Dead Mech – Zombies are all the rage these days. You can find them in offices, Jane Austen novels, and now, with this podcast novel you can get them in giant robotic exo-skeletons. Jake Bible, yet another example of the fine podcasters situated in NC, wrote this novel as a series of “flash” pieces. At first this seemed to make things a little choppy, but after a while things flow merrily along. He’s built an interesting post-apocalyptic world and I’m thoroughly enjoying it. FYI it’s not for non-adult type people (just in case you need to be told that a post-apocalyptic zombie book isn’t family friendly).

Devlin, Abnormal Investigations – I was turned on to this series by none other than the FDO Scott Sigler. Devlin is an alcoholic vampire with a talent (and a penchant) for laying waste to all about him. He does have a soft spot for animals and the underdog. He has no patience with the pompous or people that interrupt his drinkin’. He reminds me a little of Lobo from DC comics. Gallons of dark and occasionally sophomoric humor make me giggle. Greg Crites, self described hack, reads his own story in a whiskey soaked baritone.

V and A Shipping – This is a podcast novel that I think would be accessible to a wider range of both ages and temperaments. I linked to this in my last podcast review series and I’ve now almost finished it. J. R. Murdock, the author, also reads this all by his lonesome. The plot, interstellar hot rodders take a bet to make a beer run in less than twenty-four hours, might sound vaguely similar to a certain 70’s chase film and that’s entirely not by accident. If you like your sci-fi with a quirky sense of humor and a healthy dose of action then this is one for your MP3 player of choice.

The Jen and Dave Show – Most decidedly NOT a fiction based podcast, this show gives you a weekly look into the lives of the titular hosts. They live out in Visalia, California and share their faith and looney tunes misadventures with you, the audience. I’ve stuck with this couple cast when others have come and gone. Why? Well this pair is just so much fun. Jen’s down to earth personality is a great foil for Dave’s odd sense of humor. They manage to talk about their beliefs without preaching at you and are just very genuine folks.

The Jesus Geeks – Chris and Cliff aren’t your typical conservative Christians. If they were I wouldn’t likely be listening to them. They do tend to stay away from politics (which may explain why I’m still listening!) focusing more on geek culture, movies, and video games. They approach all of these through the lenses of their faith and while I don’t always agree with them, I do always enjoy them!

Well along with these I also recommend you check out Nathan Lowell’s South Coast, Timothy Callahan’s The Arwen, and Blake M. Petit’s Evercast. I haven’t listened to them yet, but all signs point to goodness.

Podcasts For Christmas! is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I respect frank talk. I think that if you have an opinion then you should share it. I love the fact that most people who comment here don’t pull any punches. We don’t accomplish anything by simply echoing back opinions and if you have a problem with what someone says then the only way to overcome it is to bring it out. One or both of you might be wrong and there’s no way to discover that outside of a little conflict. That sort of political incorrectness I can deal with and I, in fact, encourage.

There’s another sort though. It’s rudeness, cloaked by a rebel attitude. “I’m so cool, look at me tear down the established belief system.” It seems like there are people who believe that if you think an idea is stupid or a person is a moron then you do a disservice if you don’t point it out. I could address the level of arrogance that’s going on there, but that’s perhaps a different post. So let me ask you a question, assuming you’re right what good does being politically incorrect in that sense do?

If your goal is to take that moron and turn him around, do you think you’d do that by being PI? Has anyone changed your mind in that way? I mean I suppose it’s possible, but we have an old (and a little disgusting) saying here in the south about flies, vinegar and honey. That doesn’t mean that you need to kiss someone’s backside or be less than truthful. I don’t advocate even the “little white lies” that some say are necessary for society to function. So be honest, even or especially if it’s not PC, but don’t be disrespectful. You can vehemently disagree with someone and do it respectfully. The Golden Rule whether stated positively or negatively applies here. If you don’t want to be called a rude name then I would suggest that you don’t call others by a rude name.

If your goal isn’t to persuade someone then I think that should send up a red flag. If you think that someone is so far to the polar opposite side of your own thought process that they will simply never change then why bother bringing it to their attention, especially in a negative way? I think a good example here would be some of the anti-religious sites I visit. They call us all manner of unkind names. They drag our belief systems through the mud. And they do this, so they might say, to bring us enlightenment. That strikes me as a little deluded though. Maybe, just maybe they’ll change the mind of someone sitting on the fence, but that’s about it. I think what they’re really doing is stirring up their base and striving to make themselves look all dangerous and edgy. The anti-theists aren’t alone though. I’ve seen this on both sides of the political and religious divides. Really any arena where you have divergent beliefs will likely have some sort of PI hero.

So, I think that there’s a place for being PC and a place for being PI but most important, no matter what your leanings, there’s a huge place for respect and love.

Politically Incorrect is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The Gospel is not a truth among other truths. Rather, it sets a question-mark against all truths. The Gospel is not the door but the hinge. The man who apprehends its meaning is removed from all strife, because he is engaged in a strife with the whole, even with existence itself. Anxiety concerning the victory of the Gospel–that is, Christian Apologetics–is meaningless, because the Gospel is the victory by which the world is overcome. … It [the Gospel] does not require representatives with a sense of responsibility, for it is as responsible for those who proclaim it as it is for those to whom it is proclaimed. It is the advocate of both. … God does not need us. Indeed, if He were not God, He would be ashamed of us. We, at any rate, cannot be ashamed of Him.

What say you?

Apologetics is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

jramboz: A sense of what is right and wrong. Now, how you define “right” and “wrong” is where it gets tricky.

sidfaiwu: RE morality: 1st attempt at a definition for me: a system of principles aimed as separating right from wrong.

Rasplundjr: Morality is the personal code of Right and wrong it’s that line that you can’t cross no matter what

I think that those are all certainly good definitions and nothing earth shattering. I’ve heard it said by a number of people that if you aren’t a Christian, you can’t be moral. If the above definitions of morality are sound then I can’t quite agree with that. I think that there are plenty of moral non-Christians and more than a few immoral Christians. Morality is very subjective.

It might be determined by what you believe religiously. You might engage in all manner of intense moral calculus to come up with your own code. You could look to certain people in your life or ones that you admire. All of these are ways of coming up with your own moral sense. Interestingly enough the words moral or morality don’t come up that often in the Bible. A quick search only gives me between one and five hits depending on the translation.

Now righteousness that’s a different story. I get over five hundred hits on that. So what’s my point? My point is that I think when we point fingers at non-believers and talk about how “immoral” they are or how unethical they are, we need to check ourselves. The only thing we need to be concerned with is righteousness. What is righteousness? Well I suppose it could be defined as Biblical or Godly morality. That seems a good place to start.

“A-ha!” I hear you say. “Then we can be sure that the non-believer is unrighteous.” Of course they are, and so are you. You don’t have righteousness because of your own acts, though by faith in God you may come to live a life that is more in line with what God wants (of course even those acts are corrupted by our nature), in fact you don’t have righteousness at all. The only righteousness anyone has is credited to them by faith and that through grace (which means you didn’t deserve it). As a result it shouldn’t be something that you lord over others. It is the grace that you received your right standing with God and it is that grace that you should share.

Christians are in such a hurry to take God’s righteousness (as best we understand it) and make it our morality. If we stopped there it might not be bad. Unfortunately, we try and cloak others with it by making our own laws some reflection of God’s Law. We might claim to be doing the world a favor by making it that much more difficult to be “immoral”. We think we are encouraging people to live the right way. We want our country to benefit from the laws of God as it has been passed down to us. We want the world to see the benefits of living in a Christian country with Christian laws.

Even if we did stop at our own fingertips, what does that do to Romans 3:20? “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” So by taking our morality, informed as it may be by God’s righteousness, and using it in a wrong headed way we do harm. We become not Christians, living our lives informed by the grace that we received and passing that grace on to others, but moralists using codes to fence in sheep. Instead of saying “Live the right way!” we should be aware that none can live up to that standard. That’s the point of the Gospel. We all fall short of righteousness and there is covering enough for us all, whatever our morality might be.

Morality and Righteousness is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

ht to The Thinklings

Oh Come All Ye Faithful is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

So anyway the first episode I listened to was Texas Snow. It got my blood up just a little so I called to leave a voice mail. Thanks to a restriction on time placed by Google Voice I was cut off in mid thought and had to leave two. Rather than bog down their podcast replying to me point by point Aetherswift replied in a blog post.

I figured I’d drive a little traffic their way, for the conservatively minded among you and for those that just like poking people on the opposite side of the aisle. As such I’ll be replying to her points here and shooting her the link. So go read the blog post and listen to any of the relevant audio and then come back and read my thoughts. Just to make sure we have all the proper context.

