I don't care who you are, this is funny !!

Julia, those were the moments when I carried you.....

I think we should be a compassionate society. 
I think we really are our brothers' keepers. 
I hope that Broadway Baptist Church, the Libertarian Party, the Little Sisters Of The Blind, or somebody will take me in when I get old, feeble, and worn-out.  (In other words, I'll probably need some help tomorrow.) 
I don't think that people should be required (at gunpoint) to help me. 
I don't think that Barack Obama and the Republicans should have a monopoly on compassion.
Now, let's get down to bidness..... 

Barack Obama has released an unintentionally hilarious slideshow on the White House website.
It's called the "Life Of Julia", and shows a woman's lifelong dependence on The Teleprompter Jesus, from birth to old age.  
Julia doesn't rely on family, friends, or the sperm donor for her baby.  She relies on Barry O. 
Parodies have sprung up everywhere. 

This is the best of the latest.  Here's Peter Suderman, parodying the treacly "Footprints In The Sand" story often found on plaques in Christian bookstores. :
(Suderman's original says "POTUS" for President Of The U.S." instead of Teleprompter Jesus. Sorry. Couldn't help myself.)


One night Julia dreamed she was walking
along the beach with The Teleprompter Jesus.
Many scenes from her life flashed across the sky.
In each scene, she noticed footprints in the sand.
Sometimes there were two sets of footprints.
Other times she only saw one set of footprints.

This bothered Julia because she noticed that during the low points of her life,
when she was suffering
from underemployment, student loan debt, and excessively high insurance copays,
she could only see one set of footprints.


So Julia said to The Teleprompter Jesus:
“Your programmers promised me, O Teleprompter Jesus,
that if I followed you,
you would walk with me always.
But I have noticed that during
the most trying periods of my life
there have only been one
set of footprints in the sand.
Why, when I needed you most,
were you not there for me?


The Teleprompter Jesus replied,
“The times when you have only
seen one set of footprints
is when I carried you.”

Go, and live a better life, knowing that Barack Obama and the Chicago Gang are there for you, should you stumble....

Coexist

An Afghan physiotherapist will be executed within three days for converting to Christianity.


Said Musa, 45, has been held for eight months in a Kabul prison were he claims he has been tortured and sexually abused by inmates and guards.

Mr Musa, who lost his left leg in a landmine explosion in the 1990s, has worked for the Red Cross for 15 years and helps to treat fellow amputees.

He was arrested in May last year as he attempted to seek asylum at the German embassy following a crackdown on Christians within Afghanistan.


He claims he was visited by a judge who told him he would be hanged within days unless he converted back to Islam.

But he remains defiant and said he would be willing to die for his faith.

He told the Sunday Times: 'My body is theirs to do what they want with.

'Only God can decide if my spirit goes to hell.'

Defence lawyers have refused to represent him, while others have dropped the case after receiving death threats.

Mr Musa was arrested after a TV station showed western men baptising Afghans during secret ceremonies.


So many gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
While just the art of being kind
Is all the sad world needs.



— Ella Wheeler Wilcox

The Monthly Mohler - Albert Mohler takes on The BioLogos Forum

Since last year's takedown of Dr. Albert Mohler got about a jillion hits, I've decided to start writing something called The Monthly Mohler.  The Monthly Mohler will be an opportunity to look at the president of Southern Seminary's views on church and state, his beliefs that those who disagree with him are going to burn in hell for all eternity, and finally, his God'n'Amurrica blurbs on Fox.
 
Why bother with something like this? 

Because I believe that he's harmful.  He doesn't make the world a better place.  He reinforces tribalism.  He has a childish loyalty to some theological beliefs that he believes are science, but that only belong to mythology.  But millions of people listen to what he says because, after all, he's Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Seminary. 
A few weeks ago, Dr. Mohler gave us his views on The BioLogos Forum, a website self-described as follows: 

The BioLogos Foundation is a group of Christians, many of whom are professional scientists, biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, pastors, and educators, who are concerned about the long history of disharmony between the findings of science and large sectors of the Christian faith. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation. Founded by Dr. Francis Collins, BioLogos addresses the escalating culture war between science and faith, promoting dialog and exploring the harmony between the two. We are committed to helping the church – and students, in particular – develop worldviews that embrace both of these complex belief structures, and that allow science and faith to co-exist peacefully.

