Heterosexual Marriage Is A Sin

This is starting to piss me off.  Here's the ABC News website:

A proposed amendment to North Carolina’s constitution which would make marriage between a man and woman the only legal union recognized by the state has passed a statewide vote, the Associated Press reports.

The referendum- North Carolina Amendment One- goes a step beyond outlawing same-sex marriage, which was already illegal in the state. The law decrees that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”- meaning that civil unions and potentially other types of domestic partnerships will no longer be legally recognized.

Here's more:

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council- a conservative Christian organization- released a statement applauding the vote.

“We applaud North Carolina voters for joining voters in 31 other states upholding the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman” the statement said. “At every opportunity, the American people have demonstrated a deep appreciation for the unique benefits that marriage between a man and a woman brings to families and society. They recognize that marriage is the only kind of union that results in natural procreation and keeps a mother and father together to raise the children produced by their union.”

Yeah, I think it's best that a child have two parents.  If a child has more than one sister and one brother, it might be best to have four parents just to help keep everybody fed and clothed. 

If a child is going to Texas A&M, it might be best for the kid to have six parents:  A mother, a father, a banker, a lottery winner, Bill Gates, and an illegal immigrant getting paid under the table, just to help pay for all the A&M fees and services. 

But back to the point raised by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which needs refuting.....  The Bible says that heterosexual marriage is not the ideal condition for Christians.  I repeat:  "He on She" marriage is not the ideal condition for Christians. 

This billboard is a lie. 

If you take the Apostle Paul seriously, and if you believe he was divinely inspired and not just blogging, heterosexual activity within the confines of heterosexual marriage falls short of perfection.  Therefore heterosexual sex is a "sin", just like gay sex, lesbian sex, rape, pedophilia, bestiality, and forcing children to watch the John Edwards sex video are all supposedly sins.  Sin is anything that falls short of the ideal, anything less than perfection. 

Paul said so.  Here's the man himself:

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8)

The man has spoken.  Remaning single is the ideal.  Anything else falls short of perfection.  And elsewhere in the Bible, sin is "falling short of the glory of God".  To top it off, here's James 4:17.....

¹⁷ If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.

What you should do, according to Paul, is to remain single.  If you know what you should do (remain single) and fail, then you have sinned. 

(Note to my friend Mike Coyne, who is seriously considering falling into sin this fall....Don't do it !!!) 

Yet fundamentalist preachers do weddings all the time.  Strange. 

There are a few other problems in the biblical view of marriage (only one of these is defended at great length at the Family Research Council website). 

See, there are multiple types of marriage authorized in the "Bible".  One of the interesting ones is detailed in Deuteronomy 22:28. 

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

There are others.  The book of Judges, Chapter 19, has a long story about the responsibilities of concubines.  You can have a wife and a Ho, and if the Ho is a disappointment you can chop her into smaller pieces and send the dismembered whore parts all over Israel.  Look it up. 

Here's a helpful chart for every man who doesn't have the spiritual strength to remain celibate and single, and who wishes to sin by marrying a woman. 

Paul was the last "divinely inspired" person to write on this issue.  He said don't get married.  To anybody. 

I still don't understand why the Family Research Council is so opposed to gay marriage and not all the other kinds. 

Richard Dawkins - "The Magic Of Reality"

From Richard Dawkins' new book, The Magic Of Reality.  The book is obviously for children, or possibly for those of us with a religious fundamentalist upbringing who need little reminders from time to time to avoid slipping back into religious tribalism. 
Those are the two reasons why I'll probably buy it. 
Parts of this fable that Dawkins shares in his book might sound familiar.  Names, characters, gods, and incidents are the products of the pre-civilized imagination.  Any resemblance to actual events, characters, gods and incidents, living or dead is entirely coincidental.   

Utnapashtim told Gilgamesh of an occasion, many centuries earlier, when the gods were angry with humankind becase we made so much noise they couldn't sleep. 

The chief god, Enlil, suggested that they should send a great flood to destroy everybody, so the gods could get a good night's rest.  But the water god, Ea, decided to warn Utnapashtim.  Ea told Utnapashtim to tear down his house and build a boat. 

It would have to be a very big boat, because Utnapashtim was to take into it 'the seed of all living creatures'. 

Utnapashtim built the boat just in time, before it rained for six days without stopping.  The flood that followed drowned everybody and everything that was not safely inside the boat.  On the seventh day the wind dropped and the waters grew calm and flat. 

Utnapashtim opened a hatch in the tightly sealed boat and released a dove.  The dove flew away, looking for land, but failed to find any and returned.  Then Utnapashtim released a swallow, but the same thing happened. 

Finally Utnapashtim released a raven.  The raven didn't come back, which suggested to Utnapashtim that there was dry land somewhere and the raven had found it. 