1. Maurice Clemmons – I am pretty much universally against the death penalty, though not necessarily for the reasons one might suspect. I haven’t blogged on it that I can find, but suffice to say at this point and probably forever the death penalty process (both assigning it as a penalty and the seemingly endless ability of the criminal to contest it) are so horribly broken that I don’t see any way of using it appropriately. Are there instances where it might be called for? I think so. Perhaps even in the case of Mr. Clemmons, though not on the rape charge as Aetherswift seems to think it should have been. An appeal to the Old Testament in support of the death penalty isn’t going to convince me since we’d have to start killing off a whole bunch of folks if we go down that road. What would convince me is a non-emotional argument on why the death penalty would have been more appropriate in the earlier case against him. And regarding the bail, as I understood it you were comparing posting bail to a punishment. My sole point was that it’s not a punishment. Should bail bondsman be able to help people post bail? I’ll be honest I haven’t given it much thought. It’s a long respected practice (so far as I know) and I’ve never seen an argument against it, other than the occasions where someone posts bail and does something horrible. This isn’t necessarily a reason to stop doing it.
2. God telling us/not telling us everything we need to know in the Bible – I posted about this recently. My point was that you said something akin to the notion that we would find all our answers in the Bible and this is simply not true. Perhaps I misunderstood something you said. I will say that regarding “There are no gray areas in heaven.” I suppose that depends on what you mean. The Bible does indicate that we will receive varying rewards in heaven. So that seems gray in a way. In regards to morality/righteousness though, I would say that yes, there is only one “correct” morality and that no one is righteous. I’ll be posting on that later today/tomorrow.
3. John Stewart – You really should give John a try. He’s consistently funny and picks on both sides pretty mercilessly.
4. Obama Osama – Conflating Obama with Osama is no more funny than calling Bush Hitler. Comparing any president to a terrorist overlord is a cheap shot. Let me take your points one at a time:
   Obama does have a Muslim name. – Hussein is an Arabic name, common both in religious and non-religious circles. That’s a bit like saying Joshua or Paul are Christian names. Barack is an African name and I’ve seen no indication that it’s common to Muslims.
   • He was raised Muslim and attended a Muslim school – My wife attended Catholic school. She’s not Catholic. There’s no proof that he was raised as a practicing Muslim or is currently one.
   • He is constantly defending Muslims and doing everything in his power to release and/or excuse Muslim terrorists. – You’re really going to need to back this one up.
   • He even bowed before the Muslim Saudi king – He bowed before the Japanese Emperor. He’s not Japanese. We can argue whether these were good ideas or not, but it’s not proof of anything.
5. The war in Afghanistan – You said you would give him more than he asked for, were you in Obama’s shoes. If he asked for 50K and you offered him more then where would they come from? I’m not saying that we don’t have the number of troops that the general asked for or that we wouldn’t have the number of hypothetical troops that you’d hypothetically offer, but just because we have them doesn’t mean that deploying them all to Afghanistan is a good idea. Just because the General (all due respect to him) asks for them doesn’t mean he should get everything he wants. I have to assume that Obama didn’t make the decision just to cheese the General off. We can certainly debate the wisdom of a date. I do agree with you actually that it was a move to try and compromise (unfortunately a dirty word). I’m not so sure that a “Damn the torpedoes” approach in today’s military climate works every time. There is a place for both a thoughtful approach to the number of troops we deploy and having a clear (though flexible) exit strategy. There is also a time for throwing everything and the kitchen sink at a problem and vowing to stay in as long as possible. Which approach we use depends on what we’re trying to accomplish.
6. Family Guy – I think what I said was that Family Guy picks on everyone. They may indeed have a liberal slant, but I don’t think it’s ever intended as a “political cartoon”. That was my main point. American Dad fills that niche.
7. Macs and iTunes – Re: Coders and Macs, I’ve been in IT for a long time (10+years) and I’ve known coders who love Macs and code for Macs. I guess you could say that we’re both pointing to circumstantial evidence. I’ll say you’re more likely to run into coders for PCs for the same reason you’re more likely to run into techs like myself who support PCs. There are simply more PCs. Most coders I know actually prefer *nix boxes (and it should be pointed out that the Mac OS is based on a Unix kernel).

So there we go. That covered a wide variety of topics. I hope you guys chip in your $.02 and don’t be afraid to level your guns at me (like you ever are) or at Aetherswift, just keep it kind. And give their podcast a shot.

Lady and the Tramp is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I think it would be awful if this group came in and stole our holiday. We’ve been doing it for hundreds of years at least. It’s part of one of the central tenets of our religion. For someone to gradually and insidiously take it from us by slowly layering changes to it over time, co-opting symbols and traditions for their own, and ultimately changing it’s name is just wrong. Eventually it would be unrecognizable and no one would remember our traditions.

I can’t imagine the kind of thought process that would cause someone to do that.

Oh… wait… this is all beginning to sound a bit familiar.

War On Christmas is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I’d love a book that told us everything about the nature of the soul…

I’d love to be able to pick something up, read it, and know all there is to know about God…

The Bible, perhaps sadly, perhaps not, is not this book. There are many questions that the Bible leaves unanswered. There are topics it doesn’t address. I’ve been cruising around the internets having discussions with believers and non-believers for many a moon now. People have told me that if I would just really read the Bible the way they recommend that one of two things would happen, both involving seeing the light. The first comes from non-believers. They say if I would just open my eyes I would see God as a horrid being unworthy of worship (should he in fact exist at all). Some of my fellow believers argue that if I but read the Bible their way (oddly enough the same way some non-believers encourage) without baggage or preconceptions, that I would see the literal truth of the Flood or the Six Day Creation for instance.

Oddly enough I can’t manage either result, no matter how hard I try.

The Bible itself says in 2 Timothy “15 from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

So that seems to me that the main thrust of the Bible is to instruct us on how we are to be saved eternally and how we as Christians are to be righteous and do good works. We spend too much time using it to tell non-Christians how unrighteous they are and what bad works they do and I don’t see that here. It also seems based on this list that it’s not there to answer all of our questions about God and his nature, the age of the Earth, how we should “do church”, or a number of other topics that we go round and round about on a daily basis. Having those discussions is fine and good (to a degree) but I don’t think being dogmatic on them (since they’re basically solely based on our interpretations of the Bible and not on explicit teachings) is going to bear good fruit.

I suspect that if you want to argue these points you can find a book that will help you with them. It’ll be in the bookstore, written by your favorite saint/church father/pastor of the moment. Or maybe you can just make stuff up and blame it on the Holy Spirit (or angels, or God “giving you a word”, or whatever*). That seems pretty popular. How much weight you give that is between you and your conscience, just don’t try and make me believe it.

*hat tip to Jon.

Not the Book You’re Looking For is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

What I do know is that given what is, in my mind, an inadequate plan or goal, I don’t see the wisdom in sending more troops and more money over there. I do applaud the time line. Snurp, frequent commenter and philosopher extraoridinaire, waxed his opinion in the comment thread on my Brain Droppings post. I thought I’d pitch my two cents in on top of his out here on the main dance floor.

-The Afghanistan timetable: include it, and the Afghan people will be less willing to help us, since they know we’ll be gone in the not-so-distant future. Don’t include it, and the Afghan government has no real incentive to stop shirking responsibility, since we’ll theoretically be there until things are fixed (i.e. eternity, if they don’t actually get things done). Simple decision: impossible.

See I don’t get that. It seems to be the same argument that gets used for social programs. “Provide help and people have no incentive to improve their situation.” If their current situation is one they don’t want to be in, why wouldn’t they use the limited help and aim to better their ultimate situation? If they don’t take the offered opportunity then that’s not the helpers fault is it?

-Troop increase + timetable: The most overtly centrist (in that it appeals explicitly to both sides) political move I’ve seen in some time, perhaps ever. Obama remains centrist, whatever people say (or at least, appeals in a centrist manner when it comes to large-scale decisions).

I love that Obama is (in my estimation) centrist. I shoot for that too. I think that working together to find a solution that, while it might not make everyone thrilled, at least betters the overall situation is the best we can or should hope for in a Democracy. If we must send troops/money it’s best to go in with a firm time line.

-On that note: you know a policy is centrist when both sides roundly criticize it, with any praise being given in a quiet voice. And they wonder why political discussion tends to avoid the center.

Amen.

Sid has this to say:
- Afghanistan: We’ve using the wrong approach. Insurgencies are rarely beaten by conventional military methods. A troop surge will not help. It’s especially problematic in Afghanistan because the insurgency isn’t a unified one.

I think I agree with this too. This is not a war that begs for more boots on the ground. I’m not sure that it’s one that can be “won” at all. It’s their world, it’s their mess. If they want help then I’d gladly give it if they showed that they wanted our help on a limited basis. I don’t think they’ve done that.

Kansas Bob says this:
I am glad however that the prez seemed to take a long and thoughtful approach to the strategy.. better than a shot from the hip.. at least there is a time-line.

And another Amen. Now let’s see if they stick to it. It’s not lost to me that the time line is right before the election.

More Troops for Afghanistan? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

• I think I pick on the Uptight Christian Brigade (my little name for many on the Christian Right) too much. They’re are some good folks in their midst. I just do it because I love them and hate to see them in error. Also it’s fun.
• Procrastinating something like NaNoWriMo is stupid but if you do it don’t be afraid to push yourself to succeed. You just might surprise yourself.
• I think the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea and it (the troop surge there) may well be the first thing that Obama’s pushed for that I don’t agree with.
• I think that teaching abstinence in public schools is a good idea done side by side with teaching barrier methods. I don’t expect that most kids will pay attention to either instruction though and I don’t know what to do about that.
• News about celebrities cheating, doing drugs, having fights with their spouses, or doing anything else that that the rest of us are capable of doing (and so often do) isn’t really news.
• Bacon, chocolate, and beer individually make almost anything better. I don’t think it’s a good idea to drop all three in a blender and press frappe.

Feel free to leave your own droppings or use the comments to discuss any of these droppings at length.

Brain Droppings is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them.

So, let’s take this point by point.

Human life is sacred.  I believe that that is why we as the church, who believe this, should be coming alongside any woman who is going to have an abortion because she can’t afford a pregnancy.  We should offer to pay all of her bills and give her whatever she needs and then we should adopt her child.  Since the mother’s life is also sacred we should also take that into account when we are thinking of telling her that she shouldn’t have an abortion if she believes her life is at risk.  Finally we should work towards abolishing the death penalty.  The fact that America still practices this is a crime.

Marriage as defined by the Bible current Christian culture and most first world Western cultures as being between two unrelated consenting adults, one male and one female, should be dignified.  It should be entered into with eyes open and if we as Christians want to see this sort of marriage as we define it succeed, then we need to come alongside brothers and sisters who are struggling.  We should not make them feel guilty if their marriage is rocky and should offer all of the prayer and emotional support we can.  When a Christian marriage fails we should love both parties and that does not include inflicting guilt, pain, or shame on them.

Any other sort of marriage which runs contrary to the Western Christian definition should be treated as any other activity by non-believers.  We should respectfully understand that people of other beliefs will not act the way we want them to no matter how difficult we make it on them.  Also those people who marry despite our desires should receive all of the benefits our government sees fit to bestow upon them.  If we don’t like these benefits we are free to disagree, but we should have a better reason to prevent them from receiving these benefits than “the Bible says you shouldn’t” because it doesn’t say that at all.

