Leviticus 10:19 Aaron replied to Moses, "Today they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, but such things as this have happened to me. Would the LORD have been pleased if I had eaten the sin offering today?" 20 When Moses heard this, he was satisfied.
From the Ukraine's version of "American Idol"
The Catholic Bishop's alleged decision to ban crazy-for-abortion Congressman Patrick Kennedy from receiving communion makes sense. I doubt Muslims would welcome someone who cursed Mohammed and Allah into the mosque either. The Bishop's position is reasonable while the congressman's position makes no sense. Another trinket from this article [available by clicking on the post title] is below. Note, this Father Reese fellow is criticizing the Bishop for standing up for the truth because it would cause suffering. Wonder what Jesus would say about that....
“But the problem is, every time an individual bishop does it — especially if the public official has a high-profile name like Kennedy — it’s going to make headlines across the country and every bishop is going to suffer because of it,” Father Reese said.Read the rest of this story
I love to tell the story, too. Enjoy.
Kim Olsen has an excellent contrast between Ian McKellen, the gay "Lord of the Rings" actor who tears out the page in his hotel Bible condemning homosexuality, and the Evangelical Church of America. It appears ELCA has done what atheist, gay Ian McKellen wouldn't do; throw the whole book out. Click on the title for the link.
Read the rest of this storyThis statement sums up the pivot point of many atheist bloggers. God fails their sniff test, therefore He doesn't exist. I've never thought that atheism was a tenable position. How could one go through life truly believing that the answer to THE BIG QUESTION (Where did we come from?) was either "nowhere" or "I don't know"? As impossible it is to understand God, I find no-God infinitely more implausible. Wittgenstein had an interesting perspective here. While commands like "thou shalt not murder" have no real meaning in the world and cannot be said, being "mystical", the "mystical is that we exist" (Tractatus). Wittgenstein nailed a key principle about God being not of the world but in it through the mystical.
But how can an omnipotent God create a world that He Himself does not feel at home in? The atheist sees this biblical god as contradictory. He can't save 5-year olds from cancer, or saves some and not others on a par that is almost random. Even His believers suffer terribly, which brings me to Psalm 22.
Psalm 22 was originally known as "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" All Psalm names were initially the first line. Psalm 22 (purportedly written by David around 1000 BC) tells of a man suffering terribly. God has abandoned Him to a horrific fate. His hands and his feet have been pierced with nails, people are mocking him, saying "let your God save you". Indeed it seems like this fellow has depended wholly on God to save him and is really being let down. The persecuted man feels like a "worm" despised by the people. People are yelling insults at him and animals are scattered around waiting to be able to eat his flesh. His bones are out of joint, as if he is stretched out or hanging. He describes suffocation (heart has melted away) and extreme dehydration. Although his bones are not broken (v. 17), he is being laid out naked in front of the people (v.18). He cries out once again to God to save his life (v. 19-21) and goes into a praise and worship mode predicting a time when all the world will turn to God.
Now it really doesn't tell us exactly what happened to this poor guy. Apparently, he dies anyway. Verse 29 says "all who go down to the dust WILL kneel before him". Yes, we're going to die, THEN we will kneel before God, or the afflicted one, or both, if they are one and the same. I think it's safe to assume that, since Psalm 23 next in line, speaks of a man going through the Valley of Death, that this man died after all.
So God did forsake him after all. And, if you believe as I do, this was His own son He let die a thousand years later, then that makes sense. He didn't save Jesus either until after Jesus died.
So how could a good and loving God let 5-year-olds die of cancer? I think the answer is that this world is not all there is, and death is not the end. If it were, God would die sooner or later. The one stand He did take was that He brings the dead to life, to "eternal life" which should not be confused with our understanding of life. But they still die a physical death.
There are two stages in a person's life that are extremely frightening. First, is birth, and fortunately we don't remember what we went through when the womb could not hold us any longer and we were rudely pushed out of that sanctuary into what C.S. Lewis called "the First Hell". Then we all face death when our bodies can not be kept alive any longer and we face an uncertain, and possibly no, future. It is a mind-numbing thought, that of coming to an end. There will be no more idyllic mornings with caramel macchiatto coffee in hand, Alpha Smart word processor in your lap, and your Boston Terrier cuddled under your right knee. All our earthly experiences will come to an end. We cannot come back physically to enjoy one more Autumn day in Florida.
I know that something outside of this world is calling us, preparing us for that time when the womb of this world will throw us out. In Psalm 24, we see a picture of complete victory over death as the "king of glory" is heralded. "Lift your heads, O you gates, be lifted up, you ancient doors, that the king of glory might come in". The gates and doors to Heaven open for the king of glory's return. One day my home gates just might open for me, although I won't get the reception that Jesus got. It'll probably be something like, "Oh, yeah, that guy, the blogging smart-ass. Ok, well, let him in. We don't need him here but we'll take him. Jimbo, shut the door behind you, OK. Don't want the neighbors to see."
Or something like that.
However righteous or flawed the call, the dedication of our war veterans is profoundly significant. They make our nation, and our brotherhood, real. What better song to host than the Navy Hymn - "Eternal Father, Strong to Save".
Did you know Jesus had brothers and sisters?
Did you know other people rose from the dead, too?
Did you know that Jesus wasn't born on Christmas Day?
Hmmm, where do you find these earth-shattering revelations? In the Bible! Oh my!