In other words, the participants in the BioLogos forum know that we evolved.  We evolved, and it took a long, long time. 

Here's Dr. Mohler's take on this group:

Public debate is unpredictable by nature, but I have to admit that the approach undertaken by the folks at BioLogos continues to amaze me. The BioLogos movement is a straight-forward attempt to persuade evangelical Christians to embrace some form of evolutionary theory. Organized by a group that includes Dr. Francis Collins, now the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the movement seeks to marginalize objections to evolution among conservative Christians. It offers a very sophisticated website and an energetic communications strategy.

The BioLogos approach to the issue is now clear. They want to discredit evangelical objections to evolution and to convince the evangelical public that an acceptance of evolution is a means of furthering the gospel. They have leveled their guns at the Intelligent Design movement, at young earth creationism, and against virtually all resistance to the embrace of evolution. They claim that the embrace of evolution is necessary if evangelicalism is not to be intellectually marginalized in the larger culture. They have warned that a refusal to embrace evolution will doom evangelicalism to the status of an intellectual cult.

So far, so good.  Because the embrace of evolution really is necessary if evangelicalism is not to be intellectually marginalized in the larger culture, and doomed to the status of an (anti-intellectual) cult. 
Why? 
Because we evolved, and Christianity cannot continue to deny it. 
I'm about 2/3rds of the way through with Richard Dawkins' "Greatest Show On Earth - The Evidence For Evolution".  Lord have mercy, what a brilliant book.  Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.

Dawkins starts with some of the same arguments that Darwin used, arguments about processes that can't be denied.  In Darwin's day, British farmers routinely modified inedible plants to form various delicious cabbages and cauliflowers.  Dogs were selectively bred for fox-hunting, retrieving, or as guard animals.  Those cabbages and puppies with valuable characteristics were allowed to reproduce.  Plants and pups with undesirable characteristics were set aside as failed experiments. 
Within a half-dozen generations, new varities were spreading all over England. 

My father used to point out the varieties of soybeans produced in the agriculture department at Mississippi State University.  Some needed less water than others.  Some had a greater yield, but needed more fertilizer.  Others had a great yield but could be knocked to the ground by a 15 MPH breeze. 
I still remember many of the names the MSU scientists gave the varieties: Davis, Hood, Lee, Pickett, and Bragg.  (Yeah, they always named them after Confederate generals.)

So if characteristics of a species can be intentionally changed in a short period of time, what happens when Mother Nature is left alone to determine what characteristics are most valuable? 
The fossil record shows us. 
The plants, animals and fish at the lower levels are radically different from the fossils found near the surface.

But go far enough back up the time/species line with any two organisms, and you'll eventually find a common ancestor.  At an early point in the timeline, the two varieties could reproduce with each other.  Later on, you'll only get a sterile offspring - i.e., something like the offspring of a horse and a donkey, a mule.  Give nature a few million more years, and try to mate a cabbage with a kitten.  You'll get nothing at all.
 
The fact that people, puppies, purple cabbages, and pancreatic cancers evolve - it is at the heart of almost all medical research.  The flu shot you got this year will be useless next year.  The virus will have evolved by then. 
Face it.  Embrace it.  Evolution explains the world.  To learn more, read the Dawkins book. 
Back to Dr. Mohler....

Furthermore, they have been breathtakingly honest about the theological implications of their arguments. Writers for BioLogos have repeatedly made the case that we must relinquish the inerrancy of the Bible and accept that the biblical writers worked from a defective understanding of the world and its origins. They have asserted, for example, that the Apostle Paul was simply wrong in assuming that Adam was an historical person from whom all humans are descended. They have been bold and honest in rejecting the biblical account of the Fall as historical. They have warned that an affirmation of biblical inerrancy has led evangelicalism into an “intellectual cul-de-sac.” A complete inventory of the doctrinal concessions they will demand is not yet in sight, but as I have affirmed before, they deserve credit for the honesty of their proposals.