Eventually the boat came to rest on a mountaintop poking out of the water.  Another god, Ishtar, created the first rainbow, as a token of the gods' promise to send no more terrible floods. 

So that is how the rainbow came into being, according to the ancient legend of the Sumerians..... In fact, it is obvious that the Jewish story of Noah is nothing more than a retelling of the older legend of Utnapashtim.  It was a folk tale that got passed around, and it travelled down the centuries.  We often find that seemingly ancient legends have come from even older legends, usually with some names or other details changed. 

Go here to read a story about a Dutch Creationist who built a full-size "replica" of the ark from the Noah story.  
Go here to read what percentage of Americans believe that this story is literally true.  (Noah's, but not Utnapashtim's.)

The pics of Utnapashtim came from here and here and here and here and here. 

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

First Baptist Church of Dallas, The Grinch Alert, Merry Xmas, and why Robert Jeffress needs a history lesson

The First Baptist Church of Dallas has started a "Grinch Alert" website.  Here's the Dallas Morning News:

First Baptist Church Dallas is keeping a list this season, and probably lots of people will be checking it twice, if not more.
The Rev. Robert Jeffress, the church’s pastor, today announced the launch of www.GrinchAlert.com , a First Baptist Web site where people can post the names of “naughty” businesses that use generic holiday language or nothing at all, rather than acknowledging Christmas through store displays, advertising or community relations.

“Too many businesses have bowed down to political correctness,” Jeffress said. “I thought this would be a fun way to call out businesses that are refusing to celebrate Christmas.”

The website features a “naughty” list but also a “nice” list for recognition of businesses that do acknowledge Christmas.

....“We’re letting readers and listeners make their own determination about who ought to be on the naughty or nice list,” Jeffress said. “This is just a forum to let people express their views. In a pluralistic society everybody gets to make their decision.”

Here's some more wholesome Baptist Jihadism from the Grinch Alert website.  If this doesn't remind you of Saturday Night Live's "church lady", you weren't paying much attention in the 90's:

Have you encountered a “Grinch” this Christmas season? Share your experiences here at GrinchAlert.com! Here, you can nominate businesses and organizations that shut-out expressions of Christmas in their interactions with the public via marketing, advertising and public relations. When companies use misplaced political correctness to halt the celebration of Christmas, they belong on the “Naughty List.”

We also want to know which companies are celebrating Christmas with excitement and meaning–especially those who keep Christ in Christmas where He belongs! Those companies and organizations will be placed on our “Nice List.” Help us preserve Christ this Christmas.

Of all the theologically unaware, culture-bound, divisive, and downright sanctimonious displays of historical ignorance I've ever seen, this is one of the worst.  It's almost enough to make me go into a cussing fit, but I intend for this post to be read from pulpits all across America next Sunday.
 
The following is an excerpt (actually, an entire chapter) from "Stories Behind The Great Traditions Of Christmas", by Ace Collins. 

On Xmas

Over the past sixty years or so, Christians have lamented the commercialization of Christmas.  Many have pointed to magazines, newspapers, and store advertisements that seem to pull Jesus out of the holidays by substituting an X in place of the name of Christ in the word Christmas.  While it is usually true that those who use Xmas these days are doing so to save space and shorten the word, Xmas is hardly a new concept - or an irreverent one.  Its use actually dates back to the earliest days of the Christian church. 

Many of the Gentiles who became the initial followers of Christ were Greek.  The Greek for Christ's name is Xristos (pronounced Christos).  While it is well known that a fish was often used as a symbol to denote churches and Christian gathering places during the ancient days of the church, many Greeks also used the letter X (pronounced chi) as their symbol of faith.  This X marked the places where they worshiped.  Therefore, the use of the letter X for Christ is one of the oldest traditions in the Christian faith - one of the first concrete symbols that signified the gospel message for people of all races and backgrounds.  Knowing that Greeks were following the teachings of a Jewish man was almost mind-boggling to scores of pagans during this time.  It also spoke volumes about the nature of Christianity - that all were welcome to become part of the family of God. 

The apostle Paul no doubt knew what the symbol X meant.  He had led a large number of his Greek brothers and sisters to Christ.  A majority of those who called the Savior Xristos financially supported Paul's missionary work and created an environment for the rapid growth of Christianity in Europe.  Many of these Greeks were so enthused about their faith that they helped ignite a fire that rapidly spread the word to the far corners of the known world.  Yet they paid a price as well. 

Countless Greek Christians were persecuted for their faith.  They were stoned, hanged, burned, and put to death in grotesque displays in Rome's Colosseum.  When a Christian was martyred, other Christians often traced an X to mark the spot where a true believer had  given his or her life in faithfulness to Christ.  Hence, in the initial days of Christianity, X was also the ultimate symbol of devotion and sacrifice. 

