Friday, October 31, 2003
Today, hoist a cold German beer for St. Martin, our father in the Faith. Here's to you Brother Martin!
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Just an update. The Casper City Council in Colorado decided against allowing Fred Phelps being able to put up his hate-filled monument. I say, good job. Now, keep the Ten Commandments where they are.
Well, as soon as I wrote the previous sentence, I read this. It looks like the government will soon be completely and ineradicably separated from any form of religion. I'm undecided about this, but certainly people in various communities around the country can decide for themselves, right? If there's a monument of the Ten Commandments, which Jews, Muslims and Christians hold as sacred (how many Wiccans are there in this country anyway? About as many as atheists, I'd guess), these Freedom from Religion folks are basically telling people they're too stupid to decide for themselves, so they'll do it for them. Sounds like they should call themselves Crusade Against Religions Except the Pagan Ones.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Well, as soon as I wrote the previous sentence, I read this. It looks like the government will soon be completely and ineradicably separated from any form of religion. I'm undecided about this, but certainly people in various communities around the country can decide for themselves, right? If there's a monument of the Ten Commandments, which Jews, Muslims and Christians hold as sacred (how many Wiccans are there in this country anyway? About as many as atheists, I'd guess), these Freedom from Religion folks are basically telling people they're too stupid to decide for themselves, so they'll do it for them. Sounds like they should call themselves Crusade Against Religions Except the Pagan Ones.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Here is another example of a non-Christian telling a Christian what he/she must believe if he/she is to remain a Christian. Huh? I don't imagine that this guy would take too kindly to me, a non-homosexual, telling him, a homosexual, what he should and should not do and should and should not believe. Yet it apparently does not register in the area usually reserved for the brain that this is contradictory. Yes, I understand it's a homosexual paper, but that doesn't make ignorance any prettier.
Mr. Crain writes, "We hear so rarely about the actual teachings of Jesus Christ and his message of love and supporting the less fortunate. Instead, the leading figures of the largest Christian denominations — especially the Catholics and Southern Baptists — aim their bully pulpit at cramped interpretations of ancient passages that bear almost no relevance to modern life."
Two problems here: (1) If this guy did hear the "actual teachings of Jesus Christ" (namely, repentance and forgiveness of sins), something tells me he wouldn't really like that either; and (2) those "cramped interpretations" must bear some relevance to modern life or else it doesn't make much sense that this guy takes up valuable internet space for his refutation of these irrelevant teachings.
My favorite part of Mr. Crain's rantings are his assertions that since many Christians don't take Christian teaching seriously, nobody else should either! Wish I'd thought of that. He writes, "Heterosexuals have been ignoring Christian teachings about sexuality for most of the last half-century. Most heterosexual Americans and Europeans have sex before marriage, practice birth control, and accept a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, even though one or more of these basic personal freedoms is condemned by the major Catholic and Protestant faiths.
"The teachings of Christianity about sexuality are at their most ludicrous when they are taken the most seriously. If the Vatican is to be satisfied, heterosexuals who are now waiting until their late 20s to get married should also be postponing sex until that time. Once married, they are to engage in sex only for the purpose of procreation: no condoms and no pill.
"If you’re homosexual, then the rules are even more ridiculous. Even though a “homosexual orientation” is not itself considered sinful, we are to have no sex at all, ever, for life. No romantic relationships. The life of a priest or a nun, but without “the Church” as our bride or groom. Celibacy rules hardly work for those Catholics who dedicate their lives to God; but it would be cruel, were it not so silly, for the Vatican to expect lay gays to accept such a solitary fate."
Hey, we can't live up to the expectations of God! What's wrong with you Christians?
Can you actually believe it? These Christians and their Bible say we CAN'T HAVE SEX UNLESS WE'RE MARRIED? Yeah, that is ridiculous. They must think we have self-control or something.
But then he goes beyond mockery into jibberish. (I'm sure he knows what he's saying; the problem is, no one else does.) "These rules don’t just limit freedom and justify discrimination; they kill. The Catholic Church and its allies in the Protestant religious right preach “abstinence only until marriage” as the only way to avoid HIV and unwanted pregnancy, even spreading lies about the failure rate of condoms. The resulting body count — even more so than the dead from countless wars past and present fought in the name of someone’s God — will be answerable on Judgment Day, if it should ever come."
Okay, let me see if I can get this straight: the fact that the Catholic Church "and its allies" teach abstinence as the only way to avoid HIV and unwanted pregnancy (he does know how one gets HIV and becomes pregnant, doesn't he?) kills people? Call me crazy, but I thought it was AIDS that killed people. Now, I thought it was obvious, but if one does not have sex with a person infected with HIV or AIDS, I'm pretty sure they won't get those sexually transmitted diseases (needle transmission is not that widespread). Again, just a thought. And not only does Mr. Crain want to blame the Church for saying he can't have sex, but he wants to blame the Church for AIDS too!
Last of all (thank God), he writes, "Like most of our 21st century heterosexual counterparts in Western cultures, most gay men and lesbians make decisions about when to have sex and with whom, when to enter into relationships, what rules to follow during relationships and when to leave, all without a real set of values to inform our decision-making.
"Plenty of gay male couples, for example, want the right to get married, but they’re quick to admit privately that they certainly don’t expect to follow heterosexual rules about sexual exclusivity. That may well be the right choice for them, but how informed is that decision? The church has clearly abdicated its traditional role in helping answer that question, so who’s left? Where do we turn?
"For those of us fated to live through these last decades of Christian condemnation of homosexuality, it is a question worth pondering."
This is good. He gets through saying how great it is that homosexuals don't bother with any "rules" or without "a real set of values" with which to make decisions, and then he gets mad that the Church won't help them answer the question about whom to sleep with. It is not that the Church won't help, though, it's that Mr. Crain doesn't like the help the Church wants to give him, namely, forgiveness of sins. This is the one thing the Church has always offered, and that way is not closed even to Mr. Crain.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Mr. Crain writes, "We hear so rarely about the actual teachings of Jesus Christ and his message of love and supporting the less fortunate. Instead, the leading figures of the largest Christian denominations — especially the Catholics and Southern Baptists — aim their bully pulpit at cramped interpretations of ancient passages that bear almost no relevance to modern life."
Two problems here: (1) If this guy did hear the "actual teachings of Jesus Christ" (namely, repentance and forgiveness of sins), something tells me he wouldn't really like that either; and (2) those "cramped interpretations" must bear some relevance to modern life or else it doesn't make much sense that this guy takes up valuable internet space for his refutation of these irrelevant teachings.
My favorite part of Mr. Crain's rantings are his assertions that since many Christians don't take Christian teaching seriously, nobody else should either! Wish I'd thought of that. He writes, "Heterosexuals have been ignoring Christian teachings about sexuality for most of the last half-century. Most heterosexual Americans and Europeans have sex before marriage, practice birth control, and accept a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, even though one or more of these basic personal freedoms is condemned by the major Catholic and Protestant faiths.
"The teachings of Christianity about sexuality are at their most ludicrous when they are taken the most seriously. If the Vatican is to be satisfied, heterosexuals who are now waiting until their late 20s to get married should also be postponing sex until that time. Once married, they are to engage in sex only for the purpose of procreation: no condoms and no pill.
"If you’re homosexual, then the rules are even more ridiculous. Even though a “homosexual orientation” is not itself considered sinful, we are to have no sex at all, ever, for life. No romantic relationships. The life of a priest or a nun, but without “the Church” as our bride or groom. Celibacy rules hardly work for those Catholics who dedicate their lives to God; but it would be cruel, were it not so silly, for the Vatican to expect lay gays to accept such a solitary fate."
Hey, we can't live up to the expectations of God! What's wrong with you Christians?
Can you actually believe it? These Christians and their Bible say we CAN'T HAVE SEX UNLESS WE'RE MARRIED? Yeah, that is ridiculous. They must think we have self-control or something.
But then he goes beyond mockery into jibberish. (I'm sure he knows what he's saying; the problem is, no one else does.) "These rules don’t just limit freedom and justify discrimination; they kill. The Catholic Church and its allies in the Protestant religious right preach “abstinence only until marriage” as the only way to avoid HIV and unwanted pregnancy, even spreading lies about the failure rate of condoms. The resulting body count — even more so than the dead from countless wars past and present fought in the name of someone’s God — will be answerable on Judgment Day, if it should ever come."
