bruce for preaching the hard stuff.
Do we want to be a church with standards and rules based on the Bible? Or do we just want to be a place where we can meet and gather and gossip and fellowship and try to pick up a date?
I know my answer.
I remember having a confrontation back during my Campus Crusade days. I proved through Scripture that it is Biblical to kick unrepentant believers out of the church, and a few people got extremely angry over that idea. Grace trumps all, they said. True, but Christ still has standards for living.
For those of you who have never visited Maranatha...download this podcast, November 17, whenever it gets posted off of Spiritformed.com. THIS is why I go to this church. I'd have never heard this anywhere else.
http://web.mac.com/spiritformed/spiritformed/Spirit_Formed_/Spirit_Formed_.html
Thank you Lord...and thanks Bruce for preaching the hard stuff.
Oct 16, 2007
OSC strikes again
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-10-07-1.html
And since the Smart People (aka, Liberals) try to avoid ever meeting or spending time with any of these Stupid People (rural Americans), the only thing they can do to get control of the parts of the American power structure they don't already own is to lie.
The Smart People don't even think they're lying, though. They don't count it as a sin (they don't even believe in sin) to lie to Stupid People. It's sort of the Santa Claus principle. You tell them whatever you need to tell them in order to get them to let you have your way.
You tell them we're losing a war we're winning. You tell them that the best-behaved army in history is routinely committing atrocities. You tell them that the war that has the lowest rate of civilian casualties in history, proportionate to the number of combatants, is the cruelest. You tell them that a fully justified war based on many principles of international law and historical precedent is "based on a lie."
That's the favorite one. Your best lie. You accuse the Stupid President of lying all the time, though in fact that's the Smart People's primary tactic. Like pretending that Rush Limbaugh meant something that he obviously didn't mean and making a huge deal about it -- while declining to condemn the outrageous lies of MoveOn.Org as they slander a fine commander.
The biggest lie in this little flap about Limbaugh is not what they say about Limbaugh. It's their pretense that they actually care about American soldiers.
-------------
You have no idea how hard it is for me to hold my tongue in class nowadays...
And since the Smart People (aka, Liberals) try to avoid ever meeting or spending time with any of these Stupid People (rural Americans), the only thing they can do to get control of the parts of the American power structure they don't already own is to lie.
The Smart People don't even think they're lying, though. They don't count it as a sin (they don't even believe in sin) to lie to Stupid People. It's sort of the Santa Claus principle. You tell them whatever you need to tell them in order to get them to let you have your way.
You tell them we're losing a war we're winning. You tell them that the best-behaved army in history is routinely committing atrocities. You tell them that the war that has the lowest rate of civilian casualties in history, proportionate to the number of combatants, is the cruelest. You tell them that a fully justified war based on many principles of international law and historical precedent is "based on a lie."
That's the favorite one. Your best lie. You accuse the Stupid President of lying all the time, though in fact that's the Smart People's primary tactic. Like pretending that Rush Limbaugh meant something that he obviously didn't mean and making a huge deal about it -- while declining to condemn the outrageous lies of MoveOn.Org as they slander a fine commander.
The biggest lie in this little flap about Limbaugh is not what they say about Limbaugh. It's their pretense that they actually care about American soldiers.
-------------
You have no idea how hard it is for me to hold my tongue in class nowadays...
Oct 13, 2007
Regarding certain rumors...
The answer is...yes. But a limited yes. Macbook Pro with Windows XP running via Fuzion. Best of both worlds in one little package. See ya Dell...hello gorgeous!
Faith via Bartleman
Been reading through that Azusa Street book by Bartleman. It's been a pretty illuminating read. Did you know that nearly every revival that has occured throughout history has brought the church one step closer to it's apostolic origins? Some revivals emphasized Bible, others doctrine, still others the social angle of the gospel, and fairly recently the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
There is a thought that has been brewing in my mind while reading this book. It's one of those stupid yet simple things that has happened to me before. Where you finally realize something that totally illuminates and changes your soul but that everyone else takes for granted.
Faith. Such a simple word, but loaded with so much meaning. As Bartleman and others in the book recount, everyone during the period of Azusa and the Wales revival believed by faith that a revival was coming. They didn't know how, they didn't plan or try to manufacture one...they just believed, trusted in faith, that it would happen.
AND IT DID. What's to prevent us from having such a thing again? Ourselves it would seem. God...well, requires faith in order to operate. Obviously he doesn't need faith...but he tends to work when faith is present. So if enough of us pray and believe for revival...if we build up our faith...then it will come. And it will be glorious.