So far, Dr. Mohler is batting 1.000
The BioLogos folks do indeed affirm that Paul was mistaken because Adam was not an historical person. 
Adam is a metaphor.
Not only is Adam a metaphor, but he's two different metaphors when you compare Genesis chapters one and two. 
The first two chapters of Genesis, the ones that all the fuss is about, are contradictory.  They are about two radically different creation accounts.  They can't both be "inerrant".  They use different names for God.  There is a different order of creation.  The authors, and there were two different authors, had different goals in mind when telling their stories. 
They are beautiful stories.  They were the best we could do at the time.  But they are stories, all the same.  Go to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (in the early 1980's) and you won't be taught this, but you will be allowed to learn it.  (Long, long story, involving denominational politics.)

Go here for the best explanation I'll ever write about the problems in the biblical stories of creation.

Not only does biblical inerrancy lead to "an intellectual cul-de-sac", it is a cul-de-sac with a cliff at the end.  You find yourself defending talking serpents and donkeys, exploring the reasons for making an axe-head float, and wondering why the snakes didn't eat the mice on the ark. 
Ok, back to Dr. Mohler:

They are also clear about their motive. In their view, the acceptance of evolution is necessary for evangelism. They are motivated, they insist, by a concern that a rejection of evolution puts Christians in a position of intellectual embarrassment. The rejection of evolution places Christians outside the intellectual pale, they assert, leading to the discrediting of the gospel. They believe that intellectuals, especially scientists, will not respect an evangelistic witness to the gospel from one who is intellectually discredited by rejecting evolution. They are embarrassed by the fact that a majority of evangelicals reject evolution, and they honestly believe that some people will not come to know Christ because they are so offended by our unwillingness to accept evolution. They have repeatedly asserted that the credibility and integrity of our Christian witness is at stake.

Why is the rejection of evolution an embarrassment to some Christians? 
Because it is embarrassing to be in a biology class with someone who is raising hell because a teacher is contradicting the folk tales he learned in his Mama's lap.  You feel bad for them.  You don't want to be there.  You don't want to watch the pain.  That's one of the definition of embarrassment.  And yes, changing your mind on any major issue causes pain. 

The writers for BioLogos have been unsparing in their criticism of evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or are proponents of either Intelligent Design or creationism. They initiated a public debate by presenting their arguments in the public square. But now, it appears, they really do not want a public debate at all. They want a one-way conversation.

Dr. Mohler then outlines the details of a tiresome Preacher Fight between himself and someone at BioLogos.  You can go back to his original post if you have the time for the whole thing.  It's a tiresome exposition about who said what and who all really responded in what way....all in relation to Saint Peter and Cornelius in the 10th Chapter Of Acts. 

The chief difficulty, the main reason that these guys can't get anywhere with their discussion?  Neither side can come out and say "Serpents can't talk.  No boat could hold every species of animal.  Trumpet noise couldn't knock down the walls of Jericho.  These are stories.  Parables.  Valuable campfire legends from the infancy of our race.  Let's try something....Dr. Mohler, I'm going to build a pile of wood as big as the Texas A&M bonfire.  I'm going to dig a moat around it.  I'm going to drench the whole thing with water.  Then, Dr. Mohler, I want you to pray for God to ignite the woodpile, the way he did for Elijah.  After you've failed at that, then we'll talk."

If the BioLogos guys were to be that frank and honest, donations would drop off considerably. 

A brief digression:  I briefly attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, the sister institution to Doctor Mohler's Southeastern Seminary. 
There but for the grace of God go I. 
Here's more from Doctor Mohler, still bristling from accusations that he called the BioLogos people "not christian":

I can read their words, however. Their theological arguments are published in the public arena. They are not shy about making their proposals, and they call for a radical reformulation of evangelical doctrine. Their assaults upon biblical inerrancy have not been made in private conversations, but in public discourse. Their argument that the Apostle Paul was wrong to believe in an historical Adam and an historical Fall was made in public, as was their denial of common descent through Adam.

