The Works of Francis Schaeffer
14 minutes ago
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Novus Monastica (Weekly Religious News) - 9/3/09
A Look “At Historical Record” Shows Jesus Was a Vegetarian?
Hollywood filmmaker, Kamram Pasha, is writing a fictional work on the origins on Christianity. Nice. He’s concluded -
“... after lengthy research into the historical record, I have become convinced that Jesus Christ himself was in all likelihood a vegetarian, and that vegetarianism was probably a central tenet of the early Christian community founded by his disciples. In fact, there is evidence that Christ's opposition to animal sacrifice at the Jewish Temple may have been the triggering event that led to the Crucifixion.”
Whoa. How many of you knew that Jesus was crucified for being a vegetarian, raise your hand … no one? Honestly? Me neither.
“One of the central themes that set Jewish Christian groups apart from Pauline Christians was their belief that Jesus rejected animal sacrifice and the consumption of meat.”
Yeah, I think that would be “consumption of meat” sacrificed to idols in pagan temple rituals. But you know, I say potato, you say putato.
“According to Church historians like Iraneus (2nd century CE), Origen (3rd century CE), Epiphanius and Eusebius (4th century CE), groups like the Ebionites had their own Gospel written in Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic, the language Jesus actually spoke) … Based on this Gospel, the Ebionites rejected what was becoming mainstream Christianity and denounced the letters of Paul as false teachings. The Ebionites faithfully observed the Law of Moses, claiming that in doing so, they were following the example not only of James, Peter and the disciples, but of Jesus himself. And according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites were vegetarian, rejecting animal sacrifice as immoral, claiming again that they were following the teachings of Jesus himself.”
So assuming (a) Origen & Co. are credible on this one, (b) the Ebionites’ extra gospel is reliable, (c) Paul’s letters were not truly Christian, (d) somehow following the law of Moses AND rejecting all consumption of meat are reconcilable, and (e) this is what Jesus did, then (f) we can come to the conclusion that Jesus was vegetarian! Am I right?
“Hegesippus, a 2nd century orthodox Christian historian, wrote of James the Just, the brother of Jesus: ‘After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed’ … According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites also rejected alcohol and used water for communion, further strengthening their claim to be continuing the practice of James, who was the brother of Jesus and his appointed successor … As biblical scholar Robert Eisenman points out in his monumental work James the Brother of Jesus, ‘Who and whatever James was, so was Jesus.’”
Damn, is this guy’s chain of reasoning is incredible or what?
“In Romans 14:1-2, Paul denigrates those Christians who 'eat only vegetables' saying that their "faith is weak." So it is clear that vegetarianism was common among Christians in Paul's day, to the extent that he had to refute their claim that refraining from meat was an act of piety … The fact that Paul has to make this point means that ethical vegetarianism was being presented as a moral requirement to be a Christian!”
Yeah, there were a lot of weird Christians claiming you had to do (or NOT do) legal stuff to “be a Christian” - like never ever have sex. Be circumcised. Follow all the Judaic laws. Never drink alcohol. But never eat steaks? That’s just taking it too far. Keep denigrating away, Paul. We're on your side.
"I came across a remarkable book called The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity by Keith Akers, which posits a shocking thesis -- that the central event of the Christian faith, the Crucifixion, was predicated upon Christ's willingness to fight for animal rights."
Truly remarkable all right.
"In the Gospel of John, Jesus physically drives herds of animals out of the Temple courtyard using a whip. It is an incredibly powerful visual image. Yet in all the years of that I have listened to the story of Jesus at the Temple, I have never heard anyone focus on this compelling scene. The overturning of the currency tables seems to be what is stuck in the Christian consciousness, and yet the most dramatic and chaotic event in this incident is clearly the freeing of the animal herds."
Wowzers. Just imagine what would happen if Jesus walked into a poultry farm then. Feathers a-flyin’? Talk about dramatic. Personally, I still prefer the image of Jesus driving out the money changers with a whip.
"… many Islamic legends around Jesus portray him as an ascetic who avoided meat and was deeply concerned for the welfare of animals as well as humans."
And you know, what’s cool about these legends is … they’re ISLAMIC. Oh wait, this is the Huffington Post? Never mind.
______________________________________________________________________________
Imminent NFL Season Bringing Back the Bad Football Sermon Analogies
Well it’s started again. And I’m not one to be hating all sports/spiritual life analogies. I’m a big sports fan obviously and so, as it happens, was the apostle Paul. However, unfortunately there are some extremely painful (and kindergarten level) sports examples used in sermons these days. I lose IQ points even thinking about them. Pastor Barrett Vanlandingham, Fort Gibson Church of Christ, takes the top spot for now -
“I know a little about the excitement of football season. All of those things seemed tremendously important at the time. But as we all know, the years go by and a little perspective tends to put life's events in the proper order.”
Wait a second … hold on … is this guy even a football fan or what? That sounds like he’s implying that football isn’t that important in the long scheme of things.
“The apostle Paul, who was growing older, told young Timothy these important words to live by: ‘For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.’” (1 Tim. 4:8)
If you’re a young Christian guy who has spent years listening to sermons, classes, and chapels all aimed at Christian young men, you will learn to hate this verse. Because you will hear it in over 50% of men's sermons ... over and over and over again. Because men like that part about sports being of "some" value.
"Jesus then victoriously sat at the right hand of God in order to encourage us and give us a goal that we can attain. We can make it to heaven by following Christ's example of living a life dedicated to serving and loving God, and serving and loving others. It's only by God's grace that he gives us such a plan to follow."
You know how there are “goals” in football? Well, God has “goals” in your spiritual life too. See how similar Christianity and football are? If you like the NFL, then you should like being a Christian too.
“If you want a real challenge with a real reward, living for God in an increasingly immoral world is the toughest challenge any of us will ever face. But it is also the only challenge that comes with a reward of eternal life in heaven where there are no worries, no pain, no death, only joy and praise of God the Father who makes it all possible. Real victory comes for those who have the choice to live life however they want, but choose to live it for God who in turn gives the richest blessings of all, peace and joy, now and later.”
Living for God in an increasingly immoral world … you see, that’s a challenge that’s similar to trying to score a touchdown, only better.
“Being on God's team can feel lonely, especially when we look at the world's team which has so many members.”
That other bad “worldly” team just doesn’t follow the rules. But we're all in God's football team, isn't that cool?
"But when it's time for God's team to march victoriously into the end zone of heaven, many on the opposing team will want to switch sides. But for them it will be too late. Please pray today that God gives us the wisdom and perseverance to suit up and play for him everyday until the clock on life's scoreboard runs out."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA …
Sorry, I just … knew it was coming but … Oh man … Heaven is like the end zone you see, and you’ve got to try and reach it to score eternal life, but watch out for the clock on life’s scoreboard ... it could run out before you get the chance to score heaven. Yes, my friends, this is the Gospel. Don’t you just want to come to church and listen to sermons like this, instead of staying home to watch the game?
My IQ just got a minus 20 points writing all this down. That's like a yardage penalty without a first down, except it's like in your brain ... get it?
______________________________________________________________________________
Vick & the Eagles are Giving Sportswriters the Opportunity to Wax Deeply on “Forgiveness”
+05.jpg)
If you like football, I bet you're interested in some shrink's opinion on the sociological psychological cultural impact of our forgiving Michael Vick for being a bad bad man. That's what Dana Scarton thinks anyhow. Because Vick owes all of us, would it be mentally healthy for you to indulge in that thing Christians always talk about called forgiveness?
Scarton writes - “Let's be clear: Michael Vick's involvement in the blood sport of dogfighting was beyond wrong. It was horrifying, senseless and inhumane … This was as brutal as it gets. Still, it's time to consider forgiveness for Michael Vick.”
You, the reader, should be horrified by Michael Vick. Horrified.
"News of Vick's acquisition by the Eagles prompted a harsh reaction from many, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who condemned the signing and questioned what message it sends to young fans. Undoubtedly, the team will face a public-relations nightmare."
Or undoubtedly, the Philadelphia Eagles simply don’t care about PETA and instead care about winning football games. Could be … just a guess.
“Forgiveness is good for our health. Forgiving is defined in a recent Mayo Clinic consumer publication as ‘acknowledging hurt and then letting it go, along with the burden of anger and resentment.’ Once achieved, forgiveness results in a decrease of negative thoughts and feelings toward an offender and an increase in positive thoughts and feelings.”
More positive thoughts and feelings, less negative thoughts and feelings … see where we’re going with this? Do you think it’s a coincidence that forgiveness is a Christian virtue?
"A central message is that harboring a grudge appears to be detrimental to both psychological and physical well-being. 'People who have been able to forgive show clear health benefits,' says Kathleen Lawler-Row, who chairs the psychology department at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., and has published her findings in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine and the Journal of Psychophysiological Research."
Respected psychophysiological scholars have discovered from their studies that harboring a grudge against Michael Vick could be harmful to your health. So we definitely should forgive Michael Vick for what he’s done to us … oh wait.
"Given such reports, deriding Vick the next time he steps out in public might be something you do at your own risk, says Frederic Luskin, a health psychologist and director of the Stanford Forgiveness Project. 'If every time you see Michael Vick take the field you boo and say nasty things at the top of your lungs, you are flooding your system with stress hormones,' he says. 'And just think, you caused all that stress yourself when you could have gone out and enjoyed the game.'"
You see, flooding your system with stress hormones during a football game is bad for you. It’s better to watch a football game with a heart full of feelings of love and goodwill for all the players on the field … the Stanford Forgiveness Project says so. And if there is one thing a football fan should seek to avoid, it's stress hormones.
"By most accounts, forgiveness demands considerable time and effort. There is no single method, although for many the process is intra-psychic rather than interpersonal, meaning it can be accomplished without engaging the offender."
Forgiving Vick will be more intra-psychic than interpersonal … this is something all football fans absolutely give a (expletive) about.
"But not everyone believes forgiveness is the only healthy solution. 'We don't have a word in the language for healthy nonforgiveness,' says Jeanne Safer, a New York psychotherapist and author of 'Forgiving and Not Forgiving: Why Sometimes It's Better NOT to Forgive.' Yet Safer contends there is such a concept."
Uh oh … time to hear from the shrinks on the other point of view. We’ve got to give the ones with memberships in PETA a say too. (And just ignore the fact that Vick just spent 2 years in federal prison for killing dogs.) What matters is your decision whether or not to forgive him.
"Rather than flat-out forgiving, which may trigger guilt and anxiety in someone who is unable or unwilling to release resentment, Safer recommends revisiting the wrong. 'To help yourself feel better you should not have an agenda other than wanting to understand,' Safer says. 'That way, you can't fail.'"
Because all this is about you feeling better and that’s what’s important. Your self-worth is at stake here, in case you didn’t realize it.
"Safer favors second chances but stops short of advocating forgiveness. She doubts that any dog lover will completely forgive Vick and wonders whether the best response might be along the lines of what she terms, 'forgiveness lite,' a more nuanced and neutral reaction."
Do you have problems with forgiveness? Why not try forgiveness lite instead - it’s easier and you can feel better about yourself and still hold a grudge both at the same time. The psychologists say so, and they are more nuanced and neutral than we are.
"She questions those who rush to forgive and maintains that much of the press coverage spouting forgiveness amounts to Christianity disguised as psychology. 'While I say the only way to get out of being a victim is to understand, Christians say the only way to get out of being a victim is to forgive.'"