During the early days of the church, Xmas did not exist.  This was not because church leaders felt that using such a term would be a sign of disrespect.  Since carving letters into the stones of homes and churches was not an easy chore, having an X stand for the meeting place of Christians was fine with the clergy.  The reason that Xmas was not employed during the holiday season was that there was no holiday season.  It would be almost three and a half centuries before the church designated a date to celebrate Christ's birth, and even then Christmas was not a widely recognized holiday. 

Blogger note: And when the church finally decided on a date, they plopped it onto an earlier, pagan festival.  Winter Solstice.  Go here for details.  And when you get back, you'll always remember that the original, true December holiday greeting is "Happy Winter Solstice !!"   And if you say anything else.....you're a Grinch who bows down to the forces of Political Correctness.
Sorry for the distraction. 
Back to the Ace Collins chapter on the Christian origins of "Xmas":

Many of the early Christians had a basic education and could read.  But as time passed and the missionary movement spread the gospel across Europe, converts to the faith were largely unschooled. 

Kinda like whoever came up with this Grinch website.....

These men and women would not have recognized their own names on a document, much less the name of Jesus Christ.  Therefore, symbols became an important part of faith during the Dark Ages.  Some members of the clergy taught new converts that X was a symbol for Christ.  By writing the X, a man, woman, or child could easily spell out in one simple symbol what defined his or her faith. 

During the 16th century, as more and more European clergymen began to document the history of Christianity and to record the day-to-day business of the church, the use of an X for Christ was again widely employed.  It was during this time that the word "Xmas" first began to appear in the writings of Catholic clerics and monks.  Christ's name was probably abbreviated in this manner for three reasons.  The first was that almost all religious documents of the time were handwritten in a very ornate style.  A large X could be drawn in a much more artistic fashion than could the spelled-out name of Christ.  Thus, by writing Xmas with dramatic flair, the day of Christ's birth stood out. 

The second reason probably was that ink and paper were not as easy to come by as today.  Hence, shortening any word would save not only time but also precious resources. 

Ultimately, however, the primary reason many of the Christian writers of the time used Xmas was no doubt because of their knowledge of the Greek language and the early history of the church.  In the minds of these men, Xmas was a word of power that contained great devotional value.  It was a term that honored both the early Christian followers, many of whom became martyrs, and the Savior they had chosen to lead them.  The clerics wanted to make sure that believers remember the fallen heroes of the faith each Christmas. 

As time went on, and reaching a more educated public with a deeper understanding of what faith meant became more important, Xmas was again used by the church.  This time the term was employed to point out that while Christ's birth was necessary and was a cause for great celebration, it was his death and resurrection that gave real meaning to the Christian faith.  Therefore, the X in Xmas reminded believers not only of Christ's birth, but also of the most important Christian symbol, the cross. 

When Christmas finally evolved into a holiday with commercial significance in the mid-1800's....

(Thank you, Charles Dickens)

....retailers began to note the use of Xmas by certain small Christian groups.  In order to save print space and make their flyers and advertisements easier to read, stores picked up on this term based on a very old symbol.  It also made sense because in those days many Americans could not read.  It was far easier for them to grasp than a longer word like Christmas. 

Today, in a culture where few know Greek and almost everyone has a working knowledge of English, the need for employing the symbols of faith is not widely needed.  Hence, most Christians don't know that Xmas was first used by the church and not invented as a shortcut used by merchants during the commercialization of the holiday season.  The fact that the knowledge of the real meaning of X has slipped away from most Christian teachings is a great loss.  The early Greek believers did not know the joy of worshiping freely.  they did not celebrate Christ's birth publicly.  They often paid for their faith with their lives.  Yet they helped spread the gospel to the far corners of their world.  To them, living under the sign of X - the sign of Christ - was the ultimate statement of faith.  If they could visit today's world and see the term Xmas, they would immediately understand its correlation with the Son of God.  Thus, to them, Xmas would be one of the most wonderful and powerful traditions of the modern Christmas. 

And they would also look at that shameful Grinch Alert website, and ask First Baptist Dallas to take it down. 

My trip to the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas

This past Saturday I went to the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas. 
Admission is two dollars, and if I ever find myself in that part of Texas again, I'll gladly pay three. 

The Creation Evidence Museum is the work of Dr.(sic) Carl Baugh.  Go here to read about Baugh's academic credentials. 
Now that I've done some reading on the guy, this place might replace Lee Harvey Oswald's grave as my favorite destination to take out of town guests. 
Cedric Katesby, get ready.  If you ever make it to the U.S., we're going. 

The place is a shapeless mass of....things and ideas and stuff that "isn't even wrong" and generic rocks and hyperbaric chambers and glass cases of unrelated fossils and evangelical kitsch. 