Okay, let me see if I can get this straight: the fact that the Catholic Church "and its allies" teach abstinence as the only way to avoid HIV and unwanted pregnancy (he does know how one gets HIV and becomes pregnant, doesn't he?) kills people? Call me crazy, but I thought it was AIDS that killed people. Now, I thought it was obvious, but if one does not have sex with a person infected with HIV or AIDS, I'm pretty sure they won't get those sexually transmitted diseases (needle transmission is not that widespread). Again, just a thought. And not only does Mr. Crain want to blame the Church for saying he can't have sex, but he wants to blame the Church for AIDS too!
Last of all (thank God), he writes, "Like most of our 21st century heterosexual counterparts in Western cultures, most gay men and lesbians make decisions about when to have sex and with whom, when to enter into relationships, what rules to follow during relationships and when to leave, all without a real set of values to inform our decision-making.
"Plenty of gay male couples, for example, want the right to get married, but they’re quick to admit privately that they certainly don’t expect to follow heterosexual rules about sexual exclusivity. That may well be the right choice for them, but how informed is that decision? The church has clearly abdicated its traditional role in helping answer that question, so who’s left? Where do we turn?
"For those of us fated to live through these last decades of Christian condemnation of homosexuality, it is a question worth pondering."
This is good. He gets through saying how great it is that homosexuals don't bother with any "rules" or without "a real set of values" with which to make decisions, and then he gets mad that the Church won't help them answer the question about whom to sleep with. It is not that the Church won't help, though, it's that Mr. Crain doesn't like the help the Church wants to give him, namely, forgiveness of sins. This is the one thing the Church has always offered, and that way is not closed even to Mr. Crain.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Friday, October 24, 2003
And now for the good news: Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of Christ (the name was changed because of copyright infringement) has found a distributor. Newmarket Films is the distributor, and the film will open on Ash Wednesday next year.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Here's a question: What makes atheists think they know what Christianity is all about? Beyond that, what makes them think they have the right to tell Christians what Christianity should be about? I don't know, but Ellen Goodman has got the bug bad. See, I do not think William Boyken specifically equated Islam, or even "Islamists," with Satan. She thinks he called the enemies of the United States Satan, and maybe he did, because he also thinks the United States is a Christian nation. While that may be debated, Ellen Goodman does not, apparently, know the Bible well enough (not that I would expect her to) to know that in the Christian context, it may be and should be said that Satan is our enemy. Not only did Gen. Boykin say that, but St. Paul said it (of course, he's a little behind the times). Eph. 6:12: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood [Islamic people], but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
After comparing Gen. Boykin's God to a penis, she gets down to it (her argument, that is).
Goodman apparently has no trouble with people who claim to be Muslims thanking Allah for September 11; on the other hand, she has a major problem with an American general going to church and saying we have an enemy named Satan. Besides the obviously anachronistic language of actually mentioning "Satan," Gen. Boykin actually had the gall to commit "a sacrilege to our [meaning hers] civic religion," which is apparently worship of the god Tolerance.
The obvious silliness of this claim notwithstanding, that indeed would violate the separation of church and state if we are forced to worship at that altar. According to Christianity and Judaism, that is idolatry because we would then have other gods beside the true God. All I have to say to Ms. Goodman is, "My God is bigger than your god."
All sorts of people have chimed in on this, and they all repeat the same nonsense. Gen. Boykin, as far as I can tell, did not call the terrorists "Satan." But what if he did? Do Democrats and liberals have a really big problem with this? (Apparently they do: See op-eds here and here and here.) Are the terrorists Muslims or not? If they aren't, why is Gen. Boykin accused of calling Muslims Satan? If the terrorists are Muslims, why do the Democrats and Muslim activists keep saying they don't represent true Islam? These people can't even keep their own denunciations straight! Whenever these op-ed masterpieces make it onto the pages of your local paper, you might want to point out the discrepancy. For another side to this debate, see The Washington Times' editorial page.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
After comparing Gen. Boykin's God to a penis, she gets down to it (her argument, that is).
Goodman apparently has no trouble with people who claim to be Muslims thanking Allah for September 11; on the other hand, she has a major problem with an American general going to church and saying we have an enemy named Satan. Besides the obviously anachronistic language of actually mentioning "Satan," Gen. Boykin actually had the gall to commit "a sacrilege to our [meaning hers] civic religion," which is apparently worship of the god Tolerance.
The obvious silliness of this claim notwithstanding, that indeed would violate the separation of church and state if we are forced to worship at that altar. According to Christianity and Judaism, that is idolatry because we would then have other gods beside the true God. All I have to say to Ms. Goodman is, "My God is bigger than your god."
All sorts of people have chimed in on this, and they all repeat the same nonsense. Gen. Boykin, as far as I can tell, did not call the terrorists "Satan." But what if he did? Do Democrats and liberals have a really big problem with this? (Apparently they do: See op-eds here and here and here.) Are the terrorists Muslims or not? If they aren't, why is Gen. Boykin accused of calling Muslims Satan? If the terrorists are Muslims, why do the Democrats and Muslim activists keep saying they don't represent true Islam? These people can't even keep their own denunciations straight! Whenever these op-ed masterpieces make it onto the pages of your local paper, you might want to point out the discrepancy. For another side to this debate, see The Washington Times' editorial page.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Every time V. Gene Robinson says something, it just shows how unworthy he is to be a bishop (which, by the way, means he has oversight of souls). He says that the only thing that would stop him from going through with his consecration would be "if he felt a personal call from God to stand aside." Is that as opposed to the "general call" that Scripture gives us? Well, of course, Scripture is not a "personal call from God" and, anyway, at that time God didn't quite understand the "loving relationships of monogamous gays, lesbians, transgendered (crossgendered, multigendered, antigendered, etc.)."
Robinson then says, "God and I have been about this for quite a while now and I would be really surprised if God were to want me to stop now." Of course he would be surprised! But maybe that's because the god with whom he's "been at this for quite a while" is not really God. No, "Bishop" Robinson, you and God have not been at this for a while. You and god (read: "my personal feelings") have been at this for a while.
According to the AP story, "Robinson acknowledged that his consecration would cause a church crisis, but said good could come from it. 'If indeed this is the work of God ... then it's a crisis that calls for the church to be its very best self, and not worry about risking itself for the right thing,' Robinson said. 'Sometimes there are things worth risking your life for. It was Jesus who said if you want to save your life, you have to lose it.'"
But certainly Jesus couldn't have meant giving up your own personal "preferences" for the sake of God's glory and your holiness. No, he must have meant that the Church must give up its outmoded and patriarchaic (that's my word) idea of "morals" and get on with what society says we should get on with (namely, acknowledging that people can do whatever they want and still have a perfectly all right relationship with God).
"There are enormously gifted Episcopal priests around this church who are gay and lesbian, some of whom are partnered, who would make wonderful bishops and they're going to be nominated and they're going to be elected," Robinson said. "If I went away today, does anyone think it would stop all that? I don't think so."
No, it wouldn't, and that's what so sad. These people are going to push their agenda on the people of God, no, the Body of Christ, and nothing, not even God or His Word, are going to stop them. Idolatry is not only worshiping gods of stone or wood. There are also those gods (though we don't notice them as easily) of "preferences," "lifestyle choices," and "natural orientations" (could that also include the natural orientation toward sin?).
His final quote in the story is as telling as anything: "It's not about me. It's about not having to be ashamed." And that's it. Shame has gone the way of the buffalo. Excuse me, but that's primarily the problem. Shame is also known as "guilt over sin." Robinson wants shame gone, and it indeed has left him. This is what Paul calls a conscience "seared as with a hot iron." Robinson and those who agree with him have consciences that they themselves have cauterized. Sin will do that.
Pray for this country, not that we would not be ashamed (except of the Gospel) but that shame would return. This shame has historically been known in the Church as repentance. Perhaps Robinson should have said, "This is about not having to repent."
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Robinson then says, "God and I have been about this for quite a while now and I would be really surprised if God were to want me to stop now." Of course he would be surprised! But maybe that's because the god with whom he's "been at this for quite a while" is not really God. No, "Bishop" Robinson, you and God have not been at this for a while. You and god (read: "my personal feelings") have been at this for a while.
According to the AP story, "Robinson acknowledged that his consecration would cause a church crisis, but said good could come from it. 'If indeed this is the work of God ... then it's a crisis that calls for the church to be its very best self, and not worry about risking itself for the right thing,' Robinson said. 'Sometimes there are things worth risking your life for. It was Jesus who said if you want to save your life, you have to lose it.'"