As a Christian myself, I’d offer the suggestion that one of the best ways of always staying a victim is by imagining all sorts of bad things, that people you don’t know have done, that you need to decide whether to personally forgive or not. Contrary to what most shrinks will tell you, the purpose of forgiveness is not about making yourself have better thoughts and feelings. It's not Christianity disguised as psychology. It's not what you think about different pop culture celebrities. It’s actually something real.
More after the jump -
______________________________________________________________________________
Christians Can Be Socialist-Pinko-Commies Too!
Angela Boatright-Spencer of the Charlotte Episcopal Examiner gave us this fun for the week -
“… when most of us think about socialism (and communism), we think about Karl Marx, whose vision was harsh in comparison to these earlier thinkers. Marx believed humanity could flourish only when the basic needs of all were guaranteed. His system set up a central authority (government) that would ensure the distribution of necessary goods to all people. In his view, conflict, rather than brotherly love, was the catalyst for growth; ‘the path to socialism proceeds not through the establishment of model communities that set examples of harmonious cooperation to the world... but through the clash of social classes.’”
Although the main problem with Marx’s ideas wasn’t that they were “harsh” it was that they were just blatantly wrong. They didn’t work. Marx’s socialist economic ideas have been tried over and over again historically and proven to not match up with reality.
“Not everyone with socialist ideas felt that way. Let me introduce you to Frederick Denison Maurice, a Christian Socialist who became a loyal priest in the Anglican Church (The Study of Anglicanism, p. 169), a professor at Cambridge, and is commemorated in the Episcopal Church calendar. He once stated, ‘I seriously believe that Christianity is the only foundation of Socialism, and that a true Socialism is the necessary result of a sound Christianity.’”
So this should help make you feel better about advocating for socialism. I mean, even if socialist ideas ignore fundamental and elementary economic laws, they can be held to in a nice and Christian way instead of in that harsh Karl Marx way. Of course, I could probably think of a few Christians who would disagree with Maurice about Socialism being the logical outcome of Christianity - Adam Smith for one.
“Maurice rejected individualism, with its competition and selfishness, and suggested a socialist alternative to the economic principles of laissez faire. Christian Socialists promoted the cooperative ideas of Robert Owen and suggested profit sharing as a way of improving the status of the working classes and as a means of producing a just, Christian society."
Yes, there have been some Christians in history that liked socialism. In fact, there still are. This, on the other hand, has nothing to do with whether socialist ideas actually work in the real world. But we’re not talking about that - socialism can be nice and loving.
“He considered competition to be against the church's teachings, favoring a ‘science of partnership’ in which people worked together instead.”
Then again, according to the very basics of Christianity, we live in a Fallen world where man is naturally selfish and mankind will NEVER all work lovingly together without any competition. Then there’s also the possibility that lovingly produced goods and services (by workers who all feel good about each other’s welfare) will not necessarily be of the same quality as goods and services produced in order to outclass your competition.
“Closeness with Christ brought a kind of sweetness to this brand of socialist thought that was missing from the thinking of Marx.”
Socialism should be sweet and loving from a Christian’s point of view. It’s regrettable that Marx is supposed to be one of the main proponents for socialism because he didn’t give it that same Jesus sweetness. And again, one could ask how “sweet and loving” it is to embrace wrong economic ideas that always necessarily result in more poverty, and therefore, more suffering for more people.
Some could say that ignoring natural laws and truths that God set down for how things work in the world isn't very "Christian." But again, "Christian" seems to be a loose term that can be applied to almost anything these days.
______________________________________________________________________________
Message From the Dalai Lama: You Still Need to Become More Spiritual - Who Would Have Guessed?
The Dalai Lama is a wise, wise man. At least that’s what everyone tells me. He is one of the most respected religious leaders of modern times. So I had to include some of his latest thoughts in here just for the fun of it -
"I am now a child of light. Your earthly money holds no appeal to me ... You have all still to attain omnipresent-super-galactic-oneness."
Personally, I'm just hoping my own personal medallion of spiritual accomplishment doesn't take me eighty years to achieve.
______________________________________________________________________________
MUST HAVE: Christian “Jesus Junk” of the Week
TESTAMINTS
Official Desciption
TESTAMINTS™. Pass the Word - each mint wrapped in a verse of Scripture.
Share these mints with members of your congregation. Mint flavor. Individually wrapped in Bible verse wrappers. (Approx. 140 pcs. per unit) Fat-free. Individually wrapped mints in one-pound bags are also now available. Order on-line from Oriental Trading.
“My mother always told me, when someone offers you a mint, you better take one.” - John MacArthur click for the complete article...
Hollywood filmmaker, Kamram Pasha, is writing a fictional work on the origins on Christianity. Nice. He’s concluded -“... after lengthy research into the historical record, I have become convinced that Jesus Christ himself was in all likelihood a vegetarian, and that vegetarianism was probably a central tenet of the early Christian community founded by his disciples. In fact, there is evidence that Christ's opposition to animal sacrifice at the Jewish Temple may have been the triggering event that led to the Crucifixion.”
Whoa. How many of you knew that Jesus was crucified for being a vegetarian, raise your hand … no one? Honestly? Me neither.
“One of the central themes that set Jewish Christian groups apart from Pauline Christians was their belief that Jesus rejected animal sacrifice and the consumption of meat.”
Yeah, I think that would be “consumption of meat” sacrificed to idols in pagan temple rituals. But you know, I say potato, you say putato.
“According to Church historians like Iraneus (2nd century CE), Origen (3rd century CE), Epiphanius and Eusebius (4th century CE), groups like the Ebionites had their own Gospel written in Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic, the language Jesus actually spoke) … Based on this Gospel, the Ebionites rejected what was becoming mainstream Christianity and denounced the letters of Paul as false teachings. The Ebionites faithfully observed the Law of Moses, claiming that in doing so, they were following the example not only of James, Peter and the disciples, but of Jesus himself. And according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites were vegetarian, rejecting animal sacrifice as immoral, claiming again that they were following the teachings of Jesus himself.”
So assuming (a) Origen & Co. are credible on this one, (b) the Ebionites’ extra gospel is reliable, (c) Paul’s letters were not truly Christian, (d) somehow following the law of Moses AND rejecting all consumption of meat are reconcilable, and (e) this is what Jesus did, then (f) we can come to the conclusion that Jesus was vegetarian! Am I right?
“Hegesippus, a 2nd century orthodox Christian historian, wrote of James the Just, the brother of Jesus: ‘After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed’ … According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites also rejected alcohol and used water for communion, further strengthening their claim to be continuing the practice of James, who was the brother of Jesus and his appointed successor … As biblical scholar Robert Eisenman points out in his monumental work James the Brother of Jesus, ‘Who and whatever James was, so was Jesus.’”Damn, is this guy’s chain of reasoning is incredible or what?
“In Romans 14:1-2, Paul denigrates those Christians who 'eat only vegetables' saying that their "faith is weak." So it is clear that vegetarianism was common among Christians in Paul's day, to the extent that he had to refute their claim that refraining from meat was an act of piety … The fact that Paul has to make this point means that ethical vegetarianism was being presented as a moral requirement to be a Christian!”
Yeah, there were a lot of weird Christians claiming you had to do (or NOT do) legal stuff to “be a Christian” - like never ever have sex. Be circumcised. Follow all the Judaic laws. Never drink alcohol. But never eat steaks? That’s just taking it too far. Keep denigrating away, Paul. We're on your side.
"I came across a remarkable book called The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity by Keith Akers, which posits a shocking thesis -- that the central event of the Christian faith, the Crucifixion, was predicated upon Christ's willingness to fight for animal rights."
Truly remarkable all right.
"In the Gospel of John, Jesus physically drives herds of animals out of the Temple courtyard using a whip. It is an incredibly powerful visual image. Yet in all the years of that I have listened to the story of Jesus at the Temple, I have never heard anyone focus on this compelling scene. The overturning of the currency tables seems to be what is stuck in the Christian consciousness, and yet the most dramatic and chaotic event in this incident is clearly the freeing of the animal herds."
Wowzers. Just imagine what would happen if Jesus walked into a poultry farm then. Feathers a-flyin’? Talk about dramatic. Personally, I still prefer the image of Jesus driving out the money changers with a whip.
"… many Islamic legends around Jesus portray him as an ascetic who avoided meat and was deeply concerned for the welfare of animals as well as humans."
And you know, what’s cool about these legends is … they’re ISLAMIC. Oh wait, this is the Huffington Post? Never mind.
______________________________________________________________________________
Imminent NFL Season Bringing Back the Bad Football Sermon Analogies
Well it’s started again. And I’m not one to be hating all sports/spiritual life analogies. I’m a big sports fan obviously and so, as it happens, was the apostle Paul. However, unfortunately there are some extremely painful (and kindergarten level) sports examples used in sermons these days. I lose IQ points even thinking about them. Pastor Barrett Vanlandingham, Fort Gibson Church of Christ, takes the top spot for now -“I know a little about the excitement of football season. All of those things seemed tremendously important at the time. But as we all know, the years go by and a little perspective tends to put life's events in the proper order.”
Wait a second … hold on … is this guy even a football fan or what? That sounds like he’s implying that football isn’t that important in the long scheme of things.
“The apostle Paul, who was growing older, told young Timothy these important words to live by: ‘For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.’” (1 Tim. 4:8)
If you’re a young Christian guy who has spent years listening to sermons, classes, and chapels all aimed at Christian young men, you will learn to hate this verse. Because you will hear it in over 50% of men's sermons ... over and over and over again. Because men like that part about sports being of "some" value.
"Jesus then victoriously sat at the right hand of God in order to encourage us and give us a goal that we can attain. We can make it to heaven by following Christ's example of living a life dedicated to serving and loving God, and serving and loving others. It's only by God's grace that he gives us such a plan to follow."
You know how there are “goals” in football? Well, God has “goals” in your spiritual life too. See how similar Christianity and football are? If you like the NFL, then you should like being a Christian too.
“If you want a real challenge with a real reward, living for God in an increasingly immoral world is the toughest challenge any of us will ever face. But it is also the only challenge that comes with a reward of eternal life in heaven where there are no worries, no pain, no death, only joy and praise of God the Father who makes it all possible. Real victory comes for those who have the choice to live life however they want, but choose to live it for God who in turn gives the richest blessings of all, peace and joy, now and later.”
Living for God in an increasingly immoral world … you see, that’s a challenge that’s similar to trying to score a touchdown, only better.
“Being on God's team can feel lonely, especially when we look at the world's team which has so many members.”
That other bad “worldly” team just doesn’t follow the rules. But we're all in God's football team, isn't that cool?
"But when it's time for God's team to march victoriously into the end zone of heaven, many on the opposing team will want to switch sides. But for them it will be too late. Please pray today that God gives us the wisdom and perseverance to suit up and play for him everyday until the clock on life's scoreboard runs out."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA …
Sorry, I just … knew it was coming but … Oh man … Heaven is like the end zone you see, and you’ve got to try and reach it to score eternal life, but watch out for the clock on life’s scoreboard ... it could run out before you get the chance to score heaven. Yes, my friends, this is the Gospel. Don’t you just want to come to church and listen to sermons like this, instead of staying home to watch the game?
My IQ just got a minus 20 points writing all this down. That's like a yardage penalty without a first down, except it's like in your brain ... get it?
______________________________________________________________________________
Vick & the Eagles are Giving Sportswriters the Opportunity to Wax Deeply on “Forgiveness”
+05.jpg)
If you like football, I bet you're interested in some shrink's opinion on the sociological psychological cultural impact of our forgiving Michael Vick for being a bad bad man. That's what Dana Scarton thinks anyhow. Because Vick owes all of us, would it be mentally healthy for you to indulge in that thing Christians always talk about called forgiveness?Scarton writes - “Let's be clear: Michael Vick's involvement in the blood sport of dogfighting was beyond wrong. It was horrifying, senseless and inhumane … This was as brutal as it gets. Still, it's time to consider forgiveness for Michael Vick.”
