Sunday, April 29, 2007
Sandy Berger
Originally posted - Monday, April 02, 2007
This story is absolutely incredible. Do you even know who Sandy Berger is? Probably half the people that read this will not know who he is (like I didn't), but I guarantee you if he were a Republican, you would know him. He is the former NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR to Bill Clinton. I'm going to offer a summary of what happened, but if you have time, try the link below titled "World Net Daily" because it explains all the details and just how far this goes.
Here is what happened. Around 1999-2000 while Clinton was still President there was a terrorist plot on the USS Sullivans in Yemen and the Los Angeles airport. Yeah, I asked the same question...why didn't any of us know about that? Apparently, the government "thwarted" the terrorists (as Berger testified before the 9/11 Commission). This isn't true. Ahmed Ressam was discovered to be in possession of nitroglycerin while trying to enter the US through the Canadian border. A border patrol agent was suspicious and checked the guy out. The Clinton administration didn't say, hey go check out this dude. An American did her job. At Ahmed Ressam's trial, he revealed that he was trained in Bin Laden's terror camps in Afghanistan. As for the bombing of our ship, that failed because the terrorists put so many bombs on their ship that it sank. They were going to try to do what they did to the US Cole (send a little boat with bombs right into the side of the ship). Yeah, Clinton nailed them!
(I wrote a ton at this point and of course myspace messed up and I lost it all...another reason why I'm beginning to hate myspace). Anyway, now you're going to get the really short story:
Basically, Berger went into the national archives and stole top secret documents...documents that were essential to the 9/11 Commission's duties. He stuffed them in his socks. These he took out, presumably, to alter and then replace. He made repeated visits to the bathroom (to flush papers that were altering wouldn't do the trick) while he was supposed to be looking at top secret reports. Some of these documents pertained to the Millennium plot in LA. They basically showed the fault of the Clinton Administration. When the new administration came in, they weren't briefed on this missing Millennium plot report and it's suggestions. WorldNetDaily reports, "Ashcroft said the "highly-classified" review "was not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor [Janet Reno] briefed me during the transition."
I've never been a blame anybody guy on the 9/11 attacks whether that be Clinton or Bush. However, after hearing about Berger, you have to wonder what Clinton is responsible for? If Berger was scared enough to go flushing and altering ultra top secret papers, then don't you think there was a reason he wanted the evidence destroyed? To use a double negative, people don't hide what doesn't need to be hidden. You don't risk jail time (which destroying those papers would result in) because you have a paper fetish. There was something Clinton and his administration didn't want out because of its implications.
2007 - World Net Daily - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39544
2007- Latest Fox News - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262687,00.html
2004 - Fox News article from when this story first broke http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126428,00.html
This story is absolutely incredible. Do you even know who Sandy Berger is? Probably half the people that read this will not know who he is (like I didn't), but I guarantee you if he were a Republican, you would know him. He is the former NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR to Bill Clinton. I'm going to offer a summary of what happened, but if you have time, try the link below titled "World Net Daily" because it explains all the details and just how far this goes.
Here is what happened. Around 1999-2000 while Clinton was still President there was a terrorist plot on the USS Sullivans in Yemen and the Los Angeles airport. Yeah, I asked the same question...why didn't any of us know about that? Apparently, the government "thwarted" the terrorists (as Berger testified before the 9/11 Commission). This isn't true. Ahmed Ressam was discovered to be in possession of nitroglycerin while trying to enter the US through the Canadian border. A border patrol agent was suspicious and checked the guy out. The Clinton administration didn't say, hey go check out this dude. An American did her job. At Ahmed Ressam's trial, he revealed that he was trained in Bin Laden's terror camps in Afghanistan. As for the bombing of our ship, that failed because the terrorists put so many bombs on their ship that it sank. They were going to try to do what they did to the US Cole (send a little boat with bombs right into the side of the ship). Yeah, Clinton nailed them!
(I wrote a ton at this point and of course myspace messed up and I lost it all...another reason why I'm beginning to hate myspace). Anyway, now you're going to get the really short story:
Basically, Berger went into the national archives and stole top secret documents...documents that were essential to the 9/11 Commission's duties. He stuffed them in his socks. These he took out, presumably, to alter and then replace. He made repeated visits to the bathroom (to flush papers that were altering wouldn't do the trick) while he was supposed to be looking at top secret reports. Some of these documents pertained to the Millennium plot in LA. They basically showed the fault of the Clinton Administration. When the new administration came in, they weren't briefed on this missing Millennium plot report and it's suggestions. WorldNetDaily reports, "Ashcroft said the "highly-classified" review "was not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor [Janet Reno] briefed me during the transition."
I've never been a blame anybody guy on the 9/11 attacks whether that be Clinton or Bush. However, after hearing about Berger, you have to wonder what Clinton is responsible for? If Berger was scared enough to go flushing and altering ultra top secret papers, then don't you think there was a reason he wanted the evidence destroyed? To use a double negative, people don't hide what doesn't need to be hidden. You don't risk jail time (which destroying those papers would result in) because you have a paper fetish. There was something Clinton and his administration didn't want out because of its implications.
2007 - World Net Daily - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39544
2007- Latest Fox News - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262687,00.html
2004 - Fox News article from when this story first broke http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126428,00.html
Charlotte Church
Originally posted - Saturday, March 24, 2007
I heard Glenn Beck mention something about Charlotte Church, but I decided to check it out first to make sure it was correct. It was exactly what he said. Still have one of her cd's? It may be in the trash by the time you finish reading this: I took this article from another blogger whose trackback url is at the bottom.
What the Heck Happened to Charlotte Church?
Remember sweet little Charlotte Church? She was the very young teenaged Welsh classical singer who stunned the world with her mature operatic voice in the late 90's. Her sweet little innocent face graced the cover of her albums, like 'Voice of An Angel'. She's been quiet for a few years and in 2005 she came out with her first pop album, 'Tissues & Issues'.
Sweet little Charlotte Church isn't quite so sweet anymore. She's following in the footsteps of Madonna, both former Catholics mocking the Pope and Catholic Church. Ignatius Press, arguably the largest Catholic publishing company in the U.S, is refusing to sell any of Church's music.
Here's what she did:
In the pilot of her new talk show, "The All New Charlotte Church Show", Charlotte Church dressed as a nun and pretended to "hallucinate while eating communion wafers imprinted with smiling faces signifying the drug Ecstasy." She called the German-born Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi and mocked the Catholic Church. She smashed open a statue of the Virgin Mary to reveal a can of hard cider inside, said she worshipped "St. Fortified Wine," and stuck chewing gum on a statue of the child Jesus.
Pope Benedict, the son of a German policeman opposed to Nazism, was forced into the Hitler Youth movement as a child, but quit the group not long after initiation. The infamous English gossip paper 'The Sun' claims Church's show is a "super blooper".
Ignatius Press made this statement:
"It is with regret that we do this. Miss Church possesses a great gift from God, and in the past she has used her talents to offer praise and glory to our Lord.
"But we cannot stand by a young woman who uses her stature in the media to mock the Eucharist, slander the Holy Father, and denigrate the vows of religious women.
"Therefore, our catalogues and website will immediately withdraw all compact discs, cassette tapes, DVDs and VHS tapes that feature Miss Church. Please join us in praying for this troubled young woman."
Church, 20, was raised a Catholic and sang for Pope John Paul II at the Vatican at the age of 12. Now she's posed nude in several publications and is dissing the Catholic Church. Poor thing.
Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/620421
I heard Glenn Beck mention something about Charlotte Church, but I decided to check it out first to make sure it was correct. It was exactly what he said. Still have one of her cd's? It may be in the trash by the time you finish reading this: I took this article from another blogger whose trackback url is at the bottom.
What the Heck Happened to Charlotte Church?
Remember sweet little Charlotte Church? She was the very young teenaged Welsh classical singer who stunned the world with her mature operatic voice in the late 90's. Her sweet little innocent face graced the cover of her albums, like 'Voice of An Angel'. She's been quiet for a few years and in 2005 she came out with her first pop album, 'Tissues & Issues'.
Sweet little Charlotte Church isn't quite so sweet anymore. She's following in the footsteps of Madonna, both former Catholics mocking the Pope and Catholic Church. Ignatius Press, arguably the largest Catholic publishing company in the U.S, is refusing to sell any of Church's music.
Here's what she did:
In the pilot of her new talk show, "The All New Charlotte Church Show", Charlotte Church dressed as a nun and pretended to "hallucinate while eating communion wafers imprinted with smiling faces signifying the drug Ecstasy." She called the German-born Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi and mocked the Catholic Church. She smashed open a statue of the Virgin Mary to reveal a can of hard cider inside, said she worshipped "St. Fortified Wine," and stuck chewing gum on a statue of the child Jesus.
Pope Benedict, the son of a German policeman opposed to Nazism, was forced into the Hitler Youth movement as a child, but quit the group not long after initiation. The infamous English gossip paper 'The Sun' claims Church's show is a "super blooper".
Ignatius Press made this statement:
"It is with regret that we do this. Miss Church possesses a great gift from God, and in the past she has used her talents to offer praise and glory to our Lord.
"But we cannot stand by a young woman who uses her stature in the media to mock the Eucharist, slander the Holy Father, and denigrate the vows of religious women.
"Therefore, our catalogues and website will immediately withdraw all compact discs, cassette tapes, DVDs and VHS tapes that feature Miss Church. Please join us in praying for this troubled young woman."
Church, 20, was raised a Catholic and sang for Pope John Paul II at the Vatican at the age of 12. Now she's posed nude in several publications and is dissing the Catholic Church. Poor thing.
Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/620421
The Divine Comedy
Originally posted - Thursday, January 25, 2007
Dante Alighieri wrote a famous poem around the 14th Century titled "The Divine Comedy." I have only read part of it, but I have studied it (and I saw where he is buried in Italy when I got the chance to go in 2003). I want to talk about his work briefly.
The Divine Comedy is brilliant because it understands the problem of sin so well. I posted something recently on the subject of Sin. In the world of academics "sin" is a creation of religion to force control on the masses. It is someone's opinion forced on others. It is the hallmark of traditionalism that stands in the way of progress. Well, sometimes I question sin myself. I don't think I'll go into that here, but my point is this: Sin is negative whether God exists or not. Sin has to stand-alone if it is to be real. Okay, follow me on this. Sin has to be negative in this world, not just the next. That is to say, there really has to be a negative consequence for all sin for it to be real. It cannot just be sin because God declares it to be. There really has to be a problem with it. Atheists say (for argument's sake) that there is nothing wrong with lies as long as they don't "hurt" anyone. They will think of times when sin isn't anything but pleasurable for all those involved, and then they question what the problem is. Everyone enjoyed what they partook in, so how do you as a Christian respond to that?
In The Divine Comedy, Dante illustrates the problem of sin. His basic premise (though it is a story, not a thesis) is that people are in hell not for hating others or lacking love. They are in hell precisely because they loved. However, they loved the wrong thing. Dante's vision of hell doesn't have only "evil" people there. Remember in the New Testament where Jesus was asked about the 10 Commandments. He replied with a summation of the 10 being "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind." What was important in life, what matters to God is to be loved wholeheartedly. This is why David was loved so much despite all his "sins." Proper love is the determining factor for who goes to hell and who doesn't according to Dante.
The next interesting thing Dante writes is that Hell's punishment isn't some fire. Hell's punishment is you getting exactly what you wanted here on earth. Punishment for sin is "Just" because one's punishment is directly correlated to what one did.
Those who commit suicide are forced for eternity to search for their bodies. On earth they took life away from their bodies, so now they must eternally try to reconcile this.
Gluttons do nothing but eat all day in hell. What's the problem then? Well, they can never get their fill. They eat continually night and day, yet are always starving. The food they eat like pigs is their own excrement.
The lustful are blown by a never-ending wind. In life they were continually drifting from one person to another. They could never be fulfilled within their lust. The one they were with never satisfied. They had to drift to a new person. After having had them, they moved on.
The hypocrites are forced to wear a sparkling, beautiful coat lined with dull, heavy lead. For on the outside, they project one thing. However, in reality they are burdened down with their private falsehood.
This is brilliant and solves the question of sin that many may ask. "Why is this not good for me?" The point is that only God can fulfill in this life, yet in the next our relationship with him "never gets old." See in this life, our sins are good for a while yet we are never fulfilled. With God, our relationship with him never leaves us filling empty. In the afterlife, we will never say "I've had enough of this thing called God." Dante shows that every sin we are involved with on earth is something that we don't really want as much as we think. There is such a thing as "too much." We must love the right thing because for Dante, we will love this thing for all eternity. Hell is getting what you "want." This is why certain things are "sins." Our sin on earth is just small doses. We're not forced to pursue it unceasingly.
For more on this try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy
Dante Alighieri wrote a famous poem around the 14th Century titled "The Divine Comedy." I have only read part of it, but I have studied it (and I saw where he is buried in Italy when I got the chance to go in 2003). I want to talk about his work briefly.
The Divine Comedy is brilliant because it understands the problem of sin so well. I posted something recently on the subject of Sin. In the world of academics "sin" is a creation of religion to force control on the masses. It is someone's opinion forced on others. It is the hallmark of traditionalism that stands in the way of progress. Well, sometimes I question sin myself. I don't think I'll go into that here, but my point is this: Sin is negative whether God exists or not. Sin has to stand-alone if it is to be real. Okay, follow me on this. Sin has to be negative in this world, not just the next. That is to say, there really has to be a negative consequence for all sin for it to be real. It cannot just be sin because God declares it to be. There really has to be a problem with it. Atheists say (for argument's sake) that there is nothing wrong with lies as long as they don't "hurt" anyone. They will think of times when sin isn't anything but pleasurable for all those involved, and then they question what the problem is. Everyone enjoyed what they partook in, so how do you as a Christian respond to that?