This actually has some personal significance too. I need to build my faith up. And continue to exercise the faith I already possess. I need to truly believe that God will provide for my needs; stop worring about money, a car, education, etc. God WILL provide. In my mind, it needs to become a foregone conclusion. Not, "God will provide if I don't mess up, if I read my Bible every day, if I witness at work, etc." NO! God promises to provide; therefore...HE WILL. Forgone conclusion.
Faith. I really want to blog about something extremely personal regarding faith...but I can't. Not yet. God won't let me. But it seems I've been living in faith for some things for a while now, and God is using this as an example of how everything in my life should be. And based on the testimony of a few people here at church, I'm certain more than ever that my faith is grounded both in God and in reality.
I delight in my faith and the objects of my faith. I'm anxious, but faith sustains. It's hard to explain...but the word "joy" comes to mind. Not happiness or some fleeting emotion...but true joy and satisfaction...and anticipation.
Thank you Lord.
There is a thought that has been brewing in my mind while reading this book. It's one of those stupid yet simple things that has happened to me before. Where you finally realize something that totally illuminates and changes your soul but that everyone else takes for granted.
Faith. Such a simple word, but loaded with so much meaning. As Bartleman and others in the book recount, everyone during the period of Azusa and the Wales revival believed by faith that a revival was coming. They didn't know how, they didn't plan or try to manufacture one...they just believed, trusted in faith, that it would happen.
AND IT DID. What's to prevent us from having such a thing again? Ourselves it would seem. God...well, requires faith in order to operate. Obviously he doesn't need faith...but he tends to work when faith is present. So if enough of us pray and believe for revival...if we build up our faith...then it will come. And it will be glorious.
This actually has some personal significance too. I need to build my faith up. And continue to exercise the faith I already possess. I need to truly believe that God will provide for my needs; stop worring about money, a car, education, etc. God WILL provide. In my mind, it needs to become a foregone conclusion. Not, "God will provide if I don't mess up, if I read my Bible every day, if I witness at work, etc." NO! God promises to provide; therefore...HE WILL. Forgone conclusion.
Faith. I really want to blog about something extremely personal regarding faith...but I can't. Not yet. God won't let me. But it seems I've been living in faith for some things for a while now, and God is using this as an example of how everything in my life should be. And based on the testimony of a few people here at church, I'm certain more than ever that my faith is grounded both in God and in reality.
I delight in my faith and the objects of my faith. I'm anxious, but faith sustains. It's hard to explain...but the word "joy" comes to mind. Not happiness or some fleeting emotion...but true joy and satisfaction...and anticipation.
Thank you Lord.
Sep 1, 2007
Frat house and Balaam
So I'm sitting here at the frat house, fighting the internet connection...
Did I say frat house? Yes. I've moved in. Room with a view (and an escape) too!
Pictures might follow up.
Coming up on my 100th Blogger post. Not every post has been memorable; I'm sure I've done at least a dozen video blogs. I'll think of something somewhat memorable for the 100th post.
But back to the topic at hand. I have moved out of my parent's house and into my church's frat house on the campus. School starts for me next week, probably the same day I will be able to buy books. Always fun to not have books for the first day of class.
Other than that, life has pretty much been the same. Yes, some things have been going on behind the scenes, but those are only need to know.
-------------
Something of a substance. Finished reading through Numbers today, start the next book tomorrow. (It's late, I don't feel like spelling the book out. We will call it Deut for short.) Those first few books of the OT are really...different. Moses and the Holy Spirit needed a copy editor. Whole chapters don't make any sense in context. People's actions, and especially God's, don't really make much sense either.
Here's a good one: Balaam. God tells him to only say what God wants him to say, and that he should go with the foreign king's men because they came so far to get him; Balaam agrees with God. So he sets off to go bless Israel. And then God gets mad at him for going! Later on God uses the donkey to speak to Balaam and reconfirm that Balaam should only use the words God wants him to use.
See what happened? God TELLS Balaam to go, and then immediately gets mad at him for going! Since when does God get angry at us for doing what He wants us to do?
I'm sure there is a rational and logical explanation for this, but it's eluding me.
Did I say frat house? Yes. I've moved in. Room with a view (and an escape) too!
Pictures might follow up.
Coming up on my 100th Blogger post. Not every post has been memorable; I'm sure I've done at least a dozen video blogs. I'll think of something somewhat memorable for the 100th post.
But back to the topic at hand. I have moved out of my parent's house and into my church's frat house on the campus. School starts for me next week, probably the same day I will be able to buy books. Always fun to not have books for the first day of class.
Other than that, life has pretty much been the same. Yes, some things have been going on behind the scenes, but those are only need to know.