You, the reader, should be horrified by Michael Vick. Horrified.
"News of Vick's acquisition by the Eagles prompted a harsh reaction from many, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who condemned the signing and questioned what message it sends to young fans. Undoubtedly, the team will face a public-relations nightmare."
Or undoubtedly, the Philadelphia Eagles simply don’t care about PETA and instead care about winning football games. Could be … just a guess.
“Forgiveness is good for our health. Forgiving is defined in a recent Mayo Clinic consumer publication as ‘acknowledging hurt and then letting it go, along with the burden of anger and resentment.’ Once achieved, forgiveness results in a decrease of negative thoughts and feelings toward an offender and an increase in positive thoughts and feelings.”
More positive thoughts and feelings, less negative thoughts and feelings … see where we’re going with this? Do you think it’s a coincidence that forgiveness is a Christian virtue?
"A central message is that harboring a grudge appears to be detrimental to both psychological and physical well-being. 'People who have been able to forgive show clear health benefits,' says Kathleen Lawler-Row, who chairs the psychology department at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., and has published her findings in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine and the Journal of Psychophysiological Research."
Respected psychophysiological scholars have discovered from their studies that harboring a grudge against Michael Vick could be harmful to your health. So we definitely should forgive Michael Vick for what he’s done to us … oh wait.
"Given such reports, deriding Vick the next time he steps out in public might be something you do at your own risk, says Frederic Luskin, a health psychologist and director of the Stanford Forgiveness Project. 'If every time you see Michael Vick take the field you boo and say nasty things at the top of your lungs, you are flooding your system with stress hormones,' he says. 'And just think, you caused all that stress yourself when you could have gone out and enjoyed the game.'"
You see, flooding your system with stress hormones during a football game is bad for you. It’s better to watch a football game with a heart full of feelings of love and goodwill for all the players on the field … the Stanford Forgiveness Project says so. And if there is one thing a football fan should seek to avoid, it's stress hormones.
"By most accounts, forgiveness demands considerable time and effort. There is no single method, although for many the process is intra-psychic rather than interpersonal, meaning it can be accomplished without engaging the offender."
Forgiving Vick will be more intra-psychic than interpersonal … this is something all football fans absolutely give a (expletive) about.
"But not everyone believes forgiveness is the only healthy solution. 'We don't have a word in the language for healthy nonforgiveness,' says Jeanne Safer, a New York psychotherapist and author of 'Forgiving and Not Forgiving: Why Sometimes It's Better NOT to Forgive.' Yet Safer contends there is such a concept."
Uh oh … time to hear from the shrinks on the other point of view. We’ve got to give the ones with memberships in PETA a say too. (And just ignore the fact that Vick just spent 2 years in federal prison for killing dogs.) What matters is your decision whether or not to forgive him.
"Rather than flat-out forgiving, which may trigger guilt and anxiety in someone who is unable or unwilling to release resentment, Safer recommends revisiting the wrong. 'To help yourself feel better you should not have an agenda other than wanting to understand,' Safer says. 'That way, you can't fail.'"Because all this is about you feeling better and that’s what’s important. Your self-worth is at stake here, in case you didn’t realize it.
"Safer favors second chances but stops short of advocating forgiveness. She doubts that any dog lover will completely forgive Vick and wonders whether the best response might be along the lines of what she terms, 'forgiveness lite,' a more nuanced and neutral reaction."
Do you have problems with forgiveness? Why not try forgiveness lite instead - it’s easier and you can feel better about yourself and still hold a grudge both at the same time. The psychologists say so, and they are more nuanced and neutral than we are.
"She questions those who rush to forgive and maintains that much of the press coverage spouting forgiveness amounts to Christianity disguised as psychology. 'While I say the only way to get out of being a victim is to understand, Christians say the only way to get out of being a victim is to forgive.'"
As a Christian myself, I’d offer the suggestion that one of the best ways of always staying a victim is by imagining all sorts of bad things, that people you don’t know have done, that you need to decide whether to personally forgive or not. Contrary to what most shrinks will tell you, the purpose of forgiveness is not about making yourself have better thoughts and feelings. It's not Christianity disguised as psychology. It's not what you think about different pop culture celebrities. It’s actually something real.
More after the jump -
______________________________________________________________________________
Christians Can Be Socialist-Pinko-Commies Too!
Angela Boatright-Spencer of the Charlotte Episcopal Examiner gave us this fun for the week -“… when most of us think about socialism (and communism), we think about Karl Marx, whose vision was harsh in comparison to these earlier thinkers. Marx believed humanity could flourish only when the basic needs of all were guaranteed. His system set up a central authority (government) that would ensure the distribution of necessary goods to all people. In his view, conflict, rather than brotherly love, was the catalyst for growth; ‘the path to socialism proceeds not through the establishment of model communities that set examples of harmonious cooperation to the world... but through the clash of social classes.’”
Although the main problem with Marx’s ideas wasn’t that they were “harsh” it was that they were just blatantly wrong. They didn’t work. Marx’s socialist economic ideas have been tried over and over again historically and proven to not match up with reality.
“Not everyone with socialist ideas felt that way. Let me introduce you to Frederick Denison Maurice, a Christian Socialist who became a loyal priest in the Anglican Church (The Study of Anglicanism, p. 169), a professor at Cambridge, and is commemorated in the Episcopal Church calendar. He once stated, ‘I seriously believe that Christianity is the only foundation of Socialism, and that a true Socialism is the necessary result of a sound Christianity.’”
So this should help make you feel better about advocating for socialism. I mean, even if socialist ideas ignore fundamental and elementary economic laws, they can be held to in a nice and Christian way instead of in that harsh Karl Marx way. Of course, I could probably think of a few Christians who would disagree with Maurice about Socialism being the logical outcome of Christianity - Adam Smith for one.
“Maurice rejected individualism, with its competition and selfishness, and suggested a socialist alternative to the economic principles of laissez faire. Christian Socialists promoted the cooperative ideas of Robert Owen and suggested profit sharing as a way of improving the status of the working classes and as a means of producing a just, Christian society."
Yes, there have been some Christians in history that liked socialism. In fact, there still are. This, on the other hand, has nothing to do with whether socialist ideas actually work in the real world. But we’re not talking about that - socialism can be nice and loving.
“He considered competition to be against the church's teachings, favoring a ‘science of partnership’ in which people worked together instead.”
Then again, according to the very basics of Christianity, we live in a Fallen world where man is naturally selfish and mankind will NEVER all work lovingly together without any competition. Then there’s also the possibility that lovingly produced goods and services (by workers who all feel good about each other’s welfare) will not necessarily be of the same quality as goods and services produced in order to outclass your competition.
“Closeness with Christ brought a kind of sweetness to this brand of socialist thought that was missing from the thinking of Marx.”
Socialism should be sweet and loving from a Christian’s point of view. It’s regrettable that Marx is supposed to be one of the main proponents for socialism because he didn’t give it that same Jesus sweetness. And again, one could ask how “sweet and loving” it is to embrace wrong economic ideas that always necessarily result in more poverty, and therefore, more suffering for more people.
Some could say that ignoring natural laws and truths that God set down for how things work in the world isn't very "Christian." But again, "Christian" seems to be a loose term that can be applied to almost anything these days.
______________________________________________________________________________
Message From the Dalai Lama: You Still Need to Become More Spiritual - Who Would Have Guessed?
The Dalai Lama is a wise, wise man. At least that’s what everyone tells me. He is one of the most respected religious leaders of modern times. So I had to include some of his latest thoughts in here just for the fun of it -The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama, who is on a controversial visit to Taiwan this week, held a dialogue with Taiwan's Catholic leader Wednesday, during which both called for the cultivation of spirituality and ethics.What I don't understand is that whenever I read anything said by the Dalai Lama, it's something so generic that I could have made it up just while making fun of Ace Ventura in a Tibetan monastary.
The conversation with Cardinal Paul K.S. Shan in the southern city of Kaohsiung drew an audience of more than 1,000 people, including Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu and Taiwan High Speed Rail Corp.
Stressing that trust is an indispensable element in society, the Dalai Lama urged people to use their wisdom to resolve differences and avoid using harsh words to create rivalry.
According to the Tibetan leader, the purpose of religion is to discover the good of humanity and allow followers to understand universal values through various doctrines.
The Dalai Lama said he believes all religions should teach mutual tolerance, respect and cooperation with each other in order to promote world peace.
Agreeing with the Dalai Lama, Shan said birth, aging, disease and death are the normal occurrences in life, and the cultivation of spirituality will help people better control their emotions and sensual pleasures and relieve their suffering through "the power of love” …
The Dalai Lama pointed out that many people lack spiritual values and pay attention only to making money, mainly because modern doctrines and school systems are not paying enough attention to moral discipline …
"I am now a child of light. Your earthly money holds no appeal to me ... You have all still to attain omnipresent-super-galactic-oneness."
Personally, I'm just hoping my own personal medallion of spiritual accomplishment doesn't take me eighty years to achieve.
______________________________________________________________________________
MUST HAVE: Christian “Jesus Junk” of the Week
TESTAMINTSOfficial Desciption
TESTAMINTS™. Pass the Word - each mint wrapped in a verse of Scripture.
Share these mints with members of your congregation. Mint flavor. Individually wrapped in Bible verse wrappers. (Approx. 140 pcs. per unit) Fat-free. Individually wrapped mints in one-pound bags are also now available. Order on-line from Oriental Trading.
“My mother always told me, when someone offers you a mint, you better take one.” - John MacArthur click for the complete article...
Saturday, August 29, 2009
On the Use of "Dirty" Words: A Bible Study - Part 5 - Well? Then when is cussing not wrong?
Colossians 2:23These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
So, to start this, let's first look at where we are in the discussion at this point -
First, we began the discussion by looking at an old column written by William F. Buckley, where he commented on why he (and Shakespeare), a man of immense love for & mastery of English vocabulary in it's entirety, found a use for "dirty words" -
Buckley: On the Use of "Dirty" Words
Notwithstanding that the word has these clearly nonscatalogical uses, there is an Anglo-Saxon earthiness to it which performs for the writer a function altogether different from such a retort as, say, "Flapdoodle" ...Next, we looked at Eric Rigney's "Guide for the Cussin' Christian" -
Part Two
I know the Easy Guide works better – we want God to tell us specifically what to do at all times in every situation. That’s why legalism and pious browbeating are so popular – if we have a checklist all laid out for us, obedience becomes a matter of simply checking off items on the list. The more items we check off, the holier we are ...Then, we looked at a summary of the list of Scripture passages always used in this discussion -
Part Three
And fourth, we went down into detail on the bad Biblical arguments (and Scripture passages) for why cussing is always wrong -
Part Four - Is Cussing Always Wrong? (And this one is finally finished by the way.)
Today we will discuss how "cussing" isn't always wrong. And then in a final conclusion (Part 6) to the discussion, we'll go over good Biblical arguments (and Scripture passages) for why cussing is sometimes wrong (perhaps for even most of the time).
______________________________________________________________________________
II. Biblical Arguments For Why Cussing ISN'T Always Wrong
1 - No Passage of Scripture Condemns the Use of Cuss Words
Of course, there are again two different theological points of view here. On one side, you can take the position that if something isn't expressly allowed by Scripture, then it's forbidden. If the Scripture doesn't say it's ok, then you can't do it. On the other side, you can take the position that if the Scripture doesn't forbid something, then it's not necessarily forbidden.