But certainly Jesus couldn't have meant giving up your own personal "preferences" for the sake of God's glory and your holiness. No, he must have meant that the Church must give up its outmoded and patriarchaic (that's my word) idea of "morals" and get on with what society says we should get on with (namely, acknowledging that people can do whatever they want and still have a perfectly all right relationship with God).
"There are enormously gifted Episcopal priests around this church who are gay and lesbian, some of whom are partnered, who would make wonderful bishops and they're going to be nominated and they're going to be elected," Robinson said. "If I went away today, does anyone think it would stop all that? I don't think so."
No, it wouldn't, and that's what so sad. These people are going to push their agenda on the people of God, no, the Body of Christ, and nothing, not even God or His Word, are going to stop them. Idolatry is not only worshiping gods of stone or wood. There are also those gods (though we don't notice them as easily) of "preferences," "lifestyle choices," and "natural orientations" (could that also include the natural orientation toward sin?).
His final quote in the story is as telling as anything: "It's not about me. It's about not having to be ashamed." And that's it. Shame has gone the way of the buffalo. Excuse me, but that's primarily the problem. Shame is also known as "guilt over sin." Robinson wants shame gone, and it indeed has left him. This is what Paul calls a conscience "seared as with a hot iron." Robinson and those who agree with him have consciences that they themselves have cauterized. Sin will do that.
Pray for this country, not that we would not be ashamed (except of the Gospel) but that shame would return. This shame has historically been known in the Church as repentance. Perhaps Robinson should have said, "This is about not having to repent."
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
In regard to Michael Schiavo's death-wish for his "wife," I could not have said it better than Ben Shapiro does. Also, see Cal Thomas' insightful commentary. (Once again, Townhall.com is one of the best places to find out what's going on from a perspective different than that of the NY Times.)
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
While one piece of good news from politicians in one week is shocking enough, two pieces of good news is simply inexplicable. The United States Senate voted to ban partial-birth abortion (hmm, I wonder why pro-murder advocates don't like the words "partial-birth"). President Bush has promised to sign it. Yes, I know it often seems that God is not in control of the Senate, but perhaps we have reason to doubt that conclusion...
Also, see Jacob Sullum's article on this subject here.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Also, see Jacob Sullum's article on this subject here.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
The comedy for the day: "Get Fuzzy" on my daily calendar for Oct. 24.
Rob says to his pets, Bucky and Satchel, "Joe is coming over to hang out tonight. He's going to be working in France next week, so--" Bucky says, "He's gonna what in France?" Rob says, "'Work'... He has to work there for--" Bucky: "I didn't think anybody 'worked' in France. I thought that was where you went to go on strike...or is that Germany?" Satchel: "No, no. Germany is where you go to get paid to take a vacation."
For further confirmation of the insipid nature of many Frenchmen, see Jonah Goldberg's column.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Rob says to his pets, Bucky and Satchel, "Joe is coming over to hang out tonight. He's going to be working in France next week, so--" Bucky says, "He's gonna what in France?" Rob says, "'Work'... He has to work there for--" Bucky: "I didn't think anybody 'worked' in France. I thought that was where you went to go on strike...or is that Germany?" Satchel: "No, no. Germany is where you go to get paid to take a vacation."
For further confirmation of the insipid nature of many Frenchmen, see Jonah Goldberg's column.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Also, in further evidence of the providence of God, Patricia Ireland has been fired as head of the YWCA. I say "providence of God" because, according to Ireland, the YWCA agrees with her on most issues. Therefore, I conclude that this was not the doing of humans.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Lest you doubted, there are still some people out there with guts, even some, gasp!, politicians. Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, empowered by that state's legislature, stood up to the culture of death slowly taking hold in the United States, and ordered that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be reinserted. Yes, it's only a small win, but remember the story of the man walking on the beach throwing a few starfish out of millions back into the sea... ("It made a difference to that one"). See various takes on the story here (NY Times) and here (St. Petersburg Times).
Senator James King has a pretzel-shaped view of morality: "I really do hope that we've done the right thing," Mr. King said after the Senate passed the measure, 23 to 15. "I keep on thinking, what if Terri didn't want this to happen at all? May God have mercy on all of us." No, Mr. King, God have mercy on those who take a life, and by so doing, put themselves in the place of God.
Further, police at the hospice in which Terri Schiavo lives refused a Catholic priest admission to give her Holy Communion. I didn't know forgiveness of sins was also disallowed when the feeding tube was removed.
I am not sure of the legal ramifications of what the Florida legislature and Gov. Bush did, but I applaud them for their courage in the face of Michael Schiavo's desire to murder his wife by starvation.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Senator James King has a pretzel-shaped view of morality: "I really do hope that we've done the right thing," Mr. King said after the Senate passed the measure, 23 to 15. "I keep on thinking, what if Terri didn't want this to happen at all? May God have mercy on all of us." No, Mr. King, God have mercy on those who take a life, and by so doing, put themselves in the place of God.
Further, police at the hospice in which Terri Schiavo lives refused a Catholic priest admission to give her Holy Communion. I didn't know forgiveness of sins was also disallowed when the feeding tube was removed.
I am not sure of the legal ramifications of what the Florida legislature and Gov. Bush did, but I applaud them for their courage in the face of Michael Schiavo's desire to murder his wife by starvation.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Monday, October 20, 2003
Ah, the trouble of forcing God in where he has not belonged. This is the goal of those who call themselves (or are called) "theistic evolutionists." Such oddities among both scientist and Christian alike cry out to be examined closely. What is really going on here? Here it is from my perspective (what did you expect?):
First, the god of the theistic evolutionists is a deistic god. He is a god who cannot be discovered by science, and yet, inexplicably, these folks believe that he exists (somewhere, behind the curtains). Evolution, in case the large numbers of A-theistic evolutionists didn't convince you, is a worldview that does not require God. Perhaps, at the most, God may have started things a long time ago, and then let evolution take its course. Then, somewhere along the line (at least for the theistic evolutionists), he apparently happened to look down on the world and see that things had gotten pretty bad, so--bam!--out of nowhere (literally) he decided to send his son to redeem the world. Yes, they may make up some mumbled explanation of how God was "guiding the evolutionary process", or some such gimmick, but it really isn't very satisfying. They complain that if God really created like it says in Genesis, then he sure made it look like things had evolved. On the other hand, they fail miserably to take into account that, if evolution is true, he sure made it look like he had absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. Which God would you choose?
Second, theistic evolutionists have absolutely no explanation for sin and death. They resort to theological gymnastics such as "Well, Genesis 2 and 3 are really only talking about spiritual death." Well, I guess God is only stating the obvious when he says that Adam will one day return to the dust whence he came. But this is crucial to their argument: physical death could not have come after sin entered into the world (whenever that was) because evolution requires it to work. Natural selection must have death as part of its process or there is no evolution. Remember? The weaker die off leaving the strong to reproduce? Man, if that's true, Paul had everything screwed up in 1 Corinthians 15 when he was arguing that Christ was physically raised, so we can be too. If Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain. We (including you theistic evolutionists) are to be pitied above all men. (They already are by a-theistic evolutionists, poor dears.)
Along with that, they cannot account for sin entering the world. A-theistic evolutionists have no problem with this because they have no need to acknowledge sin. Theistic evolutionists, however (if they are Christians), must acknowledge sin in order for them to acknowledge redemption from sin. See how one kind of follows from the other?
Here are my questions for theistic evolutionists (ask one, see if he can answer them): Did sin evolve along with humans? Did God, one day a long time ago, automatically make humans responsible for their sin? At what point in the evolutionary process did that take place? How can we be so sure we are sinful, if we don't know when sin entered the world? Why should we believe that there is any purpose to our lives? Evolution sure doesn't make it look like we have a purpose.
Wake up! Are you going to let theistic evolutionists give away our farm? They have tried to cram God into a system that was intended from the beginning to keep God out, and now they want us to believe in such a god? Evolution is, in reality, a nicely constructed, scientific-sounding, great big theodicy. That means, we really can't understand why this world seems like such a big pile of crap. Thus, God can't really have made this world like Genesis says, because that might make God responsible for what has happened. I know! Let's say that God didn't really make the world like it is (in fact, God couldn't have done that), so let's say we are all the result of some mindless, goal-less process. That will get God off the hook, and it also explains why we treat other people like garbage. Yeah, that's it! The problem is, it also gets us off the hook, because there is no God who might hold us responsible for treating other people like garbage (what? we're responsible for what we do?). If you let God in on the picture, and he's actively, actually involved in the creation and sustaining of the world, that might cause some problems for us (like Hell!) We have said, by acceptance of evolution, that there are certain things God could not or would not do, and so we have limited God to our conception of him (hey! that sounds like idolatry; you know, we make God in our image?).