We as Christians have the right to follow our conscience and to practice our religion.  We don’t have the right to practice it everywhere the precise way we’d like to, even if these ways aren’t really in the Bible, such as on the public’s dime or on land owned by the government.  Even in those places though we are free to pray, read the Bible, or talk to our peers in a respectful and loving fashion (which includes not talking about it if they express discomfort or a desire to change the subject).  We also have to realize that in following our conscience we may lose our jobs, our friends, relationship with family members, or any number of other social benefits and that such a result is actually in line with some of what the Bible says will happen if we do so.  We are not guaranteed freedom from those consequences by the Bible or by the Constitution.  Others are guaranteed to practice their religions or to practice no religion at all and to follow their conscience in the same fashion as we are with possible similar results and protections.

Many of these freedoms as I have laid them out (freedom to not be a Christian or to not have Christian ideals/expectations placed upon you, freedom to not be executed, freedom to make choices about your family/person) are “under attack” by my well meaning brothers and sisters.  Others (the right to not have an abortion, to practice your religion in your church/home/work, the right to a heterosexual marriage) are not under attack by anyone so far as I can tell.  If they ever are under attack though I will use the liberty I am granted to speak out on those matters as well.

So for now, since I think these points weren’t really thought through, were overly simplified, or perhaps were just poorly expressed by the Manhattan Declaration, I’m gonna have to pass on it.  I think it’s great that all of these diverse thinkers are agreeing on this even though some have expressed that they think other signers are WAY off base when it comes to the basics if their theology but until we can really open up these three seemingly simple points to some serious discussion and dig at what motives (other than the purely humanitarian)  are behind them, I’ll hold off.  Until that happens (not really holding my breath for that one) maybe you guys can tell me what you think about my own expression of what these points mean?

The Manhattan Declaration is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I had the pleasure of tasting all of these over the last week or so.

Rogue’s Chipotle Ale – I have a deep and abiding love for the smoked jalapeno. For those not in the know, that’s what a chipotle pepper is. The combination of heat and smoke is a beautiful thing. So when I saw this I thought, “Why not?” Surely it would be two great tastes etc, etc. Sadly, no. While it was certainly a passable ale and at 35 IBU had a good bitterness to it, the flavor was lacking. There was a little bit of actual heat to the finish, but zero smoke. Smoke is central to the chipotle. It was also a little medicinal. Not really worth the seven buck bottle and I don’t think I’ll be revisiting it.

Rogue’s Hazlenut Brown Nectar – I was really looking forward to this one I read a review of it at the Accidental Hedonist’s site. Kate knows her stuff and the review is aces. This struck me as more of a Belgian Dubble than a straight up brown ale, due to the sweetness. It wasn’t too sweet though and the nuttiness was distinct. Would I have been able to tell it was hazlenut? Maybe not, but the combination of flavors was perfect. I’m not so sure that a non-beer drinker would like it, but perhaps if they were sitting on the fence.

Southern Tier’s Pumking – Those of you that know me and my affinity may be surprised by the following statement. This is better than Dogfish Head’s Punkin Ale. Now that’s not to say that Punkin isn’t truly awesome. It’s just that it dropped a notch. If you want a beer that’s got a wallop of flavor including not just the traditional spices, but actual pumpkin here it is. At 9% ABV it’s got a good punch, so you might want to share this with a friend as it’s a big bottle.

Southern Tier’s Creme Brulee Imperial Stout – Apparently the folks at Southern Tier Brewing like them some potent flavor and potent beer. Cause this and Pumking certainly are. At 10% ABV this is another sipping beer, though there’s no burn. Open the bottle and you get a nose FULL of vanilla. It’s got a slightly oily mouthfeel and as Imperial Stouts go it’s no Sammy Smith’s. It’s very drinkable. The only odd thing is, as good as the aroma is, there’s not much of a vanilla flavor. I definitely recommend giving it a try though.

Mmmmmmm beeeer…. is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

My answer to Sid’s comment is going to be a very qualified yes. A good part of that is because human sexuality is an incredibly broad spectrum and the, imo, large slice that the Bible is in favor of is therefore narrow in comparison. I would say that most worldviews have their own narrowly prescribed range of acceptable sexuality, again in comparison. Are their people that think that “anything goes” when it comes to that emotionally charged topic? I’m sure that there are some that think they are and perhaps there are even some that are. But this isn’t about them. This is about the Bible’s own “narrow” point of view.

One of the things that I’ve been giving quite a lot of thought to recently is the concept of polygamy. Oh don’t worry, I have no intention of ever practicing it. One wife is just plenty for me. But it’s something that the Bible doesn’t seem to be against. A number of the patriarchs in the Bible practiced it. It was and remains a common custom in that part of the world. The rare places that it’s spoken against that I’m aware of seem to nail the badness down in the area of marrying people who have radically different religious views than you. There’s also the admonition that elders should be the husband of only one wife, but it’s not (too my knowledge) listed anywhere as being a sin. Certainly you could say, as some have, that since Adam and Eve were apparently “married” and monogamous that this is God’s intention for all of us. I’m not so sure about that since Adam and Eve, to my knowledge never actually had a ceremony and were what I’d call common law spouses.

That leads to the topic of sex outside of marriage. The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, never says what the act of getting married is actually like. There is no Biblically prescribed ceremony. It seems, getting back to Adam and Eve, that all that is required is for two people to pledge themselves to one another, and in the case of believers, to God. No need for a ring, a dress, or even a church and pastor. So, would it be accurate to say that in order to have sex “appropriately” all two people have to do is make such a pledge to one another? It certainly seems so. Granted there does seem to be some procedure for divorcing in the Old Testament and therefore it’s likely that there’s also a procedure for getting married, but I’m unaware of either.

The big buggaboo, and I suspect one of the things to which Sid was referring, would be homosexuality. I can’t argue there. The Bible does seem to be pretty clearly against it, both male and female. There aren’t exactly scores of verses pointing to it, but a few in the Old Testament and a few in the new are pretty clear. One of the passages that I don’t think is so completely clearly anti-gay sex is the whole Sodom incident. Those people weren’t so much homosexual as they were sexual predators. Otherwise though it is certainly clear that God designed man to be with woman and vice versa and doesn’t want it any other way. My question there is though, what percentage of human sexuality is of the homo- variety? If it’s the minority, as I understand it to be, and if it’s a large part of what people point to when it comes to God being anti-some aspect of human sex, then there’s a problem there.

Masturbation is also pointed to pretty frequently as being a no-no. The Bible doesn’t really touch on that though. Onan is the only one who is listed as performing that particular act (if that was indeed what he was doing) and he gets killed by God. What gets glossed over there is that Onan was commanded by God to get his brother’s widow pregnant and he didn’t do it. That was the real issue.

So all of this to say, are their things the Bible seems to be against when it comes to sex? Sure. A lot of what Christians say the Bible/God is against is tied up in two thousand years of tradition and our own (at least as far as Western Christians are concerned) cultural baggage. I think the Bible is certainly pro-heterosexuality and that sexuality taking place in a mutually respectful, loving, committed relationship. What that sex looks like, whether it involves something you, I, or the fly on the wall might think of as “kink”, or the granular details aren’t really touched on. I think that the Bible shows clearly that bad things can come from anything else and often does. So with that I guess I’ll don my flame retardant suit, open up the floor, and ask what you think of this. Am I way off the mark here?

How Narrow Is That Gate? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Weird Al Playlist is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

“The Bible is anti-human sexuality outside a very narrowly prescribed range.”

Not at all. How can I say that? Let’s recontextualize.

“The Bible has one monolithic message on absolutely anything at all.”

See what I mean?

What does the Bible say about sex? Lots of things. There are the rules in Leviticus that we’re all familiar with, which instruct an ancient tribe of Hebrews to get a wife or two, boink them as appropriate, not to boink them when it’s, yanno, that time, what to do when your wife bears your kid, and what to do when your slave bears your kid. Roughly. And it’s couched in the highly ritualized, black-and-white, OCD language and tradition that comes out of having a long-standing and very powerful priest class in control.

Up over in the New Testament, there’s Paul. Paul takes an entirely different tack, being quite certain that nobody should have sex at all, because it’s gross. Old definition. At best, Paul’s whole message is muddled, but he’s very well-known for at least being attributed with encouraging asceticism in the church. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that he was certain Jesus would return in his lifetime, combined with the firm possibility that he was also the world’s first armchair theologian. He was certain they were living in unique and urgent times. The result is that he picked weird priorities.

What does Jesus say about sex? Not a whole lot, especially if you don’t spend a lot of time deconstructing the implications of his big anti-legalism shtick.

Let’s see, what else? The parts of the old testament that aren’t made entirely of “begats” and “thou shalt nots” are mostly made up of good old-fashioned bronze and iron age myths and legends, and like any good set of ancient religious myths and legends, they’re full of rum, buggery and the lash. Taken on the whole, it shows a very human sexuality – kind of lusty, kind of confused, kind of not stopped by all the rules present over sexual behavior. It’s also worth mentioning that, as far as I’ve ever found, there’s no story in the old testament of anyone being smote by god for sexual misdeeds. Folks are smote for a lack of faith, a lack of ritual cleanliness, a lack of cooperation, or out of sheer bloody-mindedness, but not for having naughty sex. (No, I’m not convinced that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexuality, either. If you ignore the analysis of the passage later in the bible and just read the story, it seems quite clear that those cities were destroyed because they were populated entirely by assholes. And, as the currently totally trendy Book of Job shows, God does not abide assholes.)

You know what’s really terrible, though? The bible has a dirty book. Song of Songs. You could say that it’s a love letter to god using the metaphor of sexual lust. Or it’s just a marvelous letter of longing between lovers. Doesn’t matter. It’s a celebration of beautiful bodies, wonderful scents, textures, tastes, soaring feelings and all of the other wonderful stuff that goes with that intense first blush of love. It’s all the best things sex can do for us. Right there. In the bible.

So, no. The bible is prescriptive about sex, it’s against sex entirely, it’s got an unknown position, it accepts sex as a part of life, and it’s totally into it, and those are just the big swipes. It’s all these all at the same time, plus more.

All These Things and More is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

This statement seems designed to provoke a reaction without speaking to the real issue at hand. Let us examine that instead.

