Straining Gnats

You reckon the thief on the cross or the early Christians would've known what to make of this hairsplitting issue about why you should love God? Is it an issue anywhere in the N.T.?

Hello? Am I missing something? Duh, I thought we worship Him (which I always assumed includes loving) bec. He is worthy of worship. Plain and simple. We're designed to worship Him in the same way we're designed to breathe.

To cut down on unnecessary carpings and cavelings, how about just calling no man your master: not Piper, nor Sproul, nor McA nor McC, nor Nevin, nor the Pope, nor Luther, nor Calvin, nor whatever other teacher-idol is yet down the road. That way, you don't get all tangled up in picayune non-essentials. Life is too short.

Talk About Strange Doctrines! ROTFL!

More mirth from the 3-T camp: even the best of us are prone to typos (viz. my "Rudolf" [the perils of being a polyglot, sigh] and "Nobel fir" [that tree deserves the Nobel prize for heavenly fragrance!]), but then there are misspellings which betoken complete ignorance (can anything intelligent emerge from the Emerg*** swamp?). A particularly hilarious one appeared recently @ Solameanie's comments (8th comment down, 2nd paragraph, penultimate line). This type of blooper puts a whole new face on "Merry."

LongTerm Ramifications

Perhaps this isn't an original thought, but I keep wondering if pomo-ism isn't simply a great-great-greatgrandchild of Nominalism.

Why Can't It Be Both?

[PRELIMINARY NOTE: The primary reason this blog lacks comment capacity is bec. I view these utterances of mine as mere mutterings from an underling in the back pews. (Secondary reason: no time or energy for religious wranglings.)]

{GASP!} This li'l hole-in-the-wall blog (which originated mainly so that I could occasionally comment @ the Pyro-metas---IOW, I never intended for it in any way to match the caliber of blogs by IMonk, Pyros, or Challies), this potatobug-under-a-rock collection of pipsqueakings has been mentioned @ the BHT. (I doubt that IMonk ever read my blog before; summun musta ratted.) Is this sorta like Rudolph getting attention from Santa? :)

But seriously, I fail to see why waiting precludes joy. Is it not cause for joy that for our sake: He who is immortal should become mortal; the One Who is infinite should become finite; the Light of the Universe should descend into the darkness of a fallen planet; the King of the Universe would leave behind ineffable splendor and Joy to descend into our Pit of Squalor and Misery?

I still think the barbiturate piece lends itself better to Lent.

Spiritual CodLiver Oil

A good 90% of the time, IMonk's writings edify me in one way or another. But his latest piece on Advent is like a barbiturate. It's not that he doesn't make some valid points here and there, but the TONE of the piece---the sanctimonious preachiness---totally contradicts the joyousness of the season. That "Advent" piece is to Advent what a plastic Christmas tree is to a freshly felled Noble fir.

I need some eggnog to wash the taste out of my mouth.

Say What?

Considering that doubt in God's Word caused The Fall ("Hath God said?"), it's odd that McClaren should diagnose theological confidence (= belief in Absolute Truth) as a "cancer" and as THE Primary Cause of Man's Moral Malaise.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Involuntary Comedy

Most of the time, the blatherings of the Emer***g "Church" supply fuel for thunder, but very occasionally, they provide first class mirth. Consider this clown comment (h-t comments @ Dan Phillips' post): "for your list of solas, i would encourage you to consider adding one that the original reformers were passionate about: sola reformada (always reforming). this was a central tenant of the reformation, but got lost (including the use of the phrase)."

Would it seem that perhaps some sort of residue of "Armada," "Torquemada," and "The 5 Solas" is swirling around indiscriminately in this poor commenter's head? And evidently, the church is not merely "only reformed," but the Reformation was some sort of edifice (well, actually, yes, a magnificent spiritual and intellectual "edifice"), where strangely-named inhabitants resided. (Perhaps for that particular tidbit, the commenter's brain was---ironically!---subconsciously playing the verse that says, "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.")