One more problem with theistic evolutionists: no one respects them. Evolutionists don't respect them for exactly the reason I stated: they've crammed God in where he doesn't belong. Creationists (I do not put myself under the common conception of this word) don't respect them because they've thrown the game in abeyance to the atheistic denizens of mere material and, again, crammed God in where he never belonged.
So, to sum up, theistic evolutionists have made themselves into deistic, sin-denying, resurrection-denying idolaters. Hmm, that's a problem.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
First, the god of the theistic evolutionists is a deistic god. He is a god who cannot be discovered by science, and yet, inexplicably, these folks believe that he exists (somewhere, behind the curtains). Evolution, in case the large numbers of A-theistic evolutionists didn't convince you, is a worldview that does not require God. Perhaps, at the most, God may have started things a long time ago, and then let evolution take its course. Then, somewhere along the line (at least for the theistic evolutionists), he apparently happened to look down on the world and see that things had gotten pretty bad, so--bam!--out of nowhere (literally) he decided to send his son to redeem the world. Yes, they may make up some mumbled explanation of how God was "guiding the evolutionary process", or some such gimmick, but it really isn't very satisfying. They complain that if God really created like it says in Genesis, then he sure made it look like things had evolved. On the other hand, they fail miserably to take into account that, if evolution is true, he sure made it look like he had absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. Which God would you choose?
Second, theistic evolutionists have absolutely no explanation for sin and death. They resort to theological gymnastics such as "Well, Genesis 2 and 3 are really only talking about spiritual death." Well, I guess God is only stating the obvious when he says that Adam will one day return to the dust whence he came. But this is crucial to their argument: physical death could not have come after sin entered into the world (whenever that was) because evolution requires it to work. Natural selection must have death as part of its process or there is no evolution. Remember? The weaker die off leaving the strong to reproduce? Man, if that's true, Paul had everything screwed up in 1 Corinthians 15 when he was arguing that Christ was physically raised, so we can be too. If Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain. We (including you theistic evolutionists) are to be pitied above all men. (They already are by a-theistic evolutionists, poor dears.)
Along with that, they cannot account for sin entering the world. A-theistic evolutionists have no problem with this because they have no need to acknowledge sin. Theistic evolutionists, however (if they are Christians), must acknowledge sin in order for them to acknowledge redemption from sin. See how one kind of follows from the other?
Here are my questions for theistic evolutionists (ask one, see if he can answer them): Did sin evolve along with humans? Did God, one day a long time ago, automatically make humans responsible for their sin? At what point in the evolutionary process did that take place? How can we be so sure we are sinful, if we don't know when sin entered the world? Why should we believe that there is any purpose to our lives? Evolution sure doesn't make it look like we have a purpose.
Wake up! Are you going to let theistic evolutionists give away our farm? They have tried to cram God into a system that was intended from the beginning to keep God out, and now they want us to believe in such a god? Evolution is, in reality, a nicely constructed, scientific-sounding, great big theodicy. That means, we really can't understand why this world seems like such a big pile of crap. Thus, God can't really have made this world like Genesis says, because that might make God responsible for what has happened. I know! Let's say that God didn't really make the world like it is (in fact, God couldn't have done that), so let's say we are all the result of some mindless, goal-less process. That will get God off the hook, and it also explains why we treat other people like garbage. Yeah, that's it! The problem is, it also gets us off the hook, because there is no God who might hold us responsible for treating other people like garbage (what? we're responsible for what we do?). If you let God in on the picture, and he's actively, actually involved in the creation and sustaining of the world, that might cause some problems for us (like Hell!) We have said, by acceptance of evolution, that there are certain things God could not or would not do, and so we have limited God to our conception of him (hey! that sounds like idolatry; you know, we make God in our image?).
One more problem with theistic evolutionists: no one respects them. Evolutionists don't respect them for exactly the reason I stated: they've crammed God in where he doesn't belong. Creationists (I do not put myself under the common conception of this word) don't respect them because they've thrown the game in abeyance to the atheistic denizens of mere material and, again, crammed God in where he never belonged.
So, to sum up, theistic evolutionists have made themselves into deistic, sin-denying, resurrection-denying idolaters. Hmm, that's a problem.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
You think that if you have children at any university or college, state or private, that they are there just to "get an education"? Not if the universities and colleges have anything to say about it. They do not just want to teach your children (or yourselves, if you are in college) how to get a job or contribute to society in some way; they are really in the business of teaching your children how to think like them. Don't believe me? Take the word of a college professor at a state university in North Carolina. (I make sure that I never miss his column.) It is Mike Adams at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington. He never fails to take an opportunity to point out the thought-control that goes on at universities under various misnomers such as "diversity," "education," "history," etc. Check out his new column here.
Be careful, once your eyes are opened you might not be able to close them again.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Be careful, once your eyes are opened you might not be able to close them again.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Whereas I have pretty much only criticized "liberals" so far;
and whereas John Shelby Spong says everyone who believes homosexual behavior is a sin is a bigot;
Let it be resolved that here we have a true bigot.
The "Reverend" Fred Phelps is the guy you are most likely to have seen holding a "God hates fags" sign. Let's get two things straight: (1) this guy is no pastor and (2) he does not know the true love of God in Christ. When he says that God laughs that Matthew Shepherd is in Hell (if he indeed is), he has forgotten that God desires the death of no man, and that He wishes for all men to be saved. Further, Mr. Phelps in no way represents even a small minority of Christians on this issue, and the two positions (one of hate and the other of a desire for repentance) must be distinguished. Certainly the homosexual lobby, John Spong, and Gene Robinson will not want to make this distinction, but I do not hate homosexuals, as Fred Phelps obviously does. God hates nothing He has made, and this includes people who struggle with the temptation toward homosexual behavior. He no more hates them than He hates Mr. Phelps, who obviously struggles with the temptation toward hateful behavior. Nor does He hate anyone else who struggles with the temptation toward anything sinful. Repentance is not only for homosexuals, or adulterers, or murderers, or liars, or cheaters, or thieves, or child molestors, or drug abusers, or pornographers, or prostitutes or any other single group. It is for human beings, all men and all women.
As far as Mr. Phelps' hatred toward Matthew Shepherd, this is clearly in contradiction to the love of God. Does this mean that Matthew Shepherd is off the hook for his own sin? Clearly not. However, neither Mr. Phelps nor I are off the hook for our sin either, outside of Jesus Christ.
This monument that Mr. Phelps wants in Casper, Wyoming's city park is beyond the pale of any civilized conversation. Surely Casper's city council can decide that this kind of language is out of bounds. Would they not prevent a Ku Klux Klan monument with the words, "All black men go to hell" on it from being put up in their park?
Those who say that all Christians are on the same side as Mr. Phelps are wrong; but Mr. Phelps is also wrong for perpetuating such stereotypes.
True Christians love all people as we follow Christ, who loved prostitutes and social outcasts. Does that mean we excuse sin, in ourselves or others? No; I too need to kill my sinful nature every day so it doesn't get the best of me.
The only conclusion to be reached is that every single person must repent, not only of their sinful actions, such as hating homosexuals or committing homosexual acts, but of their very being, which contains both the seed and the fruit of sin. "God have mercy on me, a sinful man."
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
and whereas John Shelby Spong says everyone who believes homosexual behavior is a sin is a bigot;
Let it be resolved that here we have a true bigot.
The "Reverend" Fred Phelps is the guy you are most likely to have seen holding a "God hates fags" sign. Let's get two things straight: (1) this guy is no pastor and (2) he does not know the true love of God in Christ. When he says that God laughs that Matthew Shepherd is in Hell (if he indeed is), he has forgotten that God desires the death of no man, and that He wishes for all men to be saved. Further, Mr. Phelps in no way represents even a small minority of Christians on this issue, and the two positions (one of hate and the other of a desire for repentance) must be distinguished. Certainly the homosexual lobby, John Spong, and Gene Robinson will not want to make this distinction, but I do not hate homosexuals, as Fred Phelps obviously does. God hates nothing He has made, and this includes people who struggle with the temptation toward homosexual behavior. He no more hates them than He hates Mr. Phelps, who obviously struggles with the temptation toward hateful behavior. Nor does He hate anyone else who struggles with the temptation toward anything sinful. Repentance is not only for homosexuals, or adulterers, or murderers, or liars, or cheaters, or thieves, or child molestors, or drug abusers, or pornographers, or prostitutes or any other single group. It is for human beings, all men and all women.