-------------
Something of a substance. Finished reading through Numbers today, start the next book tomorrow. (It's late, I don't feel like spelling the book out. We will call it Deut for short.) Those first few books of the OT are really...different. Moses and the Holy Spirit needed a copy editor. Whole chapters don't make any sense in context. People's actions, and especially God's, don't really make much sense either.
Here's a good one: Balaam. God tells him to only say what God wants him to say, and that he should go with the foreign king's men because they came so far to get him; Balaam agrees with God. So he sets off to go bless Israel. And then God gets mad at him for going! Later on God uses the donkey to speak to Balaam and reconfirm that Balaam should only use the words God wants him to use.
See what happened? God TELLS Balaam to go, and then immediately gets mad at him for going! Since when does God get angry at us for doing what He wants us to do?
I'm sure there is a rational and logical explanation for this, but it's eluding me.
Aug 12, 2007
A quote from Bruce Shelley
Decided to finish Bruce L. Shelley's book on church history; blitzed through maybe 200 pages in an hour or so. An excellent read that book was, thanks Bruce for giving it to me. (Although it does get a little dry...say from 800 to 1600 AD.)
A quote really stuck out to me while reading though. The context doesn't matter; something to do with 19th century religious Liberalism or something. But this quote was so powerful I immediately wrote it down...on paper, no less!...and started dwelling on it.
"(Salvation) begins with the question 'What must I do to me saved?' But if the question means, 'How can I go to heaven when I die?' then it's a theoretical question. To be saved means to live a new life, to be saved from sin, selfishness, fear, and guilt."
The only true conversion point in my life that I've historically held on to was when I asked my mom, at the age of 4, "How can I go to heaven? I want to become a Christian."
Since that time, I've literally gone through a pattern of every few years doubting my salvation. No kidding, but I can list the times and places when I've gone through this. And near the end of each time of doubt, someone will always tell me just to rely on Scripture. It got to the point where I could "prove" my salvation using any numbers of Scripture; yet I didn't feel like I was living a redeemed and holy life. I had no relationship with God to speak of, and I certainly didn't "love Him because He first loved me."
So now I'm learning to walk in faith. I cannot point to a specific thing in my life...a place, an event...and say, "THAT is my salvation story." I do not even know now if I should be able to do so. It's suddenly unimportant to me. What's important to me is walking in faith, building an actual relationship with my Lord, and continuing in it. I want to learn to love and worship my Saviour.
"I'm ready...I'm ready for what's next."
A quote really stuck out to me while reading though. The context doesn't matter; something to do with 19th century religious Liberalism or something. But this quote was so powerful I immediately wrote it down...on paper, no less!...and started dwelling on it.
"(Salvation) begins with the question 'What must I do to me saved?' But if the question means, 'How can I go to heaven when I die?' then it's a theoretical question. To be saved means to live a new life, to be saved from sin, selfishness, fear, and guilt."
The only true conversion point in my life that I've historically held on to was when I asked my mom, at the age of 4, "How can I go to heaven? I want to become a Christian."
Since that time, I've literally gone through a pattern of every few years doubting my salvation. No kidding, but I can list the times and places when I've gone through this. And near the end of each time of doubt, someone will always tell me just to rely on Scripture. It got to the point where I could "prove" my salvation using any numbers of Scripture; yet I didn't feel like I was living a redeemed and holy life. I had no relationship with God to speak of, and I certainly didn't "love Him because He first loved me."
So now I'm learning to walk in faith. I cannot point to a specific thing in my life...a place, an event...and say, "THAT is my salvation story." I do not even know now if I should be able to do so. It's suddenly unimportant to me. What's important to me is walking in faith, building an actual relationship with my Lord, and continuing in it. I want to learn to love and worship my Saviour.
"I'm ready...I'm ready for what's next."
Aug 9, 2007
Health and life update
Little bit of an update.
As many of your know, last Wednesday the 35W bridge fell down. I was half a block away, at my church's frathouse. I was reading a book and listening to music at the time so I didn't notice much, other than what I thought was someone from the worship team messing with the lights. I guess others heard a loud explosion and at least one person felt the house shake. Everyone ran outside a bit later and we tried to get as close to the crash as possible.
It was insane for a while. EVERYONE was trying to get as close as possible, and calling all their friends to tell them what had happened. I saw a firetruck literally stuck in stop and go traffic because of all the cars trying to get as close to the downed bridge as they could. Morons.
Thankfully, no one I know was hurt.
However, two days later, I started having ankle problems. I'm guessing it was from running around the area, climbing hills and barriers, etc. Who knows. Basically by Friday night I could hardly stand on it. Went to work on Saturday, was limping badly, got sent home early; later in the day I went to Cub Foods and was in sheer agony.