In the face of this sort of linguistic lint, I can't help but recall Solomon's insights into the fool, "Why should a fool have money in his hand to buy wisdom when he doesn't have a mind to grasp anything?" "...A fool flaunts his folly." "Not for the fool is eloquent speech..."

This "LS" Business

Over at iMonk's blog, there've been numerous commenters plugging the literalist RCC view (or the Lutheran one, which to me isn't that different) of the LORD's Supper. Citing 1 Corinthians 10:14-23 NASB, one fellow even goes so far as to insinuate that those who don't share that interpretation are committing idolatry.

His comment struck me as an ironic boomerang, because if we take "participation" to mean spiritual, not physical (as per Jesus' words in JOHN 6:63, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life"), then the exhortations of Paul against idolatry could be applied precisely to the literalist practice.

Play It Again, Dan!

Dan Phillips has blogged what I would consider his best essay to date (and also, I might add, the Riposte Ultime to the criticisms of Phil's dynamite posters). The best sentence reads, "Is not my word like Jello, declares the LORD, and like a comfy chair that lulls the world's paramours to sleep?"

Bizarre Retrogression

My previous post brought to mind the adage "Cleanliness is next 2 Godliness." (You're right, that's not in the Bible, altho sandwiched around His cleanliness commands to His people, we often find "I am the LORD! Be ye holy as I am!" Cf. for ex. LEV. ll:45 & 19:2). My train of thought went like this: civilization is a corporate expression of man's being made in God's image (I know, I know: civilizations always end up dissolving from corruption, but that's simply a proof of the enduring effects of The Fall), and think how crucial hygiene and sanitation are to the maintenance of civilization. Next, think of how just a few key subtle definition changes can begin the undermining of spiritual "civilization" (by that, I mean, the maintenance of The Body of Truth and the concomitant healthy functioning of the Body of Christ). Doctrinal hygiene is as paramount in the spiritual realm as physical hygiene is in the material realm.

Now, if "modern" man is so well-versed in the urgency of maintaining hygiene and sanitation in the physical realm (altho as a result of the decades-long fallout from the Marxist 60's cant, "hygiene is bourgeois nonsense," even that has been increasingly neglected), why is he so abysmally derelict---indeed rebellious!---about the vital importance of spiritual hygiene?

Eureka!

One of the most intriguing passages on heresy in the Bible is Peter's "just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them..." For decades, I have puzzled over this, specifically, how they could "secretly" deny the Master, bec. after all (went my thinking), if they're teaching heresy, it's out in the open, and just a matter of right-thinking people pointing it out, right? That "secretly" was like a pebble in my theological shoe. It just would not compute.

But now, thanx to the wisdom of a commenter named "Truth Unites...& Divides" (see comment #10), I finally have my answer (read the complete blogpost to understand what he's nutshelling here):

Subtle linguistic word games are a fundamental tactic used by the adversary to embed incremental, creeping, nearly indetectable heresy into Christ’s bride.

Word games + Feelings Manipulation vs. Inerrant Scripture.

Wide Path: Word Games & Feelings Manipulation.

Narrow Path: Inerrant Scripture

[emphasis Trothkeepr's]

TUAD, you're hired as my resident Bible mentor. :)

Useless Rationale

Maybe you've heard the arguments that witnessing to the lost is (a) in the same category as alerting your neighbor if their house is burning, and (b) part of your Xtian duty in "loving your neighbor as yourself." I disagree.

First of all, if my neighbor's house is burning, there's absolutely no condemnation involved towards him in my alerting him. In contrast, when I tell my neighbor about God's holiness, man's sin and God's wrath, the neighbor feels "judged." (Whether he's right is another issue; they always misconstrue that pt.) Furthermore, it is an objectively verifiable fact that neighbor's house is burning (he can call another neighbor to confirm it), whereas God's wrath and our sinfulness and need for Christ's atonement/righteousness are not objectively verifiable.