Most thinking Christians should be able to understand how ludicrous the first point of view really is, so I won’t go into detailed arguments against it for now. Let’s just say that the Apostle Paul was always against man-made, unScripturally based rules being added to the Gospel. Colossians 2:21-23 is one example of his stating his view -
“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used) - according to human precepts and teachings. These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”
“Do not use this list of temporarily & culturally looked-down upon specific words” could easily be added to Paul’s example here. While not using a list of words could indeed have an appearance of spirituality and being “Christian,” it has nothing to do with the heart and whether or not you are still a sinner. In fact, it’s an outward pretension that does not reflect the reality of the heart.
And again, for a full discussion of how the Bible does not forbid "cuss words", read Part 4.
______________________________________________________________________________
2 - “Coarse Language” Is Found In The Bible
(Note: If you are offended by what you consider to be cuss words, and dirty or vulgar speech, then I would recommend you skip this section. This section discusses a number of words and expressions in the Bible that Christians consider offensive. So if vulgar language offends you, just take my word for it that there is coarse language in the Bible that the English translations gloss over, and move on to Section 3. Yes, I'm including this note out of charity. And yes, it is very funny that I know some dear Christian friends who I felt compelled to write this note for.)
So are there really examples of God-glorifying obscenity in the Bible? Well, that of course depends on how you define "obscenity" or "cuss words."
I Samuel 14:6Jonathan said to the young man who carried his armor, “Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised. It may be that the Lord will work for us, for nothing can hinder the Lord from saving by many or by few.”
I Samuel 17:26
And David said to the men who stood by him, "What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?"
From just reading this today in English, it would be easy to just think that "uncircumcised" was merely a statement of fact. The Philistines were Gentiles, so they weren't circumcised, so what's the big deal?
ESV Study Bible Notes - "Uncircumcised was a customary derogatory epithet used of the Philistines."(See also Judges 14:3, 15:18, I Samuel 31:4, II Samuel 1:20 for more examples)
So "cuss words" are culturally defined then? For example, the English word "bastard" was not originally used as a "bad word" until later (it was just a statment of fact - or a name even, like Edmund the Bastard), but culturally, over time, it also came to be used as an insult. "Uncircumcised" is not considered a bad word today, but the Hebrew word "arel" (Strong's 6189) was used as a derogatory expletive or insult by the Hebrews to refer to others back in Bible times. This is one reason the Pharisees became so angry and offended when Stephen called them “uncircumcised” in Acts 7:51.
Consider it uncouth, coarse or vulgar if you will ... David, Jonathan, and Stephen (among others) found nothing morally wrong with using it in certain circumstances. And they weren't just using it as a statement of fact. They had strong feelings on the subject, and this word provided the best way of expressing what they felt.
Of course, you could just try to excuse it and point out that the Bible doesn't expressly say that David and Jonathan were right in using this word as an insult, besides they're both in a rare military culture/environment where all sorts of cuss words are considered acceptable different than in "polite" society.
... Precisely.
I Samuel 25:22
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. (KJV)
(The expression "pisses against the wall" is also used in I Samuel 25:34, I Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21, and II Kings 9:8.)
You are going to find that most English translations make coarse language in Hebrew or Greek sound nicer in English. In these verses, most translations simply translate this expression in Hebrew to "male" in English. And male is what the speakers in these verses mean - they are going to kill all the men. But the translation to "male" is not a literal one. There's not a Hebrew word that means "male" and "one who pisses against the wall." It's a Hebrew expression. The Hebrew word "satan" (Strong's #8366) means to urinate, also in the phrase is the Hebrew word "qir" (Strong's #7023) for wall.
The KJV is the most literal translation. The ESV even translates this to just "male" but at least they have in their study notes -
Male (lit., "one who urinates at a wall") is a stereotyped formula that always refers to killing of all males of a group.One of the arguments against "cuss words" is that they often refer to either sexual or other bodily functions. This is therefore dirty. At some point in the Victorian age (during the Elizabethan age those translating the KJV didn't feel pressured to make "pisseth against the wall" nicer sounding), the Anglo-Saxon word "piss" became a cuss word, while the word "urine" was ok. In fact, you'll find that most of our modern "cuss words" became "cuss words" during either the Medieval or Victorian eras. It was Victorian to consider earthy words related to sex or bodily functions uncouth.
The Bible, and the characters in it, never had this problem. Earthy language was not viewed as a sin by any means. So, from this collection of verses, we can conclude that (a) while these Bible characters may or may not have considered this phrase socially offensive, soldiers used it to refer to the enemy they were about to kill, and (b) terms referring to bodily functions were not considered obscene or profane (there was no "nicer" Norman version of the Hebrew term "to piss"/"satan").
Isaiah 30:22Then you will defile your idols overlaid with silver and your images covered with gold; you will throw them away like a menstrual cloth and say to them, "Away with you!" (NIV)
Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (KJV)
Here again, most English translations gloss over the actual literal meaning in these verses. In Isaiah 30:22, the Hebrew word is "daweh" (Strong’s #1739) which means a used menstrous cloth. In 64:6 the Hebrew word for rags is "beged" (Strong's #899) and the Hebrew word for rags is idda (Strong’s #5708) meaning the bodily fluids from the woman's menstrual cycle. It's important to point out that there are 7 other Hebrew words translated into English to mean "filthy" meaning things like unclean, morally corrupt, sinful, dirty, shitty, etc. But Isaiah chose to use the harshest language that Hebrew allowed him. And in doing so, he was explaining how our own righteousness appears to God - it appears to God as if it were used tampons.
This was not just something that was considered socially acceptable to use as an adjective in a derogatory manner in Bible times. It was intentionally meant to sound harsh. It best described how God felt towards our own attempts at righteousness apart from Him.
Today, talking like this is considered crude and therefore sinful by most Christians. It takes looking at the Hebrew to actually understand what the verses are actually saying, something you wouldn't realize by just reading the non-literal English translation of most versions of the English Bible. If a pastor talked like this today, his congregation (and other Christians) would say he was sinning (Mark Driscoll anyone?) for being crude and vulgar (uncouth, dirty, common, filthy, you name it).
Ezekiel 23:19-21
Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue were like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.
Ezekiel's sarcasm is very strong. This is actually meant to be harsh. It's not even really necessary to go into the Hebrew words for "members" and "issue" in this one. Ezekiel is being sarcastic and insulting on purpose, and yes, you could literally translate this verse to say "and lusted after her lovers there, who had the dicks of donkeys and the sperm of horses." I'm sorry if this offends you. I know many Christians would ask why not use the nicer (or more polite) English equivalents for these terms? Because Ezekiel is not trying to be nice or polite. He is speaking strongly.
This is just one example, but you could write a whole book discussing the prophet Ezekiel's crudity and sarcasm.
And yet again, Pastors would be kicked out of their churches today for using the English equivalent of strong expressions like this in their speech. They would be considered crude, profane, dirty and vulgar and therefore sinful. Christians would be, are often, criticized and condemned for speaking in earthy or crude terms because we've expanded the definitions of "profane" and "swearing" to now also mean "crude" or "vulgar." There is no Biblical basis for doing this, least of because passages of Scripture don't have these hangups. We characters in the Bible want to express themselves strongly with strong language, they do so without inhibition. And it was not sin for them to do so.
So stop telling me that "God would never talk like that."
Speaking of how God talks ...
Matthew 23:13-33But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice was much a child of hell as yourselves.
Woe to you blind guides, who say, "If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath." You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, "If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath." You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel!
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, "If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
hypocrites
children of hell
fools
blind guides
whitewashed tombs (full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness)
lawless
murderers
the spawn of animals (snakes) (see also John the Baptist in Matthew 3:7)
going to hell
sons of the devil (John 8:44)
Calling the Pharisees hypocritical snake spawn who were secretly full of rotting corpses was not considered the language of polite society. If there was a Hebrew equivalent for what religious people considered obscene or crude insults, this would be it. And yet, there is something so righteous about Christ's words here that it's hard to find anything wrong with them.
If Jesus was addressing, oh say, the Christian Booksellers' Convention, do you think he would shrink from using epitaphs in modern English that would be considered obscene by today's cultural standards by those he was criticizing? Christ had no problem speaking in earthy terms. And yet, because of the spirit He spoke them in, they would be considered profoundly convicting to anyone willing to admit the truth in His words.
Here's another question - did the Pharisees consider Christ crude and vulgar? In the culture of their day, yes they did. They considered him a drunk (winebibbing), gluttonous, demon-possessed, blaspheming, Samaritan (Luke 7:34, John 8:48).
Philippians 3:7-8
But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.
The term "rubbish" here is the Hebrew word "skybalon" (Strong’s #4657), which means dung (KJV), excrement or perhaps even shit (most literal transl.) But instead of taking my word for it, let's use some references for this one -
From the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery-
NT metaphorical use of dung is limited to Philippians 3:8, where Paul is comparing the glory of his past natural life as a prominent Hebrew to his present servant role as Christ’s apostle. “I count all things but loss … and do count them but dung [Gk sybalon], that I might win Christ” (KJV) forcefully expresses Paul’s extreme attitude toward his past human attainments. The glories of gaining and serving Christ make Paul’s religious prestige seem like mere excrement! Several other coarse English colloquialisms would more closely suggest the negative inflections of sky-blue. The coarseness and repulsiveness of the dung metaphor vividly expresses many spiritually unsavory judgments on human sin and wrong priorities.
From a preacher preparing a sermon on Phil. 3:1-11 -
A few months ago, I was preparing a sermon on this text, and in the course of my word studies, I was fascinated by the word that gets translated as "rubbish" here in the NIV. The Greek word skybalon which gets used here appears nowhere else in the Bible, and translates broadly as "waste". English translations often render it as "rubbish" or "garbage", and sometimes as "dung".
Without other Biblical uses of this word, I had to dig into literary uses in order to derive the common meaning, and I found that the primary meaning of skybalon is "excrement" or "dung", and not "garbage". But even more so, it was used to evoke a visceral reaction, and so is more akin to "crap," or to it's big brother that starts with S, than it is to more medically acceptable terms like "excrement" (which incidentally, is a completely separate Greek word).
The question for me then became, is that really the reaction that Paul is going for in this passage? (A necessary question for preparing this particular sermon). Is he simply saying "all of these things that I had worn as a badge of righteousness and pride are unnecessary (garbage) now that I have Jesus"? Or is he saying "Now that I know Jesus, it's clear to me that the righteousness I have built myself is worth s***!"?
I am convinced that Paul was aiming for that visceral reaction, and that his choice of word here best translates as s***. And he does so in a way that beautifully underscores his point, and makes it clear exactly what kind of righteousness we can hope to achieve on our own without Jesus.
And here's a quote from a word study on it from Bible.org -
That skuvbalon took on the nuance of a vulgar expression with emotive connotations (thus, roughly equivalent to the English “crap, s**t”) is probable in light of the following considerations: (1) its paucity of usage in Greek literature (“Only with hesitation does literature seem to have adopted it from popular speech” says Lang in TDNT 7:445);3 (2) it is used frequently in emotionally charged contexts (as are its verbal cognates) in which the author wishes to invoke revulsion in his audience; (3) there is evidence that there were other, more common and more acceptable terms referring to the same thing (in particular, the agricultural term koprov" and the medical term perivsswma);4 (4) diachronically, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off through the centuries; and (5) a natural transfer of the literal to a metaphorical usage, in which disgust, revulsion, or worthlessness are still in view, argues for this meaning as well.So again ... since there were more commonly acceptable Greek synonyms for this word, and since Paul purposely chose the most offensive and least used one, it would be wishful thinking to just say that Paul would never use a term as culturally offensive as the English word sh**.