In The Divine Comedy, Dante illustrates the problem of sin. His basic premise (though it is a story, not a thesis) is that people are in hell not for hating others or lacking love. They are in hell precisely because they loved. However, they loved the wrong thing. Dante's vision of hell doesn't have only "evil" people there. Remember in the New Testament where Jesus was asked about the 10 Commandments. He replied with a summation of the 10 being "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind." What was important in life, what matters to God is to be loved wholeheartedly. This is why David was loved so much despite all his "sins." Proper love is the determining factor for who goes to hell and who doesn't according to Dante.
The next interesting thing Dante writes is that Hell's punishment isn't some fire. Hell's punishment is you getting exactly what you wanted here on earth. Punishment for sin is "Just" because one's punishment is directly correlated to what one did.
Those who commit suicide are forced for eternity to search for their bodies. On earth they took life away from their bodies, so now they must eternally try to reconcile this.
Gluttons do nothing but eat all day in hell. What's the problem then? Well, they can never get their fill. They eat continually night and day, yet are always starving. The food they eat like pigs is their own excrement.
The lustful are blown by a never-ending wind. In life they were continually drifting from one person to another. They could never be fulfilled within their lust. The one they were with never satisfied. They had to drift to a new person. After having had them, they moved on.
The hypocrites are forced to wear a sparkling, beautiful coat lined with dull, heavy lead. For on the outside, they project one thing. However, in reality they are burdened down with their private falsehood.
This is brilliant and solves the question of sin that many may ask. "Why is this not good for me?" The point is that only God can fulfill in this life, yet in the next our relationship with him "never gets old." See in this life, our sins are good for a while yet we are never fulfilled. With God, our relationship with him never leaves us filling empty. In the afterlife, we will never say "I've had enough of this thing called God." Dante shows that every sin we are involved with on earth is something that we don't really want as much as we think. There is such a thing as "too much." We must love the right thing because for Dante, we will love this thing for all eternity. Hell is getting what you "want." This is why certain things are "sins." Our sin on earth is just small doses. We're not forced to pursue it unceasingly.
For more on this try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A Response to an Atheist
I've been talking with an atheist who believes the Bible is full of contradictions (and therefore, it is just some pulled together stories of past religions and false gods). I am not going to post what he wrote, but here is my reply:
I appreciate the response. However, these were exactly what I thought they would be which is obvious logical problems. Problems that support the idea that the Bible is not "innerant." I realize most Christians believe in the complete innerrancy of the Bible. I do not. My view is quite original, so I can't simply say "I follow this line of thinking." My view of Scripture is like my view of Jesus. Tradition teaches that Jesus was 100% human yet simultaneously 100% divine. I believe this to be true of the Bible. It is 100% the work of men with the ability to error in details and memories. I also believe it was inspired by the Spirit to pour out the truth of God in human terms (explains anthropomorphism). However, just like Jesus never sinned, the Bible never makes a moral error. That is to say, just as Jesus made mistakes in the sense of "dropping things," etc. so to does the Bible make these types of mistakes (ultimately irrelevant mistakes).
This is the website he referred me to.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#father_of_joseph
I noticed a few of the verses were taken out of context, by the way. The writer slaps 3 verses up there which were written about 700 years apart and takes them completely out of context to say, "look, these don't match." The Bible is a human book about a divine being. We aren't divine just because he is. My view of the Bible is the application of a novel theological concept called "Spirit Christology." This is basically the idea that Jesus was purely human and was a real baby. He grew up as just a kid. However, the Spirit of God was in him. When the Son left the Father, he laid down (did not lose his power but chose to not use it) his divine power. Where you see him "knowing things" or "healing people" is actually the Spirit of God on him. Why does this matter? Well, this makes Jesus truly human. He only knows what the Spirit tells or impresses upon him. Therefore, he truly can be an example for us because he isn't just denying evil as a powerful God. He does so as every human does. The difference is his relationship with God the Father via the Spirit. The Spirit works in his life so closely that after his baptism, the Spirit does miracles and inspirers speeches. The Spirit can similarly work in our own lives.
The errors that were listed are irrelevant to this picture of Christ. They’re just historical details which don't effect the truth of God. I could argue all day about how God is true, but I know from experience that he can only be real once he is believed. Once you stop fighting the belief and actually accept him. Then, and only then, can one realize how much of life's questions become answered. How God can't be put in a box. All these logical problems are attempts to say, "God has to be THIS way." Well, that is the charge of Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach...that religion is the inverse of man. God is not forced to be any certain way. We don't create him; we serve him. We love him despite the problem of evil because we have faith that he is ultimately good.
I appreciate the response. However, these were exactly what I thought they would be which is obvious logical problems. Problems that support the idea that the Bible is not "innerant." I realize most Christians believe in the complete innerrancy of the Bible. I do not. My view is quite original, so I can't simply say "I follow this line of thinking." My view of Scripture is like my view of Jesus. Tradition teaches that Jesus was 100% human yet simultaneously 100% divine. I believe this to be true of the Bible. It is 100% the work of men with the ability to error in details and memories. I also believe it was inspired by the Spirit to pour out the truth of God in human terms (explains anthropomorphism). However, just like Jesus never sinned, the Bible never makes a moral error. That is to say, just as Jesus made mistakes in the sense of "dropping things," etc. so to does the Bible make these types of mistakes (ultimately irrelevant mistakes).
This is the website he referred me to.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#father_of_joseph
I noticed a few of the verses were taken out of context, by the way. The writer slaps 3 verses up there which were written about 700 years apart and takes them completely out of context to say, "look, these don't match." The Bible is a human book about a divine being. We aren't divine just because he is. My view of the Bible is the application of a novel theological concept called "Spirit Christology." This is basically the idea that Jesus was purely human and was a real baby. He grew up as just a kid. However, the Spirit of God was in him. When the Son left the Father, he laid down (did not lose his power but chose to not use it) his divine power. Where you see him "knowing things" or "healing people" is actually the Spirit of God on him. Why does this matter? Well, this makes Jesus truly human. He only knows what the Spirit tells or impresses upon him. Therefore, he truly can be an example for us because he isn't just denying evil as a powerful God. He does so as every human does. The difference is his relationship with God the Father via the Spirit. The Spirit works in his life so closely that after his baptism, the Spirit does miracles and inspirers speeches. The Spirit can similarly work in our own lives.
The errors that were listed are irrelevant to this picture of Christ. They’re just historical details which don't effect the truth of God. I could argue all day about how God is true, but I know from experience that he can only be real once he is believed. Once you stop fighting the belief and actually accept him. Then, and only then, can one realize how much of life's questions become answered. How God can't be put in a box. All these logical problems are attempts to say, "God has to be THIS way." Well, that is the charge of Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach...that religion is the inverse of man. God is not forced to be any certain way. We don't create him; we serve him. We love him despite the problem of evil because we have faith that he is ultimately good.
Sin
Originally posted - Friday, December 15, 2006
THIS IS FROM www.SKEPTOID.COM. THIS IS THE WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT FROM A PODAST REGARDING SIN. IN THE COMMENT SECTION AT THE END, I PLACE THE SAME COMMENT THAT I POSTED ON THIS MAN'S SITE. THIS GUY ANGERED ME BECAUSE HE TAKES THE TYPICAL "OBJECTIVE" WAY OF ARGUING UNTIL HE COMES ACCROSS SOMETHING HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN. THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN HE CAN SIMPLY MAKE FUN OF THE BELIEF SYSTEM BECAUSE IT'S "OBVIOUSLY" CRAZY. WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAT WE CHRISTIANS WERE SUPPOSED TO TAKE TOWARDS EVOLUTION? THIS IS THE KIND OF CRAP THAT I TALKED ABOUT WHEN I DISCUSSED UNIVERSITIES. THEY HIDE BEHIND OBJECTIVITY WHEN THEY "JUST ASK" THEIR QUESTIONS WITH NO "INTENTION."
November 26, 2006Podcast transcript Listen Subscribe
This week, I'm going to put on my burgundy velvet robe, fill my martini glass, and observe that bastard stepchild of the value system: Sin.
Sin is an interesting thing. A sin is something you're not supposed to do, according to a given set of religious restrictions. Sins are not necessarily illegal. Sins are not necessarily wrong. Sins don't necessarily harm anyone. In fact, many sins can be completely, entirely harmless, like the thinking of impure thoughts. So what's the problem? Why are sins bad?
I guess that all depends on whose definition of "bad" you use. For example, if you're a Muslim, it's sinful to get urine on yourself. The rest of us follow this commandment pretty strictly too, but we certainly wouldn't consider the odd dribble to be sinful. Buddhists consider skeptical doubt to be a sin (though they call it a hindrance), but doubt certainly isn't a problem for Christians or Muslims. Most Christians consider polygamy to be sinful, but it's the rule for most of Africa and the East. So there's no one clear yardstick for determining what's sinful or not. It depends completely upon the religious context. Outside of a religious context, the word sin is, for all practical purposes, meaningless.
Christians in particular consider everyone to be sinful, regardless of their performance. They call this "original sin", and it's essentially a negative blot on your report card immediately upon birth. Since Adam and Eve had the gall to eat some fruit that was offered to them, you and I and everyone else are considered guilty by association and are thus fundamentally bad people, according to strict Christian doctrine.
Christians also have to deal with "mortal sins." A mortal sin is one that, if left unrepented, sends you to hell when you die. Christians don't maintain a list of what types of sins guarantee you a date with the devil, instead they lay out some general rules. The big sins, like murder and adultery, put you on the fast track. Mortal sins have to be done deliberately. If you simply forget to go to church, accidentally put on a condom, or unintentionally catch a glance at a hot chick out of the corner of your eye, such sins are called venial sins and you can get away with them. But if you do them deliberately — blow off church on purpose in order to saw some extra logs on Sunday morning, wear the condom on purpose, or deliberately stare at the hot chick with impure thoughts — they are mortal sins. If you do things like this regularly, strict Christians consider that you are hellbound for sure. There are probably a lot of human males who needn't bother wearing their jackets for their burial.
Worst of all is the "eternal sin" - to deny God, which cannot be forgiven. Those considering an eternal sin might as well lose a fiddling contest to Satan right now. The punishment for an eternal sin is the same as for a mortal sin; the difference is that there's no opportunity to be forgiven and get out of it. It's sort of like being on death row in a state where the governor doesn't have a telephone.
When you eliminate activities that injure others or are otherwise wrong, there are still items on the sin list: basically a long list of victimless crimes. This is where the fun begins for those of us not hampered by religious restrictions.
Take social relationships, including plural marriages, same sex marriages, and anyone living together or having sex outside of wedlock. It doesn't hurt anyone, everyone involved has a great time, and it's mutually fulfilling for all participants. But those activities are all pretty high on the sin list. Take it out of a religious context, and suddenly there's nothing wrong with it. Polyamory is also a victimless crime that for some reason is considered sinful: wife swapping, swinging, hedonism, group sex parties, and open marriages are things that all the participants enjoy behind closed doors. Where's the harm?
Straight sex between married partners is all right, so long as it never extends to include masturbation, fetishism, lust, or impure thoughts. "Have to stop a minute, Mabel, I started to feel a little lusty."
The list of sins is not static: it's even been updated to include cybersex. Using a computer in some way to enhance sexual stimulation is sinful. This includes a video chat session with your spouse when one of you is traveling. That makes a lot of sense.
Drunkenness and tobacco are big on the sin list. This one's just plain counterproductive. Who among us doesn't appreciate an evening at the club in an overstuffed leather chair, with a martini and a fine cigar, talking politics and blasphemy. Throw in some profanity (which, fortunately, I don't see on the list of sins), and you've got the perfect evening. Drunkenness and tobacco are fundamental to healthy male adulthood. Frankly, I don't even know how I'd be able to conduct a proper board meeting without these accoutrements.
Idolatry is another sin that would be hard for me to live without. Idolatry doesn't necessarily relate to graven images or statues of other gods; idolatry is the practice of loving anything or anyone more than you love God. For me, the brand names Porsche and Jeep are hard to get past. I do attend church every Sunday morning: My temple of worship is a rectangle at the beach measuring 8 meters by 16 meters and involves the hitting of a synthetic leather ball at other worshippers. And since I cannot honestly say that there are any supernatural invisible flying magicians whom I love more than my own family, idolatry is definitely a sin that I need to commit every minute of every day, as much as I need to draw breath.
Hate and anger are sins. I don't really hate anyone and I don't get angry very often. About the only thing that gets me angry is when I hear the worst of the bad news from the world: children being abused or murdered, and genocides. Apparently, the world's major religions think that I should go to hell because those things make me angry. I'd have to say this is one case where the world's major religions can kiss my ass. I respect how the Amish can overlook these crimes and offer loving forgiveness to even these criminals, but I'll save my applause for the inmates who beat Jeffrey Dahmer's head to death against a prison toilet.
Lying. This one's tough. I don't know how anyone can claim that they don't practice this sin every day, no matter how religious they are. Have you ever told anyone that you can't go somewhere, or can't do something, when the truth is you simply didn't want to? You're a liar. You ever stop talking about someone when they entered the room, to deceive them into thinking you weren't talking about them? You're a liar. Ever give someone one of those quick fake smiles when you pass them in the hall — as if seeing them makes you happy? You're a liar. Lies don't have to be spoken and they are usually not malicious, but they're still lies. We all do it, all day, every day. Lying is a fundamental of politeness and a pillar of good behavior.
The truth is the concept of sin has no place in the lives of intelligent adults in modern society. Politeness, honesty, industry, and simply being yourself will take you a lot further. I say to the religious people: Keep your arbitrary restrictions, and your hateful belief that I should go to hell, to yourselves.