The Bible certainly condemns specific behavior. In addition to specific sexual acts and relationships, the Bible also condemns: lying, murder, tax evasion, slander, disobeying one’s parents, idol worship, eating pork, and a whole host of other things. The Bible insists that it is the actual words of God, and that it is to be taken as a whole or rejected as a whole. Any other practice is not consistent with Biblical text.

When applying Biblical teaching to human sexuality, as to any aspect of life, one must first accept the authority and legitimacy of the Bible to govern that aspect of life. If one is to accept that the Bible has this authority, no issue may then be taken against whatever statements may be found therein – whether they condemn us for a sexual act, a malicious act, or even a well-intentioned act.

We may be thankful that the Bible does not teach perfect adherence to Biblical Law as the only means of salvation, but that salvation instead is the free gift of God to all who ask. It further /describes/ the practices of those who are saved, rather than attempting to /proscribe/ the actions of those who have no interest in the teachings of the Bible.

In the act of maintaining citizenship within a country, one agree to the legitimacy of the government to set whatever laws it deems necessary, with or without explaining the necessity of those laws. Only once one has agreed to accept Biblical salvation does any other practice described therein become necessary or prohibited. A salvation which attempts to add to or leave behind any portion of the Bible is inconsistent with Biblical text, and comes from human invention rather than divine revelation.

Many world religions use the Christian Bible as their primary sacred text, but reject the divine authorship and complete nature of the manuscript. These religions, which include the Mormons, the Emerging Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and certain movements within multiple Protestant denominations, are legitimately free to change the nature of salvation doctrine and prohibited human behavior to match their own desires. These religions should not be mistaken for, and often do not claim to be, Biblical Christianity.

Should one find oneself in conflict with any portion of the Biblical text, one may adopt a completely legitimate response in rejecting the text in part or in whole and seeking their own religious path. One who does so must understand without error that the freely-given salvation described in the Bible and internally consistent therin applies only to those who accept the authority of Biblical teaching as a whole.

To sum this argument in modern parlance: “If you want to play the game, you have to abide by the rules. If you change the rules, you’re playing a different game.”

Rules of the Game is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Ever since the 60’s, there’s been much change afoot when it comes to perspectives on human sexual flourishing. In the past, the Bible’s prescribed sexual mores were accepted with greater frequency and ease. The sexual revolution changed all that. Some even go so far as to ascribe to what I call the “no limits” philosophy: anything two adults consent to is within bounds, as long as it doesn’t harm the parties involved (harm is usually defined in very minimal physical terms), and the “as long as it doesn’t harm” bit is negotiable. Even where that extreme isn’t proclaimed, many hold that the sexual boundaries in the Bible are quite narrow, and therefore anti-human.

So that’s the popular view, but we should pause and ask, “is the popular view wise?” If lived out, will rejecting the Bible’s sexual boundaries really lead to human flourishing?

The short answer is “no.”

There’s no doubt that God’s prescriptions in the Bible are, in some sense, narrow, but suggesting that it’s therefore anti-human is a non sequitur. Afterall, no one would accuse my mom of being “anti-child” because she had restrictive rules about what belongs in an electrical socket (NOT my fingers!) or about what goes on top of a hot burning stove (NOT my hand, knees, or bum!). Get over the fact that the illustration is a cliche’, because the point applies perfectly in the realm of sexuality. The mere fact of “narrowness” isn’t good enough to prove “anti-humanness,” especially when we have good reason to think there’s a protection behind the boundary.

Well,are the boundaries protective? Yes. Most take it for granted that our physical bodies are like machines; they require the right food, rest, and exercise to run right. If you are one of the few that are skeptical of this, one look at Keith Richards will cure you of that skepticism.

What many miss, though, is that we have various non-physical parts to us that operate by the same design principle. It is very possible and easy to deaden your emotions, warp your reasoning skills, and tear your soul to shreds. Perhaps the quickest way to do all that at once is through fast sexual living. J.I Packer put it well:

“Nowadays some will maintain, in the name of humanism, that the ‘Puritan’ sexual morality of the Bible is inimical to the attainment of true human maturity, and that a little more license makes for richer living. Of this ideology…the proper name for it is not humanism but brutism. Sexual laxity does not make you more human, but less so; it brutalizes you and tears your soul to pieces. The same is true wherever any of God’s commandments are disregarded.”

Moreover, behind every “thou shalt not,” lies a “thou shalt;” behind every boundary is a provision. God’s prescriptions in the Bible are meant to save you not only from something, but towards something greater. His commands provide for us relationships where true commitment, trust, and agape (sacrificial, giving) love–the greatest love–can flourish. This is true humanity, for those things that are so necessary for our full well being are not found in the slightest in any of the temporary sexual arrangements that we contrive up. Fun–yes. “The thrill”–yes. A thin sort of happiness?–kinda. But you will also find suspicion, envy, competition and worry…trust and commitment are nowhere to be found.

There’s also a sense in which the “prevailing wisdom” is just plain morally wrong. Ever heard the following: “We need to find out if we are sexually compatible before we are married. You wouldn’t buy a car without test driving it first, would you?”

Isn’t that every woman’s dream–to be compared to a car. How much more degrading can you get?

In case any are wondering, this is a life I’ve lived–on both sides of the equation. For a number of years, I attended a 12 step group for sexual addicts. I lost count of the number of men (myself included) who started out with what most would consider “trivial” things, but lost control and ended up in the gutter. The pain, loss, and grief I saw in the faces of men in that group was quite enough to get me to question the standard line I led with above. What’s more, in most cases, the biggest grief was not from any physical ailments the men (and I) contracted but from the hurt we caused loved ones in our pursuit of self-fulfillment.

As UCLA psychiatrist Miriam Grossman states, “you cannot live the life of *Friends* and *Sex in the City* and not pay dues.” (Check out the link. It offers a psychiatrist’s perspective on this subject.

Though I have experienced addiction in the past, that’s not the end of the story! God is a God of resurrection and healing. I am currently experiencing the flip side. Due to heeding God’s commands in Scripture while we were single, there’s a lot my wife and I don’t have to deal with in our marriage. In turn, that gives us a freedom that words cannot capture.

As designer of human nature, God knows what He’s talking about. Perhaps a little trust on our part would go a long way.

Are Boundaries On Sexual Morality Good? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I’ve talked about it before. It’s a really, REALLY intense bit of science fiction wrapped in a gripping thriller and topped off with just a soupçon of horror. As I’ve also said it’s truly amazing that he’s giving the whole thing away for free, not just as a podcast, but also as a Google Book and in PDF Form. All of this with his publisher’s blessing.

This is some pretty ground breaking stuff in my opinion and deserves to be supported. There’s really no excuse for you not to give at least the first few chapters a spin, even if you don’t like reading long stretches of fiction on the screen I think you can stomach that much. That should let you know whether it’s worth your ducats or not. I think it is. I’ll be getting it as soon as my assets are liquid.

The gist of it, in case you’re still leery of reading the FREE things I’ve linked to is as follows:

The president of the United States is dead. He was murdered in the morning sunlight by a four-year-old boy…

So begins 7th Son: Descent, the technothriller novel by J.C. Hutchins. Originally released as a free audiobook podcast, Descent will be in bookstores in late October. 7th Son has been featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time.com, Wired.com UK, and on the cover of Blogger & Podcaster magazine.

As America reels from the bizarre presidential assassination committed by a child, seven men are abducted from their normal lives and delivered to a secret government facility. Each man has his own career, his own specialty. All are identical in appearance. The seven strangers were not born, but grown — unwitting human clones — as part of a project called 7th Son.

The government now wants something from these “John Michael Smiths.” They share the flesh as well as the implanted memories of the psychopath responsible for the president’s murder. The killer has bigger plans, and only these seven have the unique qualifications to track and stop him. But when their progenitor makes the battle personal, it becomes clear John Alpha may know the seven better than they know themselves…

Check it out!

Free Books Are Cool is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

To which I had some replies:

Odin1Eye – no.. good is subjective. I know many people that I don’t consider good. Selfish, spiteful, mean spirited, lazy etc. however, I think everyone, or almost everyone, sees themselves as good… one reason I don’t like villains to always be evil and the ones I don’t think are necessarily good, probably see me in a less positive light than I see myself. and of course, I am speaking in humanistic terms, as we know that according to scripture, none of us are good. Truth.

Alethe – If everyone was good all people would be treated with dignity and not abused. Don’t see that starting any time soon!

So we have a nice (dare I say good?) spectrum of answers to the query. And yes it’s a loaded question, but as I replied to Scott those are often the best kinds.

So what’s my take? No, everyone I know is not “good” or at least not good enough. How do I determine that? Aren’t there some people that I know that are “good”? Sure, I know plenty of people that I think are good folk, depending on the day or on my mood. They’re kind to others, frequently generous, don’t kick any puppies, that sort of thing. However, the intrinsic goodness of a person is difficult to measure meaningfully by my own personal standards, which are ultimately meaningless for most people and are far from fair or impartial. So what do I use?

Judging by a society’s standards is tricky. They change over time or by location. A good person two hundred years ago may have been a slave owner. A person in another country (or certain parts of this one) may marry their twelve year old cousin. Those acts wouldn’t be looked upon kindly in modern Western society. If I used that as my measuring stick there would be a flux, not helped by the fact that even within my own society there is a broad range of cultures that I identify with. Granted the change in what’s perceived as moral may change less frequently, but rather than being truly objective it’s still subject to the whims of large groups of people.

Using a religious standard is also an option and it’s the one I choose. Even here I run into some problems, though they are problems of a different sort. There is a large section of the Old Testament that is dedicated to laws and their punishment. One traditional argument is that some of those laws are intended just for Israel and that others are more universal. The difficulty there would be, which is which? If one picks and chooses then the label hypocrite or accusations of cherry picking come flying out of the woodwork.

