Saturday, January 31, 2004
What if I, a non-journalist, told a journalist how to do his job? Well, if John Kearney isn't hypocritical, he would take it as constructive criticism, as he seems to want Christians to do when he tells them something. He is upset that Christians and journalists "distort" the "real" meaning of Allah, by not translating it as simply "God." Obviously (his argument goes), since Abraham is claimed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [in that order], the God(s) they worship must be the same. This simply shows that he knows nothing of any of the three religions. This is not about who we claim as a patriarch. It is certainly true that Christianity comes out of the ancient Israelite religion, but it could also be said (as many throughout history have said) that Islam is a Christian heresy. It didn't start until the eighth century A.D., and Muslims clearly venerate Jesus and Mary (though not in the same way as Christians). All that would be needed to clear up this question, is to simply ask a Muslim or a Jew if they believe in the Trinity as confessed in any of the three Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian) and if yes, okay, we believe in the same God. If not, (as should be clear) we do not. It is really that simple. And do we worship and pray to the same God? This also would be easy to clear up. Simply ask a Muslim or Jew if they feel the need to pray to God through His Son Jesus ("No one comes to the Father, except by me"). If they know that they can only come to God through Jesus, His Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, then they pray to the same God as Christians. If not, they obviously do not pray to the same God.
Now, some member of a "premier mainstream" [see three posts down] church will deny that it is necessary to come to God through Jesus, or that it is not necessary to believe in the Trinity to believe in the same God. I simply say, you are ignorant of the regula fidei of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and you, like those who deny the Vicarious Atonement of Christ, are outside the catholic (universal) Church. There can be no variance of belief on these two issues. Sorry to all you premier mainstream "Christians." Okay, I know that's all just a little to close-minded and bigoted, but see the post immediately below this one, as well as the last line of the Athanasian Creed.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Now, some member of a "premier mainstream" [see three posts down] church will deny that it is necessary to come to God through Jesus, or that it is not necessary to believe in the Trinity to believe in the same God. I simply say, you are ignorant of the regula fidei of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and you, like those who deny the Vicarious Atonement of Christ, are outside the catholic (universal) Church. There can be no variance of belief on these two issues. Sorry to all you premier mainstream "Christians." Okay, I know that's all just a little to close-minded and bigoted, but see the post immediately below this one, as well as the last line of the Athanasian Creed.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Friday, January 30, 2004
And Jesus said, "I have come not to bring peace, but a sword..."
(See here.)
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
(See here.)
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
For your after-dinner reading, here's an article from the U.K. about an "bioethicist" who thinks that infanticide is okay. But really, I'm not that concerned about his comments, because they follow rationally from the pro-abortion lobby's perspective. He is absolutely right about one thing: no moral change happens in a baby from one side of the birth canal to the other.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Thought you had heard from all the crazies about Mel Gibson's new movie? Think again. The "Rev." Mark Stanger, "canon precentor and associate pastor of San Francisco's premier mainstream Episcopalian church, Grace Cathedral" (can you believe it, they're "premier" and "mainstream"!), was invited to view the film in Illinois. If you haven't read Laura Ingraham's book on how the elites of America view Evangelicals and anyone who doesn't live near saltwater, you might not understand Salon.com's interview. I cannot even begin to comment on the absolute arrogance of such people toward other Christians (but Jews and Muslims worship the same "God"). However, I would like to make some comments (that's why I have this blog, isn't it?):
First of all, this idiot is why Mel Gibson doesn't invite everyone to see his movie before it comes out (and why should he, anyway? Do anti-Christian Hollywood liberals invite Christians to their films every week when they come out with a new Christian-bashing film?).
There is a constant smugness throughout the whole article that just makes you wish someone would punch this guy (I know, that's not very Christian; it's my sinful nature speaking). First, to say that he comes from a "fairly sensible church" and so he felt "uneasy" in the crowd at Willow Creek (with which, as a Lutheran, I certainly don't have a whole lot of affinity), is a perfect example of his arrogance. He takes the opportunity of this interview to push every politically-correct agenda of his "premier mainstream" church in San Francisco. He says that it's "absolutely not" the most Biblically accurate film on Jesus' death, and then says "It's hard to know if [the film is] historically accurate, because Gospel writers were not trying to do an eyewitness report -- they were producing theological, practical documents of faith to answer questions that were appearing in their communities a half-generation and a generation after the death of Jesus." This "higher-higher-higher critical" (Gesundheit) nonsense is not at all set in stone. He has no more proof for his views than what he claims for Mel Gibson. That is clear to anyone who thinks and it really doesn't require comment.