More Biblical evidence that the use of expletives (in English, Hebrew, Greek or any language) in order to express strong feelings in a sense that more polite words can't exrpess ... isn't always wrong.
Galatians 5:12
I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary -
"... the Greek is different from Gal. 5:10, 'they who are unsettling you' were even cut off - even as they desire your foreskin to be cut off and cast away by circumcision, so would that they were even cut off from your communion, being worthless as a castaway foreskin (Gal. 1:7-8; compare Phil. 3:2). The fathers, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom, explain it, 'Would that they would even cut themselves off,' that is, cut off not merely the foreskin, but the whole member: if circumcision be not enough for them, then let them have excision also; an outburst hardly suitable to the gravity of an apostle."President of Northwest Baptist Seminary, Dr. Larry Perkins -
Paul gives evidence in his writings that he has a significant capacity for witty repartee. His wish in Galatians 5:12 that the agitators among the Galatian Christians “would go the whole way and emasculate themselves” might skirt the edges of propriety.G. Walter Hansen, New Testament Commentary Series -
Verse 12 sounds terribly harsh and crude, but we must interpret it in its historical and cultural context. It would indeed have been a sensational ceremony if all the male members of the Galatian churches had been circumcised by the false teachers. But then Paul says, somewhat sarcastically, if they really want to put on a sensational show, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! He is probably referring here to a barbaric ritual that actually took place in his day in Galatian pagan temples. The priests of Cybele, the mother goddess of the earth, castrated themselves with ritual pincers and placed their testicles in a box. (Such a box is now on display in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, England.) The false teachers were leading the Galatian Christians to think that the ritual of circumcision was a sacred act that would bring them into fellowship with God. But Paul has already said that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value” (v. 6).Sorry about that, it's a little graphic. But yes, Paul, in one of his more blunt moments, is actually saying that he wishes these false teachers who are harping on circumcision over and over again, would just cut their own balls off and be done with it.
Crude? Vulgar? Uncouth? Yes.
But I don't think it was wrong for him to say that. In fact, I think it's actually kind of funny.
That's right. Coarse language, when used in the right way and in the right spirit, can actually show a sense of humor. And contrary to popular belief, Scripture is not above this sort of humor or language.
I could go on and maybe, after I spend more time on this, I'll include some more examples. But, after looking at all these verses, some could conclude that Greek and Hebrew equivalents for English cuss words are actually used in Scripture. At your most conservative interpretation, you have to at least admit that our modern standards of avoiding "uncouth language" in the church today have raised the standard far higher than Scripture does.
But talking dirty or making crude jokes is still sinful! Tell that to the prophet Elijah -
I Kings 18:45
And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself ..."
______________________________________________________________________________
More after the jump -
3 - Christian Liberty
______________________________________________________________________________
4 - Cultural Arguments
You shouldn’t cuss because it is “culturally” offensive
specific words fall in and out of being considered “culturally offensive” through different periods (decades even) of history.
But why does a culture ever consider some words “profane” or “offensive”?
You really want the answer? Church and old ladies.
No, really - church and grandma always have a pretty powerful influence over the culture.
Phil Johnson - “After all, the fact that Paul bans "filthy language" in Colossians 3:8 without giving a banned-word list or any further guidelines suggests that he was expecting them simply to follow whatever convention was recognized in the polite society of that time.”
Dirty Meaning
Rigney - Well, okay, I will sort of give you that one: the literal, original meanings of cuss words are usually pretty raunchy or insulting. You have your defecation, your fornication, your eternal punishment, and a smorgasbord of otherwise sordid actions and bodily functions. Not exactly a Miss Manners primer of politeness and good thoughts, right? So isn’t this the proof, the proverbial smoking gun, the final straw that settles the issue? If their meanings are so filthy and crude, shouldn’t we avoid saying them under any circumstances?
Meaning - Rigney - what we mean when we say a word is far more important than what the word itself is. The fact is, the meanings of those words are determined by what the speaker intends – not the other way around.
Everyone knows it: we constantly and without hesitation or even much thought allow words to have more than one meaning, based on the context and intent of the speaker.
So my question is: Why don’t we allow words that are traditionally regarded as cuss words the same flexibility? After all, people certainly do not always mean the same thing when they cuss.
Take, for example, the word “sh*t.” In its base, literal context, that word means defecation, as in, “I stepped in dog sh*t.” Due to the vulgarity of this meaning, I suppose the argument could be made that a person should not say that word. But what if I wake up in the middle of the night, stub my toe on the door jamb, and yell, “Oh, sh*t!” What do I mean then? I mean, “Ow, that hurts!” I am neither talking about, referring to, nor thinking about defecation. “Sh*t!” literally means the exact same thing as “Ow!” Curiously enough, however, “Ow!” won’t land me in the doghouse with most of my Christian brothers and sisters nearly as fast as “Sh*t!” will. What a bunch of sh*t that is!
But good ol’ tradition gets in the way, as it is wont to do, and when people blindly believe that something is true, even in the face of logic and reason, no good will follow. I submit as proof of this the fact that many of my fellow Christians will tolerate someone hating another individual, even wishing them harm, as long as they don’t cuss while doing it. I could angrily and hatefully say to you, “Daggone you, you stupid idiot,” and I am not sinning nearly as much (if at all) as I am if we are goofing around and I say, “Hey, cut that sh*t out!” The vitriol of the first instance is overlooked, while the good-natured gist of the second case is condemned as sinful. I must confess that I simply do not get it.
______________________________________________________________________________
5 - Attitude
click for the complete article...
Friday, August 28, 2009
What Your Christian Denomination Should Be
Reading over at Church Discipline reminded me of an old theology quiz I took years ago, and sure enough, it's still around -What's your theological worldview?
I'm usually bored out of my mind by internet quizzes, partly because I have some friends who can just keep taking inane, inconsequential meaningless quizzes for hours at a time. But I always find theology questions interesting (and if you take this, you need to think about the wording of each question carefully), and I tend to resist labels, unless they are something I've carefully decided to back up.
So turns out, according to this guy, I'm still an Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan/Methodist.
Right now, having recently moved, I'm in between churches - but I've mostly found myself ending up in nondescript, fairly mainstream Baptist churches in the past. However, every single time I've read John Wesley, I've been really impressed. So if that's the traditions of the Methodist Church, then I'm all for it. Being only 50% Reformed and only 36% Fundamentalist actually makes sense.Meanwhile, this one is the one I hadn't seen before -
Christian Traditions Selector
- and it seems more denomination specific. According the guy who made this one, I'm Baptist (non-Calvinistic)/Plymouth Brethren/Fundamentalist.
I can only assume that these guys are using the term "fundamentalist" in two different ways then.It's funny because, in basic theological terms, I agree with fundamentalists (I've always admired anything I've read of Carl F. H. Henry) particularly on the inerrancy, infallibility and sufficiency of Scripture. But, culturally at least, it seems like I'm always parting ways with fundamentalists. On the one hand, I find the average emergent church trite, vapid & effeminate, while on the other, I find the average fundamentalist baptist church legalistic, dull, & sheltered.
All this to say that I have not found it necessary to call myself by any denomination in particular. I'm a Christian, or a "Mere Christian" for the time being. But according to these tests, I'm apparently supposed to be a Wesleyan Baptist or a Fundamentalist Methodist. Interesting.
And no, I'm not going to go to a Plymouth Brethren (although I have friends who do, and my grandparents used to for a quite a long time).
Try 'em out and see which sides in the religious wars you belong in.
______________________________________________________________________________
(This post is uncomfortably too much about me. That's how blogs end up dying or succumbing to narcissistic, self-indulgent expletive-deleted. Mental note to self: keep focusing on theology (or, in more trivial moments, football or baseball) and do not bore the reader with talking about yourself. I'll let this one pass because it was about belief systems.)
click for the complete article...
Thursday, August 27, 2009
More From "The Genesis Debate" - Day-Age vs. 24 Hour Views
Here’s a continuation quotes collected from my finishing reading the book, The Genesis Debate. I’d highly recommend it as a fascinating read because it’s made me think more about the creation days discussion more than anything else I’ve read. If you didn’t already read through my first collection of excerpts, go back and read that first.So, here’s more of what struck me from the Day-Age proponents -
______________________________________________________________________________
One doctrine on which evangelicals agree is that God inspired all 66 books of the Bible. Another is that God created the universe and life. According the Psalm 19, God’s word is written upon the heavens for everyone to read. The Bible also testifies that God is truthful and does not lie. Taken together, these truths lead us to conclude that the record of nature and the words of the Bible must completely agree …
pg 156
______________________________________________________________________________
Duncan and Hall’s assertion that we “affirm parity between sinful observers of nature and God’s infallible revelation” is untrue. Young-earth creationists’ hostility to the billions-of-years duration of nature’s record would collapse were they to concede (a) that students of the Bible may be just as sinful as students of nature, (b) that God’s Holy Spirit has the same capacity and desire to spark faith in students of nature as He does in students of Scripture, or (c) that nature’s “book” is as reliable as the Bible, though it is sometimes harder to read. For Duncan and Hall’s creationist ideology to survive, they must ignore or discount an enormous body of scientific evidence and demean or marginalize all scholars who accept it.
The gnostic leaning is evidenced by the fact that young-earth proponents deny most recorded astronomical events (for example, the 1987 supernova eruption in the Large Magellanic Cloud) and light-travel times. All young-earth creationists (in agreement with atheists) accept the impossibility of integrating the established record of nature with a conservative interpretation of Scripture … we do not think that they are deliberately deceptive gnostics or Darwinists. We simply charge them for failing to consider the logical implications of their young-earth interpretation of nature and Scripture …
Has any scientist ever drawn the conclusion from scientific evidence alone that the universe or earth is young? The answer is no - not one. Even leaders of young-earth organizations admit that in several decades of full-time ministry, they have yet to persuade a scientist on the basis of science, of the young age of the universe or earth.In note 8 of their response, Duncan and Hall [the 6-day-creationists in The Genesis Debate] imply that the current scientific record holds no more certainty than the flat-earth notion. However, no scientist - Christian or no Christian - has ever made such a suggestion, apart from young-earth indoctrination. On the contrary, even the most cautious scientists accept the certainty of much of this record. One Nobel laureate, in fact, has been quoted as saying that we have more scientific evidence for a flat earth than for a universe and earth less than 50,000 years old …
Many non-Christian scientists reject Darwinism’s strictly naturalistic explanation of life’s origin and the descent of man from primates. Many accept the evidence for a transcendent creation event and the meticulous design of the universe, solar system, and life. None endorse a young earth. Thus, one does not need science degrees to conclude that old-earth creationism has strong scientific support, while young-earth creationism totally lacks it …
We reject the notion that biblical faith is blind. Biblical faith is rooted in established truth. The Holy Spirit reveals truth, encourages us to test it (1 Thess 5:21), and empowers us to act upon it. According to the Scriptures, God wants us to test things, to sift truth from seeming truth, and to cling to that which is good.
pgs 197-199
______________________________________________________________________________
Scripture suggests to us that when God performs miracles, He leaves evidence for someone to detect. God does not play tricks. Duncan and Hall, however, appeal to time and again to “appearance of age,” the idea that scientific measurement reveals a false age. In their view, God hides His miracles, making things appear as they are not …
God, of course, is free to change the march of time. We believe that if He had, however, He would have left evidence of the change for us to discover, in keeping with His character. He would not force cosmic clocks to run millions of times faster than “real” time. To do so would be deceptive and, thus, out of character … We agree that God can create in any way He wishes, but again we hold that He does not lie about the manner in which He creates. For example, Duncan and Hall fail to understand that astronomers can look back in time and directly observe how God created galaxies and stars.