Then in the New Testament we have Jesus expanding the Old Testament’s laws with statements like

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5)

So, now simply avoiding killing or murder is not enough. We risk judgment in simply being angry or calling names. That really gets to the heart of the matter and raises the bar beyond where some people would feel is “fair”. I mean, is merely having a bad thought enough to be considered a bad act? If you consider another human being inferior or plot to murder your neighbor even if you never have the chance to act on it, have you done something morally wrong? In some cases man’s law would say yes, though usually only if there’s another conspirator. According to the Christian God’s law there is no question. Even if an act is not illegal, seriously contemplating committing an immoral act is immoral in itself.

Based on all of this, I agree with John, to a degree. By my own (again admittedly mercurial) and by God’s standards I am not a “good person”. I lack the scale or the formula necessary to tell me if my good acts outweigh my bad, but I suspect that if I had one that the scales would touch the floor on the bad side. That’s certainly what Christianity teaches. According to my culture and perhaps even to some of my friends I’m a good man, but those people haven’t seen in to my heart. They don’t know the interior Scott. When it comes to that interior life I don’t think I’m alone though, none of us are pretty on the inside. Morality is more than just what you do that your friends and neighbors to see. Whether you are good or not gets to your core and what’s in there.

So what do we do with that? The knowledge that I’m not good enough to measure up to the standards that I believe God has laid out is hard. I want to be good enough. I want my friends to be able to be good enough under their own power. Occasionally I’ve been known to whine and pout along with the best of them that it’s not fair that we can’t be. God’s standards seem too high even to me, from time to time. The good news is that we don’t have to be good enough (nice especially since we can’t be). Though God still wants us to strive and I believe that he has instilled in all of us the desire to love one another and to fulfill his commands, there is no ultimate pressure to do so. We can strive to be good not so that we measure up, to meet the bare minimum, but so we can bless those around us. The motive shouldn’t be fear of retribution or condemnation. We’ve received much grace and need to turn that around to our friends and neighbors.

So are you good enough, my friends? No. The good news is that Jesus was, freeing you to be as good as you can be.

Good Enough is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Now I know a little about human nature or so I like to think. A good deal of that comes from just watching myself interact with others. So when I read a reaction to the interview by PZ Myers (one of the people interviewed) where he said that that was not the message he gave when he talked to her, I wasn’t surprised. What wasn’t surprising exactly? Well I’m not surprised when someone hears an interview that they took part in and regrets the way they come across (a little of what happened here) and I’m not surprised (though I am saddened)when a reporter actually does “quote mine” looking for nuggets of gold that match up with their agenda (apparently much of what happened here).

I don’t dispute that there is some matter of disagreement in the atheist/agnostic community on how they should treat us and on how they view religion. I know first hand that there are non-believers that think we are sheep-le. I might even be so bold as to say that most of them think that. Some decide to sugar coat the message. Some don’t. There are atheists who believe on some level, based on evidence and rationality naturally, that religion serves some evolutionary good or is at least a by-product of an evolutionary process where the process itself does good and the religion part is a side-effect not unlike bad gas or possibly toxic shock syndrome. Then there are those that believe there is nothing good in religion, not even a little. PZ doesn’t dispute that any of those differences exist. He argues that this is actually a strength. They are free to question one another freely.

Getting back to the NPR story, it’s fun to paint atheism as a sort of religion. Ask Sid, I do it all the time. I argue that some of them meet regularly, have “saints”, merchandise,read from the same books. I mean all they’re lacking is a belief in a supernatural being. That’s pretty important though. So my comparison is tongue in cheek. For some it’s not though and the NPR story plays to that. They tout it as some sort of argument against atheism, saying that if we can just point out how close atheism is to being a religion we can… what exactly? Accuse them of being hypocrites? I don’t think that’s right. It’s not fun when they do it to us and it’s not fun when we do it to them.

The one unifying belief that they do have is a non-belief and one that they view as positive. Based on that, expecting them to be some sort of monolithic organization is silly. They do have organizations of course, but even those can’t agree on what being an atheist means exactly, much less agree on how they should treat us. In order to have a schism I think you need something like a central statement of belief. They simply don’t have that.

So, what we have here at most is a difference of opinion. Should atheists be “accomadationists” or hard core “evangelicals”? There are heated debates and arguments, but no one I’m aware of is getting ostracized (or at least not burned at the stake). That some of us feel this is similar to a religion is telling since our in family squabbles can get far more ugly. As for the question itself, if it’s only one way or the other naturally I’d say that I prefer they choose the former.

Whatever they “should” be though and whether or not they are like a religion, all that really matters is what they are. They are human beings trying to deal with the universe and what they are handed as best they can. They’re missing a piece that I believe is vital, but even with that piece I don’t always deal with life in the most Christ-like manner. How can I expect any more from them? So when we are dealing with one another I would hope that we can be respectful, but that hope is tempered with understanding that there is a lot of baggage that we all carry as a result of what we believe on this one issue.

A Difference of Opinion is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There are these things called podcasts that you should really really really look into. They’re free serialized audio files that you can play on your computer or download to your MP3 player. They run the gamut from audio books and audio dramas to self help and inspirational. I listen to a lot of them and am going to try and give you a run down of the best ones. So buckle up buttercup, this may take a while and if you subscribe to even one it will be a fun ride.

Fiction I’m Currently Listening To-

7th Son – This is by no means a new one. JC Hutchins podcast this bad boy for the first time back in 2007. Getting the word out now is particularly important because JC has a print deal with a major publisher and this goes live in its print version later this month. I will definitely be dropping more information on the blog when it happens. This is a sci-fi thriller that is hands down the best in that genre that I have had the pleasure of experiencing in some time. The basic premise is covered in this trailer. If that doesn’t make you strap in the earbuds I recommend you have someone check your pulse. If you listened, then you heard that right. Even if you don’t “do” podcasts he is giving away serialized PDFs/Blogtext versions of the book through other websites. No reason for you not to at least give it a look (unless pulse pounding, edge of your seat fiction isn’t your bag).

Fetidus – This is a dark trip through the slimy underground of Washington DC, but not just any Washington DC. In this universe there has been an apocalypse. Zombies, ghosts, and who knows what else have been unleashed on the world. And just like in the real world they have their own Political Action Committee. FETIDUS is the Foundation for the Ethical Treatment of the Innocently Damned, Undead, and Supernatural responsible for making sure that they are treated fairly. James Durham; author, musician, and producer is responsible along with a full voice cast, for for bringing us in to that world and fleshing it out and flesh it out he does. This work is one that you don’t listen to so much as you experience. He won two awards for it and is muchly deserving. I will warn you that this world is a dark place and not for the squeamish. Well worth your time.

The Gearheart – The tagline for this podcast is “Magic, Adventure, and Gunfights” and it delivers on all points. Alex White brings us the story of a secret society of wizards called the Seekers of the Arcane Unknown. They are charged with keeping the knowledge of magic from the populace at large while combating threats to their world and to the political powers they are in league with. A great mix of mystery, political intrigue, action, and suspense this story has been a lot of fun so far.

Great Hites – This is a short fiction anthology podcast and the truly cool thing about it is that anyone is welcome and encouraged to participate. Write your story according to the prompt and send it in. Can’t record? Now problem, they’ll do it for you. Right now Jeff Hite is asking for submissions for 10K word creation stories. Got an idea along those lines? Send them in.

Harvey – Is author Phil Rossi’s latest novella. This dark tale takes place in a little town of the same name. Harvey has some dark secrets and musician Calvin Hubbard, who only wants to make a little music and have a little fun, gets mixed up in the middle of it all.

How to Succeed in Evil – An efficiency expert for super villains is at the heart of this story. He gets tired of the latest crop of villains’ inefficiency and inability to listen to his stellar advice and takes matters into his own hands. This thing is absolutely LACED with humor, at times dark, but ever present. Patrick McLean is working on getting this published and I highly recommend that you give it a listen if you’re into seeing genres flipped on their head. Seeing a comic book world through the eyes of a smart and ruthless villain, that becomes likable through McLean’s excellent craft, is a trip worth taking.

Tumbler – Brand Gamblin is writing the sort of science fiction that I am rapidly becoming very fond of. It takes characters that seem as real as my next door neighbors and puts them in a futuristic world that’s less about ray guns and aliens and more about life on the frontier of space. Libby Carter lost everything that means anything to her, so she hitches a ride on a rocket in an effort to become an asteroid miner. Things don’t go quite as expected and she has to make the best of it. Can she survive? Tune in and see.

A Traders Diary – This is another one of those sorts of science fiction stories I’d like to here more of. Nathan Lowell tells the story of Ishmael Wang over the course of five books (so far). His mother, a university professor and his only family, dies and with her any chances he might have at a future. Or so he thinks. In desperation he joins the space fairing equivalent of the Merchant Marine. Starting out as nothing more than a mess mate on a trading vessel that sails the stars, isn’t his first choice, but it’s his only shot. He’s a “land rat”, one unwise in the ways of space, and no one else will take him. These stories are all about how far hard work, perseverance, and a little bit of luck will take you.

Well this post grows long and there are a lot more fiction casts I’ve wither listened to or will be listening to in the days/weeks/months to come, not to mention the non-fiction. More on the latter in a future post. Meanwhile if you’ve already listened to all of these you should also check out Metamor City, Murder at Avedon Hill, V & A Shipping, and anything Scott Sigler, Mur Lafferty, or Tee Morris puts out. You should also take a gander at Podiobooks. They have over 300 titles.

Podcast Pimpage is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I wonder who my own theological equivalent rock star would be. I’m not sure. CS Lewis if he were still alive. Maybe N. T. Wright.

Anyway, the two of us met for a beer with some of the folks from the Skeptical Society (might not be the actual group name) and the Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics. I got to meet some nice gents and pimp Archangel. We talked briefly about religion in general, music, and idle chit chat. Time was short so we didn’t get into much trouble.

The talk itself was good. We got front row seats which was truly awesome. Dawkins mostly used his time as an opportunity to do some readings from The Greatest Show on Earth. Can’t blame him for that and they were good, informative, and relatively free of cringe-worthy moments. Perhaps the biggest problem I had with what he said was the notion that evolution is as factual as the earth being round. To a point I would agree with that. Evolution as a process happens. I don’t think that can be disputed or at least hasn’t been falsified (yet) and he doesn’t think it ever will be (but he does say it could be which is splitting hairs juuuuust a little I think). What I do take issue with is the notion that that process is what took single celled organisms and made them into people. That’s nowhere near as certain as a round earth in my opinion.