You begin your museum experience with a 30-minute video of Dr. Baugh explaining how the fossil record proves the 6-day creation account found in Genesis.  I can't find the exact video on YouTube, but this one works just as well....
Don't bother watching or listening.  While you're reading, just hit play and let the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook bathe you in the hyperbaric chamber of Dr. Baugh's mind.  More on the hyperbaric chambers in a moment. 



Baugh's timeline is illustrated by a series of paintings, each one illustrating the condition of our planet on that day of creation.  A lot of his focus is on a "canopy" that was once over the earth (about 10 miles up), and this canopy of hydrogen and oxygen (known in academic circles as "water") remained in place until Noah's flood.  All land was in one mass until the flood, and it was only then that North America split off from Europe, South America broke away from Africa, and a sprinkling of fossils found their way onto mountaintops.  Or something. 

Here's some of the general flavor of what Baugh claims was going on during one of the creation days.  I don't have the patience to figure out which one....

The harmonic creation was established to endure forever. A crystalline firmament suspended above the planet filtered out short-wave radiation, and with its physical structure in place universal radio signals serenaded the earth with morning melodies. Planets in the Solar System were distributed at harmonic intervals on a large scale, consistent with the energy fields living seeds produce on a small scale.

I could write for days about that last sentence.  Planets in the Solar System were distributed at harmonic intervals on a large scale, consistent with the energy fields living seeds produce on a small scale.  What does that mean?  Is it possible for it to mean anything?  The planets were distributed at harmonic intervals?  And these intervals are "consistent" with the energy fields that seeds produce?  The (musical) intervals are consistent with the energy produced by seeds?  Ahhh....but it is on a smaller scale.  The seeds, as compared to the planets.   

Baugh continues:

The radiant sun transformed and ruled the day, and its glowing energy extending into the firmament illuminated the night. The reflecting moon added a romantic invitation to the sky. The stars produced measurable references by which time could be told; their colors and formations were as varied and imaginative as eternal reflection could appreciate.

Yeah. 

Ok, on to the hyperbaric chambers.  You'll never know it by going through the museum, but there are two hyperbaric chambers in the place.  Unless you're in the know, you'd think they were some leftover East Texas oilfield equipment, painted white and outfitted with some Disney-esque control panels and viewing windows.  Here's an explanation from a previous visitor, a guy who didn't have nearly as much fun at the museum as I did:

The Creation Evidence Museum also includes a large magenta-windowed "hyperbaric biosphere" in which Baugh claims to have recreated "earth's original pre-flood environment" (Figure 3). According to Baugh, the biosphere — which is connected to an oscilloscope — increases organisms' life-spans by 300%; it also detoxifies copperheads' venom. Near the biosphere is an aquarium in which Baugh grows "vegetarian piranhas." Baugh believes his discoveries support the vast life-spans of biblical patriarchs such as Adam (who allegedly lived to be 930), and the harmonious environment (that is, no carnivores or death) before Eve introduced sin into the world. Baugh hopes to grow dinosaurs in the biosphere. On the museum's walls, visitors can view paintings in which pre-flood children play with a baby Apatosaurus in the nearby Paluxy River. Visitors can purchase these replicas, as well as books, posters, and other materials such as certificates honoring recipients as "visionaries" for "supporting truth in education."

Get it now?  The hyperbaric chambers recreate life the way it was before the flood, before the "canopy" of hydrogen and oxygen came flooding down on Noah. 
Another item of interest is this:

See the human footprint covered by the dinosaur footprint?  That proves that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, right?  And that we really could have an earth that's 6,500 years old.  Readers wanting to scoff at this discovery can go here, and scoff up a storm. 
All I'm going to say is that compared to all the other dino tracks in Glen Rose, this thing is a little too perfect. 

There were other exhibits that proved Creationism by using the pictograms found in Mandarin Chinese.  The display only offered a hint of the theory.  You have to buy a DVD to get the full story. 

There was something going on in one display of meteor fragments, comparing the meteors to the 7 seals and trumpets in the Book Of Revelation.  I never did figure that one out. 

They have a massive painting of Noah loading all the critters onto the ark.  Note the soon-to-be-drowned scoffers in the bottom left corner.  Velociraptors are strangely absent. 

You can purchase paperback copies of Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study in the museum gift shop. 

And they have Brontosaurus neckties with this verse from Job 40:15 - "Now look at Behemoth which I made along with you - he eats grass like an ox". 

Get it?  Get it?  Along with you?  Like, at the same time?  And your footprints are all mixed up with each other? 

I'm gonna start going to NFL games and holding up that verse in the end zone. 

Here's an entry for The Apostrophe Abuse Blog.  In a freakin' museum, ferchrissakes. 