Now we're getting somewhere.  This is why Christian fundamentalists attack biologists so fiercely over evolution, while giving linguists a free pass when they offer up alternatives to the Tower Of Babel story.  You see, if there was no Adam and no Eve, then there was no Original Sin.  We are not infected from birth with a desire to murder, steal, covet, and bear false witness.  God didn't set up a perfect environment that we silly humans made a mess of. 
We don't have any collective guilt. 
Paul was off the mark about why Jesus had to die. 
Once you accept that the flu virus can evolve from year to year, fundamentalist theology is a mess. 

They will have to take responsibility for these arguments. They should expect no less than a spirited debate over their proposals, and it is nothing short of bewildering that they now ask, in effect, for a pass from all theological scrutiny. They accuse conservative evangelicals of driving evangelicalism into an “intellectual cul-de-sac” and into the status of an intellectual “cult,” and then they have the audacity to complain of the “tone” of those who argue that their proposals amount to a theological disaster.

Yep.  A theological disaster.  That's what it would be.  As if that's a bad thing. 
You know, if I steal your car, get caught, and then make it up to you by going into my back yard and beating the crap out of my dachshunds, I don't think you'll be satisfied.  I think you'd prefer to get your car back. 
That's what the Original Sin story led to.  Substitutionary Atonement.  Adam and Eve screwed up, so I let God take his frustrations out on Jesus. 
Theology like that?  It needs a disaster every few millenia. 

Virtually every form of theological liberalism arises from an attempt to rescue Christian theology from what is perceived to be an intellectual embarrassment — whether the virgin conception of Christ, the historicity of the miracles recorded in the Bible, or, in our immediate context, the inerrancy of Scripture and the Bible’s account of creation.

No, no, no.  It arises from people looking at the texts, and asking themselves "Is this possible?"  "Could this have happened?"  "Why is this account of dead people rising from their graves in Jerusalem only mentioned in Matthew?" 
(To learn more about groups who try to sort out the truth from the legends, check out the fine work of the scholars at The Jesus Seminar.) 

Dr. Sprinkle kindly invites me “to come and see what I see in the hearts and lives of people in the BioLogos community.” I am willing and eager to enter into any conversation that serves the cause of the gospel. But a conversation that serves the cause of the gospel cannot avoid talking about what the gospel is — and that requires theology.
BioLogos is a movement that asserts theological arguments in the public square in order to convince evangelical Christians to accept their proposals. They now have the audacity to ask for a pass from theological responsibility. That is the one thing they may not have.

I believe that the need for some theological responsibility now rests in Dr. Mohler's camp.  The BioLogos people present compelling evidence for evolution, and yet want to continue calling themselves Christians.   Mohler hasn't done anything here except beg the question.  His argument appears to be that human evolution didn't take place because it would be a contradiction of one of the many branches of Christian belief that have slowly (ahem) evolved for the last two thousand years.   

Al Mohler's is a theology that needs to evolve, to grow up. 

When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. - First Corinthians 13:11

The Cypress Bible Institute

I recently interviewed a graduate of The Cypress Bible Institute, also known as The Cypress Bible College, a center for higher learning located in Van, Texas. 

I don't know how The Cypress Bible Institute has flown beneath my radar for this long. 
According to their website, they are accredited:

Cypress Bible Institute is accredited by Shema Israel Christian Ministries International located in Riverside, California, and operates under their Federal Charter.

I could spend weeks going through The Cypress Bible Institute course descriptions.  Here's info from their class on the gospels:

 N-5. An in depth study of the life and miracles of Christ, the disciples, and parables are discussed. Also an in depth study of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are discussed in detail.

As I've stated numerous times on this site, I'm the product of a rural education.  I can confuse the hell out of some subject/verb agreement.  But look at that last sentence, the one beginning with "Also an in depth study...." 
What is the subject of that sentence?  Is it "study" or "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John"?  Which one(s) are discussed in detail?  Sheesh ! 
This is from an academic course outline, right? 

Here's the description of a course on Bible Standards:

S-39-A This course deals with Bible holiness, concepts of dress, jedwely, hair, the role of women in the church, ministrial authority, and legalism.