He also made a few statements about religion and indoctrination. He spoke of a geologist that he knows. The man is well educated, apparently highly thought of in his field, and yet he remains a Young Earth Creationist (no I didn’t catch the gents name). According to Dawkins the man even said that even if all of the evidence in the universe pointed to an old Earth (apparently he doesn’t think any of it does) he would still remain a YEC because in his opinion that is what the scripture plainly taught. Dawkins said (and I can’t quote him directly) something like that proved how dangerous indoctrination was. I suppose it’s not possible that the man decided for himself, for good reasons, that scripture was true. I don’t know what those reasons are and I don’t agree with Young Earth folks, but I’m not going to wag the indoctrination finger.

There was a Q&A afterward that wasn’t exactly inspiring. There were a few softballs like “Where do you find the patience to deal with believers?” and the couple of adversarial questions he got were fairly weak. I would have liked to see some folks who really disagreed with him and had what they felt were good reasons to step up. That or a debate would have been feistier.

The true high point of the evening was when we went to a pub after it was all over. I sat and talked with a few of the CAA people about morality, the Decalogue, the Fall, and a brief skim around the problem of evil. There was a moment there when my snark kicked in. A guy sat beside me and once he knew I was a Christian he asked me why I believed in Christ. It’s not a question that I could do justice to quickly, but I figured I would give it a shot.

Before I could get so much as a half dozen words out he started trotting out the whole notion that the Gospels weren’t written until much later and everything was filled in so that he could fulfill prophecies after the fact and oh my gosh if you’d just read this book and be rational and reasonable. Well I slapped my hands on the table and said, “All I have to do is read a BOOK? Why didn’t someone tell me?” Perhaps not my proudest moment. It did give me pause to think about all the times atheists/agnostics have probably been treated the same way, “If you’d only read the Bible/CS Lewis/A Case For Christ you’d see the light!” So that helped me some with perspective.

He didn’t stay much longer but the two folks I did finish out the evening talking to were quite lovely and we had an actual conversation. It was cut short by the lateness of the hour, but I do hope that through the magic of the internets we’ll be able to pick it up again. It was nice sharing a table with a group of people I couldn’t disagree with more on religion (one guy said that “it’s all BS” and he realized this at the age of 14 after preaching in a charismatic church for a year) and for it to remain civil (for the most part) and fascinating. I’m eager to repeat the experience. I think it would be ultra-cool if we could get some of the more even tempered folks from the CAA and the more even tempered folks in my Christian circles and do a pub crawl with a Zoom H4 recorder.

We’ll see if we can make that happen.

Off to See the Wizard is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I can’t think of any of the latter that are in mainstream Christianity right off the top of my head, at least not any that I would hesitate to talk to non-believers about. Maybe that’s just my nature. I do know that there are things that some Christians are less comfortable broaching the subject on and perhaps they restrict talking about those to gatherings of fellow believers. I think that might be a mistake.

The main belief system I can think of that does have this sort of thing, at least as I understand it, is the Mormon church. To any of you in the viewing audience that may be Mormon, realize that I intend no disrespect and that I may be falling for propaganda with these, but it’s what I’ve been told/read for myself. For instance, they believe that all good Mormons (or Mormon men at least) will have their own planet to rule over. They also believe that God was once a man and that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

These are hardly state secrets. After all, I’m not a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints and I know about them. My point is though that you won’t be taught these things by the nice gents that come knocking on your door and by my experience if you bring them up you won’t get visited again. These will only be shared if you join, or I suppose attend regularly. The reasoning, as I understand it, is that if you aren’t a believer in the other things they teach then they believe these teachings are too “hard” for you to understand/accept. So they wait until a certain point in your growth to bring them up. Again, I’m open to correction if I am wrong. I’m certain that these teachings among others are points where Mormons may receive ridicule from mainline Protestants or non-believers. I can sympathize, as there are beliefs I hold that have been turned against me. The difference is my beliefs are something I am willing to talk about with anyone and risk the ridicule.

So, I think this all comes down to secrecy being bad. Where there are groups with secret practices/beliefs there is greater opportunity for misunderstanding. Revealing those beliefs does and should open you up to examination or criticism. I think that an examined religious walk is a healthy one. I suppose it could also make people reluctant to embrace your beliefs, but if that happens then perhaps that’s opportunity for even deeper reflection. Any hard teaching should be able to stand up under scrutiny Even if the non-believer can’t be convinced, you should at least be able to explain why you believe what you do and have the courage of your convictions.

I’m often told that “deconversion” requires courage. No doubt that’s true. Atheists aren’t looked on kindly by our culture. Conversion also takes courage, though perhaps a different sort. If you walk in with your eyes open, seeing everything that you are embracing with clear vision and are leading an open life you have to be willing to risk transparency. People who disagree with you whether you believe in a god or not, will judge you and most often find you wanting something, whether that’s some sort of “righteousness” or some notion that you aren’t “free thinking” enough. So maybe it’s not a different sort of courage at all.

The necessity of leading an examined and transparent life and possessing the courage that takes may be the hardest teaching of all. It’s definitely one worth wrestling with though.

Hard Teachings is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele said this:

The real question Americans are asking is, “What has President Obama actually accomplished?” It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.

So speaking of premature, Steele can now see into the future?  Not to be outdone in his foot in mouth-ness (what?  it’s a word.)  Brad Woodhouse the DNC Communications Director said this:

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize”

It goes on (mostly downhill) from there.  Now strictly speaking, Woodhouse is right.  The RNC and Hamas are in agreement when it comes to shouting down Obama’s award and I’d say any time you find yourself agreeing with Hamas you might want to think twice at least.  But (and this is a big but) I want to call a halt to all comparisons of your political opponent to a dictator or terrorist group.  It’s stupid, intellectually bankrupt, and blatantly manipulative (I am so not gonna say anything about Glenn Beck).  Also I’m sure it’s something Goebbels would have been proud of.

He’s won it, accepted it humbly, and wants to move on and actually try to get some stuff done.  Any shouting about how he didn’t deserve it or did deserve it or how weak the Nobel Committee is or how weak the right wing radio air bags are is really adding nothing to the conversation or to our country getting itself out of the messes it is mired in. Can we focus on that, please?

Obama and the Nobel is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There are so many problems here that it might be easier to just start with what they have right. I will agree that there are certainly issues with the most popular translation, the NIV.  The primary issue, as I understand it, comes from the effort on the part of the translators to make it easier to understand and in trying to communicate what they believe that the original authors intended they did what is commonly called a “thought for thought” translation.  Other translations including the English Standard Version use a “word for word” approach.

A thought for thought approach, while commendable, has resulted in what many people consider to be a weaker translation theologiclaly speaking.  That by no means indicates that it is insufficient or unusable, but if what you’re looking for is something closer to the oldest manuscripts we have then you want to look elsewhere.  So if their goal is to make a more accurate translation (which doesn’t seem to be the case) then that’s commendable.  It’s already been done, but hey what’s one more translation, right?  Wrong.

If I were to take what they wrote at face value then it seems that they don’t want to do a translation at all.  If they are indeed “retranslating the KJV into modern English” then it’s really more of a paraphrase since translation implies moving from the original language into a different language.  Besides, if they just want that then there’s always the New King James Version which is essentially the KJV updated to modern English.  It uses the same manuscripts as the KJV but notes where other manuscripts differ.

But no, what they want to do here is take their political agenda and use “translation” to hammer God’s word into a shape that they find acceptable.  I’m really not okay with that.  Now I recognize that everyone on God’s green Earth has an agenda and that anyone who enters the field of translation is going to carry with them some sort of baggage.  We’re all human beings here.  The problem I have with this particular agenda is that it’s got nothing to do with trying to mine the word of God and divine what he is trying to say to us and everything to do with shaping the word of God to make something politically acceptable.

Let’s look at this point by point:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias - No what they want is a paraphrase of a translation acceptable to their constituents that’s corrupted by conservative bias.  That’s better somehow?  Oh and they admit that newer translations use more accurate manuscripts.
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity - I’d need some clarification here.  I’m aware of some translations that use more gender neutral terms to refer to God.  If that’s what they’re referring to then I might be okay with sticking strictly to the original language.  However, that’s got nothing to do with thinking that God is some big dude in the sky.  God is a spirit and possesses no gender, but chose to reveal himself in the masculine for specific reasons and hey why not stick with that?
   
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV^[3] is written at only the 7th grade level - So tempted to make a comment here about their target audience, but it’s not nice and not entirely true.  Instead I’ll just say that the NIV isn’t “written” at a certain grade level it’s translated and tool might place it at a certain grade level.  So what?  The KJV uses fewer English words and is only more challenging to read due to archaic language.
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;^[4] defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle”. – Language certainly evolves over  time.  Both the left and the right have “co-opted” language for their own arguments.  Still I’d like to know what the old meaning of peace is and what new “conservative” word they would use in its place.  This has got 1984 written all over it.
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;^[5] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census- In the OT casting lots wasn’t gambling, it was used as a divining tool by prophets.  Non-believers may still believe that it works out to be the same, but these guys don’t know what they’re talking about.
   
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. - It’s nice of them to admit that conservatives are more interested in using guilt to push our buttons and get us in line.  The focus of the Bible is and always has been more about communion with God and what that means that about what being cast out is like.  The NT mentions Heaven ten times more often than Hell.  Hell should not be our focus.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning- Honestly, I don’t know what to even say here except that these people, the ones who were living during biblical times didn’t have a free market as we understand it.  Jesus wasn’t teaching an economic model and if he were?  Our current model wouldn’t be it.
   
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story- This is wrong on a number of levels.  I mean okay let’s assume that Jesus didn’t say “Let He who is without sin cast the first stone”, the idea of forgiveness and grace and that we are ALL sinners is pretty…. clear given the rest of God’s word.  They’re annoyed that “liberals” are using this as an anti-death penalty screed.  Guess what?  They’re wrong too.  Not the point of this passage.
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels - No idea what to say here that wouldn’t be ad hominem.
   