However, the strangest and most incomprehensible part of the interview bears reproducing in its entirety:
"One of the ways [Gibson] tries to produce an air of authenticity in the film is to have the principals speaking Aramaic, the dialect of Hebrew that Jesus would have spoken, and the Roman soldiers and Pilate speaking Latin. But very chillingly, in the interview after the showing, Mel Gibson said the reason that he had [his cast] speaking those original languages -- and I didn't misinterpret him, because he told a long story to illustrate it -- he said, 'If I was doing a film about very fierce, horrible, nasty Vikings coming to invade a town, and had them on their ship with their awful weapons, and they came pouring off the ship ready to slaughter -- to have them speak English wouldn't be menacing enough.' [The interviewer:] 'How did that hit you?'
'I almost puked. It was so xenophobic: The good guys speak English; the bad guys speak these other languages. It wasn't a consistent view, because in the film Jesus was speaking the same language as his tormentors, but even so, I think it was meant to cause confusion and awe in the audience, to have these horrible people speaking either a Semitic or an ancient language like this.'
[Interviewer:] 'Did you feel like that the use of these ancient languages was a veiled anti-Semitic comment?'
Anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim. Some of those words in Aramaic sound a little bit like Arabic -- Arabic is a Semitic language too. [In the film, it came off like] nasty foreigners were doing this thing to our beautiful Jesus. So when Mel Gibson said in the interview that the reason for the other languages was to highlight the brutality, that kind of freaked me out. I could see how it would work on an unsophisticated audience. It's probably the same feeling that people in Guantánamo Bay have, having had soldiers barking at them in English for two years." (Notice the agenda again.) This has got to be the silliest, most inane comment I have heard since the last time I saw Howard Dean on television. It is so obvious as to be needless that Mel Gibson had no intention of making the good guys speak Aramaic and the bad guys speak Latin. I thought he was a fan of the Latin Mass, Mark? He must have some Viking in his blood, because that comment hit him pretty hard. It has absolutely nothing to do with the movie, though. It is very hard to even begin to respond to these comments, they're so ignorant. Mel Gibson's point is about authenticity and this guy can't remove his agenda blinders for one nano-second to see that. This is my question: how is it even possible to consider it anti-Semitic for Jesus to speak in a Semitic language? I'm not sure Mark can keep his agendas straight: is it anti-Semitism or or anti-Americanism? And what can it possibly mean to say, "Some of those words in Aramaic sound a little bit like Arabic -- Arabic is a Semitic language too." Of all the profundity that flows like mud from the mouth of this sage, this statement really is beyond me. I have no idea what it means, nor what he is critiquing. If he could keep himself straight, he would realize that if his argument were true, Jesus and those speaking Aramaic would have to be pro-Semitic and pro-Muslim. Of course, that would be if one gave any credence whatsoever to such a ridiculous statement. I've already spent too much time on this wacko, so you can go read the article yourself. Read especially the part where he denies the Vicarious Atonement (which effectively disqualifies much of the Bible from truth, and, really, makes "Rev." Stanger extra ecclesiae [I don't know if that's correct Latin, but it should say outside the Church.] You've been warned.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
First of all, this idiot is why Mel Gibson doesn't invite everyone to see his movie before it comes out (and why should he, anyway? Do anti-Christian Hollywood liberals invite Christians to their films every week when they come out with a new Christian-bashing film?).
There is a constant smugness throughout the whole article that just makes you wish someone would punch this guy (I know, that's not very Christian; it's my sinful nature speaking). First, to say that he comes from a "fairly sensible church" and so he felt "uneasy" in the crowd at Willow Creek (with which, as a Lutheran, I certainly don't have a whole lot of affinity), is a perfect example of his arrogance. He takes the opportunity of this interview to push every politically-correct agenda of his "premier mainstream" church in San Francisco. He says that it's "absolutely not" the most Biblically accurate film on Jesus' death, and then says "It's hard to know if [the film is] historically accurate, because Gospel writers were not trying to do an eyewitness report -- they were producing theological, practical documents of faith to answer questions that were appearing in their communities a half-generation and a generation after the death of Jesus." This "higher-higher-higher critical" (Gesundheit) nonsense is not at all set in stone. He has no more proof for his views than what he claims for Mel Gibson. That is clear to anyone who thinks and it really doesn't require comment.