Secondly, I myself hate it when Mormons or JW's try to get me to believe their falderol. I resent not only the lies they propound, but even just their gall in knocking @ my door (or coming up to me when I'm taking my walk or sitting in the park). So why would I then want to behave that way towards my neighbor the unbeliever? Why would I presume to foist my beliefs on him if he hasn't asked to hear them? (See my previous post about this last aspect.) And no, don't go using the "planting a seed" rubbish on me: the seed will be useless and die unless the ground has already been prepared (in which case [again, see my previous post], the unbeliever will probably show some sort of interest in discussing spiritual matters). Even worse, the seed might get caught in the guy's craw and cause him to close up to future "witnessing."

MishNULL SchmishNULL

[NOTE in advance: no, I am NOT a hyper-Calvinist; I am not a Calvinist, period. But yes, the Bible does teach election. Look it up.]

In the same way that as a new Christian, eons ago, I got fed up to the gills with Evangelicalese ("I wanna encourage you to..." "Thanx for sharing that with us," "I felt convicted," "If you feel led," and such), I am sick to death of hearing the term "missional." The latest bout of it that I encountered was @ a comments thread where someone (albeit well-intentioned, yes) was insisting that if we just spent more time with the "unchurched," they'd see that Christians aren't the Medusas that unbelievers [coached by the media] perceive them to be, and then, they'd be more likely to want to come to Jesus. (Uh, election, anyone?)

To which my retort is: horsefeathers. My experience is this: if you're relaxed and not "holier-than-thou" (what I like to call "authentic"---not to be taken here in the Emergent sense), then The World says you're not holy enough, you're not "other enough" to claim to be a Christian. On the other hand, if you do stand on your Christian distinctives (say, not laughing at dirty jokes, or admitting that you don't even own a TV, or that you never go to movies----all without making a big deal about the respective issue), if you do try to walk in the Spirit, WELL! Then, you're "anally retentive," "stuffy," "rigid," "narrow-minded" or "old-fashioned." Then you hear things like, "Chill out!"

Can't win.

Besides that, what do I have in common with unbelievers that would make me want to spend time with them---or them with me? Sure, at work, I can exercise professionalism and "as far as it is in your power, pursue peace with all men." But once my responsibilities are behind me for the day, in my scant free time, I need to recharge in profitable ways, rather than being dragged down even more by the emptiness of The World's mind and ways. The "company" of unbelievers is draining.

As one last thought in this regard, notice 2 crucial items in this passage by Peter: "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you..." First, the unbeliever is initiating the spiritual conversation, and even more importantly, the thrust of the Greek verb for "asks" is that of someone so keen on an answer, they are as it were gripping you by the collar for your reply. In other words, the idea here seems to be an unbeliever who is probably one of the elect---i.e., a future believer, and God has whetted the person's appetite for whatever it is you radiate.

This approach is TOTALLY opposite the usual Evangelical/fundy/dispy obsession with "witnessing" and "getting decisions." Hey, and while we're at it, the so-called Great Commission was made to the guys Jesus sent out to start the church. The Amish seem to be the only Christian group that have this aspect right: they don't subscribe to the erroneous notion that every believer is being addressed by that passage where Jesus is giving the command to "make disciples." As the Amish so sensibly say, "Anybody can pick up a Bible and read it." AMEN.

If you disagree, tell me just one thing: why is the rest of the things He said to His Disciples not then still valid as well (like speaking in tongues, treading unharmed on snakes and scorpions, picking up serpents, drinking poison unscathed, healing the sick by laying hands on them [and for the record, no, I am not a Pentecostal or Charismatic, heaven 4bid])?

If Only

The fires and family health emergencies have retarded my reading and responding to various posts. Tim Challies blogged about wives submitting to husbands. I arrived there too late to be able to leave my 2c worth: what the church hasn't historically majored on, nor does now, is the urgency of the husband dying to himself for his wife as Christ died for the church. ONLY IN THAT CONTEXT does submission make any sense. And of course, immediately preceding the exhortation to wives, is the exhortation to mutual submission.