As far as Mr. Phelps' hatred toward Matthew Shepherd, this is clearly in contradiction to the love of God. Does this mean that Matthew Shepherd is off the hook for his own sin? Clearly not. However, neither Mr. Phelps nor I are off the hook for our sin either, outside of Jesus Christ.
This monument that Mr. Phelps wants in Casper, Wyoming's city park is beyond the pale of any civilized conversation. Surely Casper's city council can decide that this kind of language is out of bounds. Would they not prevent a Ku Klux Klan monument with the words, "All black men go to hell" on it from being put up in their park?
Those who say that all Christians are on the same side as Mr. Phelps are wrong; but Mr. Phelps is also wrong for perpetuating such stereotypes.
True Christians love all people as we follow Christ, who loved prostitutes and social outcasts. Does that mean we excuse sin, in ourselves or others? No; I too need to kill my sinful nature every day so it doesn't get the best of me.
The only conclusion to be reached is that every single person must repent, not only of their sinful actions, such as hating homosexuals or committing homosexual acts, but of their very being, which contains both the seed and the fruit of sin. "God have mercy on me, a sinful man."
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
More good arguments why Michael Schiavo is a sadistic, adulterous, gold-digging disgrace to humanity.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
An honest hypocrite: Marvin Olasky.
Is anybody still listening to John Shelby Spong? Okay, I admit it, I occasionally like to engage in the masochistic practice of reading articles, etc. that make me want to beat someone like a rented mule (that's a plagiarized quote from a professor). Spong is one of those people. He's Rudolph Bultmann without the intelligence or the influence. Attention Mr. Spong: Just because you publish books does not mean anyone is listening, or that anyone cares. But you gotta love persistence...
There are many things I could comment on in his latest article for the on-line Sydney Morning Herald, so here we go:
He says that "in some passages [of the Bible] God is portrayed as less than moral." This is theologically nonsensical. The God that Spong speaks of is no God at all, but a figment of his overactive and distorted imagination. It is a given of Christianity that we have no standing to judge what is moral or immoral. Rather, God tells us what is moral and immoral, and we are responsible for that. The people of Judah responded to Jeremiah in a way very similar to that of Spong: "But they say, 'That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart'" (18:12). Yahweh had this to say: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." Meaning: as God determines, it shall be done, and no man can alter it. As Paul says, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use" (Rom. 9:20-21)? Simply read the last five chapters of Job for a description of how God answers those who dare to question His sovereignty, as Spong has done. Who are you, O Spong?
Then Spong recites the deteriorating examples of the divine right of kings and Galileo of examples of the Bible "losing" in debates. Does he have a problem distinguishing between the Bible and interpreters of the Bible? Here, I'll help him out: interpreters can err; the Bible cannot.
Spong is a true racist if ever there was one. The Bible is still quoted, he says, in the "less enlightened parts of the world" to show that women cannot be pastors and bishops. But that other theological question is beside the point. Spong is really saying that anyone who opposes his "enlightened" version of Christianity (which is no Christianity at all) is less intelligent and less able to interpret the Bible. In the comparison between the issues of women in the church and homosexual behavior, Spong calls most of the world, including Africa, Asia and South America, less enlightened, since major opposition to the consecration of Gene Robinson has come from those very areas. Liberals love to call people "racists" if they question anything a person of color says about anything, yet these very same people of color are "less enlightened" if they oppose The Brave New World of the elites. That is truly racist, and it should be consistently identified as such.
Spong generalizes about the "new scientific and medical data that are invading and winning the minds of educated people" (which means, by implication, that those who do not accept those data as conclusive are uneducated). The problem is, there is no such data. When 50% of biological twins of homosexuals are not themselves homosexual, this absolutely and conclusively disproves any firm genetic link. There may indeed be something genetic, but homosexuality is by no means completely genetic. However, even if homosexual behavior were entirely influenced by one's genetic make-up, does this give them any excuse? Absolutely not. My sinful behavior is influenced by the fact that I was born sinful. Does that then mean that I can do whatever the hell (literally) I want? Spong is off his rocker.
He also takes his shots at Jesus (or as he would probably say, "the biblical portrayal of Jesus"). "Jesus is actively pictured in the Gospels as believing that epilepsy is caused by demon possession and that sickness is the result of God's punishment. No one in His day knew about germs, viruses or leukaemia." Well, shoot. I thought Jesus was passively pictured in the Gospels. I'm more inclined, frankly, to believe that when Jesus says something is demon possession, it darn well is. Sorry Spong, you lose on that one.
Spong says that "efforts to change a person's sexual orientation" are acts of "pastoral violence" (apparently quoting "One psychiatric association in the US"). What in the world is the church good for? Apparently Spong thinks it's only good for patting people on the back and telling them how good they are and that they suffer at the hands of homophobes and bigots. If changing sinful behavior is pastoral violence, then the Church better close its doors, because repentance certainly is pastoral violence--violence to the sinful nature, which needs to be daily drowned, not thrown a life preserver. The old Adam is already a good enough swimmer on his own; do we really need to help him out?
Spong closes with some more nonsense and an unintelligible remark.
First, the nonsense. He recites the homosexual lobby's moronic claims that because heterosexuals do bad things, they can't say anything about what homosexuals do. Sin is sin is sin. I don't care if it's a heterosexual sleeping with someone not his wife, or a homosexual having three partners in a weekend; IT'S ALL SIN! We are all sinners! Because someone sins, it has absolutely no bearing on whether what someone else does is a sin. Yes it's hypocritical, but that does not change the facts, because we are all hypocrites. But there is One who is not a hypocrite, and likewise, not a sinner. That is Christ, and He did not destroy His Father's Law against sinners; rather, He fulfilled it. But in His fulfilling it, does that mean we can sin all we want? Say it with me: "By no means! Let it not be so!" (Those are Paul's words, not mine.)
Second, the unintelligibility: Spong writes, "Then we can take our marching orders again from the Bible, rather than the literal words. Jesus is quoted as having said: 'I have come that you might have life and have it abundantly.'" Okay, need I really point out how illogical he sounds? We "take our marching orders from the Bible" but we do not take the Bible at its "literal words." Huh? After Spong gets done with the Bible, those marching orders are going to sound a lot like the words of Mr. Spong himself.
One more problem with that quote from Jesus (or, better, the quoting of it by Spong): there is going to be a lot less abundant life if homosexuality becomes the order of the day. I say that with only half my tongue in my cheek. See, biological life never springs from two people of the same sex (read: "gender" for those thoroughly modern among you). At least that's what I learned in my science classes; maybe they're teaching something different today.
Further, the perpetuation and glorification of sinful behavior does not lead to life abundant, but to life destroyed. That means Hell. Sin is a life-sucker and a life-inhibiter. It is not a life-giver. Spong is an idolater at the altar of Satan disguised as "just another human lifestyle" and he will soon find out what happens to the worshippers at that altar.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
There are many things I could comment on in his latest article for the on-line Sydney Morning Herald, so here we go:
He says that "in some passages [of the Bible] God is portrayed as less than moral." This is theologically nonsensical. The God that Spong speaks of is no God at all, but a figment of his overactive and distorted imagination. It is a given of Christianity that we have no standing to judge what is moral or immoral. Rather, God tells us what is moral and immoral, and we are responsible for that. The people of Judah responded to Jeremiah in a way very similar to that of Spong: "But they say, 'That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart'" (18:12). Yahweh had this to say: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." Meaning: as God determines, it shall be done, and no man can alter it. As Paul says, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use" (Rom. 9:20-21)? Simply read the last five chapters of Job for a description of how God answers those who dare to question His sovereignty, as Spong has done. Who are you, O Spong?
Then Spong recites the deteriorating examples of the divine right of kings and Galileo of examples of the Bible "losing" in debates. Does he have a problem distinguishing between the Bible and interpreters of the Bible? Here, I'll help him out: interpreters can err; the Bible cannot.