Two typos in one sentence.  Perhaps they have a line of ministrial jedwely?  For women who know their subservient role in the church?

Here's the course description from a class on the King James Bible:

Ph-93 This course was written by James Jackson and deals with the origin of the KJV Bible. It shows the superiority of the King James over the other Bible translations.

I wonder if the course covers the well-documented fact that King James was as gay as a barrel of monkeys on nitrous oxide?  (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) 

They have a class called "Predestination":

D-76-2 This course covers the subjects such as the definition of Predestination, Theological Determinism, Free Will in Theology, Calvinism & Predestination, Theological Fatalism, Fatalism, Providentialism, and Divine Providence.

If you fail the class on predestination, it is not a big deal.  God meant for it to happen. 

There is another course with the rather broad name "Ancient Historical Facts". 

Here are three that could be interesting....One of the early problems faced by the early church was that the church wanted to retain the idea of one god.  They also liked the idea of Jesus being divine.  Jesus had also made some oblique references to a being called "The Comforter". 
Preachers and Apostles argued for a while, and came up with the idea of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  All are equal, all are the same, all are distinct, and all are indivisble.)  The idea was tossed around a lot in the third century, and became formal church doctrine after the Council Of Nicea in 325.  The idea has been with us ever since. 
But NOT at Cypress Bible College:

Trinity or Truth

T-19. This lesson shows the error of the Trinity doctrine and presents the truth of Monotheism. Many questions asked by Trinitarians are dealt with in this lesson.

The Truth of The Oneness Doctrine
T-20. This doctrinal course is a rebuttal to a major Trinitarian who has written a book indicating the oneness people are heresy.

Trinity Origin Research
D-46. This course is presented by Dr. Vestal on his research of the origin of the Trinity doctrine. Quotes from major Encyclopedias and Theologians show that the Trinity doctrine is in error. Dr. Vestal also rebuts in writing the theology of Calvin Beisner, and the late Dr. Walter Martin.

Dr. Vestal is probably onto something here, but the rest of Christian history, theology, and hymnology requires one long rebuttal if you throw out the Trinity with the holy water. 

From a course on "God's Astronomy":

D-43. This course covers the true meaning of the 12 signs of the Zodiac . The lesson covers Psalms 19, the 12 signs of the Zodiac in relation to the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 months on the Hebrew calendar. The planets of our solar system are also discussed.

Then it gets weird.
You can go to Cypress and take a course called "UFO Research And The Bible":

D-48. This course deals with the UFO sightings and uses Scripture to prove their existence. This lesson covers the future UFO invasion of our earth, the cleansing of the 2nd heavens prior to the 2nd coming of Christ at Armageddon. This course is a great eye opener to our generation.

And finally:

Doctor (sic) Thesis

S-65 A thesis is required of your own choosing, thesis must be at least 30 pages in length.

Dang.  30 pages?  Is a Doctorate really worth that kind of effort? 

Happy Easter !

God's mad

I hope everyone is having a pleasant Sunday morning.
If you find yourself unable to attend formal worship services, how about this gem from Westboro Baptist Church, the group that pickets the funerals of American soldiers (They do this because God is punishing America for tolerating gays and lesbians - Get it? I don't either.)

God is mad, mad, mad.
As best I can tell, God is mad at gays, lesbians, Catholics, Jews, and everyone else who is different from the people Reverend Fred Phelps grew up with.

Hit this link to go to the Westboro Baptist website. They've added a few things since the last time I visited: There's a banner that says "Welcome, depraved sons and daughters of Adam", and a countdown ticker that tells you how many reprobates have entered hell since you entered their site.


That spinning sound you hear is Michael Jackson rolling over in his grave, begging for vengeance.

Mau-Mauing The Flak Catchers - 2009 edition

I have no idea what point I'm trying to make with this post. Here goes....

One of the best non-fiction essays ever is Tom Wolfe's "Mau-Mauing The Flak Catchers".