Duncan and Hall argue, “Galaxies, according to our understanding, appear to be old, just because He miraculously created them as full-blown” (emphasis in the original). Actually, astronomers do not see all galaxies as old or “full-blown.” None of them is old enough to have experienced the demise, the total fuel consumption of all its stars. Nearby galaxies appear middle-aged. Galaxies at a distance of 6 billion light-years from Earth are seen in their youth. Galaxies some 12 billion light-years away are observed in a near new state. At a distance of 13 to 14 billion light-years from Earth, galaxies do not yet exist. At that distance astronomers observe newly formed star clusters beginning to merge into future galaxies. Astronomers even have looked back to that moment soon after the creation event, before stars existed, when light first separated from darkness.What seems to bother Duncan and Hall is that the light structure, star formation, and galaxy formation astronomers observe seem so “natural.” A deeper look into the scientific literature reveals, however, that this “natural” capacity requires the exquisite fine-tuning of more than thirty cosmic characteristics. The degree of fine-tuning exceeds human design capability by more than a trillion trillion trillion times. In acknowledging this design device, astronomers recognize that ordinary galaxy, star, planet, and moon formation cannot generate even one galaxy-star-planet-moon system capable of supporting life. God must have supernaturally intervened to shape and craft the just-right galaxy, star, planet, and moon to make our existence possible. We see this as a significant concession to the reality of the supernatural.
Duncan and Hall pay a huge price when they insist that the natural record astronomers observe may have no bearing on reality. They toss out all the divine design evidence astronomers have discovered in nature’s record. A young-earth interpretation of Scripture demands the rejection of what secular scholars acknowledge as the strongest evidence for the biblical God, evidence indicating a transcendent Cause of the universe and of exquisite design for physical life.
More after the jump -
Duncan and Hall take a different view of miracles than ours. They write, “The very essence of miracles is to confound our wisdom and defy scientific law.” We would say miracles show God’s power over the physical laws (and over us), demonstrating His capacity to create and implement those laws at will.
pgs 201-202
______________________________________________________________________________
A few quotes on Scriptural hermeneutics -
The Hebrew word ’ereb, translated “evening,” also means “sunset,” “night,” or “ending of the day.” The word boqer, translated “morning,” also means “sunrise,” “coming of light,” “beginning of day,” “break of day,” or “dawning,” with possible metaphoric usage. In other words, “evening” and “morning” refer to the beginning and ending components of “day,” however day is used.
Pg 148
______________________________________________________________________________
Duncan and Hall describe our claim to a literal interpretation of the Genesis days as a “rhetorical guise.” We have no trouble understanding their desire to lay claim to the exegetical higher ground. However, all Hebrew lexicons cite three different definitions for yom: (1) approximately 12 hours (the time from sunrise to sunset, variable according to season and location); (2) 24 hours (the time from one sunset to the following sunset); and (3) a long period of time (arbitrarily, but not infinitely, long). Thus, we can authoritatively state that there are three possible literal interpretations of the Genesis creation days: six daylight periods, six 24-hour periods, and six long timespans.pg 206
______________________________________________________________________________
The evening and morning refrain that brackets the creation days does not fit with the 24-hour view as Duncan and Hall suggest. Theologian Paul Elbert raises an interesting question on this matter. He asks why, if the Genesis 1 text really intends us to understand the creation days as 24 hours, does it mention “there was evening and there was morning” rather than the scriptural norm for 24-hour days, namely, “there was evening and there was evening” or “there was morning and there was morning.”
pg 208
______________________________________________________________________________
So, I started reading this book on the side of Duncan and Hall’s 24-hour viewpoint, but I don’t like how they’ve been addressing Ross and Archer’s Day-Age viewpoint. It just seems unsatisfying somehow. Here’s some of the best I could find after thinking through their chapters supporting the 24 hour view.
______________________________________________________________________________
The 24 Hour Viewpoint… we are not convinced that secular theories are so certain that they require us to alter the classical interpretation of Scripture. History may prove us wrong, but to date, we assign higher enduring status to the interpretations of Scripture from 2000 B.C.-A.D. 1800, than we do to those influenced by evolution from A.D. 1800-2000.
pg 24
_____________________________
Perhaps unwittingly, Ross and Archer seem to espouse a type of rationalism that is incompatible with the best of biblical Christianity. They open their essay by affirming - at least on the surface - parity between sinful observers of nature and God’s infallible revelation. An equal authority seems to be rewarded to nature (as observed by sinful man) as to Scripture. The result is a rationalism that persistently squeezes Scripture. If Scripture must conform to the status of scientific theory, God’s word is subject to man’s mind.
pg 169
______________________________________________________________________________
Ross and Archer also overstate the ability of fallen man. While we agree that no needless barriers should be erected to prevent us from evangelizing the lost, we do not share the view that those who are fallen will be unbiased, make an unassisted free and rational choice, and commit their lives to Christ “when they see a creation model that successfully predicts future discoveries and withstands the assaults of skeptics.” We do not find, and the Bible does not teach, that people come to a saving knowledge simply when arm-wrestled by numerous facts, scientific proofs, or predictive models. Neither are we of the opinion that “our effectiveness in fulfilling our God-given assignment on the earth” depends on reconfiguring the Bible to meet science’s claims du jour.
pg 172
______________________________________________________________________________
We disagree that the Bible views things as Ross-Archer suggest: “A galaxy measured to be about 13 billion light-years away must have existed about 13 billion years ago.” That is to put God in a box or to expect Him to march to our watches. Surely, the God of all eternity and Creator of time is freer and more capable than Ross and Archer posit. God can create in any fashion He wishes, and He is not bound by our paltry understanding after the fact.
Nor do we view God as inherently “deceptive” if the galaxies, according to our understanding, appear to be old, just because He miraculously created them full-blown. Concluding that He is “deceptive” is our mistaken reckoning, not His. To insist that God fit in with our chronology is to subordinate the Creature of nature to nature. We deny the ant supernaturalism inherent in any attempt to manacle God and coerce Him to fit our fallible observations. The very essence of miracles is to confound our wisdom and defy scientific law.
pg 173
______________________________________________________________________________
And yes, that’s the best I responses I could find reading through the book. Some of these astronomy questions are really bothering me, and the 24 hour guys did nothing to help answer any of my questions now. Read the book for yourself and tell me if Ligon Duncan and David Hall sound very convincing. Instead, they just sort of repeat themselves and ignore half of what the day-age guys were even saying.
I can’t believe it - but my acceptance of twenty-four hour, 6 day creation has just been rocked. This is a first. I honestly never thought I was going to be really challenged on this one.
I'll keep thinking on this one. click for the complete article...
"In the arms of an angel, fly away from here"
Hey, just so you guys know, for $110.00 you can purchase 10 years of insurance for your pet in case the rapture takes you away. An organization of kind-hearted atheists has started organizing a preparation for the rapture for pet-owning Christians. You can order the insurance here -Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, USA - The next best thing to pet salvation in a Post Rapture World
In fact, I just have to let them speak for themselves on this one -
"You've committed your life to Jesus. You know you're saved. But when the Rapture comes what's to become of your loving pets who are left behind? Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.
We are a group of dedicated animal lovers, and atheists. Each Eternal Earth-Bound Pet representative is a confirmed atheist, and as such will still be here on Earth after you've received your reward. Our network of animal activists are committed to step in when you step up to Jesus.
We are currently active in 20 states and growing. Our representatives have been screened to ensure that they are atheists, animal lovers, are moral / ethical with no criminal background, have the ability and desire to rescue your pet and the means to retrieve them and ensure their care for your pet's natural life.
We currently cover the following states: Maine,New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana ... and growing.
Our service is plain and simple; our fee structure is reasonable. For $110.00 we will guarantee that should the Rapture occur within ten (10) years of receipt of payment, one pet per residence will be saved. Each additional pet at your residence will be saved for an additional $15.00 fee. A small price to pay for your peace of mind and the health and safety of your four legged friends.
Unfortunately at this time we are not equipped to accommodate all species and must limit our services to dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, and small caged mammals.
Thank you for your interest in Eternal Earth-Bound Pets. We hope we can help provide you with peace of mind."
Please visit our FAQS page
______________________________________________________________________________ click for the complete article...
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Novus Monastica (Weekly Religious News) - 8/26/09
Copeland Ministries Promises You Wealth for Donating to God
(Note: Once in a while a story comes along that is just too unbelievable for me to make up parts of it just for fun. In this one, I'll just quote bits from the New York Times article, and you can click the link for the whole thing.)
Onstage before thousands of believers weighed down by debt and economic insecurity, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland and their all-star lineup of “prosperity gospel” preachers delighted the crowd with anecdotes about the luxurious lives they had attained by following the Word of God.
Private airplanes and boats. A motorcycle sent by an anonymous supporter. Vacations in Hawaii and cruises in Alaska. Designer handbags. A ring of emeralds and diamonds.
“God knows where the money is, and he knows how to get the money to you,” preached Mrs. Copeland, dressed in a crisp pants ensemble like those worn by C.E.O.’s ...
The preachers barely acknowledged the recession, though they did say it was no excuse to curtail giving. “Fear will make you stingy,” Mr. Copeland said ...
“If God did it for them, he will do it for us,” said Edwige Ndoudi, who traveled with her husband and three children from Canada for the Southwest Believers’ Convention this month, where the Copelands and three of their friends took turns preaching for five days, 10 hours a day at the Fort Worth Convention Center ... A large contingent came in wheelchairs, hoping for miraculous healings. The audience sat with Bibles open, flipping to passages cited by the preachers, taking notes on pads and laptop computers.
Stephen Biellier, a long-distance trucker from Mount Vernon, Mo., said he and his wife, Millie, came to the convention praying that this would be “the overcoming year.” They are $102,000 in debt, and the bank has cut off their credit line, Mrs. Biellier said.
The Bielliers are now among 386,000 people worldwide whom the Copelands call their “partners,” most of whom send regular contributions and merit special prayers from the Copelands ...
Mrs. Biellier said some friends and relatives would say the preacher just wanted their money. She explained that the Copelands did not need the money for themselves; it is for their ministry ... “I remember Copeland had to once fly halfway around the world to talk to one person,” she said. “Because we’re partners with Kenneth Copeland, for every soul that gets saved, we get credit for that in heaven.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Separation of Church and State Watchdogs Reprimand the State of Illinois
To the horror of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the governor of Illinois signed an infrastructure-improvement bill into law that could give up to “$40 million in grants to at least 97 religious organizations within the state.”
Executive Director Barry W. Lynn (who is an ordained minister mind you) said that he was deeply troubled by the constitutional implications of the Illinois grants.
"Government is forbidden by the Constitution to fund religion ... When grants are made to religious groups with no safeguards whatsoever, the rights of taxpayers are clearly being infringed ... No American should ever be forced to contribute money in support of religion. The state of Illinois needs to move swiftly to ensure that public funds are not being misused for religious purposes."
Gov. Quinn was asked about this later, and said "I'm just trying to build the infrastructure of my state, I don't know what all the fuss is about."
Attorney General: Really governor? Giving money to the "Friendship House of Christian Service" for "facility improvements" or "Salaam Conference Center of Muhammad’s Holy Temple of Islam" for "jihadic rennovations"?
Gov. Quinn: Who allocated that? I didn't tell them to give state funds to those groups.
AG: What about the "Misc. allocations" to the "Peace and Rest Center of Spiritual Love" or the "Village de l'Est B.C." or the "Association for Worshippers of the Squirrel God"?