Perhaps my favorite aspect of being free of the restraints of sin is that I get to make the following invitation: If any hot women out there want to join my wife and I for some raging topless hot tubbing, well cooled with margaritas and free of any Catholic guilt, give me a call.
© 2006 Skeptoid.com
My Reply
I just discovered your podcast today and found it interesting. Everything I listened to was well argued until I listened to the message on "sin." You seem, for the most part, to take an existentialist approach to discussing issues. This is your approach when you attempt to inform the "Creationists" about evolution. However, you left that "objectivity" behind for this. You openly trash the ideas on sin as if there is nothing to disprove…as if it’s quite obvious your right. I see a little Bill O’Reily in this episode. You make the claim that many "sins" do not hurt anyone. How do you know that? You mention lust ("impure thoughts"). Doesn’t this effect a marriage? Doesn’t sex outside of marriage effect (possibly) the family structure (accidental pregnancies)? You also frame the "Adam and Eve" sin as something like this "they had the nerve to eat some fruit offered to them" as if this was truly the problem. The problem wasn’t eating it; it was disobeying what God had commanded them to avoid for their own good. The whole idea of sin (practically) is that it is ultimately not good for you; thus, you shouldn’t do it. The whole idea of sin (spiritually) is that it is the wedge between God and humanity. Spiritually, sin prevents relationship. Lack of relationship with God is what (speaking of most Traditional Christians) "sends one to hell" as you say. The Gospels lump all SIN together into one "preventive" basket. So for you to discuss the "types" of sins as if one is "okay" but another is damnable seems to be a mischaracterization of Traditional Christianity. (I realize there are technical differences for the purposes of theology, but there is no difference when it comes to its spiritual result). You focus on "acts" of sin rather than what Jesus focused on which was the "heart" or basically one’s relationship with God. There is no New Testament list of sins but only the question of "knowing" Jesus.
You said in your "faith" podcast that believers should believe without trying to prove with science. So I’ll stop trying to prove why sin isn’t good. But I wonder why you’re trying to (not necessarily prove but) "strongly question" its relevancy. Take it by "faith"…right? At least, allow religious people to do so.
THIS IS FROM www.SKEPTOID.COM. THIS IS THE WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT FROM A PODAST REGARDING SIN. IN THE COMMENT SECTION AT THE END, I PLACE THE SAME COMMENT THAT I POSTED ON THIS MAN'S SITE. THIS GUY ANGERED ME BECAUSE HE TAKES THE TYPICAL "OBJECTIVE" WAY OF ARGUING UNTIL HE COMES ACCROSS SOMETHING HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN. THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN HE CAN SIMPLY MAKE FUN OF THE BELIEF SYSTEM BECAUSE IT'S "OBVIOUSLY" CRAZY. WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAT WE CHRISTIANS WERE SUPPOSED TO TAKE TOWARDS EVOLUTION? THIS IS THE KIND OF CRAP THAT I TALKED ABOUT WHEN I DISCUSSED UNIVERSITIES. THEY HIDE BEHIND OBJECTIVITY WHEN THEY "JUST ASK" THEIR QUESTIONS WITH NO "INTENTION."
November 26, 2006Podcast transcript Listen Subscribe
This week, I'm going to put on my burgundy velvet robe, fill my martini glass, and observe that bastard stepchild of the value system: Sin.
Sin is an interesting thing. A sin is something you're not supposed to do, according to a given set of religious restrictions. Sins are not necessarily illegal. Sins are not necessarily wrong. Sins don't necessarily harm anyone. In fact, many sins can be completely, entirely harmless, like the thinking of impure thoughts. So what's the problem? Why are sins bad?
I guess that all depends on whose definition of "bad" you use. For example, if you're a Muslim, it's sinful to get urine on yourself. The rest of us follow this commandment pretty strictly too, but we certainly wouldn't consider the odd dribble to be sinful. Buddhists consider skeptical doubt to be a sin (though they call it a hindrance), but doubt certainly isn't a problem for Christians or Muslims. Most Christians consider polygamy to be sinful, but it's the rule for most of Africa and the East. So there's no one clear yardstick for determining what's sinful or not. It depends completely upon the religious context. Outside of a religious context, the word sin is, for all practical purposes, meaningless.
Christians in particular consider everyone to be sinful, regardless of their performance. They call this "original sin", and it's essentially a negative blot on your report card immediately upon birth. Since Adam and Eve had the gall to eat some fruit that was offered to them, you and I and everyone else are considered guilty by association and are thus fundamentally bad people, according to strict Christian doctrine.
Christians also have to deal with "mortal sins." A mortal sin is one that, if left unrepented, sends you to hell when you die. Christians don't maintain a list of what types of sins guarantee you a date with the devil, instead they lay out some general rules. The big sins, like murder and adultery, put you on the fast track. Mortal sins have to be done deliberately. If you simply forget to go to church, accidentally put on a condom, or unintentionally catch a glance at a hot chick out of the corner of your eye, such sins are called venial sins and you can get away with them. But if you do them deliberately — blow off church on purpose in order to saw some extra logs on Sunday morning, wear the condom on purpose, or deliberately stare at the hot chick with impure thoughts — they are mortal sins. If you do things like this regularly, strict Christians consider that you are hellbound for sure. There are probably a lot of human males who needn't bother wearing their jackets for their burial.
Worst of all is the "eternal sin" - to deny God, which cannot be forgiven. Those considering an eternal sin might as well lose a fiddling contest to Satan right now. The punishment for an eternal sin is the same as for a mortal sin; the difference is that there's no opportunity to be forgiven and get out of it. It's sort of like being on death row in a state where the governor doesn't have a telephone.
When you eliminate activities that injure others or are otherwise wrong, there are still items on the sin list: basically a long list of victimless crimes. This is where the fun begins for those of us not hampered by religious restrictions.
Take social relationships, including plural marriages, same sex marriages, and anyone living together or having sex outside of wedlock. It doesn't hurt anyone, everyone involved has a great time, and it's mutually fulfilling for all participants. But those activities are all pretty high on the sin list. Take it out of a religious context, and suddenly there's nothing wrong with it. Polyamory is also a victimless crime that for some reason is considered sinful: wife swapping, swinging, hedonism, group sex parties, and open marriages are things that all the participants enjoy behind closed doors. Where's the harm?
Straight sex between married partners is all right, so long as it never extends to include masturbation, fetishism, lust, or impure thoughts. "Have to stop a minute, Mabel, I started to feel a little lusty."
The list of sins is not static: it's even been updated to include cybersex. Using a computer in some way to enhance sexual stimulation is sinful. This includes a video chat session with your spouse when one of you is traveling. That makes a lot of sense.
Drunkenness and tobacco are big on the sin list. This one's just plain counterproductive. Who among us doesn't appreciate an evening at the club in an overstuffed leather chair, with a martini and a fine cigar, talking politics and blasphemy. Throw in some profanity (which, fortunately, I don't see on the list of sins), and you've got the perfect evening. Drunkenness and tobacco are fundamental to healthy male adulthood. Frankly, I don't even know how I'd be able to conduct a proper board meeting without these accoutrements.
Idolatry is another sin that would be hard for me to live without. Idolatry doesn't necessarily relate to graven images or statues of other gods; idolatry is the practice of loving anything or anyone more than you love God. For me, the brand names Porsche and Jeep are hard to get past. I do attend church every Sunday morning: My temple of worship is a rectangle at the beach measuring 8 meters by 16 meters and involves the hitting of a synthetic leather ball at other worshippers. And since I cannot honestly say that there are any supernatural invisible flying magicians whom I love more than my own family, idolatry is definitely a sin that I need to commit every minute of every day, as much as I need to draw breath.
Hate and anger are sins. I don't really hate anyone and I don't get angry very often. About the only thing that gets me angry is when I hear the worst of the bad news from the world: children being abused or murdered, and genocides. Apparently, the world's major religions think that I should go to hell because those things make me angry. I'd have to say this is one case where the world's major religions can kiss my ass. I respect how the Amish can overlook these crimes and offer loving forgiveness to even these criminals, but I'll save my applause for the inmates who beat Jeffrey Dahmer's head to death against a prison toilet.
Lying. This one's tough. I don't know how anyone can claim that they don't practice this sin every day, no matter how religious they are. Have you ever told anyone that you can't go somewhere, or can't do something, when the truth is you simply didn't want to? You're a liar. You ever stop talking about someone when they entered the room, to deceive them into thinking you weren't talking about them? You're a liar. Ever give someone one of those quick fake smiles when you pass them in the hall — as if seeing them makes you happy? You're a liar. Lies don't have to be spoken and they are usually not malicious, but they're still lies. We all do it, all day, every day. Lying is a fundamental of politeness and a pillar of good behavior.
The truth is the concept of sin has no place in the lives of intelligent adults in modern society. Politeness, honesty, industry, and simply being yourself will take you a lot further. I say to the religious people: Keep your arbitrary restrictions, and your hateful belief that I should go to hell, to yourselves.
Perhaps my favorite aspect of being free of the restraints of sin is that I get to make the following invitation: If any hot women out there want to join my wife and I for some raging topless hot tubbing, well cooled with margaritas and free of any Catholic guilt, give me a call.
© 2006 Skeptoid.com
My Reply
I just discovered your podcast today and found it interesting. Everything I listened to was well argued until I listened to the message on "sin." You seem, for the most part, to take an existentialist approach to discussing issues. This is your approach when you attempt to inform the "Creationists" about evolution. However, you left that "objectivity" behind for this. You openly trash the ideas on sin as if there is nothing to disprove…as if it’s quite obvious your right. I see a little Bill O’Reily in this episode. You make the claim that many "sins" do not hurt anyone. How do you know that? You mention lust ("impure thoughts"). Doesn’t this effect a marriage? Doesn’t sex outside of marriage effect (possibly) the family structure (accidental pregnancies)? You also frame the "Adam and Eve" sin as something like this "they had the nerve to eat some fruit offered to them" as if this was truly the problem. The problem wasn’t eating it; it was disobeying what God had commanded them to avoid for their own good. The whole idea of sin (practically) is that it is ultimately not good for you; thus, you shouldn’t do it. The whole idea of sin (spiritually) is that it is the wedge between God and humanity. Spiritually, sin prevents relationship. Lack of relationship with God is what (speaking of most Traditional Christians) "sends one to hell" as you say. The Gospels lump all SIN together into one "preventive" basket. So for you to discuss the "types" of sins as if one is "okay" but another is damnable seems to be a mischaracterization of Traditional Christianity. (I realize there are technical differences for the purposes of theology, but there is no difference when it comes to its spiritual result). You focus on "acts" of sin rather than what Jesus focused on which was the "heart" or basically one’s relationship with God. There is no New Testament list of sins but only the question of "knowing" Jesus.
You said in your "faith" podcast that believers should believe without trying to prove with science. So I’ll stop trying to prove why sin isn’t good. But I wonder why you’re trying to (not necessarily prove but) "strongly question" its relevancy. Take it by "faith"…right? At least, allow religious people to do so.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Logocentrism, Deconstructionism, and the Fall of Common Sense - Part 2
Originally posted - Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Part 2
I've already hinted at this, but there is an 'ethical' purpose of this viewpoint. It begins with a concept you may have heard of in politics or theology before—"The Other." Political correctness is an offshoot of deconstructionism. Logocentrism challenges certainty because certainty leads to the 'power of truth.' If something is true, then it has consequences. If it is TRUE that it is 'not right' to kill someone, then this leads to a punishment for this act. Alternative views to this 'truth' are stomped on. If I'm sure Allah wishes me to kill the infidel, then I will use this 'truth' to kill you. Nevermind your alternative view. This follows the line of thought that 'truth' is 'the opinion of the powerful.' Or maybe you've heard it as "might makes right." Philosophy argues over whether things are moral because "God" (powerful) says so or because they are right in their own merit. If they are right because powerful God says so, then they are arbitrarily that way (meaning he could have said murder was good). However, if he didn't say what was right and wrong, then isn't he just a puppet of the more powerful innate nature of morality? Is he subject to it? This is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma.
I got off track. Let's get back to the concept of "the other." Tradition dominates truth. Notice the use of "tradition." You may or may not be familiar with the term "progressive." A traditionalist is typically a "conservative" or in other words, he/she wishes to hold onto the truths of the past. What was good, then, is good now. Progressives tend to think that the past didn't have the truth in the first place, and now we're learning better ways of thinking. A lot of times ‘progressive’ goes hand-in-hand with ‘secular’ to form the term "secular progressives." They tend to remove God from things because that "old truth" is no truth at all. Deconstructionism tears religion apart revealing a poor foundation. "We must progress past this primitive way of thinking." The majoritive (I just made a new word) way of thinking is no greater than the minority view. This mode of thinking applies both to theology and politics. Do you see now how we're getting to the fall of common sense? "The other" has been subjugated by the powerful for centuries. One cannot reduce someone based upon his/her "otherness." Alternative viewpoints must be valued so that the humans possessing these views will be valued (Levinas).
So, despite knowing what is right, we pretend like all things are equal. Common sense so easily shows what is right and wrong, but we have to ignore it. We're told to "consider everything." Isn't that what your University classes do? Haven't you noticed that classes taught in colleges attempt to make no statement about what is right? They simply present everything with "no intention to lead." They hide behind objectivity, but in reality, we all see the motive. Objectivity has its value, but common sense says that you consider this new idea and actually come to a conclusion. Remember deconstructionism doesn't truly let you come to a conclusion. It wants you to live in the world of the University where the proper answer is always "I don't know." The proper answer is no answer at all. Its simply this is why it's complicated…blah blah blah. No one can take a stand for what they believe because this is to say he/she has grabbed truth and put it in his/her pocket. Do you see the application to theology? "Did God really say that? How do you know?" Do you see the application to politics? "We must randomly check people at the airport." Racially profiling is "immoral" because common sense is dead. "The fact that the majority of terrorist threats would come from fundamental Muslims isn't relevant because its possible that it could come from someone not fitting that background." Yes, this is true, but common sense tells you to check for the most likely culprit first.