I have never seen a Xtian marriage about which I could really say, "Now THERE's the type of relationship I'd like." Even the one best example of a Xtian marriage I have seen, the husband is still someone I'd not want to be married to (as much as I cherish him as a brother in Christ, nay, as a father in Christ). In most cases, overtly or covertly, Christian husbands use the "headship" designation as an excuse for lording it over the wife. Had this not been the case over the centuries (not to mention the abuse of the submission verse as applying to all women under all men), the feminist movement would have never found fuel for its fire.

4mality a Must?

In his always excellent and thoughtprovoking blog, Bill Gnade pleads for more formality in the church. Now, in the face of the infantilism & chaos that plague too many modern churches, I empathize with his intention, but I don't think formality per se is the solution (in my estimation, formality and ritualism have a strong tendency to become an end in themselves; lethal reification of what should be vital "worship in truth and spirit"). Checking this issue out with the Word, we find no exhortation to formality, but only to orderliness and the primacy of the mind. The premier chapter dealing with this issue, 1 CORINTHIANS 14, presents a picture of surprisingly "egalitarian" worship (see especially vss. 26 thru 31), and ends with "Let all things be done decently and in order."

Paradox Woman

Everybody seems to be blogging about Mother Teresa these days. I'm loathe to add my paltry shredded cabbage to the stew. Anything any of us might conclude about her inner struggles is nothing but speculation, bec. even if we read all her letters contained in that new book, we are still construing our understanding from the outside. Still, the article about her decades-long darkness made me wonder.

Now, I know that some people claim she was a victim of depression, plain and simple (tho what I find significant is that this "darkness" of hers only set in once she began her work with the dying). Perhaps. But then it would take someone totally devoid of any feelings or compassion to face a life of doing the work she did and still remain emotionally and spiritually unscathed.

Some Catholics interpreted her ordeal as a matter of going thru a tougher "purification" bec. of her "stronger" personality (which to me reveals more about Catholicism's bizarrity than about Mother T.), while psychiatrist Gottlieb's equally bizarre hunch is that she was "punishing" herself for her "success." More drastically, in his by now famous cynical fashion, Hitchens accuses her of realizing the vapidity of "religion."

Having several years ago undergone a radical change of tone in my own faith (not regarding the DNA of the gospel---that has always remained unshaken---but rather, in the overall tenor of what I believe about God's working here on earth, and His answering of prayer) that felt for years like my faith was a raspy strip of sandpaper, I find this whole topic engaging me not merely as a distant, academic armchair issue.

Here are some of my own---respectfully proffered---questions:

1. Mother T., were you saturated with His Word? Or was your reading limited to excerpts from Catholic saints (Theresa of Avila/"St." John of the Cross {rolling eyes}) or Vatican proclamations? Not that even people like David (who was most certainly steeped in God's Word) don't have times of similar darkness. But the Word is an objective anchor, God's Manna which we can use to override whatever doubts and dark danglings we might find trying to drag our soul down. (You find the Psalmist often using His truth that way, viz. "I am feeling utterly dejected now, but I recall Your workings, and I know that I shall again praise You.")

2. Why was it so urgent for you to "share in His Passion"? His own Passion was sufficient for all time for all our sins; we don't need to somehow regurgitate a mini-version of it in our own lives (tho God tells us that we will undergo suffering, as it is a part of the Christian walk----but it is HE who will allow it into our lives, not WE who seek it out in some sort of masochistic fashion).

3. Were you equating feelings with faith? It seems to me that this is one of the strongest temptations in our walk with God. Take for example the word "joy" in the list of the fruit of the Spirit: I don't believe that is talking so much about exuberant or happy feelings, but rather it is a synonym for hope (bec. notice that hope is conspicuously absent in that list). God's living seed in our soul (as John refers to it in his letter), coupled with His Word, causes a constant resurgence of hope (= confident anticipation, not Pollyanna wishfulness) that will eventually always push thru even the most obdurate rocky layer of circumstances. That hope is as immortal as Jesus was.