However, the strangest and most incomprehensible part of the interview bears reproducing in its entirety:
"One of the ways [Gibson] tries to produce an air of authenticity in the film is to have the principals speaking Aramaic, the dialect of Hebrew that Jesus would have spoken, and the Roman soldiers and Pilate speaking Latin. But very chillingly, in the interview after the showing, Mel Gibson said the reason that he had [his cast] speaking those original languages -- and I didn't misinterpret him, because he told a long story to illustrate it -- he said, 'If I was doing a film about very fierce, horrible, nasty Vikings coming to invade a town, and had them on their ship with their awful weapons, and they came pouring off the ship ready to slaughter -- to have them speak English wouldn't be menacing enough.' [The interviewer:] 'How did that hit you?'
'I almost puked. It was so xenophobic: The good guys speak English; the bad guys speak these other languages. It wasn't a consistent view, because in the film Jesus was speaking the same language as his tormentors, but even so, I think it was meant to cause confusion and awe in the audience, to have these horrible people speaking either a Semitic or an ancient language like this.'
[Interviewer:] 'Did you feel like that the use of these ancient languages was a veiled anti-Semitic comment?'
Anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim. Some of those words in Aramaic sound a little bit like Arabic -- Arabic is a Semitic language too. [In the film, it came off like] nasty foreigners were doing this thing to our beautiful Jesus. So when Mel Gibson said in the interview that the reason for the other languages was to highlight the brutality, that kind of freaked me out. I could see how it would work on an unsophisticated audience. It's probably the same feeling that people in Guantánamo Bay have, having had soldiers barking at them in English for two years." (Notice the agenda again.) This has got to be the silliest, most inane comment I have heard since the last time I saw Howard Dean on television. It is so obvious as to be needless that Mel Gibson had no intention of making the good guys speak Aramaic and the bad guys speak Latin. I thought he was a fan of the Latin Mass, Mark? He must have some Viking in his blood, because that comment hit him pretty hard. It has absolutely nothing to do with the movie, though. It is very hard to even begin to respond to these comments, they're so ignorant. Mel Gibson's point is about authenticity and this guy can't remove his agenda blinders for one nano-second to see that. This is my question: how is it even possible to consider it anti-Semitic for Jesus to speak in a Semitic language? I'm not sure Mark can keep his agendas straight: is it anti-Semitism or or anti-Americanism? And what can it possibly mean to say, "Some of those words in Aramaic sound a little bit like Arabic -- Arabic is a Semitic language too." Of all the profundity that flows like mud from the mouth of this sage, this statement really is beyond me. I have no idea what it means, nor what he is critiquing. If he could keep himself straight, he would realize that if his argument were true, Jesus and those speaking Aramaic would have to be pro-Semitic and pro-Muslim. Of course, that would be if one gave any credence whatsoever to such a ridiculous statement. I've already spent too much time on this wacko, so you can go read the article yourself. Read especially the part where he denies the Vicarious Atonement (which effectively disqualifies much of the Bible from truth, and, really, makes "Rev." Stanger extra ecclesiae [I don't know if that's correct Latin, but it should say outside the Church.] You've been warned.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
The quote of the day, and something I need to keep in mind:
"Moreover, let us not show a lust for controversy, nor an inclination for disputing, an impudence to argue, a desire to win, nor a foolish longing to show off one's wisdom, but rather a mind desirous of the truth, a humble spirit, and a heart which fears God, so that in God's sight and with His Word leading us we may depend on the word of His mouth alone, and not pervert the things which He has revealed to us in Scripture acording to the norm and measure of our own reason, but humbly and firmly embrace them in the simple obedience of faith." --Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
"Moreover, let us not show a lust for controversy, nor an inclination for disputing, an impudence to argue, a desire to win, nor a foolish longing to show off one's wisdom, but rather a mind desirous of the truth, a humble spirit, and a heart which fears God, so that in God's sight and with His Word leading us we may depend on the word of His mouth alone, and not pervert the things which He has revealed to us in Scripture acording to the norm and measure of our own reason, but humbly and firmly embrace them in the simple obedience of faith." --Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
More from Bruce Cockburn here: www.counterpunch.org. My favorite part is that nobody in Iraq is being "allowed" to help with the rebuilding. I didn't know that the whole governing council was made up of Americans (that's sarcasm).