I hate deconstructionism because it is 'false brilliance.' Someone who can simply see a problem in a premise (meaning not 100% unquestionable premise) seems so smart. "Look they proved his argument is worthless." Common sense gets us past this perceived need for "unquestionability." (Again, I know deconstructionism doesn't say you have to have unquestionability. It doesn't care. It just questions.) My professors pulled this move all the time. They were using the Socratic method, which certainly has value, but at the end of the day, one has to come to a conclusion. We can't live in the world of academics which is "I don't know for sure, so I don't know." Descartes did us a service with his "Meditations," but the practical part of his life was filled with things he "knew." This "freedom" of truth is what has lead to ultra-liberalism. "Believe what you want…it is as likely to be true as what Tradition says." "The other idea has as much merit as mine"…right? This progressivism of thought seems antithetical to my primitive biblicism. That is the heart of my problem with it. Does truth change? Most would say no, but many would say our understanding of it changes. So does that mean we should be progressives or traditionalists? The progressive understanding of things is fine as long as the heart of what was said in the past (e.g. the Bible) isn't undermined for the sake of "present-day morality."
Part 2
I've already hinted at this, but there is an 'ethical' purpose of this viewpoint. It begins with a concept you may have heard of in politics or theology before—"The Other." Political correctness is an offshoot of deconstructionism. Logocentrism challenges certainty because certainty leads to the 'power of truth.' If something is true, then it has consequences. If it is TRUE that it is 'not right' to kill someone, then this leads to a punishment for this act. Alternative views to this 'truth' are stomped on. If I'm sure Allah wishes me to kill the infidel, then I will use this 'truth' to kill you. Nevermind your alternative view. This follows the line of thought that 'truth' is 'the opinion of the powerful.' Or maybe you've heard it as "might makes right." Philosophy argues over whether things are moral because "God" (powerful) says so or because they are right in their own merit. If they are right because powerful God says so, then they are arbitrarily that way (meaning he could have said murder was good). However, if he didn't say what was right and wrong, then isn't he just a puppet of the more powerful innate nature of morality? Is he subject to it? This is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma.
I got off track. Let's get back to the concept of "the other." Tradition dominates truth. Notice the use of "tradition." You may or may not be familiar with the term "progressive." A traditionalist is typically a "conservative" or in other words, he/she wishes to hold onto the truths of the past. What was good, then, is good now. Progressives tend to think that the past didn't have the truth in the first place, and now we're learning better ways of thinking. A lot of times ‘progressive’ goes hand-in-hand with ‘secular’ to form the term "secular progressives." They tend to remove God from things because that "old truth" is no truth at all. Deconstructionism tears religion apart revealing a poor foundation. "We must progress past this primitive way of thinking." The majoritive (I just made a new word) way of thinking is no greater than the minority view. This mode of thinking applies both to theology and politics. Do you see now how we're getting to the fall of common sense? "The other" has been subjugated by the powerful for centuries. One cannot reduce someone based upon his/her "otherness." Alternative viewpoints must be valued so that the humans possessing these views will be valued (Levinas).
So, despite knowing what is right, we pretend like all things are equal. Common sense so easily shows what is right and wrong, but we have to ignore it. We're told to "consider everything." Isn't that what your University classes do? Haven't you noticed that classes taught in colleges attempt to make no statement about what is right? They simply present everything with "no intention to lead." They hide behind objectivity, but in reality, we all see the motive. Objectivity has its value, but common sense says that you consider this new idea and actually come to a conclusion. Remember deconstructionism doesn't truly let you come to a conclusion. It wants you to live in the world of the University where the proper answer is always "I don't know." The proper answer is no answer at all. Its simply this is why it's complicated…blah blah blah. No one can take a stand for what they believe because this is to say he/she has grabbed truth and put it in his/her pocket. Do you see the application to theology? "Did God really say that? How do you know?" Do you see the application to politics? "We must randomly check people at the airport." Racially profiling is "immoral" because common sense is dead. "The fact that the majority of terrorist threats would come from fundamental Muslims isn't relevant because its possible that it could come from someone not fitting that background." Yes, this is true, but common sense tells you to check for the most likely culprit first.
I hate deconstructionism because it is 'false brilliance.' Someone who can simply see a problem in a premise (meaning not 100% unquestionable premise) seems so smart. "Look they proved his argument is worthless." Common sense gets us past this perceived need for "unquestionability." (Again, I know deconstructionism doesn't say you have to have unquestionability. It doesn't care. It just questions.) My professors pulled this move all the time. They were using the Socratic method, which certainly has value, but at the end of the day, one has to come to a conclusion. We can't live in the world of academics which is "I don't know for sure, so I don't know." Descartes did us a service with his "Meditations," but the practical part of his life was filled with things he "knew." This "freedom" of truth is what has lead to ultra-liberalism. "Believe what you want…it is as likely to be true as what Tradition says." "The other idea has as much merit as mine"…right? This progressivism of thought seems antithetical to my primitive biblicism. That is the heart of my problem with it. Does truth change? Most would say no, but many would say our understanding of it changes. So does that mean we should be progressives or traditionalists? The progressive understanding of things is fine as long as the heart of what was said in the past (e.g. the Bible) isn't undermined for the sake of "present-day morality."
Logocentrism, Deconstructionism, and the Fall of Common Sense - Part 1
Originally posted - Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Part 1
Is that a lofty enough title for you? Some of you may remember that I wrote something on Islam a while back. Well, it was so long that I divided it into 2 parts. This will definitely be like that except that I'm not going to divide it up. I'll probably post this, and then go back and read it and edit it. So I don't know what version you've got. Anyway, I want to go over my point first, and then go into my long explanation.
I wish to explain logocentrism within deconstructionism (to the extent of getting at my purpose, not really covering the 'whole' of deconstructionsim). I also wish to explain why I dislike deconstructionism because of my contention that is directly related to the fall of common sense in this politically correct world. Okay, if this doesn't seem interesting, then tune out now cause this is going to be a long one.
Deconstructionism could properly trace its roots back to Socrates. Have you heard of the "Socratic method" of teaching? This method basically tries to teach by asking questions. Socrates' goal in asking questions was to show how poor one's foundations were in his/her arguments. This lack of a strong foundation meant someone could not really be sure of what he believes. The ethics of this is that one will not use his beliefs as a club over someone else's head. "Allah says kill the infidel, so you must die." See how dangerous a powerful belief can be? Okay, let's get a grasp of logocentrism.
Logocentrism is basically the idea that there is no such thing as a given. There is no unquestionable starting point from which to build all knowledge. Remember above where Socrates questions a person's argument by challenging his/her "given" or what they hold to be true. Remember the Aristotelian sense of arguments? Basically, all arguments are Premise 1 = Xa. Premise 2 = Xb. Premise 3 = Xc. So, Conclusion 1 = Y. Then Conclusion 2 = Z. So from, the 3 premises, one could properly draw conclusions 1 & 2. Logocentrism says that even our premises are taken upon past conclusions that were based on poor premises. I fell victim to this recently. I used a "the Bible says, so it must be true" argument. Well, I'm taking a "given" (i.e. the Bible) whereas logocentrism (rightfully in this case) says that this is not a given. The Bible isn't unquestionable to everyone, therefore it can't be taken as a given to everyone. The fact that I view it as paramount in epistemology is irrelevant to some, so what good does it do to use it in attempt to convince them of an error? Logocentrism claims that our foundational truths are conclusions, not indisputable givens. Everything that we think is a given (e.g. The Bible) is merely a long-standing conclusion.
Deconstructionism takes logocentrism to its extreme. It challenges so much of what we believe objectively. That means that it applies this ruthless standard of 'absolute certainty' as essential. Well, the reality is that deconstructionism, as I've seen it, wouldn't say one could have absolute certainty, but the impression left by its results is that one needs absolute certainty to sidestep it. This is the practical feeling. However, because of the death of objectivity with Kant, nothing is 100 percent certain. All we can do is take the G.E. Moore move, which is to say that I believe things based on the greatest proportion of evidence. If something has more/better proofs to it being true (say 70 percent) versus a minority of problems (30 percent), then I have a valid reason to go ahead and believe in it. I wonder if I'm making any sense. "The 10 Commandments are good because God gave it to us in the Bible." Deconstructionism would ask does God exist? Did he give it to us, and how do you know that? Does he even communicate with humans? Does this single event even apply to humans even today? Why? Why does it matter if I follow them or not? What does it matter what God says/gives? The fact that a person couldn't flatly refute all these problematic questions is no reason to deny Christianity or the validity of the 10 Commandments.
Part 1
Is that a lofty enough title for you? Some of you may remember that I wrote something on Islam a while back. Well, it was so long that I divided it into 2 parts. This will definitely be like that except that I'm not going to divide it up. I'll probably post this, and then go back and read it and edit it. So I don't know what version you've got. Anyway, I want to go over my point first, and then go into my long explanation.
I wish to explain logocentrism within deconstructionism (to the extent of getting at my purpose, not really covering the 'whole' of deconstructionsim). I also wish to explain why I dislike deconstructionism because of my contention that is directly related to the fall of common sense in this politically correct world. Okay, if this doesn't seem interesting, then tune out now cause this is going to be a long one.
Deconstructionism could properly trace its roots back to Socrates. Have you heard of the "Socratic method" of teaching? This method basically tries to teach by asking questions. Socrates' goal in asking questions was to show how poor one's foundations were in his/her arguments. This lack of a strong foundation meant someone could not really be sure of what he believes. The ethics of this is that one will not use his beliefs as a club over someone else's head. "Allah says kill the infidel, so you must die." See how dangerous a powerful belief can be? Okay, let's get a grasp of logocentrism.
Logocentrism is basically the idea that there is no such thing as a given. There is no unquestionable starting point from which to build all knowledge. Remember above where Socrates questions a person's argument by challenging his/her "given" or what they hold to be true. Remember the Aristotelian sense of arguments? Basically, all arguments are Premise 1 = Xa. Premise 2 = Xb. Premise 3 = Xc. So, Conclusion 1 = Y. Then Conclusion 2 = Z. So from, the 3 premises, one could properly draw conclusions 1 & 2. Logocentrism says that even our premises are taken upon past conclusions that were based on poor premises. I fell victim to this recently. I used a "the Bible says, so it must be true" argument. Well, I'm taking a "given" (i.e. the Bible) whereas logocentrism (rightfully in this case) says that this is not a given. The Bible isn't unquestionable to everyone, therefore it can't be taken as a given to everyone. The fact that I view it as paramount in epistemology is irrelevant to some, so what good does it do to use it in attempt to convince them of an error? Logocentrism claims that our foundational truths are conclusions, not indisputable givens. Everything that we think is a given (e.g. The Bible) is merely a long-standing conclusion.
Deconstructionism takes logocentrism to its extreme. It challenges so much of what we believe objectively. That means that it applies this ruthless standard of 'absolute certainty' as essential. Well, the reality is that deconstructionism, as I've seen it, wouldn't say one could have absolute certainty, but the impression left by its results is that one needs absolute certainty to sidestep it. This is the practical feeling. However, because of the death of objectivity with Kant, nothing is 100 percent certain. All we can do is take the G.E. Moore move, which is to say that I believe things based on the greatest proportion of evidence. If something has more/better proofs to it being true (say 70 percent) versus a minority of problems (30 percent), then I have a valid reason to go ahead and believe in it. I wonder if I'm making any sense. "The 10 Commandments are good because God gave it to us in the Bible." Deconstructionism would ask does God exist? Did he give it to us, and how do you know that? Does he even communicate with humans? Does this single event even apply to humans even today? Why? Why does it matter if I follow them or not? What does it matter what God says/gives? The fact that a person couldn't flatly refute all these problematic questions is no reason to deny Christianity or the validity of the 10 Commandments.
Trinitarian Language
Originally posted - Saturday, November 25, 2006
Presbyterians revisit the Trinity
From the Associated Press: (http://www.theologywebsite.com/)
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The divine Trinity--"Father, Son and Holy Spirit"--could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer and Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chairwoman Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.
The assembly narrowly defeated a bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."
One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.
Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."
Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow," that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God. (original lyrics can be found here: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/p/r/praisegf.htm)
Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, said she was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."
Hill reminded delegates that the 10 Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other issues.
On Tuesday, the assembly is to vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional presbyteries some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.
Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."
-----------------------------------------
Now comes my commentary on this issue. There is no single "analogy" for the Trinity in the history of Christianity. However, there is one that is used significantly more than any other, including in the Bible. This is "Father, Son, and Spirit." I get the whole "God isn't male" deal. I'm not arguing that he is. What I'm saying is that when theology feels like it can re-interpret the Bible, it is too secure in itself. When theology feels comfortable enough to say "this is what the biblical author meant to say" it has overstepped its bounds. Theology was meant to organize subjects within Christendom, not re-write them. Karl Barth warned against inhumility in theology.
11/26/2006 -
Here I am a few days after I wrote the above section. I got to thinking about this issue. It is ironic that I would talk about how I didn't think these people should go beyond the Bible (or at least be extremely careful in doing so). Why is it ironic? Well, that is exactly what Trinitarian theology does. It is "the next step" to the Bible. The word "Trinity" isn't even in the Bible. Though it appears the basis for the Trinity is there, it took early church fathers many years to finally set a doctrine on the matter. Did they go beyond the Bible? I think that depends on perspective. They (they, here, means the early church Fathers such as Tertullian and Augustine) believed they were only "clarifying" what the Bible laid out. Remember the purpose of the Gospels wasn't high theology but to tell us of the good news. So of course, the Bible magnifies the work of Jesus over the person of Jesus/The Son and the Holy Spirit.