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.” – Okay so first they say that the liberal version is dumbed down.  Then this.  Make up your friggin’ mind people.

The rest of that page frankly just pisses me off. The whole idea is ridiculous on its face and does NOTHING, accomplishes NOTHING more than adding fuel to the notion that Christians are just a bunch of morons that want to use the Bible to accomplish some right-wing agenda. Are their Christians like that? Sure. Not all, or I hope and pray even most.

Okay that’s enough for now. I need to take my blood pressure meds.

Conservative Bible Project is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Maybe it gets down to a time issue? We rush around our little habitrails eager to get the things done that we need to do. We don’t want to take the time to get to know folks so it’s easier to just put them in to some group that we’ve already formed an opinion about. We know whether to feel good or bad about them based on that. So boom, you’re an [fill in the blank] and [fill in the blank]s aren’t to be trusted/liked/admired/etc. [fill in the blank]s don’t work half as hard as I do and all they want is money/jobs/attention. Anyone that likes [fill in the blank]s might as well be one.

There’s also the issue of nurture. We still have large pockets of racism/religio-centrism/out and out intolerance in this country. That gets passed down from parent to child. And you don’t even have to do it verbally. Kids watch what we do and how we treat others. If someone makes you uncomfortable they will pick up on that. Hopefully, as is the case with me and cigarettes, they will see it for what it is and strive to avoid it. Odds are good though that they will pick up some piece of it.

This isn’t even necessarily about race any more either. I mean sure race is easy to prejudge someone on since the differences are starker and it’s still around, but I think it’s on the wane. There’s quite a lot of classicism going on and I think maybe that’s replacing racism as our country’s preferred -ism. If you’re rich then you can’t be trusted since you’re just looking out for your bottom line. If you’re poor then you just want to sponge off of the man. Somehow this is seen as better in certain circles than racism. “I’m not racist, I just think that homeless guy needs a hair cut and a real job. He just needs to apply himself, maybe stop smoking crack. Doesn’t matter what color his skin is.” It makes a sleazy kind of sense.

And you know it’s hard to argue against that. I mean you can say, as I have, that we don’t know why that person is going through hard times. What you can’t really say is “just because they’re homeless doesn’t mean they haven’t or aren’t willing to work hard”. Or you can, as I have, say that all you want, but the prejudiced person is going to point at the poor man’s lifestyle as a proof of their point. “Well if they were hard workers they wouldn’t wind up like that,” is the retort. And who knows, maybe they’re right, but that’s not the point.

Prejudice is looking at someone’s exterior and applying to them whatever stigma you have built upon that “appearance”. Whether it’s “the [insert race/color here] man is lazy” or “the poor man is lazy” it’s the same thing. Unless you really get to know that person, you just can’t know. That’s true regardless of race, class, country of origin, or religious persuasion.

The last is actually another very relevant area. Atheists are among, if not the, least trusted minority group in America. I’ve learned, through my relationships with some atheists who comment regularly here, that they are afraid on some level of the social repercussions of revealing their beliefs to co-workers and family. I just don’t understand that. I can state with certainty that I trust these folks as much as I trust any of my Christian friends. Of course. They’re my friends aren’t they?

And that’s the point. I’ve known some scary looking folks in my time. Strange hair, tattoos, piercings in all sorts of places (visible and not), weird clothes, and that’s just in my church. When I see some of these people for the first time I’m not going to stand here and tell you that there was never a twinge of mistrust or discomfort. I’m human and as frightened of “the strange” as anyone else at my core. Maybe it’s a biological thing, I don’t know. I do know that if I embrace that fear though, fan it to flames and let it drive me then I stand to miss out on getting to know some pretty phenomenal people. And I just can’t have that.

Whatever causes prejudice, be it biology or culture or what I believe to be our sinful nature, it is something to be fought tooth and nail.

Prejudging is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

He’s preaching what I believe is called the Framework interpretation. It doesn’t put any emphasis on the length of actual elapsed time that occured during the “Creation Week”, so it avoids that bit of controversy. However I can say with certainty that both our lead pastor and at least one associate pastor are both old Earth creationists (Earth is billions of years old, or thereabouts).

The gist of it is this. The first three days are laid out as the period of time that the earth was formed. In the beginning everything was swirling chaos and gradually God brought order. The second set of days the earth was filled. God created some life (Gen. 1:21) and other life formed out of the ground (Gen. 1:24). I find that partiucularly interesting.

The seventh day, found in Genesis 2, is all about the day of rest. He preached on that this past Sunday. It was to be a time of celebration, where all preparations were to be made the previous day so that time could be spent glorying in God and in his creation. One thing Hunter (our pastor) pointed out was that day seven is never said to have ended. There was no “and there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day”. So in a sense we are still in that cosmological seventh day.

The other thing he stressed about this part of Genesis was that Moses wrote it for the Hebrew slaves that were coming out of Egypt. This, he said, is why the sun and the moon and everything else are painted as being of secondary importance. They were created only for marking the passage of time. After hundred of years of exposure to Egyptian religion this was important for them to “get” since some of them might have come to see the celestial bodies as gods. That’s also what makes the concept of a day of rest vital, since as slaves they weren’t likely given such a luxury.

This is one of those areas of the Bible where I suppose non-believers could accuse us of “cherry picking” our beliefs. I’ve seen both believers and non-believers come down hard on those of us that don’t take it literally for that very reason. I think the approach of looking at it in the light of why it might have been written as it was and what the ultimate purpose of it was is more important than whether or not everything contained in the first chapter happened in 144 hours. If you had to nail me down to one spot I’d say that no, it didn’t, but my real answer is in the form of a question.

Does it really matter?

In The Beginning is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

It was him that wanted to touch the resurrected Jesus’ side and the wounds in his hands. The cool thing was that Jesus let him do just that. Then Jesus said “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” It was my spiritual twin that answered Jesus call to go to Lazarus grave with “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” Maybe he was being brave, maybe he was being a bit sarcastic/dark. I tend to skew towards believing the latter. A bit of an Eeyore, that Thomas.

I’m not saying that I require the same level of proof that Thomas did. I don’t demand that Jesus appear to me and let me examine him in that manner. Still, I have doubts and often think of how great it would be to have some actual proof of that which I believe. I, for one, don’t think that there’s anything sinful in that. Having occasional doubts is a natural part of one’s spiritual walk. At least it has been with me.

The substance of the doubt that I have is actually less about God’s existence or the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice (though even that is in the mix from time to time) and more about trying to parse out “the truth” as it gets handed to me by other people. If I hear that God is this and such or that the universe came about thanks to that process or according to this theory then I immediately quirk an eyebrow. It happens so much that I look rather like Leonard Nimoy.

See, I have friends that seem dead certain when it comes to the “big things” on both sides of the religious spectrum. They know what they know and God/Dawkins help anyone that crosses blades with them. In a way I admire and respect that. That certainty can come off as arrogant (I suppose that could be just my jealousy talking), but I have to admit I’d love to be among the “blessed” that have not seen and yet believed. Still, if it’s possible to be a Christian Skeptic then I think Thomas and I fall into that category.

Does that cause some dissonance in my life? Sure. it makes accepting the more fantastical elements of my belief system hard, which are to be frank most of my belief system. It also makes accepting that which science has “proven” pretty challenging too. It could be, and has been, argued that that’s simply because I don’t fully understand the relative proofs that both sides have to offer. I’m willing to accept that, just as I’m willing to put my fingers in the holes that are in those theories on offer.

In closing, just so you know and to get it out of the way, I am aware that the mere belief in God could be said to blow the whole notion of a Christian Skeptic out of the water. I mean after all, where is the proof of God or of Christ? Why do I believe in them? I submit now,as I always have, that either belief you have concerning God, pro- or con-, is a matter of faith. So just as you can be an atheist skeptic, I can be a believing one.

Just Call Me Thomas is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

For instance, if a political figure has a policy that you don’t like it’s not enough to disagree with the policy. You have to engage in scare tactics and name calling to get your point across. Assigning them an unpopular political ideology or juxtaposing their name or image with that of a well known dictator is a hot trend (though again nothing new). Coming up with not so clever nick names for these groups is also de rigueur.

It’s not just about politics though. I mean that’s too easy. The term originated with religion. If someone is a member of a religion that we don’t understand or agree with then it’s so easy to call them names or ascribe attributes to them that simply do not apply to the religion as a whole or to most adherents. It’s not even just about other religions though. The flame wars between conservative evangelicals and those in the emergent movement can get messy. Then of course there are those non-religious who believe that all religions are a destructive force.

Social issues are also common fodder for painting in an evil light. We’ve got those evil secular humanists that want to brainwash our children into the cult of Darwin. Homosexuals have an “agenda” that wants to… what, make us all gay? Illegal immigrants want to destroy our way of life and take our jobs. Granted most of these instances exist thanks to either the political and/or religious demagogues.

It’s even stretched to inanimate objects. High Fructose Corn Syrup? Evil. We’re blaming a thing for making our kids fat and now we’re going to tax the heck out of soda (more than likely).

I’m sure I’m leaving out some great examples, but I think my point has been made. So why do we do this? I think a lot of it comes down to desiring a scapegoat. “Why does my life suck? It can’t be anything I’m doing. Who can I blame then?” It’s also easy shorthand in debates. Rather than talk about the issues and heaven forbid find a compromise we just take out our favorite charged phrases, dust them off and apply (heh) liberally.

I think that there are certainly things and people in this world that are evil/wrong. I’m also fully willing to admit that I’ve fallen prey to this unfortunate tendency, so that the people I’m certain are “evil” are perhaps no more than my own personal whipping boys. the questions I have are two fold. Is there a place for this demonization? How can it be avoided where it is unnecessary (assuming that the answer to question one tells us it’s ever necessary)?

And just for a little self reflection, what have you demonized?

Demonize-Nation is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Apparently since then he’s gotten a lot of people coming up to him since then to share the Gospel, to which I say WOOT!, and has released a video talking about one such instance.