Spong is a true racist if ever there was one. The Bible is still quoted, he says, in the "less enlightened parts of the world" to show that women cannot be pastors and bishops. But that other theological question is beside the point. Spong is really saying that anyone who opposes his "enlightened" version of Christianity (which is no Christianity at all) is less intelligent and less able to interpret the Bible. In the comparison between the issues of women in the church and homosexual behavior, Spong calls most of the world, including Africa, Asia and South America, less enlightened, since major opposition to the consecration of Gene Robinson has come from those very areas. Liberals love to call people "racists" if they question anything a person of color says about anything, yet these very same people of color are "less enlightened" if they oppose The Brave New World of the elites. That is truly racist, and it should be consistently identified as such.
Spong generalizes about the "new scientific and medical data that are invading and winning the minds of educated people" (which means, by implication, that those who do not accept those data as conclusive are uneducated). The problem is, there is no such data. When 50% of biological twins of homosexuals are not themselves homosexual, this absolutely and conclusively disproves any firm genetic link. There may indeed be something genetic, but homosexuality is by no means completely genetic. However, even if homosexual behavior were entirely influenced by one's genetic make-up, does this give them any excuse? Absolutely not. My sinful behavior is influenced by the fact that I was born sinful. Does that then mean that I can do whatever the hell (literally) I want? Spong is off his rocker.
He also takes his shots at Jesus (or as he would probably say, "the biblical portrayal of Jesus"). "Jesus is actively pictured in the Gospels as believing that epilepsy is caused by demon possession and that sickness is the result of God's punishment. No one in His day knew about germs, viruses or leukaemia." Well, shoot. I thought Jesus was passively pictured in the Gospels. I'm more inclined, frankly, to believe that when Jesus says something is demon possession, it darn well is. Sorry Spong, you lose on that one.
Spong says that "efforts to change a person's sexual orientation" are acts of "pastoral violence" (apparently quoting "One psychiatric association in the US"). What in the world is the church good for? Apparently Spong thinks it's only good for patting people on the back and telling them how good they are and that they suffer at the hands of homophobes and bigots. If changing sinful behavior is pastoral violence, then the Church better close its doors, because repentance certainly is pastoral violence--violence to the sinful nature, which needs to be daily drowned, not thrown a life preserver. The old Adam is already a good enough swimmer on his own; do we really need to help him out?
Spong closes with some more nonsense and an unintelligible remark.
First, the nonsense. He recites the homosexual lobby's moronic claims that because heterosexuals do bad things, they can't say anything about what homosexuals do. Sin is sin is sin. I don't care if it's a heterosexual sleeping with someone not his wife, or a homosexual having three partners in a weekend; IT'S ALL SIN! We are all sinners! Because someone sins, it has absolutely no bearing on whether what someone else does is a sin. Yes it's hypocritical, but that does not change the facts, because we are all hypocrites. But there is One who is not a hypocrite, and likewise, not a sinner. That is Christ, and He did not destroy His Father's Law against sinners; rather, He fulfilled it. But in His fulfilling it, does that mean we can sin all we want? Say it with me: "By no means! Let it not be so!" (Those are Paul's words, not mine.)
Second, the unintelligibility: Spong writes, "Then we can take our marching orders again from the Bible, rather than the literal words. Jesus is quoted as having said: 'I have come that you might have life and have it abundantly.'" Okay, need I really point out how illogical he sounds? We "take our marching orders from the Bible" but we do not take the Bible at its "literal words." Huh? After Spong gets done with the Bible, those marching orders are going to sound a lot like the words of Mr. Spong himself.
One more problem with that quote from Jesus (or, better, the quoting of it by Spong): there is going to be a lot less abundant life if homosexuality becomes the order of the day. I say that with only half my tongue in my cheek. See, biological life never springs from two people of the same sex (read: "gender" for those thoroughly modern among you). At least that's what I learned in my science classes; maybe they're teaching something different today.
Further, the perpetuation and glorification of sinful behavior does not lead to life abundant, but to life destroyed. That means Hell. Sin is a life-sucker and a life-inhibiter. It is not a life-giver. Spong is an idolater at the altar of Satan disguised as "just another human lifestyle" and he will soon find out what happens to the worshippers at that altar.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Best article I've read this week:
Ben Shapiro on "Coming Out Week."
(You really should check out http://www.townhall.com)
Ben Shapiro on "Coming Out Week."
(You really should check out http://www.townhall.com)
Do you have any idea what possible ulterior motives Michael Schiavo might have for wanting his wife dead? (Also, see this and this.) Let's think: he's dating another woman (did I mention he has a child with her?), he thinks her parents might actually want to keep her alive(!), it's just too big of a hassle; I don't know, can you think of any? Does anybody else see the absurdity and absolute moral bankruptcy of fighting in the courts to have your wife killed? I don't care what state she's in; if she is alive and has some ability to function (which ability the "banned" video by her parents shows), then she has the right to live. Even if we could observe absolutely no ability to function, what then gives us the right to decide whether someone has the right to live? Play God and someone else is guaranteed to get hurt. Be ye not deceived, God is not mocked. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, it is Mine to repay. How dare this man and the courts take this woman's life into their own hands? Once again, Kyrie eleison...
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
My wife wants me to write about something positive instead of just complaining. So, you should check out the comic "B.C." for October 13. It is a good example of the theology of the cross. It shows a man crawling through a desert under the hot sun, and he says, "Lord, if you love me, give me a sign." Ahead, on a rock, are the words, "Jesus Saves." This is the true theology of suffering. Even when we suffer, God is still reconciling the world to Himself in Christ. To ask any questions beyond the cross of Christ about the nature of God's working in our midst is to miss the point. Indeed, it is only in the cross of Christ that we see God's disposition toward us.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus, and save us from ourselves.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Come quickly, Lord Jesus, and save us from ourselves.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
It gets better and better with the Episcopal "bishop" Gene Robinson. He says, "Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong." My question is, what would make it wrong? If it is not Scripture, nor tradition, nor the teaching of the church, what, in the name of anything (anything at all) sacred, could it be? See, what I think that statement means is that he doesn't like the fact that Scripture and the church that interprets it might have some sway over morals and life. The Law is always bad, remember? (See post for Oct. 3 below.) As long as Robinson's conscience and partner don't condemn him, why should anyone else? The problem is, as the New Oxford Review notes in its most recent issue, is that conscience is as reliable as silly putty in the hands of people like this. The conscience, which is apparently the only thing that Robinson will allow to rule him, can be dulled and numbed to the point of ineffectuality, and this is what he has done to his own conscience. When he thinks it has no effect on his soul that he divorced his wife ("I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel" [Mal. 2:16]), that he celebrated Holy Communion with his recently divorced wife (if that is not blasphemy against the Body and Blood of the Lord, I don't know what is), that he engages in homosexual behavior with his "partner," he is only fooling himself and many of those under his care. He has numbed his conscience and "it is seared as with a hot iron." Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Lastly for tonight: an Episcopal priest is defrocked "following his conviction in a church court on charges of immorality and unbecoming conduct toward two teenagers." All I have to say is this: it is hypocrisy of the worst kind to defrock this guy and not to defrock V. Gene Robinson for divorcing his wife and having sex with a man for over ten years. The African churches are apparently the only ones who have any backbone (and consistency). Don't misunderstand, they both need to be defrocked, but it is indefensible to allow one to remain a priest (and to be "consecrated" a bishop, no less!) and to defrock the other. God did not look kindly on Sodom, unless you consider it putting them out of their misery. V. Gene Robinson will have to answer for many things, but heresy, schism and misleading many "little ones" will surely be close to the top.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
The whining seems to be getting louder. Dawn Sherman, apparently channeling her father, is convinced that having to sing a song in choir that mentions "God" is offensive to her atheistic "beliefs" and that she "feels like an outcast" when everyone is singing but her. I've got it! Maybe she should SING! By the way, she's ten. Who gave ten-year olds rights anyway? This is complete and utter liberal nonsense. "It's kind of weird to be standing by myself and not singing, and it makes me feel different," she said. "It's like someone wants me to feel different." I bet I know who it is, too: her father. (It's certainly not God; and why would the school want her to feel different? They're about assimilation, right?) Why does it make her feel different? Maybe because her father told her that she is? She's an "atheist," for pity's sake! Of course she's different! Most people in this country are not atheists! If she chooses to be different, which is what she (read: her father) did, she should proudly take a stand and proclaim the gospel of atheism, not whine because she "feels different." Her father, who seems to be in the choir himself, says that the song "is like asking to cause [him] to believe you are God." Who is he talking to here? The reporter? I doubt the song is doing that.
Oh, the poor dears. Their strongly-held (is that an oxymoron for an atheist?) unconstitutional beliefs are being trampled by the big, bad public school.