But the main thing you'll notice is the big statue.  You hesitate to ask who it represents, but in the back of your mind, you know.
As you go through the museum, the statue's unblinking eyes look down on you and your group, lovingly, compassionately, but also giving the impression that he's not going to tolerate any dissent.  In his right hand he holds the names from The Lambs Book Of Life....  Or perhaps they're the names of The Just And The Unjust?  The Tibetan Book Of The Dead? 

We'll never know what he is holding; his Sphinx-like gaze betrays nothing. 

You ask why he's there, why Dr. Carl Baugh's Creation Evidence Museum has him up there, larger than life, looking down and casting judgement on believer and skeptic alike. 

I have no freakin' clue. 

But yeah, overlooking the entire Creation Evidence Museum is a massive statue of Dallas Cowboys coach Tom Landry. 

I loved every inch of this place.  Loved it, loved it, loved it. 
Some of the pics came from Flikr. 

Why I am no longer a religious fundamentalist

You probably missed this year's book burning. Mark your calendars for 2010. Bring everything but a King James bible.

From the Amazing Grace Baptist Church KJV.com website.... (When he refers to TR, he means "Textus Receptus". Generally used in scholarly circles to mean "the received text", or "the one we've ended up using".)

Come to our Halloween book burning. We are burning Satan's bibles like the NIV, RSV, NKJV, TLB, NASB, NEV, NRSV, ASV, NWT, Good News for Modern Man, The Evidence Bible, The Message Bible, The Green Bible, ect. These are perversions of God's Word, the King James Bible.
We will also be burning Satan's music such as country , rap , rock , pop, heavy metal, western, soft and easy, southern gospel , contempory Christian , jazz, soul, oldies but goldies, etc.

We will also be burning Satan's popular books written by heretics like Westcott & Hort , Bruce Metzger, Billy Graham , Rick Warren , Bill Hybels , John McArthur, James Dobson, Charles Swindoll , John Piper, Chuck Colson, Tony Evans, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swagart, Mark Driskol, Franklin Graham , Bill Bright, Tim Lahaye, Paula White, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn , Joyce Myers, Brian McLaren, Robert Schuller, Mother Teresa , The Pope , Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, Brennan Manning, William Young, etc.
We are not burning Bibles written in other languages that are based on the TR. We are not burning the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva or other translations that are based on the TR.

We will be serving Bar-b-Que Chicken, fried chicken, and all the sides.

That last line has brought me more joy and happiness than you can imagine.

This year's book burning has already taken place, but the 2010 event already has its own link. Go here to get directions.

One other thing that I can't resist mentioning.... King James was gay.

Pics of the King James Only controversy came from here.

Karen Armstrong at TCU, Religion in an Age of Terror, and whether our Bible is conservative enough

I went to TCU last night to hear Karen Armstrong give a lecture on "Religion in an Age of Terror: Perils and Possibilities.” Ms. Armstrong is a freelance scholar and one of our best writers on the history of religion.


Here's a rough summary of what she had to say: Religious fundamentalism springs up as a reaction to modernity and the secular state. Those of us in the West experienced modernity as a trickle-down effect over a 300 year period. The Muslim world didn't. Their experience of what we call the modern world came about through colonialism, and is associated with a loss of independence and freedom. Their cultures had to modernize too quickly, and this separated many of the elites from the masses.


You still with me? I'm going somewhere with all this. Hang in there.


The elites saw some of the benefits of Western culture, and some Eastern leaders tried to change their citizens at gunpoint. (Nasser in Egypt, Ataturk in Turkey, etc. Soldiers sometimes were sent into the streets to rip burkhas from faces. Western dress codes were sometimes enforced.) People radicalized as a resistance to their own politicians. Hit these movements, and they become more extreme. All force does is confirm their suspicions.


Please stay with me. I'll get to the point, I promise.


The Gallup organization polled a large group of people in the Middle East shortly after the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 93% of the Muslims interviewed said that the attacks were not justified. They cited the Koran, stating that to kill one person is to kill the whole world. The remaining 7% who said that the attacks were justified gave political reasons for their beliefs.
"At the beginning of the twentieth century, almost every single Muslim intellectual was in love with the West. After a visit to Paris, Muhammad Abdu (1849-1905), Grand Mufti of Egypt, remarked provocatively: ‘In France I saw Islam but no Muslims; in Cairo I see Muslims but no Islam.’ "


Stop and think of the implications of that for a minute.....


Armstrong went on to argue that almost all religions eventually develop an ideal of compassion as a reaction to new technologies of cruelty and destruction. This ideal of compassion is usually expressed as some form of The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The great faiths of the world know that the source of all pain is ego. Greed, selfishness, pride, etc. The goal in these faiths is to step outside the self.


We're almost to the money quote....


Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
St. Augustine said that scripture teaches nothing but charity. And if you come to a (scriptural) passage....that seems to preach hatred, you've got to give it an allegorical or metaphorical interpretation, and make it speak of charity.


Got that? We can talk later about whether forcibly taking money from Group A to give to Group B really is "charity" or "compassion". (My belief is that shutting down Washington would be the most charitable and compassionate act imaginable, but I don't want to bog down in that mess during this post.) Armstrong closed her formal remarks by saying that....


We can choose the aspects of our religion that speak of division, hatred, and exclusion, or we can choose compassion.


I left the lecture considering it time well spent. Religious fundamentalism is a reaction to Modernity. Religious fundamentalism is a reaction to Modernity. I got it, but hadn't totally bought into the concept.
Then I got home and found three, count 'em, three emails alerting me to something called "The Conservative Bible Project" at the Conservapedia site. I don't make these things up. You can actually hit real live links to all of this. Here's The Huffington Post:


"Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal, according to a group of conservatives. And it needs a little editing.
That's the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project, which seeks to take the text back to its supposed right-wing roots.
Yes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative. Not that it's the fault of the author(s), exactly. The group cites a few reasons why the Bible is too progressive: "Lack of precision in the original language ... lack of precision in modern language" and "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one."
So how can the Bible be conservatized? The group has proposed a Wikipedia-like group editing project. Some of the ideas would only bring the translation closer to the original. But others would fundamentally change the text.


Here are some of the areas where they believe our current translations have gone astray:


1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity.


Yeah, that's what I think of when I read the Book Of Revelation. Liberal bias. The list goes on:


5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census.
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.


The logic of Hell. Like, temporal offenses and eternal punishments. I get the logic there. And there's one more that I've never thought of, but I kinda like:


7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning.


Heck yes ! ! There actually onto something with that one. Prepare for blog posts about the Free Market meaning of Jesus's parables ! ! But here's where they're going to get into trouble:


8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.


Send the children out of the room. Brace yourself. The Bible story of the woman caught in adultery? And the crowd of religious wingnuts that was about to stone her? And Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ?
That story isn't in the oldest Greek copies of the Gospels. It got shoved in there later.
That's what happened with the last 8 verses of Mark, the part about the resurrection of Jesus. It's not in the oldest manuscripts.
That's what happened with something called the Johannine Comma, (I John 5:7-8, the passage that formed the doctrine of The Trinity.)
Religious conservatives are in for a rude awakening if they go tramping off into those thickets. If they take their findings seriously, they'll have no honest choice but to become religious liberals. But, I digress.


Here's my point: Last night I spent a couple of hours listening to one of our greatest religious historians explain why religious fundamentalism is a reaction to Modernity and Change. When I got home, I found that our local religious fundamentalists had decided that their basic text wasn't fundamentalist enough, and had issued calls to reissue a more conservative version.


Unbelievable.

The Burning Hell, Part Six, Songs For Children edition

Another Sunday is upon us. That means it's time to visit the wonderful world of Reverend Estus Pirkle.
Back in the early 1970's, Pirkle's "The Burning Hell" terrified the crap out of every church youth group in the southeast. I'm posting excerpts from the film each week because I saw the movie when I was twelve or thirteen, believed every minute of it, built a lot of my life around it, and therefore suffered extreme mental, spiritual, psychic, and emotional harm.

Now I'm getting even by ripping the lid off of it every Sunday morning. This is cheaper than a psychotherapist.

To recap the previous episodes.... Two hippies, Ken and Tim, have a discussion with Brother Pirkle about the reality of hell. Their preacher has taught them that hell is only a metaphor. Pirkle disagrees. Pirkle vividly paints a picture of non-believers burning for eternity in a massive field of mud and slop. Ken and Tim object to Pirkle's reasoning and leave the church on their motorcycles.
Ken has an accident, and is decapitated.
Rather than wait around for the police or an ambulance, Tim decides to go to church.
You can hit the Pirkle label at the bottom of this post to see each episode in its entirety. Even if you're in a hurry, you've GOT to see episode #4 with the worms.
At the end of last week's clip, Pirkle was telling the biblical story of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:19).
If you find my commentary helpful, it continues after the clip.




:01 Wild debauchery, as conceived and filmed in a 1973 Myrtle Mississippi Baptist fellowship hall. The candlesticks have appeared in two generations of wedding photos. Check out Mrs. Dives at the :12 mark - her tiara betrays her as an Ole Miss Tri-Delta pledge.

1:45 The screenplay of Pirkle, the directing of B-movie king Ron Ormond, the acting of The Mississippi thespians, and the music of Handel. Which one doesn't fit?

2:10 Lazarus discovers that in the next life, everyone gets a pre-resurrection shave.