The reason the church felt the need to "clarify" (very dangerous in my opinion) was because of the multitude of heresies (even more dangerous). The unity of the church was valued more highly then. The culture didn't call for individual truth like our postmodern world does.
Presbyterians revisit the Trinity
From the Associated Press: (http://www.theologywebsite.com/)
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The divine Trinity--"Father, Son and Holy Spirit"--could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer and Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chairwoman Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.
The assembly narrowly defeated a bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."
One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.
Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."
Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow," that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God. (original lyrics can be found here: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/p/r/praisegf.htm)
Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, said she was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."
Hill reminded delegates that the 10 Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other issues.
On Tuesday, the assembly is to vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional presbyteries some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.
Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."
-----------------------------------------
Now comes my commentary on this issue. There is no single "analogy" for the Trinity in the history of Christianity. However, there is one that is used significantly more than any other, including in the Bible. This is "Father, Son, and Spirit." I get the whole "God isn't male" deal. I'm not arguing that he is. What I'm saying is that when theology feels like it can re-interpret the Bible, it is too secure in itself. When theology feels comfortable enough to say "this is what the biblical author meant to say" it has overstepped its bounds. Theology was meant to organize subjects within Christendom, not re-write them. Karl Barth warned against inhumility in theology.
11/26/2006 -
Here I am a few days after I wrote the above section. I got to thinking about this issue. It is ironic that I would talk about how I didn't think these people should go beyond the Bible (or at least be extremely careful in doing so). Why is it ironic? Well, that is exactly what Trinitarian theology does. It is "the next step" to the Bible. The word "Trinity" isn't even in the Bible. Though it appears the basis for the Trinity is there, it took early church fathers many years to finally set a doctrine on the matter. Did they go beyond the Bible? I think that depends on perspective. They (they, here, means the early church Fathers such as Tertullian and Augustine) believed they were only "clarifying" what the Bible laid out. Remember the purpose of the Gospels wasn't high theology but to tell us of the good news. So of course, the Bible magnifies the work of Jesus over the person of Jesus/The Son and the Holy Spirit.
The reason the church felt the need to "clarify" (very dangerous in my opinion) was because of the multitude of heresies (even more dangerous). The unity of the church was valued more highly then. The culture didn't call for individual truth like our postmodern world does.
Abraham & Isaac
Originally posted - Thursday, November 09, 2006
I've been thinking about some things lately. I was reminded of something my Father preached regarding Abraham & Isaac. I had never heard it phrased quite like this before, but he said, "God didn't want to kill Isaac; he wanted to kill Abraham." The implication there is that God's incredible demand of Abraham to sacrifice his own son was really a command for Abraham to lay himself down on the altar. Isn't it funny that 2,000 years before Jesus walked this earth there were so many typologies. Jesus said that one must lose his life to find it. Abraham had to be willing to give up what he loved most dearly to demonstrate his love for God. Do you want to prove Christianity? Live a life of sin. That proves it. The moment your in that garbage, you see how simple the solution is. You see how the pursuit of self is a dead end. You took this turn and that turn for days, weeks, months, years. You traveled for such a long time only to realize you had gotten nowhere. If you never leave yourself, then you've gone nowhere. You've achieved nothing. You feel worthless and for good reason. I'll never forget when that passage about losing your life to find it went from just a strange phrase to revelational truth. They call it the "ah ha" moment. Why is it that we can know things like that mentally, but when it comes to living out the truth we have inside, we're so good at lying to ourselves. We're so good at suppressing what we know.
"Though he slay me, yet I will trust in him...." - Job 13:15
I've been thinking about some things lately. I was reminded of something my Father preached regarding Abraham & Isaac. I had never heard it phrased quite like this before, but he said, "God didn't want to kill Isaac; he wanted to kill Abraham." The implication there is that God's incredible demand of Abraham to sacrifice his own son was really a command for Abraham to lay himself down on the altar. Isn't it funny that 2,000 years before Jesus walked this earth there were so many typologies. Jesus said that one must lose his life to find it. Abraham had to be willing to give up what he loved most dearly to demonstrate his love for God. Do you want to prove Christianity? Live a life of sin. That proves it. The moment your in that garbage, you see how simple the solution is. You see how the pursuit of self is a dead end. You took this turn and that turn for days, weeks, months, years. You traveled for such a long time only to realize you had gotten nowhere. If you never leave yourself, then you've gone nowhere. You've achieved nothing. You feel worthless and for good reason. I'll never forget when that passage about losing your life to find it went from just a strange phrase to revelational truth. They call it the "ah ha" moment. Why is it that we can know things like that mentally, but when it comes to living out the truth we have inside, we're so good at lying to ourselves. We're so good at suppressing what we know.
"Though he slay me, yet I will trust in him...." - Job 13:15
Alive
Originally posted - Sunday, June 11, 2006
Did you know that that web logs is where "blog" comes from? Anyway, I was thinking about something that I thought I would tell you about. It will require a lot of setup work, so forgive me for making you read about a band. Blink-182 split up recently (I think), and one of the vocalists started a new band called "Angels and Airwaves." Well, I bought the new cd (which it’s spectacular). I read a little about the cd, and as I was listening to it, something came to mind. On the song called "The Adventure," the lyrics begin with "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." Now that makes no sense right? The context of their writing the album came to mind at this point. They were inspired by WW2. The lead singer said that he set up a dark room to put up pictures of the atrocities of WW2. This included dead bodies and burning cities. On the other end of the room, he put up pictures of space which he interpreted as hope. Like the hope of newness and discovery. He said that in the middle of these polar opposites is where he wanted to create. The songs would encapture the highs and lows of the very room he was in.
Okay, remember the quote I gave: "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." I immediately envisioned being a soldier at Normandy. Imagine being on that boat on the way up to the beachhead. The sounds and sights of war exploding around you. You know you're about to face all of that. You finally make it to the beach and you begin your pursuit for cover. Bullets are flying past your head right into your friends. In the horror of war, you are eventually shot. You lay there thinking about the pain, the sounds, how your friends have died, how you're about to, how you never did all the things you were supposed to do. This is my point. That soldier would give anything to be alive. But why? He wants to do all the things that he never did. I think back upon my life and worry about all the mistakes that I've made. I remember the days that I was too scared to go to public school after moving to Davenport. I know that I missed out on so much. I remember how I used to be so afraid of asking girls out. What if they said no? What if they reject me? What if I meet someone else that I want to be with even more, and I've already committed myself? I loved someone and never did a thing about it. Do you ever think you should go try something adventurous, but you just don't do it? You'll have time later, right? Do you have dreams to accomplish things? Why don't you go and achieve them? How much of your life was wasted because you were too afraid? You are alive. You've been given a second chance at life...you are alive. Are you making the most of it? Have you thought about calling that person? Have you considered making things right? You want to speak and be with them, yet you don't want to be the one "to call." You want to be something, yet you've done nothing to achieve that. Here is your chance. How much of your life are you guaranteed? Do you want to serve at your church in the form of preaching, teaching, singing, anything? Why isn't now the time? Fear of pain didn't save those soldiers. It won't save you. It will only hurt you. It will only hold you back. When we think we have forever, we let things go. We let our words remain hurtful with no attempt at apologies. We think time will heal those wounds. When we think we have forever, we waste our time. Would it be better to spend time with family, friends, or at your church than to waste it watching television? Would it be better to spend our time in community rather than solitude? Would it be better to show love?
To take another line from the song, "Here we go, life's waiting to begin." You've been given another chance. You wake up on that beach alive. Now what do you do?
Did you know that that web logs is where "blog" comes from? Anyway, I was thinking about something that I thought I would tell you about. It will require a lot of setup work, so forgive me for making you read about a band. Blink-182 split up recently (I think), and one of the vocalists started a new band called "Angels and Airwaves." Well, I bought the new cd (which it’s spectacular). I read a little about the cd, and as I was listening to it, something came to mind. On the song called "The Adventure," the lyrics begin with "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." Now that makes no sense right? The context of their writing the album came to mind at this point. They were inspired by WW2. The lead singer said that he set up a dark room to put up pictures of the atrocities of WW2. This included dead bodies and burning cities. On the other end of the room, he put up pictures of space which he interpreted as hope. Like the hope of newness and discovery. He said that in the middle of these polar opposites is where he wanted to create. The songs would encapture the highs and lows of the very room he was in.
Okay, remember the quote I gave: "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." I immediately envisioned being a soldier at Normandy. Imagine being on that boat on the way up to the beachhead. The sounds and sights of war exploding around you. You know you're about to face all of that. You finally make it to the beach and you begin your pursuit for cover. Bullets are flying past your head right into your friends. In the horror of war, you are eventually shot. You lay there thinking about the pain, the sounds, how your friends have died, how you're about to, how you never did all the things you were supposed to do. This is my point. That soldier would give anything to be alive. But why? He wants to do all the things that he never did. I think back upon my life and worry about all the mistakes that I've made. I remember the days that I was too scared to go to public school after moving to Davenport. I know that I missed out on so much. I remember how I used to be so afraid of asking girls out. What if they said no? What if they reject me? What if I meet someone else that I want to be with even more, and I've already committed myself? I loved someone and never did a thing about it. Do you ever think you should go try something adventurous, but you just don't do it? You'll have time later, right? Do you have dreams to accomplish things? Why don't you go and achieve them? How much of your life was wasted because you were too afraid? You are alive. You've been given a second chance at life...you are alive. Are you making the most of it? Have you thought about calling that person? Have you considered making things right? You want to speak and be with them, yet you don't want to be the one "to call." You want to be something, yet you've done nothing to achieve that. Here is your chance. How much of your life are you guaranteed? Do you want to serve at your church in the form of preaching, teaching, singing, anything? Why isn't now the time? Fear of pain didn't save those soldiers. It won't save you. It will only hurt you. It will only hold you back. When we think we have forever, we let things go. We let our words remain hurtful with no attempt at apologies. We think time will heal those wounds. When we think we have forever, we waste our time. Would it be better to spend time with family, friends, or at your church than to waste it watching television? Would it be better to spend our time in community rather than solitude? Would it be better to show love?
To take another line from the song, "Here we go, life's waiting to begin." You've been given another chance. You wake up on that beach alive. Now what do you do?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
6.6.06
Originally posted - Tuesday, June 06, 2006
BE SURE TO REALIZE THAT I ORIGINALLY POSTED THIS ON 6/6/06 BEFORE I HAD THIS SITE. PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION MY SARCASM. I'M NOT SAYING THE INTERNET = THE BEAST...or am I?
Well, in honor of all Satan's day, I thought I would just tell you something interesting that I learned last night. The Hebrew alphabet has a letter called "vav." It is basically a V, but it can translate into English as a "W." This is why you sometimes see YHWH or YHVH. And it is also why the more traditional yahWeh is translated jehoVah. I don't pretend to understand the language. I just know that I've seen some kind of "inter-changeability" between the 2 letters. If you think that's ludicrous, then it is also ludicrous that the "y" is changed to "j" in YHWH/Jehovah. Get the idea? Letters change between languages. So, the v can change to w in English. I've been told that Hebrew didn't have numbers in the form of separate symbols like we have 0-9. They merely used letters as numbers somewhat like Roman numerals. The numerical value in Hebrew (gematria) for "vav" is 6. That means that everytime you enter a website, you're typing www right? That also means that you're typing the Hebrew numerical equivalent of 666. Interesting huh. So next time you go to myspace, just think that you're typing 666.myspace.com. 20/20 was right! Myspace is evil. Oh yeah, add up all the numbers from a roulette wheel. They range from 00 to 36. It equals 666. I've been told that every bar code has 666 on it, but I don't understand those well enough to know if that is true. Have you heard that the 666 of the Bible = Caesar Nero? I have heard that, but I don't know Hebrew, and it is a Hebraic equation, so I can't check that. Even more interesting is that Latin Gematria adds his name up to 616. Well, check the references at the bottom of your Bible. You will see that there is a variant of the passage that adds up to 616. Irenaeus' manuscripts read 616. See Rev. 13:18 for the passage in question. I have more on this, but I will post it later.
Oh, I was reading on this stuff and read what this nut put...and he is serious.
"Jehovah, YHVH, God: Yod = 10He = 5Vav = 6He = 5Total = 26Analysis: Note that Vav, the Hebrew letter corresponding to the English letter W, is in this word, and W is the letter representing President Bush. An indication of President Bush being a bridge between man and God, bringing divine energy to Earth as the letter Vav symbolizes, and doing God's work in destroying the great evil of these Moslem terrorists, as I discuss on the page on the War on Terrorism."
Apparently if you have the letter W as your middle initial, then you're God's Chosen One. Maybe I should change my name to Chad Wichael McCracken? But then I'd have to worry if Wichael would end up freakishly adding up to 666 in either Greek, English, Roman numerals, or Hebrew because notice that most people use any one of these systems to say someone is evil or good. Ronald Wilson Reagan has 6 letters in each of his three names 6 6 6, but notice that that isn't even gematria. Gematria would give a value for each letter and then add that up. But the bottom-line is that yeah, Reagan was really evil!
Okay, so I guess my point is that I don't know what to think about 666. The writer of Revelation had a point, but it was meant to be a code. We like to try to say we know what he meant, but we don't. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. After all, he didn't give the code for fun, he wanted people to understand who he meant despite the oppression of the Roman empire at that time. That leads credence to the Caesar Nero idea. Although, Nero was dead (60's) by the time of the writing of Revelation (90's). So have I confused you yet?
Again, I have a lot more on the case for and against Nero as the "Beast" of Revelation, and I will post it soon.
BE SURE TO REALIZE THAT I ORIGINALLY POSTED THIS ON 6/6/06 BEFORE I HAD THIS SITE. PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION MY SARCASM. I'M NOT SAYING THE INTERNET = THE BEAST...or am I?
