Suckas take heed

You would think that the tired cliches about all those "fundamentalist Christians" would have been re-tired a long time ago. But it is not to be. Apparently the Boston Globe online can't help but try to be "provocative" with James Carroll's article, "Questions about the Nativity." Did you know that just like in the Middle Ages, Christians today are discouraged from any type of "critical inquiry" into the faith that they supposedly hold? Well, just leave it to James Carroll to tell us what kind of questions we should be asking. We should be asking how come the Gospels don't record every detail in exactly the same way or how we got the New Testament that we have, and, especially, whether Mary could really have been a virgin. Yeah, I never thought about that before, because the church leadership was always trying to consolidate their power, and never let me ask such questions. Perhaps, and only perhaps, it is true that some Christians do not ask the questions that they might if they were thinking about their faith. But it is not at all clear that most Christians do not critically examine their faith and the faith of their fathers. Or perhaps I should speak for myself, and say that I have indeed critically examined the Bible and my faith, and I find that there are certainly things in the Bible that are hard to reconcile (but isn't this exactly what you would expect to find in a book that claims to be true? If the Bible were made up by people trying to expand a religion, surely they would not have knowingly put together a book that has such obvious contradictions that even James Carroll can find them!). However, all that this means, and scandal-mongers like Carroll can't seem to grasp this fact, is that we do not have all the information. Watch Law and Order or CSI one time and you will see that the facts seem contradictory until the detectives have all the information. Could it possibly be the case (stay with me Carroll, I know this might be difficult) that those seeming irreconcilable differences are not the main part of the story? That is for you to judge, but it seems that Christmas is a perfect time to reflect on what is the main part of the Story: Jesus Christ incarnated, crucified and resurrected on our behalf.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Man, those Democrats/Liberals/Communists/America-haters (hard to distinguish) sure are upset and disappointed, aren't they? They were whining not so long ago that after this "preemptive" war, we hadn't even captured Saddam Hussein, so what was the good of it? Now, we have captured him, and they say it doesn't matter. As Laura Ingraham pointed out, what would make these people happy, anyway? It amazes me how disappointed most of the major news networks seem. It does seem like something bad happened, doesn't it? Here are two good articles, one satire, the other commentary, on Saddam's capture, and the reaction to it.

The first (commentary) is by Greg Yardley here.
The second (satire) by Judith Weizner is here.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Just to be clear: in the blog I published last Wednesday, I said that it would hardly change Osama bin Laden, if we showed him enough "love." It is not at all the case that if Christians were to actually show bin Laden love, that he would not change; rather, it is a question of how, exactly, the United States is able to show bin Laden love? Christians who say we should love our enemies (without a doubt, we should) are not over in Afghanistan or wherever bin Laden is hiding, so how do they think they can show him love? In reality, it would be a catastrophe if the United States Government and armed forces should simply "forgive" the enemies of the United States and freedom. It is only individual Christians who are to love their enemies, not a government. That would be a disturbing mix of state and religion indeed. The government is not a Christian person, and therefore there is no responsibility to Christian love and forgiveness. The government's responsibility is to provide protection to its citizens and justice for criminals and victims.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Can anyone tell me why creative people are primarily or solely flaming bleeding-heart liberals who think that George Bush is an idiot? Even people I respect immensely like the people in the band Over the Rhine are saying things about the war and George Bush that, to me, are just extremely naive. For another example, see the Anne Lamott interview on Powells.com. I mean, it would probably be fairly obvious to anyone who has read her books that Lamott would fit in that category, but Over the Rhine has not seemed so political before. Bruce Cockburn, whom I also like very much, is in this category. I like the music on his latest album, but it's so political and vitriolic that it is hard for me to listen to. These people seem to have absolutely no concept of the fact that there are people in this world who are not Christians (imagine that!), and they are going to do evil things. What is the better and more just course of action? Let those people do whatever they want? (I doubt very much that Osama bin Laden is going to sit down at tea and have a nice counseling session and repent of his evil if we simply show him enough "love.") Or do what is necessary, within well-defined limits, to protect the people of this nation and other nations, especially those who ask for our help? Yeah, I'm pretty sure the people of Iraq hate the fact that we freed their brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers from Hussein's torture chambers. But if these artists had their way, they would still be in there, getting raped and murdered. I don't know, but that's the way it looks to me.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Though I don't always agree with Ann Coulter's style of rhetoric (but usually with her opinion), sometimes sarcasm is the right medicine. Read her most recent column here. It should be painfully obvious, but it is amazing that she and others have to point out that the Constitution mentions neither abortion or sodomy.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Hey! It has been a while, hasn't it? Well, I don't have a lot of time right now, but I wanted to give you the quote of the day, and some links to articles that I found useful.

The quote of the day is, "Moderates are just liberals in slow motion." (quoted in the November, 2003 issue of New Oxford Review)

Here are a couple articles to check out:
Michelle Malkin on Planned Parenthood.

Brent Bozell on (further examples of) the pro-homosexual, anti-Christian cast of Hollywood.

And, not an article, but a link to works by one of the most ingenious writers and apologists ever, G.K. Chesterton.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com