3:05 The Santa Claus beard is pressed back into service, and this time Abraham is wearing it. The shots of heaven were filmed in whichever Magnolia State property got "Yard Of The Month" during production.

4:29 Proof that at least two trips were made to Burger King.

4:40 The Roman soldier has a Pavolovian response to the wine. Priceless editing.

5:15 The Dives Funeral - "Mr. Dives was a personal friend of mine...." "and while he was not faithful to attend many of the services...." "I'm sure that God understands that he was a busy man" All of these are straw men that Pirkle is about to kick over. Plus, how many kings are addressed as "Mr" ????

5:50 Dives in hell. "Father Abraham, have mercy on me. Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame".
This doesn't sound like a typical Jesus parable, does it? The folks at The Jesus Seminar, my go-to guys for biblical scholarship, are divided on whether it's authentic. The doctrine of salvation through faith hadn't yet been developed by Paul, and John 3:16 wouldn't be written down for another 60 years after the death of Jesus. So who knows?

The story did inspire a catchy African-American spiritual called "Poor Man Lazrus". The lyrics are as follows:

Poor man Lazrus sick and disabled. Dip your finger in the water, come and, cool my tongue, 'cause I'm tormented in the flame. He had to eat crumbs from the rich man's table. Dip your finger in the water, come and, cool my tongue, ‘cause I'm tormented in the flame.

Chorus:
I'm tormented in the flame. I'm tormented in the flame.
Dip your finger in the water, come and, cool my tongue,
'cause I'm tormented in the flame.

Rich man Divies he lived so well. Dip your finger in the water, come and, cool my tongue, 'cause I'm tormented in the flame. And when he died he went straight to hell. Dip your finger in the water, come and, cool my tongue, 'cause I'm tormented in the flame. (Chorus)

I love to shout, I love to sing! Dip your finger in the water, come and, cool my tongue, 'cause I'm tormented in the flame.

Jester Hairston, the great choral composer, did the best arrangement of the song. Here's the Asbury College Men's Glee Club singing in the college chapel service. Kinda like singing an upbeat ditty about Abu Ghraib.

6:30 Tim remains in the congregation listening to Pirkle explain why it is that who goes where in the next life.

6:40 Dives asks for another chance, just to warn his family about the dangers of THE BURNING HELL.

7:00 Abraham shoots him down. In full Faulkner/Tennessee Williams mode, the father of his race says "They hayuv Moses 'n' thuh prophets. Let theyum hear theyum. If they heer not Moses 'n' thuh prophets,,,,

To hear what other words of comfort Father Abraham said to the burning Dives, come back next Sunday.

The Burning Hell, Part Five, Autoharp Edition

I apologize for posting this so late in the day, since I know that many of you begin your Sunday morning devotions with a visit to this site.
For the last couple of months, I've been posting clips from the evangelical films of Reverend Estes Pirkle. Back in the early 1970's, Pirkle's "The Burning Hell" may have been required viewing for every church youth group in the southeast.

I'm posting these each week because they terrified me when I was a kid, and I've found that this is good therapy.

To recap the previous episodes.... Two hippies, Ken and Tim, have a discussion with Brother Pirkle about the reality of hell. Their preacher has taught them that hell is only a metaphor. Pirkle disagrees.
Pirkle vividly paints a picture of non-believers being burned for eternity in a massive field of mud and slop. Ken and Tim angrily disagree, and leave the church on their motorcycles.

Ken has an accident, and is decapitated.

Rather than wait around for the police or an ambulance, Tim decides to go to church.

You can hit the Pirkle label at the bottom of this post to see each episode in its entirety. Even if you're in a hurry, you've GOT to see episode #4 with the worms.

At the end of last week's clip, Pirkle was telling the biblical story of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:19). If you find my commentary helpful, it continues after the video.



:00 - Candid shots of The Mississippi Thespians, on location in Israel with their Sears & Roebuck bathrobes and Amish head scarves. Pay attention to the music. It's an autoharp.

:40 - Pirkle actually gives us a glimpse of the woman playing the autoharp. Wait a minute.... Did they have autoharps in the middle east, circa 30 A.D. ???

1:10 - A zoom shot of the autoharp ! ! In the middle of ancient Palestine ! ! And autoharps weren't invented until the 1890's ! ! Why didn't Pirkle also include someone playing a Fender Stratocaster with a whammy bar ??

1:30 - I think this guy is the one trained actor in the film, and he took an acting class for one semester at Mississippi Delta Junior College.

2:50 - Dives wants nothing to do with the evangelists. The cameraman wants nothing to do with Dives, and doesn't bother to keep his face in the frame.

4:00 - Dives proves that he's a George H.W. Bush "compassionate conservative".

4:20 - Twenty seconds of meaningless dialogue shot at an ancient amphitheatre, to justify the travel budget.