The assumption the wanna-be best-selling bookwriter makes is that there is a large audience that has zero knowledge of the Bible. He/she/Bert Ehrman is correct in this logic, although they are preying on the wallets of ignorant people. The Bible is the most intensely scrutinized book ever printed. How many Qur'an studies have you heard of, or how many "Gone with the Wind" study groups have popped up in your 'burb? Zero? Thought so.
These countless Bible study groups (I'm in my 9th year of one of them) - do they miss these points that represent the three key "gotcha" points mentioned above? No! The dead giveaway that the so-called Bible detective is insincere is what they do with this "information". That is...nothing. "You see, Jesus wasn't the only one who came back from the dead?" That's it. You see it? What is it? To that, I ask, "So?" God can bring anyone back from the dead, but only one of them can save us now and forever. And only one of them is what the whole Bible is about.
Great article. It comes with this hysterical cartoon, too!
John 20:24-29 (New International Version)
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
I identify with Thomas more than anyone else in the Bible. I too had to see something; I needed proof and I got it [but I'll focus on Thomas's experience here]. There's so much at work here in this scene that much of it can go unnoticed. We see this as a lesson in believing, or losing our unbelief, and it is - but it's so much more.
First of all, Thomas had specifically asked Jesus to appear in his scars. Remember Thomas ran away with the others and didn't witness the crucifixion. He wanted to make sure there wasn't any sleight of hand, that Jesus was spirited away and it was reported that he as crucified. Thomas wanted to KNOW that Jesus was crucified and that he had indeed risen from the dead. Now, knowing that Jesus is God might give one pause to consider this request disrespectful, even cocky. Thomas was being honest, though. He truly wanted to know whether the story was true.
So, long story short, Thomas believed because he could see, and those who don't see yet believe are better than Tom and me, and so on. But that's not all that's going through Thomas's brain at this moment, is it? One movie depiction of this scene actually captured the it's importance. Thomas sees the Savior and begins to tremble. I forget whether he touches the wounds or not but he falls to his knees, tears flowing from his eyes, hands shaking, he proclaims Jesus as his Lord and his God with a quivering voice. I think that captures the essence of Thomas's conversion. He would not have reacted like a foot soldier ready to do battle for Christ, but a prideful man melting away in the presence of God.
Now consider this: Jesus came with his wounds so that Thomas would believe in him. He answers Thomas's prayer specifically, bearing the wounds so he and we will believe. Here is the shocking thing of this whole scene. Through repetition it becomes trite and we fail to see it. If I had not had my own experience, I would not know what to compare Thomas's to. It's an overwhelming sense, even though it is but a glimpse, of how much God loves us. It's a powerful and personal love that changes our whole perspective on life. Thomas didn't just bow down to acknowledge a guy who died and came back from the dead, he came face to face with the love of God for him.
I can't describe it in words, but I know the feeling. Thank you, my Lord and my God.
New Jersey does have a survival instinct after all. Governor Jon Corzine had forgotten the lesson the Republicans were shown in 2006 and 2008; doing a lousy job usually gets you fired. Corzine has done one of the worst gubernatorial jobs in recent memory (CA's Gray Davis comes to mind and he was recalled). Taxes have skyrocketed while services are flat and corruption continued.
Virginia's Democrat didn't have a chance. That spells more trouble in Dem-land than even New Jersey's result does. If unemployment doesn't shrink significantly between now and next November, the mid-term elections will make 1994 look like child's play. This time not just "white males" will be angry, everyone will be ticked off.
The result in NY's 23rd congressional district showed that conservatives shouldn't party like it's 1979 either. It's 2009 and Ronald Reagan, although he's my eighth favorite president, does not have the answers for our time. The Democrat won that seat for now. In order to appeal to a larger base, conservatives should look to their Christian principles that supposedly inform their conservative principles.
The gay marriage repeal in Maine left a lot of gays in tears but being 0-for-31 should be cause for rethinking on their part. The family is not something that we created and, quite frankly, we may not have the right to change it. The pro-gay marriage arguments have made great inroads into the American psyche, but they haven't been received critically by those who have accepted them. The sequence of argument is that the homosexual is "born gay", can't help their attraction to the same sex, and should be treated equally and allowed to marry a member of the same sex. If you believe A, then you'll believe B, then you should conclude C. I do not buy A. The only reason one would accept A is to be polite to a group of people at the expense of the truth.
What last night's elections showed is that Americans are still thinking; they still have a pulse and they're still demanding accountability. Of course, that means trouble for the ruling party, as it always does and always should be.
We'll find out soon. Pro-life (and, therefore authentic) Democrat Bart Stupak is leading a challenge within his own party to make sure that government funds in the health care bill do not go for abortions. With so many Democrats opposed to abortion, it appears impossible to get this bill passed with abortions being covered in any way. The Democratic leadership will be forced to choose between pushing it through as is and failing or deleting the abortion coverage and succeeding.
That abortion coverage would even be in the bill at this stage speaks volumes. Nancy Pelosi and crew have known for months that it's a deal-breaker. I don't understand it, frankly. There can be no principled position for abortion. The only possible explanation is money. Money is the usual suspect when power and influence are not backed by principle.
What I found fascinating about this Washington Times article on the Obama administration's plan to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act is this:
So, because the federal government does not recognize marriage of homosexuals, Mr. [Cass] Sunstein's solution is that we shouldn't recognize traditional marriage. There's more. An Obama nominee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai Feldblum, claimed in 2005: "I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution."
I have read this argument before; because traditional marriage is not that great, gays should be allowed to marry. It raises the question, "If marriage is no good, why would you want the 'right' to marry?"
My blog is worth $67,744.80.
How much is your blog worth?