Well, in honor of all Satan's day, I thought I would just tell you something interesting that I learned last night. The Hebrew alphabet has a letter called "vav." It is basically a V, but it can translate into English as a "W." This is why you sometimes see YHWH or YHVH. And it is also why the more traditional yahWeh is translated jehoVah. I don't pretend to understand the language. I just know that I've seen some kind of "inter-changeability" between the 2 letters. If you think that's ludicrous, then it is also ludicrous that the "y" is changed to "j" in YHWH/Jehovah. Get the idea? Letters change between languages. So, the v can change to w in English. I've been told that Hebrew didn't have numbers in the form of separate symbols like we have 0-9. They merely used letters as numbers somewhat like Roman numerals. The numerical value in Hebrew (gematria) for "vav" is 6. That means that everytime you enter a website, you're typing www right? That also means that you're typing the Hebrew numerical equivalent of 666. Interesting huh. So next time you go to myspace, just think that you're typing 666.myspace.com. 20/20 was right! Myspace is evil. Oh yeah, add up all the numbers from a roulette wheel. They range from 00 to 36. It equals 666. I've been told that every bar code has 666 on it, but I don't understand those well enough to know if that is true. Have you heard that the 666 of the Bible = Caesar Nero? I have heard that, but I don't know Hebrew, and it is a Hebraic equation, so I can't check that. Even more interesting is that Latin Gematria adds his name up to 616. Well, check the references at the bottom of your Bible. You will see that there is a variant of the passage that adds up to 616. Irenaeus' manuscripts read 616. See Rev. 13:18 for the passage in question. I have more on this, but I will post it later.
Oh, I was reading on this stuff and read what this nut put...and he is serious.
"Jehovah, YHVH, God: Yod = 10He = 5Vav = 6He = 5Total = 26Analysis: Note that Vav, the Hebrew letter corresponding to the English letter W, is in this word, and W is the letter representing President Bush. An indication of President Bush being a bridge between man and God, bringing divine energy to Earth as the letter Vav symbolizes, and doing God's work in destroying the great evil of these Moslem terrorists, as I discuss on the page on the War on Terrorism."
Apparently if you have the letter W as your middle initial, then you're God's Chosen One. Maybe I should change my name to Chad Wichael McCracken? But then I'd have to worry if Wichael would end up freakishly adding up to 666 in either Greek, English, Roman numerals, or Hebrew because notice that most people use any one of these systems to say someone is evil or good. Ronald Wilson Reagan has 6 letters in each of his three names 6 6 6, but notice that that isn't even gematria. Gematria would give a value for each letter and then add that up. But the bottom-line is that yeah, Reagan was really evil!
Okay, so I guess my point is that I don't know what to think about 666. The writer of Revelation had a point, but it was meant to be a code. We like to try to say we know what he meant, but we don't. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. After all, he didn't give the code for fun, he wanted people to understand who he meant despite the oppression of the Roman empire at that time. That leads credence to the Caesar Nero idea. Although, Nero was dead (60's) by the time of the writing of Revelation (90's). So have I confused you yet?
Again, I have a lot more on the case for and against Nero as the "Beast" of Revelation, and I will post it soon.
Paranoia Express: Implantable Microchips
Originally posted - Friday, May 26, 2006
Paranoia Express: Implantable Microchips
Glenn Beck and my father are to blame for this, but I feel like writing about something scary. Darla, I know you well enough to know that you won't want to read any further. You can thank me later. After 9/11, I made the comment that terrorism would spell the end of privacy rights. I said that our government would eventually implement a tracking system for EVERYTHING. Why would we do this? It solves a multitude of our current issues. This tracking/information system would be some form of nano-technology that would be placed within the body in a from that would likely be impossible to remove.
Let's look at all the issues this device could solve. These will be in the order that I think of them rather than by importance.
1) Passwords and the "speed age." As a realtor, I have at least 15 websites that I use occasionally each with its own password and user ID. Often I'm not able to change the user ID or password, so I just have to remember them. For the main site (MLS), I have to remember a 9-digit code, then I put in my pin number (4 digits), then I put in the 6-digit code that's on my keypad. This keypad has 6 digits on it that change every minute of every day 24/7/365. This is just for work. What about your security system at your house? What about your check card? Did you check your email today? Did you get on myspace? Did you have to "sign on" to your internet service? Do you have a social security number? Passwords are everywhere. They are our current "identity" checker. Anything typed on a computer can be taken off a computer. ALL of your information is on some computer somewhere. The chip could solve identity issues. Illegal immigrants steal social security numbers all the time. They can't do this if one's identity is beamed from a chip inside one's body. Imagine a world where you pump gas without ever swiping a card. You deposit or withdraw money at the bank without having to stop and fill out those slips. You go to the grocery store and don't have to wait in line for FOREVER while you get "checked out." You simply walk out the door. You go shopping at the mall and try on a new outfit. You like it so you want to buy it. Well, you just keep it on and walk out of the store. Don't you see that our world has become the "speed age" more so than the "information age." Information just helps us speed up processes. When people buy homes today, we can show them everything available that fits what they're looking for by doing an internet search. Yes this is information, but it is information meant to speed up the process. Our culture, and more importantly, our economy, is moving towards whatever speeds things up. That's why we have automatic, online bill paying now. Itunes gives me the latest song without my ever having to put on pants (I'm wearing pants anyway though, just for you). Okay, have I proven my point on this one yet?
2) Terrorism/Illegal Immigration- Anyone who comes into our country could be forced to take this chip in him or her. We will know exactly where they are and exactly how long they've been here. Anyone who doesn't have this chip wouldn't be able to survive. If someone from Mexico came over, they would have to have the chip to buy food. One could only steal for so long. Viola, the border issue is solved. Who would want to come over if they couldn't survive. Let's say, however, that Mexico gets on board with this technology. Then, we would know that illegals have come into our country. Anyone who doesn't register when they come over would be breaking the law. Terrorism would still happen, but if we have everyone injected and we suspect who is to blame, then we would know instantly where to find this person. Do you see how these 2 are related? If we inject every one who comes into our country, then they can't perform a terrorist act and get out. This is why illegal immigration would EVENTUALLY become a real crime to our government rather than something that's seen as an opportunity for amnesty like it is now.
3) Others- How do you speed when you're being tracked? How do you steal someone's car when it has a tracker in it? How do you kidnap and molest a child when the tracker will lead police right to you? Let's say a patient is brought into an emergency room. The doctor doesn't know who the patient is because the patient is unconscious and the people who brought him in just found him on the street. They don't know him or his medical history. The doctor needs to use either one drug or another based on the blood type of the patient. The chip could give the doctor the information immediately. Otherwise the doctor would have to run tests which in the meantime, the patient could die. Imagine how this chip could help the military. It would know exactly where every soldier is in real time. 25 percent of the deaths in the invasion of Iraq were due to friendly fire. The military has already taken steps to prevent these kinds of deaths by placing real-time trackers on their vehicles. The "friendlies" show up on monitors. The problem is that it only shows vehicles, not men. The plane that hit the pentagon on 9/11 turned off its tracker. We had our F16's over the ocean because we didn't know where it was. If we would have had the chip, we could have easily found out who was on the plane and then found out where these people were. Don't you see how this chip only makes sense? If it can really do all of this, why wouldn't we use it? It's coming. At the same time, the danger is that this information will get into the wrong hands, not "if." I'm only 24. This chip, in some form, will be in circulation by the time I retire. The technology already exists. It's just a matter of time. I don't know about all the "out-there" interpretations of Revelation, but I will say this. It's extremely possible that this technology will provide governments with a power never seen before. The question is, isn't it possible that the UN or some other organization will try to have this chip implemented throughout the world to bring these "benefits" and to prevent terrorism? What then?
---
I recently made a video on this subject in conjunction with another topic that I haven't discussed yet--The European Union. I admit that this might be over-dramatic right now, but nonetheless, it worries me. Take a look at the slideshow, but keep in mind that I'm connecting percieved dots. I feel like things are moving, slowly, but surely toward this. I will get to the subject of the EU and it's role in globalism soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXpmZYkaBKM
Paranoia Express: Implantable Microchips
Glenn Beck and my father are to blame for this, but I feel like writing about something scary. Darla, I know you well enough to know that you won't want to read any further. You can thank me later. After 9/11, I made the comment that terrorism would spell the end of privacy rights. I said that our government would eventually implement a tracking system for EVERYTHING. Why would we do this? It solves a multitude of our current issues. This tracking/information system would be some form of nano-technology that would be placed within the body in a from that would likely be impossible to remove.
Let's look at all the issues this device could solve. These will be in the order that I think of them rather than by importance.
1) Passwords and the "speed age." As a realtor, I have at least 15 websites that I use occasionally each with its own password and user ID. Often I'm not able to change the user ID or password, so I just have to remember them. For the main site (MLS), I have to remember a 9-digit code, then I put in my pin number (4 digits), then I put in the 6-digit code that's on my keypad. This keypad has 6 digits on it that change every minute of every day 24/7/365. This is just for work. What about your security system at your house? What about your check card? Did you check your email today? Did you get on myspace? Did you have to "sign on" to your internet service? Do you have a social security number? Passwords are everywhere. They are our current "identity" checker. Anything typed on a computer can be taken off a computer. ALL of your information is on some computer somewhere. The chip could solve identity issues. Illegal immigrants steal social security numbers all the time. They can't do this if one's identity is beamed from a chip inside one's body. Imagine a world where you pump gas without ever swiping a card. You deposit or withdraw money at the bank without having to stop and fill out those slips. You go to the grocery store and don't have to wait in line for FOREVER while you get "checked out." You simply walk out the door. You go shopping at the mall and try on a new outfit. You like it so you want to buy it. Well, you just keep it on and walk out of the store. Don't you see that our world has become the "speed age" more so than the "information age." Information just helps us speed up processes. When people buy homes today, we can show them everything available that fits what they're looking for by doing an internet search. Yes this is information, but it is information meant to speed up the process. Our culture, and more importantly, our economy, is moving towards whatever speeds things up. That's why we have automatic, online bill paying now. Itunes gives me the latest song without my ever having to put on pants (I'm wearing pants anyway though, just for you). Okay, have I proven my point on this one yet?
2) Terrorism/Illegal Immigration- Anyone who comes into our country could be forced to take this chip in him or her. We will know exactly where they are and exactly how long they've been here. Anyone who doesn't have this chip wouldn't be able to survive. If someone from Mexico came over, they would have to have the chip to buy food. One could only steal for so long. Viola, the border issue is solved. Who would want to come over if they couldn't survive. Let's say, however, that Mexico gets on board with this technology. Then, we would know that illegals have come into our country. Anyone who doesn't register when they come over would be breaking the law. Terrorism would still happen, but if we have everyone injected and we suspect who is to blame, then we would know instantly where to find this person. Do you see how these 2 are related? If we inject every one who comes into our country, then they can't perform a terrorist act and get out. This is why illegal immigration would EVENTUALLY become a real crime to our government rather than something that's seen as an opportunity for amnesty like it is now.
3) Others- How do you speed when you're being tracked? How do you steal someone's car when it has a tracker in it? How do you kidnap and molest a child when the tracker will lead police right to you? Let's say a patient is brought into an emergency room. The doctor doesn't know who the patient is because the patient is unconscious and the people who brought him in just found him on the street. They don't know him or his medical history. The doctor needs to use either one drug or another based on the blood type of the patient. The chip could give the doctor the information immediately. Otherwise the doctor would have to run tests which in the meantime, the patient could die. Imagine how this chip could help the military. It would know exactly where every soldier is in real time. 25 percent of the deaths in the invasion of Iraq were due to friendly fire. The military has already taken steps to prevent these kinds of deaths by placing real-time trackers on their vehicles. The "friendlies" show up on monitors. The problem is that it only shows vehicles, not men. The plane that hit the pentagon on 9/11 turned off its tracker. We had our F16's over the ocean because we didn't know where it was. If we would have had the chip, we could have easily found out who was on the plane and then found out where these people were. Don't you see how this chip only makes sense? If it can really do all of this, why wouldn't we use it? It's coming. At the same time, the danger is that this information will get into the wrong hands, not "if." I'm only 24. This chip, in some form, will be in circulation by the time I retire. The technology already exists. It's just a matter of time. I don't know about all the "out-there" interpretations of Revelation, but I will say this. It's extremely possible that this technology will provide governments with a power never seen before. The question is, isn't it possible that the UN or some other organization will try to have this chip implemented throughout the world to bring these "benefits" and to prevent terrorism? What then?
---
I recently made a video on this subject in conjunction with another topic that I haven't discussed yet--The European Union. I admit that this might be over-dramatic right now, but nonetheless, it worries me. Take a look at the slideshow, but keep in mind that I'm connecting percieved dots. I feel like things are moving, slowly, but surely toward this. I will get to the subject of the EU and it's role in globalism soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXpmZYkaBKM
Ever Wonder What They Believe: Jehovah's Witnesses
Originally posted - Tuesday, April 25, 2006
I found this at http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm. This is not the official page for J.W.'s. I didn't want to give that out because I don't know who might read this and where they are in their "faith." The reason I mention that it isn't from the "official" is two-fold. 1) That means it may not be "exactly" framed the way they would. Although, I went to their site and it seems to be an excellent summary. 2) However, there was one discrepancy between what "carm.org" said and what the official site said involving Jesus. Carm.org says that J.W.'s believe the angel Michael incarnated as Jesus. The official site didn't mention Michael but just called the Son the "prehuman Jesus." Okay, here you go. Now you will know what they believe when you hear that knock at the door. By the way, can you explain to me why # 11 matters? What difference does it matter if it was 2 pieces of wood (cross) or 1 piece? Also, when you read about the 144,000, they believe others (than the 144,000) will have "eternal life." The 144,000 have a higher version with better bodies, though.