Someone worthy of sainthood has typed the entire thing onto the 'Net.
Every time I read or see videos of the Town Hall confrontations about the Insurance Destruction Program, I think of Mr. Wolfe's essay.

A brief excerpt:

This man comes out , and he has that sloppy Irish look like Ed McMahon on TV, only with a longer nose. In case you'd like the local viewpoint, whites really have the noses ... enormous, you might say ... a whole bag full ... long and pointed like carrots, goobered up like green peppers, hooked like a squash, hanging off the face like cucumbers ... This man has a nose that is just on the verge of hooing over, but it doesn't quite make it.
"Have a seat, gentlemen," he says, and he motions toward the wooden chairs.
But he doesn't have to open his mouth. All you have to do is look at him and you get the picture. The man's a lifer. He's stone civil service. He has it all down from the wheatcolor Hush Puppies to the wash'n'dry semi-tab-collar shortsleeves white shirt. Those wheatcolor Hush Puppies must be like some kind of fraternal garb among the civil-service employees, because they all wear them. They cost about $4.99, and the second time you move your toes, the seams split and the tops come away from the soles. But they all wear them. The man's shirt looks like he bought it at the August end-of-summer sale at the White Front. It is one of those shirts with pickets on both sides. Sticking out of the pockets and running across his chest he has a lineup of ball-point pens, felt nibs, lead pencils, wax markers, such as you wouldn't believe, Paper-mates, Pentels, Scriptos, Eberhard Faber Mongol 482's, Dri-Marks, Bic PM-29's, everything. They are lined up across his chest like campaign ribbons. He pulls up one of the wooden chairs and sits down on it. Onle he sits down on it backwards, straddling the seat and hooking his arms and his chin over the back of the chari, like the head foreman in the bunkhouse. It's like saying, "We don't stand on ceremony around here. This is a shirtsleeve operation."
"I'm sorry that Mr. Johnson isn't here today," he says, "but he's not in the city. He's back in Washington meeting some important project deadlines. He's very concerned, and he would want to meet with you people if he were here if he were here, but right now I know you'll understand that the most important thing he can do for you is to push these projects through in Washington."

The man keeps his arms and his head hung over the back of his chair, but he swings his hands up in the air from time to time to emphasize a point, first one hand and then the other. It looks like he's giving wig-wag signals to the typing pool. The way he hangs himself over the back of the chair--that keeps up the funky shirtsleeve-operation number. And throwing his hands around--that's dynamic ... It says, "We're hacking our way through the red tape just as fast as we can."

"Now I'm here to try to answer any questions I can," he says, "but you have to understand that I'm only speaking as an individual, and so naturally none of my comments are binding, but I'll answer any questions I can, and if I can't answer them, I'll do what I can to get the answers for you." And then it dawns on you, and you wonder why it took so long for you to realize it. This man is the flak catcher. His job is to catch the flak for the No. 1 man. He's like the professional mourners you can hire in Chinatown. They have certified wailers, professional mourners, in Chinatown, and when your loved one dies, you can hire the professional mourners to wail at the funeral and show what a great loss to the community the departed is. In the same way this lifer is ready to catch whatever flak you're sending up.
It doesn't matter what bureau they put him in.
It's all the same.
Poverty, Japanese imports, valley fever, tomato-crop parity, partial disability, home loans, second-probate accounting, the Interstate 90 detour change order, lockouts, secondary boycotts, G.I. alimony, the Pakistani quota, cinch mites, the Tularemic Loa loa, veterans' dental benefits, workmen's compensation, suspended excise rebates--whatver you're angry about, it doesn't matter he's there to catch the flak.
He's a lifer.

So if you're going out to a Town Hall meeting this weekend, be gentle.

There are polite, Christian ways to let the Flak Catchers know that everything they're advocating is batshit crazy.

Here's a video of the AARP's Flak Catchers getting hit with flak, shrapnel, and anti-aircraft fire at a meeting in Dallas a few days ago.
Warning: This gets ugly. Especially the spelling.



Don't bother telling me that most of these folks are already on Medicare and Medicaid, and wouldn't dream of parting with it. That way I won't bother telling you that both programs are out of money.