Gov. Quinn: "I didn't ... what is the 'Association for Worshippers of the Squirrel God' want money for?"
AG: Uh ... they're building "healthy nut stands" in public parks. Apparently this is to help improve the health of squirrels through the entire state of Illinois.
Gov. Quinn: Scratch that off the list, but I still think it's ok to help build that Catholic Hospital.
(phone rings)
AG: Hello? Yes, hold on ... It's Copeland Ministries, Kenneth Copeland is promising that God will give us a budget surplus next year if we allocate some of our funds to his private jet ... I'm sorry, hold on ... Yes? ... Ok, he also says to tell you his private jet helps people in our state make more money thus increasing Illinois' gross state product, because God makes them rich if they become Christians.
______________________________________________________________________________
Christian Fortune Teller Predicts Your Future As Burning In Hell
Jamie Cohen was on vacation in Ocean City and decided to stop by a fortune teller. Unfortunately (no pun intended), this “fortune teller” described herself as a born-again Christian. Even worse, Cohen was gay and managed to let this fact slip while the fortune teller, June Mitchell, was reading her tarot cards for him. Then she gazed into the crystal ball,
“I can see you … and this is hundred and hundreds of years later …”
“I’m still alive?” Cohen was surprised, “Wow, did science finally figure out how to make anti-aging pills?”
“Everything is dark, but everything is burning with red hot fire. Oh, no! You’re on fire! And you’re screaming because you can’t put the fire out …”
“That doesn’t sound good.”
“And then one of the demons in charge starts poking you with his pitchfork and laughing. You don’t like this at all … Oh wait, I see a sign inside the cave, it says it’s reads “Enter ye here all ye fag-
“You know what? Screw you, lady!”
Cohen left the fortune telling and didn’t pay his $20.
So ... yes, she called the cops on him for not paying for his fortune. The confrontation of the cops turned ugly, but at the end of the shouting on both sides, Police Officer Jacobson said "Wait, wait, wait ... I can see both of your futures ... you're both talking to me, and hold on, it's coming ... yeah, I listen to both of you whine about each other for a whole (expletive) half hour and then you both hear me say 'I don't give a sh**. Come on, Jack, let's go get some donuts.'"
When asked about this later, Mitchell said “My Christian doctrine opposes homosexuality, but I really was just trying to make him happy. I mean, he wanted to know his future.”
Some might ask whether Christians are supposed to be working as gypsy, tarot card reading, fortune tellers. But that’s only because you didn’t see the “Snake Charmers for Jesus” shop and the “3 Witches of the Holy Ghost” tavern to the left and right of Mitchell’s “Bible Fortune Telling Emporium.”
More after the jump -
______________________________________________________________________________
Evangelical Film Critics Immediately Pan Quentin Tarantino’s Latest Film
Wait. Is this news?
Adam R. Holz, from PluggedIn Online - Focus on the Family, says -
Wine. Whiskey. Beer. Champagne. Schnapps. All of that and more is consumed throughout the film. Moonshine is mentioned. An extended scene takes place in a bar where several German soldiers are visibly drunk. Cigarettes. Cigars. Pipes. Just about everyone smokes. And Lt. Raine snorts some sort of (unidentified) substance …
Brad Pitt's portrayal of Lt. Aldo Raine is one-dimensional, and at times it brought to mind Bob Crane's TV sitcom Hogan's Heroes—of all things. Not that Col. Klink ever got scalped! And Hogan never dropped the f-bomb …
Kim Masters, on The Daily Beast, writes "The real story is better," writing off Tarantino's work as "cartoonish ... violence-porn."
Movie Guide, A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment, says -
Regrettably, there are shots of extreme bloody and gratuitous violence, although Tarantino pulls the camera away at a couple of the more extreme moments. The movie also contains plenty of strong foul language and a brief shot of depicted sex between Hitler’s propaganda minister Goebbels and his French mistress. The violence is particularly excessive, however. That said, the movie clearly sides with the good guys fighting Hitler’s National Socialists, but there is a strong and brutal revenge element to it that suggests the ends always justifies the means. Also, at the end, there is a strong, callous message against showing any mercy to the Nazi enemies.
Hunter Baker, at Touchstone Magazine, says -
I admit that I saw the new Quentin Tarantino film Inglourious Basterds. Now that I've seen it, you don't have to. Inglourious Basterds is a cultural low point. It is the revenge fantasy of a poorly educated and completely unreflective thirteen year old. It is a jerky exercise in crudely manipulating the feelings of the audience in order to give them an excuse to hate the bad guys enough to want them brutally and cruelly dispatched … Though Inglourious Basterds opened big, I don't think it will carry over. I can't imagine this film is going to capture many imaginations … I wish I'd seen G.I. Joe, instead. You know, the REAL American hero?
Jeffrey Overstreet, at Looking Closer, says -
And no, I don’t buy the argument that Tarantino is asking us to question our “enjoyment” of such violence. The last scene is a wink-wink “Isn’t this fun?” punchline. And by honoring Eli Roth with a major role, he persuades me that he’s down with Roth, the king of “torture porn” cinema. It’s a shame. Few filmmakers are more talented than Tarantino. But just as the Roman coliseum was an impressive feat of architecture, we must not forget what went on inside.
Daniel Thompson, at the Christian Spotlight on Entertainment, says -
During the film, it’s easy to begin rooting for the Basterds as they scalp Nazis and attempt to kill Hitler. You find yourself justifying their actions because you know how it actually turned out. You start secretly cheering like it’s a sporting event. It’s a strong commentary on why humans are incapable of delivering ultimate justice: because we too are inherently fallen and sinful, just as the killers in the film.
And etc. etc., I could keep quoting more but instead I will add that there were two rebels among the evangelical film critics, Christianity Today and Relevant Magazine, of course both reviews caught hell from most of their readers.
A couple commenters at Relevant Magazine’s review -
I thought you guys were a Christian oriented magazine? You didn't even mention how the movie might effect me spiritually or how the movie comes across to a Christian. Thanks for nothing.
and
No one seems at all concerned about the fantasy world of gore and obscenity. I have been searching for some thoughtful sense of whether "sharing" in this movie has any impact on our witness. Instead it is treated with some sense of glorified adulation … I am going to see it with my son …
Wait, what?
... but whether I can stomach such a film, given the previews, reviews, and warnings I have gathered, remains to be seen. The first audience cheer at the mutilation of a German soldier (or should I use Tarantino's epithet and say Nazi, in that the majority of soldiers in the Wermacht were not members of the Nazi party) will probably propel me out of there.
Good grief. With this attitude, don’t even go and see it, let alone take your son.
Average commenter at Christianity Today’s review -
It puts knots in my stomach to see that CT would even review a movie like this, much less give it so many stars, and that Christians would go see it (even if they didn't like it after, what could they be possibly be expecting?). Movie reviews are, I believe, a serious black spot on CT, and I worry that someday their place in the work of God's kingdom may be taken away from them. Seriously. Christians are supposed to be holy (literally, set apart), different from the world. In so many ways us American Christians simply are not. It does not matter if the director and producer and actors and writers are all wonderfully talented, and the work is "fascinating", we still must call trash trash. And avoid it.
______________________________________________________________________________
Christian Parents Using Their Kids as Anti-Islam Propaganda
10-year-old Billy was sent home from school after showing up Monday morning wearing a "Islam is of the Devil" t-shirt. Where'd he get it? From his local parents and church.
The next day they sent 3 more of their children all wearing the same version of the shirt.
Pastor Terry Jones, one the leaders of this new creative protest against Islam, said that the purpose of the protest is to bring people to Christ. "Our shirts are meant as a great act of love," said Jones, "spreading this important message is more important than education itself. I don't care if the schools don't like it."
"It's pretty offensive, isn't it?" Islamic Association of North Florida President Saeed R. Khan asked The Sun. "Particularly in a school setting where you are trying to create an atmosphere where people are supposed to respect each other and live with each other, where we have people of every ethnicity and every religion."
Great job spreading the gospel, guys. Keep telling everyone that their worldviews are the worldviews of the devil and see if you win them over. Maybe if you tell them that they're just going straight to hell, that's a time-tested witnessing technique, isn't it? How about "God hates fags!" that's another great Christian act of love. Print it on a shirt and send your 10-year-old back to school with that one. You'll win someone over eventually.
______________________________________________________________________________
MUST HAVE: Christian “Jesus Junk” of the Week
JC Lamb and The Secret of Yahweh by Leferna Arnold Walch
Official Desciption
A “magical” book with secrets the author didn’t see coming - Instead of a lightning bolt on the forehead, J.C. Lamb wears the sign of the fish on his chest, right over his heart. He’s magical because God sent him as a messenger in a vision from a song. Instead of using wands and witchcraft, children learn how to spiritually see with their hearts by believing in things they cannot always see with their own eyes– trouble is, they can’t all see J.C. Lamb, either! When LeFerna finished the first book draft, the title was Meet J.C. This was before she felt led to rewrite the true names of God and Jesus into “Mystery Sunday” and change the title to 'The Secret of Yahweh!'. After this change, strange things began to happen. It was as if the secrets to the novel extended beyond the pages of the book. Her first surprise was the way this twist on Mary’s Little Lamb seemed to be attracting adult readers claiming to learn something new from this children’s story about Christianity. This was quite a complement for someone who claims to have spent the first 40 years of her life “wandering in the wilderness” of the unchurched. LeFerna thought she was writing for ages 7 to 12, adding over 100 illustrations so parents would read it with their younger children, but the library refused to stock the book, claiming it didn’t have an age category at all. LeFerna then revised the book with it’s own lending program for church members to use as a tool to reach out to all ages, seeing to whom and how far the book travels before coming back, (some being sent overseas to our soldiers). Mary’s Lamb Publishing predicts tweens will enjoy sharing J.C. Lamb books the most, but as school draws near, college students seem to love J.C. Lamb, too and want to start their own circles on campus; picking up on the slogan; “Do you know the secret yet?” A novel for the ‘child of God’ in all of us.
click for the complete article...
(Note: Once in a while a story comes along that is just too unbelievable for me to make up parts of it just for fun. In this one, I'll just quote bits from the New York Times article, and you can click the link for the whole thing.)Onstage before thousands of believers weighed down by debt and economic insecurity, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland and their all-star lineup of “prosperity gospel” preachers delighted the crowd with anecdotes about the luxurious lives they had attained by following the Word of God.
Private airplanes and boats. A motorcycle sent by an anonymous supporter. Vacations in Hawaii and cruises in Alaska. Designer handbags. A ring of emeralds and diamonds.
“God knows where the money is, and he knows how to get the money to you,” preached Mrs. Copeland, dressed in a crisp pants ensemble like those worn by C.E.O.’s ...
The preachers barely acknowledged the recession, though they did say it was no excuse to curtail giving. “Fear will make you stingy,” Mr. Copeland said ...
“If God did it for them, he will do it for us,” said Edwige Ndoudi, who traveled with her husband and three children from Canada for the Southwest Believers’ Convention this month, where the Copelands and three of their friends took turns preaching for five days, 10 hours a day at the Fort Worth Convention Center ... A large contingent came in wheelchairs, hoping for miraculous healings. The audience sat with Bibles open, flipping to passages cited by the preachers, taking notes on pads and laptop computers.
Stephen Biellier, a long-distance trucker from Mount Vernon, Mo., said he and his wife, Millie, came to the convention praying that this would be “the overcoming year.” They are $102,000 in debt, and the bank has cut off their credit line, Mrs. Biellier said.