Taking A Doctrine Too Far?

Now, it's incontrovertibly true that for us to be saved, God has to draw us to Himself. Scripture clearly teaches that. But, er, um, "Jesus Magnets?"
Other verses that come to mind are "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is His," as well as, "you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade."

Morse Code Creates Confusion

My bad: in a recent post, where I mentioned Luther, I was not saying that he exalted Reason over faith; I meant that he was the one who distinguished between the magisterial and the ministerial role of reason.

Simple example of reason rightly used contrasted with wrongly: PyroManiax vs. Dawkins or Hawking. Simple example of jellyfish theology: Merton.

Jellyfish Orthodoxy

Mush Over Protein

Just finished reading this quote over at a comments site: "...what our Savior and the writers of the New Testament left mysterious or undefined...Reason should never lead faith, for faith is the substance of what we do not know." There it is again, theological Jellyfishism: amorphous vapidity is more spiritual than certainty.

Now, as the foul fruits of the so-called Higher Criticism have demonstarted, if Reason becomes the Magisterium (Luther), then, yes, we need to put Reason in its place. But if we apply (sanctified) reason properly, as a servant of faith, not as faith's dictator, then it fulfills the vital role of checking our natural tendency to indulge in spiritual fantasies, or as Paul put it in Colossians 2: "[avoid the blather of those] insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking [their] stand on visions, puffed up without reason by [their] sensuous mind...[such practices might give] indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh." (Interestingly enough, an alternate reading is even more scathing: "are of no value, serving only to indulge the flesh.")

Flesh loves to pretend it is more-spiritual-than-thou: the more nebulous my beliefs, the more divine I am. Don't shackle me with your prosaic and Philistine propositional perorations! No, can't you see that we must bathe ourselves in oceans of pearlescent piffle, luxuriate in the foamy fluff of flimflam falderol, lest we land our guilty fannies on the obdurate granite of Fallenness?

Stiff Tonic 4 Spiritual Jellyfish

Master Lampoonist Phil Johnson continues to regale us with peerless posters. I vote this one the winner for "Best Abs-Buster." Frank Turk should market this @ his "junk shop." Hey, any conservative organization at all would be a fruitful market for it, because altho the poster specifically targets 3-Tism (Terrible Twos Theology, aka "Emergent/ Emerging Church"), it applies more broadly. I only wish I had owned a flashable wallet-sized version of this the many times in graduate school I encountered Whateverism (aka Relativism).

In the biblical-historical context, the verse that comes to mind is ROMANS 1:18 "...men who imprison the truth in unrighteousness." The Imprisoner (be he a Caiaphas, a Torquemada, a Stalin, a Hitler or a Reno) can not abide those who will not heel to the Procrustians. An O.T. passage already masterfully delineates this oppugnancy: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training...Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death...." (W.o.S. 2:12 & 19)

Make no mistake about it: tho on the surface feigning a benign Anythingism, movements like 3-Tism ultimately issue in despotism with its henchmen-trinity of persecution, atrocities and massacres.

Who Is Greatest?

Brain: I'm fed up with having to deal with nitwits like Gallbladder, who do nothing but spew bile. And then there's Rectum, whose activities we won't even mention. I mean, really, gentlemen, any self-respecting organ would eschew associating with these types.

Pituitary: Oh, so I guess because I'm so puny, you'd exclude me, too, eh? It's the PITS!

Little Toe: Hey, Pitty, don't feel bad: everybody thinks I'm totally expendable. I don't count at all. Big Toe and gang think THEY're the only ones who carry any weight around here.

Stomach (grumbling): Brain, your arrogance is enough to cause me a bout of reverse peristalsis. I mean, you probably disdain me because I'm too "sour," right?