What do the Jehovah's Witnesses Teach?
There is one God in one person, Make Sure of All Things, p 188.
There is no Trinity, Let God be True, p. 100-101; Make Sure of All Things, p.386.
The Holy Spirit is a force, not alive, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp.406-407.
The Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, The Watchtower, June 1, 1952,p. 24.
Jehovah's first creation was his 'only-begotten Son'. . . was used by Jehovah increating all other things", Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 390-391.
Jesus was Michael the archangel who became a man, The Watchtower, May 15,1963, p. 307; The New World, 284.
Jesus was only a perfect man, not God in flesh, Reasoning from the Scriptures,1985, pp. 306.
Jesus did not rise from the dead in his physical body, Awake! July 22, 1973, p. 4.
Jesus was raised "not a human creature, but a spirit." Let God be True, p. 276.
Jesus was born again, The Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1954, p. 682.
Jesus did not die on a cross but on a stake, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985,pp. 89-90.
Jesus began his invisible rule over the earth in 1914, The Truth Shall Make You Free,p. 300.
Jesus' ransom sacrifice did not include Adam, Let God be True, p. 119.
Their church is the self-proclaimed prophet of God, The Watchtower, April 1,1972, p. 197.
They claim to be the only channel of God's truth, The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981, p. 19.
Only their church members will be saved, The Watchtower, Feb, 15, 1979, p. 30.
Good works are necessary for salvation, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 150, 152.
The soul ceases to exist after death, Let God be True, p. 59, 60, 67.
There is no hell of fire where the wicked are punished, Let God be True, p. 79, 80.
Only 144,000 Jehovah's Witness go to heaven, Reasoning from the Scriptures,1985, pp. 166-167, 361; Let God be True, p. 121.
Only the 144,000 Jehovah's Witness are born again. Reasoning from theScriptures, 1985, p. 76.; Watchtower 11/15/54, p. 681.
Only the 144,000 may take communion,
Blood transfusions are a sin, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 72-73.
The Cross is a pagan symbol and should not be used, Reasoning from theScriptures, 1985, pp. 90-92.
Salvation is by faith and what you do, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp.150,152.
It is possible to lose your salvation, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp.358-359.
The universe is billions of years old, Your will Be Done on Earth, p. 43.
Each of the 6 creative days of God in Genesis 1, was 7000 years long. Therefore, Man was created toward the end of 42,000 years of earth'spreparation, Let God be True, p. 168.
They also refuse to vote, salute the flag, sing the "Star Spangled Banner," or celebrate Christmas or birthdays. They are not allowed to serve in the armedforces.
Satan was entrusted with the obligation and charged with the duty of overseeing the creation of the earth, Children, p 55
I realize a Jehovah's Witness member may come across this. If so, please leave a comment on what isn't true. I simply don't know and had to turn to another source which I could not verify. I give you that ability.
I found this at http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm. This is not the official page for J.W.'s. I didn't want to give that out because I don't know who might read this and where they are in their "faith." The reason I mention that it isn't from the "official" is two-fold. 1) That means it may not be "exactly" framed the way they would. Although, I went to their site and it seems to be an excellent summary. 2) However, there was one discrepancy between what "carm.org" said and what the official site said involving Jesus. Carm.org says that J.W.'s believe the angel Michael incarnated as Jesus. The official site didn't mention Michael but just called the Son the "prehuman Jesus." Okay, here you go. Now you will know what they believe when you hear that knock at the door. By the way, can you explain to me why # 11 matters? What difference does it matter if it was 2 pieces of wood (cross) or 1 piece? Also, when you read about the 144,000, they believe others (than the 144,000) will have "eternal life." The 144,000 have a higher version with better bodies, though.
What do the Jehovah's Witnesses Teach?
There is one God in one person, Make Sure of All Things, p 188.
There is no Trinity, Let God be True, p. 100-101; Make Sure of All Things, p.386.
The Holy Spirit is a force, not alive, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp.406-407.
The Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, The Watchtower, June 1, 1952,p. 24.
Jehovah's first creation was his 'only-begotten Son'. . . was used by Jehovah increating all other things", Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 390-391.
Jesus was Michael the archangel who became a man, The Watchtower, May 15,1963, p. 307; The New World, 284.
Jesus was only a perfect man, not God in flesh, Reasoning from the Scriptures,1985, pp. 306.
Jesus did not rise from the dead in his physical body, Awake! July 22, 1973, p. 4.
Jesus was raised "not a human creature, but a spirit." Let God be True, p. 276.
Jesus was born again, The Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1954, p. 682.
Jesus did not die on a cross but on a stake, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985,pp. 89-90.
Jesus began his invisible rule over the earth in 1914, The Truth Shall Make You Free,p. 300.
Jesus' ransom sacrifice did not include Adam, Let God be True, p. 119.
Their church is the self-proclaimed prophet of God, The Watchtower, April 1,1972, p. 197.
They claim to be the only channel of God's truth, The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981, p. 19.
Only their church members will be saved, The Watchtower, Feb, 15, 1979, p. 30.
Good works are necessary for salvation, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 150, 152.
The soul ceases to exist after death, Let God be True, p. 59, 60, 67.
There is no hell of fire where the wicked are punished, Let God be True, p. 79, 80.
Only 144,000 Jehovah's Witness go to heaven, Reasoning from the Scriptures,1985, pp. 166-167, 361; Let God be True, p. 121.
Only the 144,000 Jehovah's Witness are born again. Reasoning from theScriptures, 1985, p. 76.; Watchtower 11/15/54, p. 681.
Only the 144,000 may take communion,
Blood transfusions are a sin, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 72-73.
The Cross is a pagan symbol and should not be used, Reasoning from theScriptures, 1985, pp. 90-92.
Salvation is by faith and what you do, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp.150,152.
It is possible to lose your salvation, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp.358-359.
The universe is billions of years old, Your will Be Done on Earth, p. 43.
Each of the 6 creative days of God in Genesis 1, was 7000 years long. Therefore, Man was created toward the end of 42,000 years of earth'spreparation, Let God be True, p. 168.
They also refuse to vote, salute the flag, sing the "Star Spangled Banner," or celebrate Christmas or birthdays. They are not allowed to serve in the armedforces.
Satan was entrusted with the obligation and charged with the duty of overseeing the creation of the earth, Children, p 55
I realize a Jehovah's Witness member may come across this. If so, please leave a comment on what isn't true. I simply don't know and had to turn to another source which I could not verify. I give you that ability.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Authority Dilemma
Originally posted - Tuesday, January 03, 2006
I feel like I should talk about this upcoming subject for a reason unknown to me. Maybe it's just because I find the subject very interesting. When I first had the question posed to me, I had no answer. I was completely shocked by it. I thought, how could I be 20 years old, been involved in Bible and Theology for two years and I've never realized this dilemma. Ready for the dilemma?
Question: Which is the higher authority?: The Church or Scripture? Here in lies the problem, if you say Scripture, then how did it get there? Didn't the Church "decide" what Scripture was? Didn't they vote on it? If you say, then, that the Church is higher, you also have a problem. If you aren't Catholic, then you have a limited perception of the Church. You're so splintered between differing beliefs that it becomes quite impossible to say "truth" is one thing. Protestants have differing views on everything. If you're Catholic, this is just a false dilemma. The Catholic church holds them both up as pillars of authority. My problem with that is this: history shows us the problem with the Church. The Church has participated in murder and other sins. It was corrupted long ago. It decided what was "proper" and then changed it years later. How does truth fit in that? Obviously you can tell that I don't subscribe to changing truths. So, where are we left then?
Interestingly, John Calvin had a solution to this. To me, it was a genius point.
Point 1: Scripture has its authority from God, not from the Church.
Calvin goes right to the heart of the Catholic idea that Scripture was decided by man/the church when he says, "As if the eternal and invisible truth of God depended upon the decision of men" (all quotes/references are from his Institutes Book 1, chap 7). It actually goes into a borrowing from Platonic thought, but we don't need to go into that. Basically, Calvin believed the historical event of the Church gathering to decide on the canon was merely the outworking of the Spirit's work. The Spirit is the ultimate guide and leader in their decision. It is as if the inspiration that guided the writers guided the delegates. If the Church was truly given the power to place books within the canon, then she could have the power to remove books. Where would we be then? Truth would become someone's whim. The Church could manipulate the way to Christ. After all, we receive Christ "clothed with the Gospel." The Spirit would be unnecessary to reach the Father because man's authority has taken his stead.
2. The Church is itself grounded upon Scripture
Calvin takes it a step further to argue the reverse of the Catholic doctrine. It is an "antecedent" view of Scripture. That is, instead of the Church declaring "Scripture," Scripture is the foundation of the Church. Eph 2:20 says that the church was "built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles."
3. This point goes into an appeal to St. Augustine, but we don't need to go into that. Basically, he was miss cited. His point was misunderstood.
4. The witness of the Holy Spirit: this is stronger than all proof
Calvin believes Scripture is self-authenticating. He believes it is apparent. It has been moved along by the wind/Spirit. It is above human reason.
Point 5 is basically the same as 4 except that he thinks the Spirit doesn't just reveal truth in the Bible, but it reveals the truth in us. That is, the Spirit moves us to belief, not just that it brings truth in Scripture. Their is a dual action working in the text itself and in us. Belief/faith is a gift. Scripture is not proved by guesswork for "the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals in our hearts."
Another argument I heard once went as simply this: the Church didn't vote, it simply upheld what was already being read in the vast Church. The Church simply got together to uphold the orthodox faith due to surging heresies and confusion.
I feel like I should talk about this upcoming subject for a reason unknown to me. Maybe it's just because I find the subject very interesting. When I first had the question posed to me, I had no answer. I was completely shocked by it. I thought, how could I be 20 years old, been involved in Bible and Theology for two years and I've never realized this dilemma. Ready for the dilemma?
Question: Which is the higher authority?: The Church or Scripture? Here in lies the problem, if you say Scripture, then how did it get there? Didn't the Church "decide" what Scripture was? Didn't they vote on it? If you say, then, that the Church is higher, you also have a problem. If you aren't Catholic, then you have a limited perception of the Church. You're so splintered between differing beliefs that it becomes quite impossible to say "truth" is one thing. Protestants have differing views on everything. If you're Catholic, this is just a false dilemma. The Catholic church holds them both up as pillars of authority. My problem with that is this: history shows us the problem with the Church. The Church has participated in murder and other sins. It was corrupted long ago. It decided what was "proper" and then changed it years later. How does truth fit in that? Obviously you can tell that I don't subscribe to changing truths. So, where are we left then?
Interestingly, John Calvin had a solution to this. To me, it was a genius point.
Point 1: Scripture has its authority from God, not from the Church.
Calvin goes right to the heart of the Catholic idea that Scripture was decided by man/the church when he says, "As if the eternal and invisible truth of God depended upon the decision of men" (all quotes/references are from his Institutes Book 1, chap 7). It actually goes into a borrowing from Platonic thought, but we don't need to go into that. Basically, Calvin believed the historical event of the Church gathering to decide on the canon was merely the outworking of the Spirit's work. The Spirit is the ultimate guide and leader in their decision. It is as if the inspiration that guided the writers guided the delegates. If the Church was truly given the power to place books within the canon, then she could have the power to remove books. Where would we be then? Truth would become someone's whim. The Church could manipulate the way to Christ. After all, we receive Christ "clothed with the Gospel." The Spirit would be unnecessary to reach the Father because man's authority has taken his stead.
2. The Church is itself grounded upon Scripture
Calvin takes it a step further to argue the reverse of the Catholic doctrine. It is an "antecedent" view of Scripture. That is, instead of the Church declaring "Scripture," Scripture is the foundation of the Church. Eph 2:20 says that the church was "built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles."
3. This point goes into an appeal to St. Augustine, but we don't need to go into that. Basically, he was miss cited. His point was misunderstood.
4. The witness of the Holy Spirit: this is stronger than all proof
Calvin believes Scripture is self-authenticating. He believes it is apparent. It has been moved along by the wind/Spirit. It is above human reason.
Point 5 is basically the same as 4 except that he thinks the Spirit doesn't just reveal truth in the Bible, but it reveals the truth in us. That is, the Spirit moves us to belief, not just that it brings truth in Scripture. Their is a dual action working in the text itself and in us. Belief/faith is a gift. Scripture is not proved by guesswork for "the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals in our hearts."
Another argument I heard once went as simply this: the Church didn't vote, it simply upheld what was already being read in the vast Church. The Church simply got together to uphold the orthodox faith due to surging heresies and confusion.
Chosen
Originally posted - Wednesday, November 30, 2005
We are chosen not because we're good enough, but because he was good enough to choose us.
We are chosen not because we're good enough, but because he was good enough to choose us.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Fundamentalism
Originally posted - Wednesday, October 25, 2006
I said in my last blog that I would explain the emergence of the term "fundamentalism" and display a connection to Islam, so if you haven't read my last blog, then you need to before this one. And once again, this will likely be long and philosophical, so if that bores you, now would be the time to stop reading. What I'm about to say might be controversial even to my conservative readers. That is okay. If you have a problem with it, then just email me and we can talk about it. I "could" be wrong.