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
If hypocrisy has any meaning left whatsoever, here is where it should be applied:
The wife of Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski, Mary Oberst, (no, I don't think the different names mean that they're not married), gave a speech sponsored by the Oregon chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League during the "Celebration for Choice." If you were to ask, celebrating the choice to do what? you'd be in the minority, apparently.
Imagine, for just a minute, that the pro-life wife of a governor gave a speech sponsored by the American Life League, or Lutherans for Life, during the "Celebration for Life." Now, see if you can imagine the horrendous backlash by the media and every single pro-death pundit out there. I bet it's not too hard to imagine, because pro-lifers take a beating nearly every day. The hypocrisy is, people like Ms. Oberst receive praise instead for their "courageous" stands on "threatened rights."
Let's look briefly at the absolute moral vacuum in which people like this live. All you have to do is change their "celebration" to the "Celebration for Choice to end the Life of My Helpless Child" and you see what we really have here. We have the most cold-hearted and macabre kind of celebration there is: the celebration of death and murder. And the liberals have trouble with goth teens...
See, there is no debate anymore about when life begins; medical science has definitively settled that. When we have 3-D ultrasounds, there is no debate. When babies can likely be saved outside the womb at 21 weeks, there is no debate. The debate simply is, then, whether it is morally acceptable to kill a living person for reasons of convenience. Mary Oberst thinks so. Peter Singer thinks so. NARAL thinks so. NOW thinks so. Planned Parenthood thinks so. I do not. We not only have lost our moral compass, we don't remember ever having one.
Postscript: At least the British papers acknowledge that a "foetus" is being killed. See this link about two British women who died after taking RU-486, the so-called "abortion pill." And still, the pro-abortion lobby wants to roll back the number of times a woman has to see a doctor to complete the abortion.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
The wife of Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski, Mary Oberst, (no, I don't think the different names mean that they're not married), gave a speech sponsored by the Oregon chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League during the "Celebration for Choice." If you were to ask, celebrating the choice to do what? you'd be in the minority, apparently.
Imagine, for just a minute, that the pro-life wife of a governor gave a speech sponsored by the American Life League, or Lutherans for Life, during the "Celebration for Life." Now, see if you can imagine the horrendous backlash by the media and every single pro-death pundit out there. I bet it's not too hard to imagine, because pro-lifers take a beating nearly every day. The hypocrisy is, people like Ms. Oberst receive praise instead for their "courageous" stands on "threatened rights."
Let's look briefly at the absolute moral vacuum in which people like this live. All you have to do is change their "celebration" to the "Celebration for Choice to end the Life of My Helpless Child" and you see what we really have here. We have the most cold-hearted and macabre kind of celebration there is: the celebration of death and murder. And the liberals have trouble with goth teens...
See, there is no debate anymore about when life begins; medical science has definitively settled that. When we have 3-D ultrasounds, there is no debate. When babies can likely be saved outside the womb at 21 weeks, there is no debate. The debate simply is, then, whether it is morally acceptable to kill a living person for reasons of convenience. Mary Oberst thinks so. Peter Singer thinks so. NARAL thinks so. NOW thinks so. Planned Parenthood thinks so. I do not. We not only have lost our moral compass, we don't remember ever having one.
Postscript: At least the British papers acknowledge that a "foetus" is being killed. See this link about two British women who died after taking RU-486, the so-called "abortion pill." And still, the pro-abortion lobby wants to roll back the number of times a woman has to see a doctor to complete the abortion.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Monday, January 26, 2004
Yes, it has been a while. But the stupidity seems to grow and grow with every passing shot of Democratic nominees on C-SPAN.
This is really a follow-up to my post on creative people and why they are so naive. A friend pointed out that maybe it's their anthropology. They seem to have a generally optimistic view of mankind--sorry, humankind, and imagine that everyone has a "spark" of goodness somewhere down deep. Sorry, but I think it's the other way 'round.
An example of how artists lose their rational thinking faculty when they start talking politics is Bruce Cockburn. Again, I love Cockburn's music; I have all but maybe three of his albums. But comments like the following are enough to make me want to stop buying them. "There's a complete social breakdown," Cockburn said. "I met so many
people who reminded us that even Saddam restored electricity within a few days of the first Gulf War." (This is from an article in the Edmonton Sun that apparently is no longer on the site; but here's a link to a different story.) Seriously, or rather, can this be taken seriously? Of course, things would be so much better under Saddam. He also says, "I didn't find a single Iraqi that thought that the Americans had
invaded Iraq to rescue them from a dictator." They all thought it was about oil, right? "Although many Iraqis are relieved that U.S. forces have removed
Saddam Hussein from power, 'the prevailing belief in Iraq right now
is that their only agenda is oil,' Cockburn said yesterday." So, the Iraqis all thought that the U.S. and its allies came to get their oil (which they just gave away to the French, and which is in much greater supply elsewhere in the world), and getting rid of Saddam was some sort of (perhaps) pleasant side-effect? This is simply preposterous. Is Cockburn sure he wasn't talking to Democrats or New York Times reporters dressed as Iraqis?