Brain: Nonsense, Stomach: you're one of the key players in this organisation. You provide me with fuel. Without you, I'd expire.

Lungs: Hmmnn, Brain, I do fervently hope you don't just view me as a lot of hot air. After all, you also need oxygen, which is my specialty.

Brain: Lungs, don't hyperventilate. You're definitely part of the The Coterie.

Guts: Well, Brains, I can just SMELL your contempt for me, since you already dissed my business partner Rectum.

Tongue: Not a chance, Guts: you're the most important player on this team, because without you, we'd all get ill and croak.

Brain: Oh, bite yourself, Tongue!

Nose: Of course, bigwigs like Brain have nothing but contempt for lowlife like me, but don't forget, hotshot: I'm the primary reconnaissance system for all you guys. I'm Guts' and Liver's business partner.

Lymph Nodes: Right, Nose, and so are we. We're small, but we're legion!

Skull: Brain, you crack me up: you think you're such hot stuff, but hey, without me, buster, you'd be mincemeat.

Biceps: Yo, Brain, dude, you ain't learned the 2 most important rules in this here outfit: "Knowledge puffs up" and "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak."

Eardrum: You go, Biceps! And how about "endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"?

Heart: "Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind."

Sigh...No, Again

What is is that makes people jump to conclusions at the slightest opportunity? Why think that a writer endorses somebody's theology, just because the somebody gets mentioned as an example of something?

When in my previous post I mentioned Mother Theresa, I wasn't "signing up for her fanclub" (as some would have it). I do think that her work was good, and we need lots more people doing that sort of work, but her theology (at least what I've seen from things she said) leaves a lot to be desired. At the same time, though, it seems to me that devoting yourself to that kind of (physically) grueling, revolting and (emotionally) heartwrenching work, and for that long, would require a tremendous amount of God's strength in you.

Again, my point in the last post was that there are all kinds of spiritual types in The Body, and your type determines whether you will be, say, more attuned to cracking the doctrinal whip (and we do need those warners, because our fallen nature all too easily strays into error) or, say, to trying to understand the emotions of folks who grieve. There will be Pauls, and there will be Barnabases (and there will be people like me who are simply Tabithas. I wish I could be a Frank Turk, but God hasn't wired me that way. Where Frank's agility resides in his pen [tongue?], mine resides in my fingers.)

The Posters, Right?

No, my last entry was not a justification of the farrago called Emergentism nor an allusion to those magnificent pertinent posters. (I'm envious that they aren't my own creation.) Rather, the chaffing was intended regarding an almost 2 year old feud (but one that is emblematic of a longstanding, larger problem in Christendom) between parties who won't allow for variety in The Body.

You've no doubt heard of the various psychological temperaments. Well, there's a spiritual parallel: if, spiritually speaking, you are a Choleric and I am a Phlegmatic, or you are a Sanguine and I am a Melancholy, then allow for that difference to affect the way we approach the whole Christian life. As little as I care for Gothardism, sometimes he comes up with something valid, as in his "Christian Temperaments," where he says that some folks are "prophets," and others "mercy workers" (I don't remember all the others types he lists). The prophet will most likely resemble Jeremiah or Isaiah in his approach to walking with Christ, whereas the "mercy worker" will be more like Mother Theresa. All together, the various spiritual types make up the amazing multifacetedness of His Body.

As vital as correct doctrine is, we mustn't equate differing spiritual temperaments with heresy. Receive ye one another, even as Christ also received you, to the glory of God.

The Protracted Conflict

"If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?"

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for iron sharpening iron (and I relish satire), but at times I wish that certain parties would "start their day a little bit better" by taking their spiritual supplements:

*To regulate their bile: "A soft answer turneth away wrath."

*To help them keep perspective: "I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment... For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

*To improve their understanding: "Be quick to hear."