The Holy Cause

May I direct your attention to "The Holy Cause", a Christian libertarian blog run by a missionary named Greg.

Here's something from Greg's brief bio:

Around 2004, I began to think seriously about some of the political ideas I held, both from a market perspective and a Christian perspective. Slowly it began to dawn on me that I did not fit into the political camp I had aligned myself with. The teachings of scripture, the workings of the market, and the growing police state all convince me of the error of that way of thinking. Thus I became a libertarian, specifically a Christian libertarian.

There's a lot to recommend on Greg's site, but these posts are particularly notworthy. "Torture In The Church" is a must-read. It has some alarming statistics on church attendance and approval of torturing terror suspects.

This post on Frederic Bastiat has links to the PDF's of almost all the relevant F.B. output. (I have a dachshund named Fred, in honor of this brilliant French economist.) Read Bastiat, and you'll never see a broken window, or The Stimulus Plan, in the same way.

Then there's the Christian Libertarian Blog Carnival, a more focused equivalent to my Libertarian Blog Carnival. Greg graciously posted something from this site on his blog carnival, but then cast some doubt on my salvation experience. (Hit the link)

A couple of days later, Greg felt obliged to add a disclaimer to the carnival, stating that he didn't endorse the content of every site he had published. Dunno who that was about.

I love this joke about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Greg spends a LOT of time finessing his list of Christian Libertarian blogs, and if he didn't nail it with this, I don't want to know about it.

Good site, with a good focus. Hope he keeps it up.

How Jesus Evolved

Here's Bishop John Shelby Spong, from "Why Christianity Must Change Or Die", Chapter five:


"We need to be prepared....to discover that there is an enormous gap between the theological claims that have been made for Jesus in the life of institutional Christianity and the record that was actually contained in the Gospels....Most believers....do not learn in church that the virgin birth accounts were not original to Christianity, and did not appear in Christian history until the ninth decade."

"Perhaps more important....the divine nature of Jesus....was also a late-developing reality."

This might need a bit of elaboration. The first books to be written in the New Testament were those of Paul, who probably wrote between 18 to 34 years after Jesus' death.
Then came the Gospel of Mark.
Matthew was next.
Then Luke.
Then John.
Got it? Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. You can argue the fine points, but even some of the most fundamentalist of Biblical scholars agree with that timeline. The Apostle Paul was blogging away long before the first Gospel accounts of Jesus' life were written.

Paul writes as if Jesus didn't perform any miracles during his lifetime. Not once does Paul mention a virgin birth. Paul says that Jesus was designated a "son of God", but God did all the designating. There's no sense of divine equality between God and Jesus. You can search Paul's writings (and the rest of the Bible) in vain for the word "Trinity".

Paul claimed that the designation of Jesus as God's divine son took place by his "resurrection from the dead." You could make the case that Paul believed Jesus wasn't thought of as God's son until Jesus experienced a spiritual resurrection, something totally different from the heroic "Jeff Bridges In White" moment shown below.

About ten or fifteen years after Paul, someone wrote the Gospel of Mark. Like Paul, the author of Mark doesn't seem to know anything about virgin births, Mary being visited by angels, or even any post-resurrection appearances. (Note how the oldest copies of Mark end at Chapter 16, verse 8. Someone got creative with Mark about 100 years after the first draft.)

The author of Mark wasn't content with Paul's theory that "God designated Jesus as 'God's Son' at the time of the resurrection". Some one-upmanship was in order.... Mark took Paul's words and put them in the voice of God during Jesus' baptism. When Jesus is lifted out of the water, the voice of God says "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased". But read the text in Mark 1:9-11, and you get the idea that no one saw the heavens splitting open or heard God's voice except Jesus.


Yeah, right. Good job there, Mark.


Anyway, Mark moved the moment of Jesus' divinity forward about three years, from the resurrection to the baptism.


Then, about 50-55 years after the time of Jesus, came the book of Matthew. Spong writes that "It was for Matthew an intolerable idea that Jesus became something either at his baptism or his resurrection that he was not already,"

So an unnamed angel appears to Joseph (only in a dream) and tells him that Mary's child is from the Holy Spirit. "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Matthew trumped Mark and Paul nicely, giving Jesus a divine pedigree at the moment of his conception.