Andrew Sullivan, however, has an insight, I think:
"I don't know. They're [actors] creative people; they tend to see the world as something that can be made up to fit their fantasies. They don't like acknowledging evil - unless it's that rival actor who just got the part. Actors and directors can be pretty hard-headed in their own industry. It's just when dealing with the world that they lose their minds. In most cases, they're also very emotionally attuned people. So they don't tend to distinguish between feelings and arguments.
I'm generalizing, of course. There are some brilliant actors. And many sane ones."
To be clear, I know that Bruce Cockburn can acknowledge evil; just listen to "You've Never Seen Everything" off his new album. The problem is the backward sense that certain types of people have about who is evil. And no, between Bush and Saddam, it's not Bush.
What further need have we of witnesses?
But one more comment that doesn't require comment:
"'And what's happening in Iraq is pivotal to the unfolding of history
right now,' [Cockburn] said. 'This is the most blatant test of America's
empire-building capacity at this moment in history and it's a test of
the neo-conservative agenda, so I wanted to see what that looks like
up close.'" Yeah, what do those mutant conservatives look like up close?
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
This is really a follow-up to my post on creative people and why they are so naive. A friend pointed out that maybe it's their anthropology. They seem to have a generally optimistic view of mankind--sorry, humankind, and imagine that everyone has a "spark" of goodness somewhere down deep. Sorry, but I think it's the other way 'round.
An example of how artists lose their rational thinking faculty when they start talking politics is Bruce Cockburn. Again, I love Cockburn's music; I have all but maybe three of his albums. But comments like the following are enough to make me want to stop buying them. "There's a complete social breakdown," Cockburn said. "I met so many
people who reminded us that even Saddam restored electricity within a few days of the first Gulf War." (This is from an article in the Edmonton Sun that apparently is no longer on the site; but here's a link to a different story.) Seriously, or rather, can this be taken seriously? Of course, things would be so much better under Saddam. He also says, "I didn't find a single Iraqi that thought that the Americans had
invaded Iraq to rescue them from a dictator." They all thought it was about oil, right? "Although many Iraqis are relieved that U.S. forces have removed
Saddam Hussein from power, 'the prevailing belief in Iraq right now
is that their only agenda is oil,' Cockburn said yesterday." So, the Iraqis all thought that the U.S. and its allies came to get their oil (which they just gave away to the French, and which is in much greater supply elsewhere in the world), and getting rid of Saddam was some sort of (perhaps) pleasant side-effect? This is simply preposterous. Is Cockburn sure he wasn't talking to Democrats or New York Times reporters dressed as Iraqis?
Andrew Sullivan, however, has an insight, I think:
"I don't know. They're [actors] creative people; they tend to see the world as something that can be made up to fit their fantasies. They don't like acknowledging evil - unless it's that rival actor who just got the part. Actors and directors can be pretty hard-headed in their own industry. It's just when dealing with the world that they lose their minds. In most cases, they're also very emotionally attuned people. So they don't tend to distinguish between feelings and arguments.
I'm generalizing, of course. There are some brilliant actors. And many sane ones."
To be clear, I know that Bruce Cockburn can acknowledge evil; just listen to "You've Never Seen Everything" off his new album. The problem is the backward sense that certain types of people have about who is evil. And no, between Bush and Saddam, it's not Bush.
What further need have we of witnesses?
But one more comment that doesn't require comment:
"'And what's happening in Iraq is pivotal to the unfolding of history
right now,' [Cockburn] said. 'This is the most blatant test of America's
empire-building capacity at this moment in history and it's a test of
the neo-conservative agenda, so I wanted to see what that looks like
up close.'" Yeah, what do those mutant conservatives look like up close?
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Saturday, January 03, 2004
Click fast, not slow, over to this link to Ann Coulter's newest column, and read it very carefully. More than anyone else I have read, she knows how to point out idiocy whenever and wherever it appears.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Countries I've visited:
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