Sunday, my day off, I felt fine. Little sore, but fine. So I went to work on Monday. By the time I got off on Monday, it hurt to stand on my ankle, and I couldn't turn it inward at all. Any pressure...even an ice pack...hurt. So Tuesday I went to the doctor for x-rays and blood tests. They were unsure if it was an infection (my ankle, almost all the way up to my knee, was red and inflamed) or gout. Gout is a distinct possibility, as my dad has had it for years; although my diet does not consist of those things which normally bring on gout.
The blood test was funny. It was about 7pm, and I hadn't had anything to eat since 9 am, and very little too drink. The guy took two vials from me, and I immediately became very cold and sweaty, felt like throwing up. Some water and cold packs cooled me down, but I never fully recovered. I was running a fever the rest of the night. I was even sweating at Target getting my meds because the air conditioning was cranked too high. Took a little nap when I got home, but had such a bad headache and fever that I never really got any rest.
After praying for healing, decided for some odd reason to take a hot shower, not a cool one. Raised my body temperature to the point where I got dizzy and threw up. Then cooled myself down and felt fine. I'm thinking God was the one who gave me the crazy idea to heat my fever up and try to burn it out, so thank Him for that.
Went back to the doctor today for a follow-up. I'm supposed to take some gout medicine for the next 5 days, and if the redness persists or gets worse to go in for another visit. However, my ankle for the most part feels fine. It's this weird fever from the antibiotics shot they gave me that is killing me right now. I feel warm even though my actual body temp is hovering right at 97.
Been praying for healing throughout, and I believe God is definitely working. I already have the next two days off of work, so I can still rest my ankle like the doctor said to. Don't want to go put another 9 hours in at work and come home and not be able to stand on my ankle again.
All in all, a really weird situation, and one that I'll be able to put behind me soon. Cabin fever is already starting to set in...!
As many of your know, last Wednesday the 35W bridge fell down. I was half a block away, at my church's frathouse. I was reading a book and listening to music at the time so I didn't notice much, other than what I thought was someone from the worship team messing with the lights. I guess others heard a loud explosion and at least one person felt the house shake. Everyone ran outside a bit later and we tried to get as close to the crash as possible.
It was insane for a while. EVERYONE was trying to get as close as possible, and calling all their friends to tell them what had happened. I saw a firetruck literally stuck in stop and go traffic because of all the cars trying to get as close to the downed bridge as they could. Morons.
Thankfully, no one I know was hurt.
However, two days later, I started having ankle problems. I'm guessing it was from running around the area, climbing hills and barriers, etc. Who knows. Basically by Friday night I could hardly stand on it. Went to work on Saturday, was limping badly, got sent home early; later in the day I went to Cub Foods and was in sheer agony.
Sunday, my day off, I felt fine. Little sore, but fine. So I went to work on Monday. By the time I got off on Monday, it hurt to stand on my ankle, and I couldn't turn it inward at all. Any pressure...even an ice pack...hurt. So Tuesday I went to the doctor for x-rays and blood tests. They were unsure if it was an infection (my ankle, almost all the way up to my knee, was red and inflamed) or gout. Gout is a distinct possibility, as my dad has had it for years; although my diet does not consist of those things which normally bring on gout.
The blood test was funny. It was about 7pm, and I hadn't had anything to eat since 9 am, and very little too drink. The guy took two vials from me, and I immediately became very cold and sweaty, felt like throwing up. Some water and cold packs cooled me down, but I never fully recovered. I was running a fever the rest of the night. I was even sweating at Target getting my meds because the air conditioning was cranked too high. Took a little nap when I got home, but had such a bad headache and fever that I never really got any rest.
After praying for healing, decided for some odd reason to take a hot shower, not a cool one. Raised my body temperature to the point where I got dizzy and threw up. Then cooled myself down and felt fine. I'm thinking God was the one who gave me the crazy idea to heat my fever up and try to burn it out, so thank Him for that.
Went back to the doctor today for a follow-up. I'm supposed to take some gout medicine for the next 5 days, and if the redness persists or gets worse to go in for another visit. However, my ankle for the most part feels fine. It's this weird fever from the antibiotics shot they gave me that is killing me right now. I feel warm even though my actual body temp is hovering right at 97.
Been praying for healing throughout, and I believe God is definitely working. I already have the next two days off of work, so I can still rest my ankle like the doctor said to. Don't want to go put another 9 hours in at work and come home and not be able to stand on my ankle again.
All in all, a really weird situation, and one that I'll be able to put behind me soon. Cabin fever is already starting to set in...!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