Well, one (or two) word(s) of advice: QUIT WHINING.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Oh, the poor dears. Their strongly-held (is that an oxymoron for an atheist?) unconstitutional beliefs are being trampled by the big, bad public school.
Well, one (or two) word(s) of advice: QUIT WHINING.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Where do these people get their credentials? Apparently Tom Harpur got his from the Canadian School of Heresy, Division of "Nothing New Under the Sun." The fact that an excerpt from one of his books is on a apologetic site for Islam should tell him and us something. In the Toronto Star, his newest editorial is a half-polemic, half-"historical" look at the role Revelation plays in North American culture. Besides the fact that he can't seem to put a coherent argument together (and one that has a point, at that), he has almost everything wrong. Perhaps I should expect nothing less from a John Spong rip-off, and maybe this isn't even worth my time, but nevertheless...
While taking shots at both the United States and George Bush (imagine that!), he attempts to discuss the true meaning of the book of Revelation in short, unconnected statements about its veracity and historicity. According to Mr. Harpur, "the book is definitely not by the author/editor of the John's Gospel." He simply rehashes all the Jesus-seminar, historical-critical liberal theology of the past century. "...its Greek...has a completely different style," blah, blah, blah. He goes so far as to call the Greek "barbarous." It is true that John's Greek is not as "academic" as, say, James, but that does not come close to barbarous. Revelation provides some of the most beautiful symbolism in the Bible. The images that John records are grand and inspiring.
He also wants to make sure everyone knows that the book of Revelation was only admitted to the canon after "four centuries of wrangling." And? This type of argumentation holds no water. The point is that it is in the Bible now, not whether people argued about its place in the canon. That simply gives license to disregard what the book says (which is, perhaps, his goal).
He writes, "Revelation has absolutely nothing specific to say about events today or events tomorrow. Fundamentalists conveniently skip over the fact that its very first verse says its contents are about happenings that will occur "speedily" and verse three underlines this by saying the time spoken of is "near" at hand. Nothing could be clearer." Wow, if Revelation has "absolutely nothing specific to say," how in the world does Mr. Harpur find it so clear? He never does say what the events are, or when they happened, if they are not happening today or tomorrow. Mr. Harpur conveniently skips over the fact that "speedily," when referring to God's actions, does not imply what we mean when we say "speedily." The end will indeed come quickly, Mr. Harpur. You may want to get ready.
Perhaps my favorite part is when he says that Revelation's Christ is not the historical Jesus, but the "spiritual Christ of Pauline mysticism." I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's never read Paul either. When Paul argues in I Corinthians 15 about the resurrection (bodily resurrection, mind you), is he talking about a "spiritual" Christ? Only if by "spiritual" he means "physical," because Paul says the risen Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people (though I am sure Harpur thinks that was a "spiritual" appearance).
He also shows a nice bit of a-contextual interpretation when he interprets Rev. 11:8-9. He conveniently puts an ellipsis where the word FIGURATIVE ("spiritually" in the Greek) goes. Of course he does, because that would collapse his whole argument. He shows a nice little illogical leap when he says that because Egypt and Sodom are figurative representations, then also Jerusalem must be. Surely the title "theologian" is self-imposed!
His final "point," absolutely unconnected from anything that went before, and apparently intended to be a conclusion, is that Christ in Rev. 1 is "androgynous figure with "paps" or female breasts." I don't know about his lexicon, but mine (the authoritative Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker) states that this word refers to male or female breasts. Surely Mr. Harpur knows enough anatomy to know that both males and females have breasts and nipples. Or, maybe not.
"Plainly this has nothing do with a historic Jesus or any coming events on this planet." It is only plain to you, Mr. Harpur, only to you.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
While taking shots at both the United States and George Bush (imagine that!), he attempts to discuss the true meaning of the book of Revelation in short, unconnected statements about its veracity and historicity. According to Mr. Harpur, "the book is definitely not by the author/editor of the John's Gospel." He simply rehashes all the Jesus-seminar, historical-critical liberal theology of the past century. "...its Greek...has a completely different style," blah, blah, blah. He goes so far as to call the Greek "barbarous." It is true that John's Greek is not as "academic" as, say, James, but that does not come close to barbarous. Revelation provides some of the most beautiful symbolism in the Bible. The images that John records are grand and inspiring.
He also wants to make sure everyone knows that the book of Revelation was only admitted to the canon after "four centuries of wrangling." And? This type of argumentation holds no water. The point is that it is in the Bible now, not whether people argued about its place in the canon. That simply gives license to disregard what the book says (which is, perhaps, his goal).
He writes, "Revelation has absolutely nothing specific to say about events today or events tomorrow. Fundamentalists conveniently skip over the fact that its very first verse says its contents are about happenings that will occur "speedily" and verse three underlines this by saying the time spoken of is "near" at hand. Nothing could be clearer." Wow, if Revelation has "absolutely nothing specific to say," how in the world does Mr. Harpur find it so clear? He never does say what the events are, or when they happened, if they are not happening today or tomorrow. Mr. Harpur conveniently skips over the fact that "speedily," when referring to God's actions, does not imply what we mean when we say "speedily." The end will indeed come quickly, Mr. Harpur. You may want to get ready.
Perhaps my favorite part is when he says that Revelation's Christ is not the historical Jesus, but the "spiritual Christ of Pauline mysticism." I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's never read Paul either. When Paul argues in I Corinthians 15 about the resurrection (bodily resurrection, mind you), is he talking about a "spiritual" Christ? Only if by "spiritual" he means "physical," because Paul says the risen Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people (though I am sure Harpur thinks that was a "spiritual" appearance).
He also shows a nice bit of a-contextual interpretation when he interprets Rev. 11:8-9. He conveniently puts an ellipsis where the word FIGURATIVE ("spiritually" in the Greek) goes. Of course he does, because that would collapse his whole argument. He shows a nice little illogical leap when he says that because Egypt and Sodom are figurative representations, then also Jerusalem must be. Surely the title "theologian" is self-imposed!
His final "point," absolutely unconnected from anything that went before, and apparently intended to be a conclusion, is that Christ in Rev. 1 is "androgynous figure with "paps" or female breasts." I don't know about his lexicon, but mine (the authoritative Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker) states that this word refers to male or female breasts. Surely Mr. Harpur knows enough anatomy to know that both males and females have breasts and nipples. Or, maybe not.
"Plainly this has nothing do with a historic Jesus or any coming events on this planet." It is only plain to you, Mr. Harpur, only to you.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Friday, October 10, 2003
The inanity (yes, that's inanity; although insanity probably works as well) goes on. Now we have city attorneys like Chet Adams taking the word "God" off signs that (formerly) said "God Bless America." If I may ask a question that is probably obvious but necessarily begged: "Who do you think is going to bless America?" According to Mr. Adams, "anyone can bless America who wants." Besides the bad grammar, is this really true? It brings to mind the episode with Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel. Indeed, who is the true God? Surely it is only the true God who can bless or curse a nation. But this is not about theology, it's about stupidity. Apparently this was not provoked by any complaint, just by the Mr. Adams' fear of some future lawsuit (which, according to Mr. Adams, people think is their God-given right--oh, sorry, -given right). This is in the same vein as the loonies in public schools who think it is more appropriate to call a piece of wood covered in fir needles a "Winter Tree" rather than a Christmas tree. Excuse me--GIVE ME A FREAKIN' BREAK! This "separation of church and state" nonsense has got to be corrected somehow. Perhaps a good beating with a big, black Bible might do the trick. This country was made possible not by a non-existent "wall of separation" but by a truly-existent non-establishment clause. Ignorance is no excuse. Maybe these people would like it better if we had signs saying (my personal favorite) "America Bless God." That way, it's us doing the blessing! And we can pick our own God, too! Oh, wait, that's what we do anyway.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Sunday, October 05, 2003
On the commercial for the new edition of "Joe Millionaire" on Fox, the question is asked: "How do you say 'sucker' in French?" All I could think was, isn't that a bit redundant?
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Friday, October 03, 2003
This woman thinks that marriage is an invention of the state, utilized in the age-old fight of men against women and children. The problem here is simply a lack of understanding of history. I think her next book should research the history of marriage and find the exact point when the state invented marriage. By the way, which state was that?
She accurately diagnoses the problem, and it is one about which proponents of marriage should rightly be concerned. People like this think that marriage is patriarchal, male-dominated, sexist and, probably, ageist and racist (just to round out the list). Yet, they want the "right" to get married. What they really want, and people like this prove it, is to destroy marriage. This is no hysterical, paranoid fear of conservatives. They themselves admit it.