There's a huge difference between conflicting doctrines vs. variant perspectives. Let's say we look @ the Versailles Palace together: maybe you are interested in photographing the gardens, I'm fascinated by the outer architecture, and our other buddy is intrigued by the interior decor. Are we contradicting each other in our differing foci when we give a joint slide show later? Are we not all still talking about Versailles? Might it just be that all of us together provide a more complete picture of Versailles?

Sheesh.

Favorite Words 4 The Day, ROTFL!

"Methobaptist" & "Church Rage": the first one not to be conflated with those Indian tribes who use certain mushrooms to heighten their worship experience, and the second not to be misconstrued as The Wrath of God for those who don't attend church.

"Textual Tapioca"---not in any way synonymous with "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God."

New Trinity

In case you hadn't heard, the Senate is now honoring a new Trinity. "We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. [What's with the capitalization of "earth"?----Oh, that's right, Gaia is our Most Sacred Mother, blessed forever, AMEN!] May He stimulate and illuminate our minds." (Why does this bring to mind 2Cr 11:14?) No doubt the Spongists around the globe are elated to see that the spirit of URI reigneth ever more widely.

On the other hand, as execrable as this false worship is, one squirms at the thought of the shoutdown by the 3 opponents. This smells too much of fascist tactics (what, are the Children of Light to mimic the SDS and the Weathermen and their cultural forebears, the BrownShirts?). I seem to recall verses that instruct believers in a different approach: "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way;...the wisdom from above is...peaceable, gentle;...to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men;...let your forbearance be known to all men, the LORD is near."

For those who think this is a hill to die on, how about a more appropriate tactic: barrage the Senate with phone calls and letters (and perhaps even picket peaceably, if you're inclined in that direction and have the leisure). Don't forget the "air war," either!

Dance the Tolerance Shuffle

[UPDATE: It's curious that the gentleman who penned the following paragraph should now have removed his entry---especially since I did not link his piece. What? Could it be that he now finally recognizes the evil of the slaughter of the innocents? But if he claims that he was simply "thinking outloud" when he penned that piece, then why would he---ashamedly?---pull the post down (when I posted this originally, his entry was accessible via Google; now it is not). If I am thinking outloud, I am not definitively taking a stand. And I can update my post indicating more clearly that what I have written is a mental wrestling, rather than a definitive statement of what I believe. And if "nobody" reads your blog, Sir, then why bother Final Solutioning a post that's been quoted?]

Recently, I came across this at a blog: What if [Christians] try to pass anti-abortion laws to prevent me from having an abortion even when I believe that abortion is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against abortion then they shouldn’t have one. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-abortion laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs. [Emphasis in orginal]

I hear a similar rationale from another person: What if they try to pass anti-apartheid laws to prevent me from protecting my fellow whites, even when I believe that apartheid is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against apartheid, then they don't have to believe in it. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-apartheid laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.

This chap totally agrees: What if they try to pass anti-racism laws to prevent me from saving my Volk, even when I believe that Aryan race-hygiene is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against racial purification, then they don't have to join the SS. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-racism laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.

Hold on, a 4th party uses yet again the same argument: What if they try to pass anti-slavery laws to prevent me from owning slaves, even when I believe that owning slaves is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against slavery, then they don't have to own any slaves. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-slavery laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.

Nothing new under the sun:

"Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow
nor regard the gray hairs of the aged.
But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless."
(Wisdom of Solomon, 2:10-11)

Faith, Part 2

The supreme function of reason

is to show man

that some things are beyond reason.

(Blaise Pascal)

Hackneyed Hopes

The Old Adversary was Proteus' great-great-grandpappy: oh, how he LOVES to come up with chameleonesque variations on a theme. 2 of his favorite (albeit timeworn) tricks are "Hath-God-Said?" and "You-Shall-Be-As-Gods." The latest colorful version of YSBAG I've encountered is this little gem.

Is this gentleman serious? When we look at man's 6000 years of recorded history, do we genuinely see evidence of his becoming more godlike? And if not, then lending that idea credence would seem to require a quantum leap of faith.