6:30 - We're back in 1970's Mississippi. Ken's headless body is bleeding in the ditch, Tim is in church, and Pirkle is preaching.

6:50 - Pirkle's vision of ancient decadence looks suspiciously like the set of The PTL Club.

That's all for this week. No burning sinners, no worms consuming the faces of heretics, and no headless hippies. All of that will change next week on THE BURNING HELL ! ! !

"The Burning Hell" - Episode Four - Where The Worm Never Dies

It's Sunday morning, and time for another visit to the video collection of New Albany Mississippi's Reverend Estus Pirkle.
Every weekend I'm posting a clip from "The Burning Hell", Reverend Pirkle's early 1970's masterpiece. The film depicts the eternal consequences of disagreeing with Brother Pirkle's theology.
This movie me nightmares when I saw it in church one night in the early 1970's. I spent years praying and worrying about friends and relatives who might be "lost".
So now I'm making fun of it every Sunday morning.

If you want to watch the previous episodes, hit the Estus Pirkle label at the bottom of this post.
To recap:

In episode one, Pirkle's troupe of Mississippi thespians reenact Israel's disobedience to Thor Zeus Santa Claus Billy Gibbons of ZZ Topp Moses, and shows the earth swallowing the disobedient Jews into hell.

Episode two begins the story of two hippies, Ken and Tim, who disagree with Reverend Pirkle's theology. They've been corrupted by someone named Dr. Long, who teaches that God would never send anyone to hell forever. Within minutes, Ken and Tim are severely punished. Ken's head is cut off in a motorcycle accident and Tim has to endure flashbacks of every incident where he rejected God's saving sacrifice.

Episode three has Tim staggering back into Reverend Pirkle's Sunday A.M. service, taking a seat near the front, and listening to stories about eternal damnation. The North Mississippi All-Stars cover themselves in mud, slime, and clothes from their tenant houses, set a pasture on fire, and run around saying "Ah Hate Chew".
One of the more influential demons reunites Ken's head with his body and carries Ken away to be roasted for a few billion decades.
Reverend Jack Hyles, who went on to financial scandals, child abuse scandals, etc., etc., etc., makes a cameo appearance to explain why he loves the idea of hell, and wouldn't bother getting out of bed in the morning without it.

That gets us to #4, the part we all remember. For those of us who saw this movie at church, at a youth retreat, or at a lock-in, this episode has the money shots. Some of us stayed up for weeks worrying about dead relatives and worms.....

If you find my commentary helpful, it continues below the YouTube clip.



:24 Reverend Hyles reads a list of Hell's characteristics, a list that sounds similar to the goings-on at his last church.

:48 Tim has a flashback to other church services where he didn't give his heart to Jesus.

1:50 For those of you who didn't grow up with altar calls, this is one of them. At the end of a worship service the choir and congregation sing something evangelical while the preacher tries to talk people into becoming Christians.

It would make sense to do this on streetcorners or in shopping mall parking lots (if you buy into the concept), but it makes absolutely no sense to do this inside of a church.

Why?

Because the people inside a church, for the most part, are already Christians. The man is fishing inside his own aquarium. But it gives the congregation the feeling that they're part of some large evengelistic outreach.

I can't tell you how many hours of my life I've spent listening to this stuff.

2:25 God is love. He is defined by love. He loves you so much that he sent his son (1/3rd of himself but also 100% of himself - it's a long story) to die in your place.

But if you can't believe this story, this is what he's going to do. Bring plenty of water with you.

3:15 This is what gave me the willies back in 1974. Isaiah 14:11 and Mark 9 talk about worms as a form of punishment.

3:45 Reverend Pirkle goes back to the original Greek to explain that these aren't symbolic worms. These are genuine maggots.

4:05 Number one, where did they get the maggots? Number two, how much did they have to pay these people for the stunt work? Number three, can you imagine people watching this and taking it seriously and literally? People with doctorates?

4:30 Pirkle and the Delta Dramatists are now at an amphitheatre, putting on a performance of "The Death Of Herod - With Worms", complete with costumes and special effects. Tom Savini can rest easy.

5:08 Pirkle: Herod would soon be just a dim memory as the worms devoured his organs. They feasted on his black heart, relishing his ???? intestines. They devoured his eyeballs and face and all of him until nothing was left but the odorous rotten form of what was once the evil Herod. What a horrible sight to behold. What a stench there must have been. Does this give you a nauseating feeling?

Well, yeah.

5:35 Reverend Pirkle begins the parable of Lazarus and Dives.

That's all for this week. In closing, may I direct you to one other website? Here's an account (with pictures) of a recent showing of "The Burning Hell". Be sure your sound is turned on.

Notice the contrast between the look of the website and the contents of this movie?

Come back next week for Episode 5 of THE BURNING HELL ! ! !