The Bielliers are now among 386,000 people worldwide whom the Copelands call their “partners,” most of whom send regular contributions and merit special prayers from the Copelands ...
Mrs. Biellier said some friends and relatives would say the preacher just wanted their money. She explained that the Copelands did not need the money for themselves; it is for their ministry ... “I remember Copeland had to once fly halfway around the world to talk to one person,” she said. “Because we’re partners with Kenneth Copeland, for every soul that gets saved, we get credit for that in heaven.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Separation of Church and State Watchdogs Reprimand the State of Illinois
To the horror of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the governor of Illinois signed an infrastructure-improvement bill into law that could give up to “$40 million in grants to at least 97 religious organizations within the state.”Executive Director Barry W. Lynn (who is an ordained minister mind you) said that he was deeply troubled by the constitutional implications of the Illinois grants.
"Government is forbidden by the Constitution to fund religion ... When grants are made to religious groups with no safeguards whatsoever, the rights of taxpayers are clearly being infringed ... No American should ever be forced to contribute money in support of religion. The state of Illinois needs to move swiftly to ensure that public funds are not being misused for religious purposes."
Gov. Quinn was asked about this later, and said "I'm just trying to build the infrastructure of my state, I don't know what all the fuss is about."
Attorney General: Really governor? Giving money to the "Friendship House of Christian Service" for "facility improvements" or "Salaam Conference Center of Muhammad’s Holy Temple of Islam" for "jihadic rennovations"?
Gov. Quinn: Who allocated that? I didn't tell them to give state funds to those groups.
AG: What about the "Misc. allocations" to the "Peace and Rest Center of Spiritual Love" or the "Village de l'Est B.C." or the "Association for Worshippers of the Squirrel God"?
Gov. Quinn: "I didn't ... what is the 'Association for Worshippers of the Squirrel God' want money for?"
AG: Uh ... they're building "healthy nut stands" in public parks. Apparently this is to help improve the health of squirrels through the entire state of Illinois.
Gov. Quinn: Scratch that off the list, but I still think it's ok to help build that Catholic Hospital.
(phone rings)
AG: Hello? Yes, hold on ... It's Copeland Ministries, Kenneth Copeland is promising that God will give us a budget surplus next year if we allocate some of our funds to his private jet ... I'm sorry, hold on ... Yes? ... Ok, he also says to tell you his private jet helps people in our state make more money thus increasing Illinois' gross state product, because God makes them rich if they become Christians.
______________________________________________________________________________
Christian Fortune Teller Predicts Your Future As Burning In Hell
Jamie Cohen was on vacation in Ocean City and decided to stop by a fortune teller. Unfortunately (no pun intended), this “fortune teller” described herself as a born-again Christian. Even worse, Cohen was gay and managed to let this fact slip while the fortune teller, June Mitchell, was reading her tarot cards for him. Then she gazed into the crystal ball,“I can see you … and this is hundred and hundreds of years later …”
“I’m still alive?” Cohen was surprised, “Wow, did science finally figure out how to make anti-aging pills?”
“Everything is dark, but everything is burning with red hot fire. Oh, no! You’re on fire! And you’re screaming because you can’t put the fire out …”
“That doesn’t sound good.”
“And then one of the demons in charge starts poking you with his pitchfork and laughing. You don’t like this at all … Oh wait, I see a sign inside the cave, it says it’s reads “Enter ye here all ye fag-
“You know what? Screw you, lady!”
Cohen left the fortune telling and didn’t pay his $20.
So ... yes, she called the cops on him for not paying for his fortune. The confrontation of the cops turned ugly, but at the end of the shouting on both sides, Police Officer Jacobson said "Wait, wait, wait ... I can see both of your futures ... you're both talking to me, and hold on, it's coming ... yeah, I listen to both of you whine about each other for a whole (expletive) half hour and then you both hear me say 'I don't give a sh**. Come on, Jack, let's go get some donuts.'"
When asked about this later, Mitchell said “My Christian doctrine opposes homosexuality, but I really was just trying to make him happy. I mean, he wanted to know his future.”
Some might ask whether Christians are supposed to be working as gypsy, tarot card reading, fortune tellers. But that’s only because you didn’t see the “Snake Charmers for Jesus” shop and the “3 Witches of the Holy Ghost” tavern to the left and right of Mitchell’s “Bible Fortune Telling Emporium.”
More after the jump -
______________________________________________________________________________
Evangelical Film Critics Immediately Pan Quentin Tarantino’s Latest Film
Wait. Is this news?
Adam R. Holz, from PluggedIn Online - Focus on the Family, says -
Wine. Whiskey. Beer. Champagne. Schnapps. All of that and more is consumed throughout the film. Moonshine is mentioned. An extended scene takes place in a bar where several German soldiers are visibly drunk. Cigarettes. Cigars. Pipes. Just about everyone smokes. And Lt. Raine snorts some sort of (unidentified) substance …
Brad Pitt's portrayal of Lt. Aldo Raine is one-dimensional, and at times it brought to mind Bob Crane's TV sitcom Hogan's Heroes—of all things. Not that Col. Klink ever got scalped! And Hogan never dropped the f-bomb …
Kim Masters, on The Daily Beast, writes "The real story is better," writing off Tarantino's work as "cartoonish ... violence-porn."
Movie Guide, A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment, says -
Regrettably, there are shots of extreme bloody and gratuitous violence, although Tarantino pulls the camera away at a couple of the more extreme moments. The movie also contains plenty of strong foul language and a brief shot of depicted sex between Hitler’s propaganda minister Goebbels and his French mistress. The violence is particularly excessive, however. That said, the movie clearly sides with the good guys fighting Hitler’s National Socialists, but there is a strong and brutal revenge element to it that suggests the ends always justifies the means. Also, at the end, there is a strong, callous message against showing any mercy to the Nazi enemies.
Hunter Baker, at Touchstone Magazine, says -
I admit that I saw the new Quentin Tarantino film Inglourious Basterds. Now that I've seen it, you don't have to. Inglourious Basterds is a cultural low point. It is the revenge fantasy of a poorly educated and completely unreflective thirteen year old. It is a jerky exercise in crudely manipulating the feelings of the audience in order to give them an excuse to hate the bad guys enough to want them brutally and cruelly dispatched … Though Inglourious Basterds opened big, I don't think it will carry over. I can't imagine this film is going to capture many imaginations … I wish I'd seen G.I. Joe, instead. You know, the REAL American hero?
Jeffrey Overstreet, at Looking Closer, says -
And no, I don’t buy the argument that Tarantino is asking us to question our “enjoyment” of such violence. The last scene is a wink-wink “Isn’t this fun?” punchline. And by honoring Eli Roth with a major role, he persuades me that he’s down with Roth, the king of “torture porn” cinema. It’s a shame. Few filmmakers are more talented than Tarantino. But just as the Roman coliseum was an impressive feat of architecture, we must not forget what went on inside.
Daniel Thompson, at the Christian Spotlight on Entertainment, says -
During the film, it’s easy to begin rooting for the Basterds as they scalp Nazis and attempt to kill Hitler. You find yourself justifying their actions because you know how it actually turned out. You start secretly cheering like it’s a sporting event. It’s a strong commentary on why humans are incapable of delivering ultimate justice: because we too are inherently fallen and sinful, just as the killers in the film.
And etc. etc., I could keep quoting more but instead I will add that there were two rebels among the evangelical film critics, Christianity Today and Relevant Magazine, of course both reviews caught hell from most of their readers.
A couple commenters at Relevant Magazine’s review -
I thought you guys were a Christian oriented magazine? You didn't even mention how the movie might effect me spiritually or how the movie comes across to a Christian. Thanks for nothing.
and
No one seems at all concerned about the fantasy world of gore and obscenity. I have been searching for some thoughtful sense of whether "sharing" in this movie has any impact on our witness. Instead it is treated with some sense of glorified adulation … I am going to see it with my son …
Wait, what?
... but whether I can stomach such a film, given the previews, reviews, and warnings I have gathered, remains to be seen. The first audience cheer at the mutilation of a German soldier (or should I use Tarantino's epithet and say Nazi, in that the majority of soldiers in the Wermacht were not members of the Nazi party) will probably propel me out of there.
Good grief. With this attitude, don’t even go and see it, let alone take your son.
Average commenter at Christianity Today’s review -
It puts knots in my stomach to see that CT would even review a movie like this, much less give it so many stars, and that Christians would go see it (even if they didn't like it after, what could they be possibly be expecting?). Movie reviews are, I believe, a serious black spot on CT, and I worry that someday their place in the work of God's kingdom may be taken away from them. Seriously. Christians are supposed to be holy (literally, set apart), different from the world. In so many ways us American Christians simply are not. It does not matter if the director and producer and actors and writers are all wonderfully talented, and the work is "fascinating", we still must call trash trash. And avoid it.
______________________________________________________________________________
Christian Parents Using Their Kids as Anti-Islam Propaganda
10-year-old Billy was sent home from school after showing up Monday morning wearing a "Islam is of the Devil" t-shirt. Where'd he get it? From his local parents and church.The next day they sent 3 more of their children all wearing the same version of the shirt.
Pastor Terry Jones, one the leaders of this new creative protest against Islam, said that the purpose of the protest is to bring people to Christ. "Our shirts are meant as a great act of love," said Jones, "spreading this important message is more important than education itself. I don't care if the schools don't like it."
"It's pretty offensive, isn't it?" Islamic Association of North Florida President Saeed R. Khan asked The Sun. "Particularly in a school setting where you are trying to create an atmosphere where people are supposed to respect each other and live with each other, where we have people of every ethnicity and every religion."
Great job spreading the gospel, guys. Keep telling everyone that their worldviews are the worldviews of the devil and see if you win them over. Maybe if you tell them that they're just going straight to hell, that's a time-tested witnessing technique, isn't it? How about "God hates fags!" that's another great Christian act of love. Print it on a shirt and send your 10-year-old back to school with that one. You'll win someone over eventually.
______________________________________________________________________________
MUST HAVE: Christian “Jesus Junk” of the Week
JC Lamb and The Secret of Yahweh by Leferna Arnold Walch
Official DesciptionA “magical” book with secrets the author didn’t see coming - Instead of a lightning bolt on the forehead, J.C. Lamb wears the sign of the fish on his chest, right over his heart. He’s magical because God sent him as a messenger in a vision from a song. Instead of using wands and witchcraft, children learn how to spiritually see with their hearts by believing in things they cannot always see with their own eyes– trouble is, they can’t all see J.C. Lamb, either! When LeFerna finished the first book draft, the title was Meet J.C. This was before she felt led to rewrite the true names of God and Jesus into “Mystery Sunday” and change the title to 'The Secret of Yahweh!'. After this change, strange things began to happen. It was as if the secrets to the novel extended beyond the pages of the book. Her first surprise was the way this twist on Mary’s Little Lamb seemed to be attracting adult readers claiming to learn something new from this children’s story about Christianity. This was quite a complement for someone who claims to have spent the first 40 years of her life “wandering in the wilderness” of the unchurched. LeFerna thought she was writing for ages 7 to 12, adding over 100 illustrations so parents would read it with their younger children, but the library refused to stock the book, claiming it didn’t have an age category at all. LeFerna then revised the book with it’s own lending program for church members to use as a tool to reach out to all ages, seeing to whom and how far the book travels before coming back, (some being sent overseas to our soldiers). Mary’s Lamb Publishing predicts tweens will enjoy sharing J.C. Lamb books the most, but as school draws near, college students seem to love J.C. Lamb, too and want to start their own circles on campus; picking up on the slogan; “Do you know the secret yet?” A novel for the ‘child of God’ in all of us.
click for the complete article...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