What needs to be stated over and over again, in my opinion, is that no matter what homosexuals think they will win if they do get this "right," it will not be marriage. This word simply cannot be redefined. It means a relationship between one man and one woman, and they cannot change this.
But God help us if they do win this. America may be lukewarm, but Hell is hot...
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
She accurately diagnoses the problem, and it is one about which proponents of marriage should rightly be concerned. People like this think that marriage is patriarchal, male-dominated, sexist and, probably, ageist and racist (just to round out the list). Yet, they want the "right" to get married. What they really want, and people like this prove it, is to destroy marriage. This is no hysterical, paranoid fear of conservatives. They themselves admit it.
What needs to be stated over and over again, in my opinion, is that no matter what homosexuals think they will win if they do get this "right," it will not be marriage. This word simply cannot be redefined. It means a relationship between one man and one woman, and they cannot change this.
But God help us if they do win this. America may be lukewarm, but Hell is hot...
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
There are some people in the church who think that once a person is a Christian, the only thing the Law of God can do is accuse and show them where they fall short. The Law does indeed do this. However, if this is the only way the Law functions in the life of the Christian (or, better, the only way God uses the Law in the life of the Christian), there may be deleterious consequences. For example, this person thinks that it is inappropriate to look to God's Law to find what God does or does not want us to do. His reasoning is that if we view the Law in this way, when we know what God wants us to do and then we do it, we will suddenly believe that what we are doing is pleasing to God and thus how we earn salvation. The problem is that this takes too narrow a view of the functions of the Law (read: how God uses the Law). To illustrate, this author uses the example of homosexuality. He says it is wrong to look in the Bible to find out if God does or does not want us to engage in homosexual acts. This is the wrong question, he says, because it leads people to think that we can become saved if we only do not engage in homosexual acts. Therefore, we must only trust in faith in Christ for our salvation.
These are false alternatives set up by a false understanding of the Law. How it works in reality is that we are indeed condemned by the Law for never measuring up to God's standards (pre-salvation). Then, we realize we need a savior, whom we learn is Christ (in whom we do trust solely by faith). Now, the difference between a true and false understanding of the Law, is that this guy would say that these are the only two events, even in the life of the Christian. Wrong! If this were the case, all homosexuals would have to do (and indeed, what they have done) is say, "We have faith, why do we need to live under the Law? Therefore, we should not be denied access to the Sacrament, to the Ordained Ministry, to nuptial rites, etc." What really happens (or should happen, if we didn't have pastors teaching this nonsense) is that Christians who truly know that they have been saved solely by the blood of Christ then want to know what things are good to do. Faith does indeed work itself in love. These people have made our good works, necessary for our neighbor, into something that applies only to God. Instead, our salvation comes solely from God to us, vertically, and our works come solely from us to our neighbor, horizontally. Does this mean that our works do not please God? Absolutely not! It does mean that our works don't apply in the vertical realm, and that they have no bearing on our salvation. These people have completely lost any idea of sanctification, because they have made the Gospel into a new law, whereby we simply automatically do whatever it is (we certainly can't know it objectively) God wants us to do. I don't know about them, but I'm still simul iustus et peccator. My sinful nature still clings to me, and if I think I can understand naturally what I should do to please God (by some vague, amorphous "natural law"), I'm fooling myself. Fuhgeddaboutit...
The true Christian life is a cycle, not a back and forth movement. We look to God's Word to understand what we should do, we try to do it by the power of the Holy Spirit, we realize we do not do it perfectly, and we are driven back to the mercy of God in Christ. This is simply sanctification. If the view of the above author is accepted, our life is made into a bunch of little "justifications", without the Holy Spirit ever working holiness in our lives. This is simply a false alternative, and it leads to a false understanding of the Law.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
These are false alternatives set up by a false understanding of the Law. How it works in reality is that we are indeed condemned by the Law for never measuring up to God's standards (pre-salvation). Then, we realize we need a savior, whom we learn is Christ (in whom we do trust solely by faith). Now, the difference between a true and false understanding of the Law, is that this guy would say that these are the only two events, even in the life of the Christian. Wrong! If this were the case, all homosexuals would have to do (and indeed, what they have done) is say, "We have faith, why do we need to live under the Law? Therefore, we should not be denied access to the Sacrament, to the Ordained Ministry, to nuptial rites, etc." What really happens (or should happen, if we didn't have pastors teaching this nonsense) is that Christians who truly know that they have been saved solely by the blood of Christ then want to know what things are good to do. Faith does indeed work itself in love. These people have made our good works, necessary for our neighbor, into something that applies only to God. Instead, our salvation comes solely from God to us, vertically, and our works come solely from us to our neighbor, horizontally. Does this mean that our works do not please God? Absolutely not! It does mean that our works don't apply in the vertical realm, and that they have no bearing on our salvation. These people have completely lost any idea of sanctification, because they have made the Gospel into a new law, whereby we simply automatically do whatever it is (we certainly can't know it objectively) God wants us to do. I don't know about them, but I'm still simul iustus et peccator. My sinful nature still clings to me, and if I think I can understand naturally what I should do to please God (by some vague, amorphous "natural law"), I'm fooling myself. Fuhgeddaboutit...
The true Christian life is a cycle, not a back and forth movement. We look to God's Word to understand what we should do, we try to do it by the power of the Holy Spirit, we realize we do not do it perfectly, and we are driven back to the mercy of God in Christ. This is simply sanctification. If the view of the above author is accepted, our life is made into a bunch of little "justifications", without the Holy Spirit ever working holiness in our lives. This is simply a false alternative, and it leads to a false understanding of the Law.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Thursday, October 02, 2003
Dear numerous readers,
In the interest of having my blog's name become reality (veritas odium parit is "telling the truth makes enemies"), I will now begin an open-ended series on church and culture at large. I am here solely in the interest of truth (though of course that is the truth as I see it; though I believe I am firmly in the tradition of orthodoxy in the Church catholic. Simply because I have a perception of truth does not mean truth does not exist). This means that I will spare neither "liberals" nor "conservatives." If you care to read on, this blog will be updated at least weekly with observations of stupidity, illogic, irrationality and the like. Okay, see you soon...
Veritas odium parit,
Trew
In the interest of having my blog's name become reality (veritas odium parit is "telling the truth makes enemies"), I will now begin an open-ended series on church and culture at large. I am here solely in the interest of truth (though of course that is the truth as I see it; though I believe I am firmly in the tradition of orthodoxy in the Church catholic. Simply because I have a perception of truth does not mean truth does not exist). This means that I will spare neither "liberals" nor "conservatives." If you care to read on, this blog will be updated at least weekly with observations of stupidity, illogic, irrationality and the like. Okay, see you soon...
Veritas odium parit,
Trew
Hey, by the way, if anyone does read this, send me an e-mail at trewblog@yahoo.com and let me know how you found it...
Hey, this is great. I can spout off about anything, and probably no one will ever read it. But what's even greater is that of all the people posting on this site who have their own blog, it's probably a bunch of useless ramblings about stuff no one else cares about (much like this). So, here's this week's movie that you should not miss: Luther. As historically accurate as historical movies can get, and exciting and theologically (for the most part) accurate. Go see it, even if you aren't Lutheran or even Christian for that matter. Luther struggled with the futility of life in the face of overwhelming corruption, sin and sickness, such as the plague. He survived and he changed the face of European culture forever.
The one cd you should pick up right now: Josh Ritter, "Hello Starling." Like Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond (I know, it sounds weird), Tom Petty and Neil Young rolled into one. Best new songwriter in the last five years. Joan Baez is recording his song "Wings" for her new album, and Josh is opening for her right now. http://www.joshritter.com Okay, enough pointless, readerless chatter for now. More stuff that no one else cares about later.
Veritas odium parit,
Trew
The one cd you should pick up right now: Josh Ritter, "Hello Starling." Like Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond (I know, it sounds weird), Tom Petty and Neil Young rolled into one. Best new songwriter in the last five years. Joan Baez is recording his song "Wings" for her new album, and Josh is opening for her right now. http://www.joshritter.com Okay, enough pointless, readerless chatter for now. More stuff that no one else cares about later.
Veritas odium parit,
Trew
create your own visited country map or write about it on the open travel guide States I've visited:
create your own personalized map of the USA or write about it on the open travel guide