Fundamentalism is a Protestant movement emerging out of the early 20th Century backlash against the rise of secularism. Namely, this involved Darwinism and liberal theology. Trust me people, popular theology was very liberal coming into the 20th Century. Names like Hegel and Schleiermacher were the "head" thinkers in "high" theology at this time. I don't have time to go into their theologies though. Let's put it this way, the Bible was an after-thought. Basically, people got tired of the garbage out there in their world, so they wrote down 5 points that one HAD TO believe in order to be a Christian. Now this is the part that makes me truly a non-fundamentalist (although I am one in a different since). I believe Jesus Christ is the ONLY "have to" in Christianity (I'll leave that vague). However, I do believe in all 5 points and find it troublesome to be a Christian and not believe these points. Here they are: 1. The Virgin Birth (biblical) 2. The Physical Resurrection of Jesus (Hegel and Schleiermacher denied this, biblical) 3. The Infallibility of Scriptures (this one is the most tricky because what does "infallibility" mean?) 4. Substitutional Atonement (A simple way to understand this is that Jesus stood in the place of you for the payment of sins. We are allowed relationship with the Father through the act of the Son, biblical) 5. Physical 2nd Coming of Christ (biblical). Do you see a pattern here? All of these are biblical points. Even though I didn't list the 3rd as biblical, it really is because there are passages (Timothy) which describe the Scriptures' nature. This is a circular argument though, so I won't press that. Anyway, those who held to these five points and the necessity that others did as well were called "Fundamentalists" because they held to fundamental/core Christian beliefs. Jesus was a radical. To believe these points in the early 20th Century was radical. To believe them now in our post-Christian society is radical. Now I want to bring in Islam.
Muslims who kill the infidel (aka "unbeliever") are labeled as "extremist radicals." Muhammad did not just lead a new religion; he led a war—Jihad (Holy War). It is true that he died rather early on, but his followers continued and even increased the warfare. Islam began in 622. By 636, they won a major battle against the Christians at Yarmuk. Two years later, they took Jerusalem. 641 saw Alexandria fall. 695 saw Carthage end its reign as a place of great theologians including Augustine. It wasn't until 732 (over 100 years) that the Muslims lost a major battle. In all of this conflict, pagans were forced to convert or they were given the sword. Christians and Jews were not always killed, but their evangelical efforts were not allowed. By 700, nearly all of Arabia was unified under the bloody sword of Islam. Interestingly, Christianity gained its strength by blood too but it was Christ's and the martyrs. Notice a difference? Anyway, terrorists today are not extreme forms of their religion. They are "Primitivists." What this means is that they seek to return to the primitive or beginning ideas of the religion. Consider the Suburbia Jesus and the societal Christians you know. Aren't they just followers of a watered-down religion with no real-life in it. Their religion is decided more by society than by its foundational truths. It's a religion, not a relationship. What I'm suggesting is that the world is perfectly okay with watered-down religion. It seeks that. In an odd way, I can understand why terrorists act for Allah. They're attempting to hold to their "orthodox" (beginning) religion. They work for their salvation, while ours has already been worked for.
My central point for bringing the Muslims into this discussion is this. Their religion, at its core, is not a loving one. It is a religion of the sword. It is one based on the original deception of Muhammad. Those that follow it, as it really is, are labeled extremist fundamentalists partially to mask its true identity and partially because a watered-down religion is acceptable to society. We're told that the few who commit these acts aren't representative of Islam. The reality is that they are the ones who actually follow their religion.
Here is my final point. I'm a fundamentalist. I'm a primitivist who believes in the necessity of the restoration of the church as John Calvin argued. I list myself as a Protestant because I "protest" (which is where Protestant comes from) the way the Catholic Church had moved away from its foundation in Christ. I believe in the 5 points of fundamentalism. They seem, to me, to be exactly what their title says they are—fundamental. I'm radical to this world and its Suburbia Jesus. According to our culture, I'm a radical for being a fundamentalist, and that is the way I like it. If Jesus was, then I probably should be too.
As a side-note, if you agree with these points, don't go around calling yourself a fundamentalist. People won't know the difference that you intend. They will believe your goal in life is to bomb an abortion clinic. Remember that fundamentalism was intended to just return to the Apostolic (Apostle's faith). It just wishes to worship the triune God as he revealed himself in Scripture without bowing to society. That was their intention, and it is mine.
I said in my last blog that I would explain the emergence of the term "fundamentalism" and display a connection to Islam, so if you haven't read my last blog, then you need to before this one. And once again, this will likely be long and philosophical, so if that bores you, now would be the time to stop reading. What I'm about to say might be controversial even to my conservative readers. That is okay. If you have a problem with it, then just email me and we can talk about it. I "could" be wrong.
Fundamentalism is a Protestant movement emerging out of the early 20th Century backlash against the rise of secularism. Namely, this involved Darwinism and liberal theology. Trust me people, popular theology was very liberal coming into the 20th Century. Names like Hegel and Schleiermacher were the "head" thinkers in "high" theology at this time. I don't have time to go into their theologies though. Let's put it this way, the Bible was an after-thought. Basically, people got tired of the garbage out there in their world, so they wrote down 5 points that one HAD TO believe in order to be a Christian. Now this is the part that makes me truly a non-fundamentalist (although I am one in a different since). I believe Jesus Christ is the ONLY "have to" in Christianity (I'll leave that vague). However, I do believe in all 5 points and find it troublesome to be a Christian and not believe these points. Here they are: 1. The Virgin Birth (biblical) 2. The Physical Resurrection of Jesus (Hegel and Schleiermacher denied this, biblical) 3. The Infallibility of Scriptures (this one is the most tricky because what does "infallibility" mean?) 4. Substitutional Atonement (A simple way to understand this is that Jesus stood in the place of you for the payment of sins. We are allowed relationship with the Father through the act of the Son, biblical) 5. Physical 2nd Coming of Christ (biblical). Do you see a pattern here? All of these are biblical points. Even though I didn't list the 3rd as biblical, it really is because there are passages (Timothy) which describe the Scriptures' nature. This is a circular argument though, so I won't press that. Anyway, those who held to these five points and the necessity that others did as well were called "Fundamentalists" because they held to fundamental/core Christian beliefs. Jesus was a radical. To believe these points in the early 20th Century was radical. To believe them now in our post-Christian society is radical. Now I want to bring in Islam.
Muslims who kill the infidel (aka "unbeliever") are labeled as "extremist radicals." Muhammad did not just lead a new religion; he led a war—Jihad (Holy War). It is true that he died rather early on, but his followers continued and even increased the warfare. Islam began in 622. By 636, they won a major battle against the Christians at Yarmuk. Two years later, they took Jerusalem. 641 saw Alexandria fall. 695 saw Carthage end its reign as a place of great theologians including Augustine. It wasn't until 732 (over 100 years) that the Muslims lost a major battle. In all of this conflict, pagans were forced to convert or they were given the sword. Christians and Jews were not always killed, but their evangelical efforts were not allowed. By 700, nearly all of Arabia was unified under the bloody sword of Islam. Interestingly, Christianity gained its strength by blood too but it was Christ's and the martyrs. Notice a difference? Anyway, terrorists today are not extreme forms of their religion. They are "Primitivists." What this means is that they seek to return to the primitive or beginning ideas of the religion. Consider the Suburbia Jesus and the societal Christians you know. Aren't they just followers of a watered-down religion with no real-life in it. Their religion is decided more by society than by its foundational truths. It's a religion, not a relationship. What I'm suggesting is that the world is perfectly okay with watered-down religion. It seeks that. In an odd way, I can understand why terrorists act for Allah. They're attempting to hold to their "orthodox" (beginning) religion. They work for their salvation, while ours has already been worked for.
My central point for bringing the Muslims into this discussion is this. Their religion, at its core, is not a loving one. It is a religion of the sword. It is one based on the original deception of Muhammad. Those that follow it, as it really is, are labeled extremist fundamentalists partially to mask its true identity and partially because a watered-down religion is acceptable to society. We're told that the few who commit these acts aren't representative of Islam. The reality is that they are the ones who actually follow their religion.
Here is my final point. I'm a fundamentalist. I'm a primitivist who believes in the necessity of the restoration of the church as John Calvin argued. I list myself as a Protestant because I "protest" (which is where Protestant comes from) the way the Catholic Church had moved away from its foundation in Christ. I believe in the 5 points of fundamentalism. They seem, to me, to be exactly what their title says they are—fundamental. I'm radical to this world and its Suburbia Jesus. According to our culture, I'm a radical for being a fundamentalist, and that is the way I like it. If Jesus was, then I probably should be too.
As a side-note, if you agree with these points, don't go around calling yourself a fundamentalist. People won't know the difference that you intend. They will believe your goal in life is to bomb an abortion clinic. Remember that fundamentalism was intended to just return to the Apostolic (Apostle's faith). It just wishes to worship the triune God as he revealed himself in Scripture without bowing to society. That was their intention, and it is mine.
The Jesus of Suburbia
Originally posted - Tuesday, October 18, 2005
"The Jesus of Suburbia is a lie." This quote from Green Day provoked me to finally write on something I've been thinking about for a while. This is likely to be long, so if that matters, you might want to stop reading now. In fact, where I want to get with this point will take so long that I'm already planning on getting there in another entry. Okay, the disclaimer is over.
I don't know how the staunchly liberal group meant that phrase, but allow me to run with it as it struck me. Is it true in some sense? Yes, I think so. Our Jesus is what we make him to be in some sense (Freurbach). Do we really turn the other cheek? The figure the Gospels present is a totally radical one. The Suburbia Jesus isn't radical. He's our "pocket Jesus" that we pull out when we're in a jam. "Oh, something bad just happened, so I think I'll pray." How many rap videos have you seen with the crucifix around someone's neck? Then they proceed to sell us their garbage of materialism and lust. The Jesus of the New Testament, though loving, did care about how we lived our lives. "If you love me, you will obey my commandments." Jesus, the radical, spoke largely to Jewish people saying, "But I say to you." The "but" there is crucial to my point. The Jews followed a religious system set up from the times of Abraham and Moses. Jesus confronts that system or at least, the misunderstandings prevalent in the system. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) does not weaken standards but raises them. Do you realize how radical that was to a people who followed the same Tradition for thousands of years? He tells us to reconcile, not sue. The Jesus of Suburbia solely takes our side. "Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated." The radical New Testament Jesus doesn't lower standards but raises them instead. Jesus tells us to give to the one who asks (Matthew 5:42). He tells us to love our enemies. He challenges the idea that pain in one's life is the direct result of one's sinfulness, especially in the case of sickness (a commonly held belief at that time and even exists today in the form of the "health and wealth" gospel). He tells the last in society that they shall be the first. Joy is reached not by seeking happiness and pleasure but by "losing his life to find it." Jesus drank wine. While this wasn't radical at this time, Suburbia Jesus has nothing to do with this. Our Jesus just wants us to be happy and have money. Our Jesus isn't Sovereign over natural disasters because this would make him the author. The point is simply this, we aren't radical enough. When society sees a radical, they label them "fundamentalist." That is where I want to go with my next point. I am a fundamentalist (in some sense). But I want to explain where that term came from and how it connects with the Protestant movement and eventually, I want to bring it into a thought about Islam. So tune in boys and girls.
"The Jesus of Suburbia is a lie." This quote from Green Day provoked me to finally write on something I've been thinking about for a while. This is likely to be long, so if that matters, you might want to stop reading now. In fact, where I want to get with this point will take so long that I'm already planning on getting there in another entry. Okay, the disclaimer is over.
I don't know how the staunchly liberal group meant that phrase, but allow me to run with it as it struck me. Is it true in some sense? Yes, I think so. Our Jesus is what we make him to be in some sense (Freurbach). Do we really turn the other cheek? The figure the Gospels present is a totally radical one. The Suburbia Jesus isn't radical. He's our "pocket Jesus" that we pull out when we're in a jam. "Oh, something bad just happened, so I think I'll pray." How many rap videos have you seen with the crucifix around someone's neck? Then they proceed to sell us their garbage of materialism and lust. The Jesus of the New Testament, though loving, did care about how we lived our lives. "If you love me, you will obey my commandments." Jesus, the radical, spoke largely to Jewish people saying, "But I say to you." The "but" there is crucial to my point. The Jews followed a religious system set up from the times of Abraham and Moses. Jesus confronts that system or at least, the misunderstandings prevalent in the system. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) does not weaken standards but raises them. Do you realize how radical that was to a people who followed the same Tradition for thousands of years? He tells us to reconcile, not sue. The Jesus of Suburbia solely takes our side. "Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated." The radical New Testament Jesus doesn't lower standards but raises them instead. Jesus tells us to give to the one who asks (Matthew 5:42). He tells us to love our enemies. He challenges the idea that pain in one's life is the direct result of one's sinfulness, especially in the case of sickness (a commonly held belief at that time and even exists today in the form of the "health and wealth" gospel). He tells the last in society that they shall be the first. Joy is reached not by seeking happiness and pleasure but by "losing his life to find it." Jesus drank wine. While this wasn't radical at this time, Suburbia Jesus has nothing to do with this. Our Jesus just wants us to be happy and have money. Our Jesus isn't Sovereign over natural disasters because this would make him the author. The point is simply this, we aren't radical enough. When society sees a radical, they label them "fundamentalist." That is where I want to go with my next point. I am a fundamentalist (in some sense). But I want to explain where that term came from and how it connects with the Protestant movement and eventually, I want to bring it into a thought about Islam. So tune in boys and girls.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Prologue
I am going to begin to post some of my opinions. They are simply that. I don't know where this will lead or if it will have any relevance to anyone. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to write. I started a blog over a year ago elsewhere. I will post those thoughts first. After they are completely posted, I will begin to post new material. I'm interested in what others think, but I'm not interested in arguing. If you disagree, please do so without resorting to negative rhetoric. That is, disagree intelligently without resorting to name-calling. Back up your position with sources. I occasionally will do that myself, but I won’t always. Mostly this is opinion, not an essay. However, if pressed, I will attempt to provide sources on anything one might ask for.
My background is in the field of Bible & Theology. However, I have a strong interest in politics, philosophy, and history. You can expect all of these things to be discussed in a "real" manner. Essentially, I’m saying that I will talk about things with no PC constraints.
My background is in the field of Bible & Theology. However, I have a strong interest in politics, philosophy, and history. You can expect all of these things to be discussed in a "real" manner. Essentially, I’m saying that I will talk about things with no PC constraints.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