Just a few years later, Luke used the same storyline, but firmed it up a bit. The angel was given a name (Gabriel), and appeared in person to Mary, not Joseph. Gabriel tells Mary that she's to be the mother of "the Son of God", the "Son of the Highest", and that "The Holy Spirit will come upon you".


So Luke is sitting back, in the words of Mark Twain, with "the calm confidence of a Christian holding four aces". Nobody would EVER be able to improve on that. Conception is the earliest point in our existence, right?


Wrong.




Here's Bishop Spong again: "Jesus' identity with God had become so complete by the tenth decade of the common era that he was said to have shared in that identity prior even to his conception and birth. So pre-existence became a category of which Christians began to talk."

Near the end of the first century someone composed the Gospel of John. Chapter one of John begins like this: " 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made..... 9 And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."


And there, ladies and gentlemen, is your proof that plants and animals aren't they only thing to evolve.
Gods do it too.

Pictures from here and here and here and here and here.

Leaning On The Everlasting Arms - of Big Brother

Unless you've heard news of a cruise ship sinking in the Carribean, I'm still alive and well but on vacation. Our guest blogger today is Gar from Gar's Random Ramblings. For a good example of Gar's handiwork, check out his post on The Big 3 Bailout, which asks the question "Just why aren't we getting shares in these companies?"

Anyway, when I asked some of my favorite writers to contribute posts this week, the topic I threw out there for them was the difficulties of the Libertarian Party (or the difficulties of libertarianism in general) in this age of Disaster Socialism, Buddy Bailouts, and the like.

The Random Rambler took it all the way back to root causes. Here's what Gar sent me:

Libertarianism, in it's current incarnation will never be a party of choice. In a democracy the majority elects the officials. The majority of people expect government to take care of them. Poor people believe that personal freedom is more important than financial freedom. They will vote for Democrat. Rich people believe that financial freedom is more important than personal freedom. They will vote Republican. That leaves Libertarians with the votes from the intelligent folks that want both financial and personal freedom. Do you remember when you took your SAT's how you ranked on the national scale? Perhaps you were in the top 5%? Perhaps only in the top 10%. That still leaves a large portion of the population not intelligent enough to play this "freedom" game. Perhaps these people need the government to help them out either financially or personally.

The idea of Libertarianism is too scary for most people. If government doesn't have power then who will control the big corporations from jacking up gas prices and price fixing? The CEO's of these companies already have their lifestyles mapped out. They don't care if a loaf of bread costs $10. It's a drop in the bucket. If you open up the doors of financial freedoms where does it stop? How does the "majority" of people who don't have millions maintain the power to keep the billionaires from running the country without government controlling some of their finances? It's a scary proposition for the majority of people.

But, it's also engrained in the majority to not accept Libertarianism. From an earlier post: "Libertarianism holds that agents are, at least initially, full self-owners. Agents are (moral) full self-owners in that they morally own themselves in just the same way that they can morally fully own inanimate objects." Christianity does not believe this. Life is a test to see whether or not you live forever in happiness or live forever in a burning pit of hell. No one asked you if you wanted to take the test. That fundamental flaw in our upbringing prevents people from accepting the idea of Libertarianism. From before you were born a higher power has been making the decisions for you.

Ouch.

John Shelby Spong and The Invention Of Hell

Here's my all-time favorite theologian, the retired episcopal bishop of Newark, NJ, speaking on "Hell as an invention of the church".



If this video makes sense to you, or if you want to learn more, or if you feel that the faith of your childhood was just a bit oversold ? Or if you want to get down to what Jesus probably taught, before Paul, the church, and anyone who felt like writing a Gospel got hold of his Jesus' life story? John Spong is your man.
We're going to be discussing Bishop Spong's book "Why Christianity Much Change Or Die" starting January 4th, 2009, Sunday mornings at 9:30, room 306, Broadway Baptist Church, 305 West Broadway, Fort Worth, TX.