Couple of things here. I find it a little amusing that the guy who came up to Penn says that he was encouraged to proselytize more by the original video and that the church group he’s with uses it in a training scenario. Well that’s not so much amusing as Penn saying that that wasn’t his intent. While I know that it wasn’t, since Penn doesn’t want to encourage folks coming up to him (or anyone I guess) and giving them a Bible or talking about God, it’s still interesting that he didn’t seem to see that coming.

It’s also interesting that he asks the guy about the morality/ethics of the church showing the video, not that he really cares about that, he just wants to make a point. I guess the point being, though he doesn’t go into it, that the church which proclaims to be a bastion of morality is likely being immoral in its action of showing the video. That sort of question is one pretty typical of evangelism. “Do you know that when you do x, that’s immoral? You need help!”

It’s unfortunate that this group felt the need to sort of gang up on Penn. Nothing good really comes of that approach, but Penn not being intimidated (once he scoped them out for weapons?!?!) handles it with the aplomb of a seasoned showman. Even directing him to one of the Gospels of Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. This after he tells the guy that, in spite of not knowing anything about the young man, that he doesn’t need the mythical, imaginary Jesus and that he needs to go out and find some “real love”. I mean do you really need to try and make someone that young and vulnerable feel bad about who they are and what they believe?

He doesn’t offer to buy anyone the book, saying he doesn’t want to be the Gideon of Atheism, though he does say that perhaps he should have and he hopes that at least some of them will read the book. In the future as one youtuber suggested, he should perhaps memorize the address of the local library. I mean if you want to get people to embrace your kooky beliefs sometimes you need to give your book away.

These guys want so badly for us to become like them, to be “free thinkers” and find real love with their fellow man and to reject these fairy tales. I know in the case of evangelistic atheists like Hitchens it’s because they believe that our beliefs cause real, demonstrable harm. They make some fair points too in that regard. I suspect in some cases it’s also because they find some sort of validation in both the “attaboys” they get from some of their fellows or perhaps just themselves when they help deconvert someone. They have led that person to what they believe is a more fulfilling life, free from all that baggage that came with their old lives. All that immorality and “sin” against their fellow man.

What really gets me though is that these guys can’t prove there belief system is true. Don’t want to believe in the existence of a god? Fine. You’re free not to. Just as we’re both free to not believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Invisible Pink Unicorns. But don’t tell me how to live my life or where I need to go to find love or that I’m not getting it done right in this life. Remember that there’s not that much difference between you and me. You’re a theist who just believes in one less god than I do.

Any of this sound familiar?

Evangelistic Kung Fu is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

For non-religious: If you had a 8-10 yo child and they expressed an interest in religion would you encourage or discourage it? (Or neither?)

For religious: If you had a 8-10 yo child and they expressed an interest in a different religion would you en/discourage it? (Or neither?)

Follow up question if they began practicing this (non)religious belief into the teen years how would you treat it?

I felt pretty sure about the sorts of answers I would get from my religious friends. I was more interested in the sorts of answers I would get from my non-religious ones. Needless to say (and yet here he is, saying it anyway) the answers were interesting, diverse, and surprising in a few cases.

Most folks said they would encourage exploration and respect their children’s seeking even if it disagreed with their own beliefs. Since I don’t know the precise religious beliefs of everyone who follows me I can’t say with absolute certainty if there’s a clear dividing line between the two groups (really a spectrum of beliefs). Though I can say that there were Christians as well as non-Christians in the respect/trust group. There were certainly exceptions though.

salguod_net said “We’d research the other religion together and talk about the diff btw it and ours, & I’d point out why ours is sup. Teen: I think I’d put my foot down. My hse, my God. She’s gone, nothing I cn do, but I won’t have other God wor in my home.”

This is a view shared by my wife and a number of other Christians I’m sure. She and I talked about this and while she would not go so far as to kick the child out, there would be no overt worship involving a non-Christian religion tolerated. Personally, while I see where she is coming from, I disagree. If the child is mature enough to have found their own path, even if it’s one I disagree with and ultimately would lead to spiritual destruction, I don’t think anything would be served by cutting them off. The only end I could see coming from this approach is a door that is not only closed but nailed shut. Neither the relationship nor the parental religion would likely survive the encounter in the mind or life of the child.

Sidfaiwu had this to say. “RE earlier question: Both – I would educate about the religion and all the others…Combined with the critical thinking skills I hope I’ve instilled by then, the problem should work itself out.

I asked him if the education would be slanted in any way and he replied:

Yes it would – slanted towards doubt. Teaching doubt is part of critical thinking.

I didn’t get a real clear answer from him on what he would do if the “problem” (religion) wasn’t “taken care of” (rejected). I’m sure he’ll let us know in the comments. It does seem though at least on the surface that religion would be at the very least discouraged by Sid. It’s clear from what I know of him that he believes just as strongly as I do that there is a right and a wrong here, when it comes to the religious question. I am curious to know if he views this slanted education as being in the same vein as the indoctrination children in religious families go through. If so or even if not is one positive and one negative?

I suspect that the answer coming from any skeptic will involve the notion that as skeptics they would encourage their children to be skeptical even of skepticism. That is if that doesn’t cause some sort of weird infinite feedback loop. Teaching skepticism, the skeptic would likely argue, can’t be indoctrination by its very nature, can it? Or can’t it?

For me what it gets down to when it come to my kids and my religious beliefs is this. I teach them what I believe and that what I believe is the truth as far as I am capable of understanding it. As children their inclination is to do what we do. So, for now at least, they want to be Christians. They want to go to Sunday School and take communion and pray and read the Bible. I would be fooling myself if I though there was no chance for at least one of them to “go astray”. That sort of thing is a natural part of growing up, or at least it should be. One eventually comes to question many things they took for granted in the maturation process.

When that day comes, much like Doug I will share with them why I believe the way they’re going is bad. If they persist then they are certainly welcome to believe as they wish. I will love them no less. There would be fervent prayer and the hope that they would return to the faith of their father and mother. I wouldn’t deny them their right to worship (or not worship) however they chose. I wouldn’t make them come to church with me if they had no desire to. Eventually you have to go because you want to, not because I want you to.

I would strive though, as I do here, to keep the lines of communication open. I would try to be like the father of the prodigal son, on the look out for their return, preparing for that day.

Wandering Children is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Most of our lives are spent in pursuit of meeting the biological need. We eat, we sleep, we copulate, we defecate, all things that other animals do no differently, no better. You could argue I suppose that we create these wonderful culinary experiences and that when we have sex it can be emotional and earth moving. Frankly though I’m willing to bet that when most people eat or lay down with one another they do so more out of a perceived need. (In most cases I would argue, when it comes to food anyway, that that need is definitely perceived and in no way a true need.)

We get up, go to work, come home, have social time with our family units, eat, mindlessly entertain ourselves, go to bed and repeat the whole thing ad nauseum. I think that’s wrong at best and an abomination at worst. I’ll grant you that we do need to do most of those things. We are biological beings. We do have needs. But even the Naturalists I know and love though say that we have the potential to elevate ourselves (to a degree) making the difference significant. So this is what this post is about.

Find the elevator! No I’m not necessarily talking about God here (though he, of course, is the ultimate way up and out). We have other drives instilled in us. We create amazing stories. We can think about life, the universe, and everything. We can control our surroundings in ways that other creatures could never aspire to (especially because they don’t aspire to anything). I firmly believe that we can love and nurture one another like no other animal. All of these things put us at the upper end of the spectrum.

“But Scott,” you might well say, “I’m not an artist or a deep thinker.”

Perhaps not, though you’ll never catch me saying that you should only create if you’re a Michelangelo or think if you’re a Descartes. Think anyway. Create anyway. Love anyway. That last one, for me, is the real clincher. Humans have love.

I’m not up on the latest research here, bur I’d lay my ducats down on the notion that other animals don’t love like we do. Sure there are species that mate for life and there are plenty of fancy-dancy mating rituals that would put most weddings to shame, but that ain’t love. Unfortunately a lot of what we humans do with and to our family units ain’t love either.

I told my daughter last night that I didn’t always like her or what she did. That’s pretty tough right there and it was hard to say. I followed it up though, with the statement that regardless of what she does, what she believes, or how she acts I will always love her. She will always have a place in my home, at my table, and in my heart. I will always strive to support her, admonish her, and respect her. That, more than any cathedral or poem or philosophy, is what sets us apart from the animals.

So I challenge you (as I hope I always do) to love one another.

I Am Not an Animal… is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I read a news story this morning that is sure to get many parents I know into a major uproar (perhaps rightfuly so). A New Hampshire court ruled that a girl “would best be served by exposure to public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and by social interactivity with children her age. She also would be best served by exposure to different points of view …”

This is all part of a divorce situation. The father wants his daughter to attend public school. When he petitioned for this three years ago the court found no fault with her current education, rejecting the request.

The Alliance Defense Fund on Wednesday announced that it has filed papers in Laconia asking to reconsider the decision issued last month. John Anthony Simmons, an attorney associated with the Defense Fund, who is representing the 10-year-old girl’s mother, said the judge has also been asked to stay the order so the daughter can continue with her home-schooling while the judge reconsiders the matter.

The guardian ad litem said in the current case that the girl “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith” and that the girl’s interests “would be best served by exposure to a public school setting” and “different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief…in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.”

The ADF article goes on to say that “in addition to home schooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities.”

So, do you think the court has overstepped? I think they have. If, as it appears, the mom has custody then she should be the one to decide how her daughter gets schooled. Provided she is following the state guidelines it seems odd for the state to try and force the child into public school. Yes, the state has a duty to ensure that the quality of education is there (and they should be scrutinizing their own schools), but I don’t think they have a right to decide that a child is too religious for their own good.

Simmons, the mom’s lawyer says that they will take this to the Supreme Court if the ruling isn’t overturned.

Freedom of Choice is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Young Earth Creationists typically believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters one and two and put the Earth/universe at somewhere between six and fifteen thousand years old. Typically they believe that if evolution played any role at all it was minimal. Old Earth Creationists believe in a more figurative/metaphorical interpretation of Genesis and hold that the Earth/universe is somewhere between really freakin’ old and the current number of years held by science to be true. They also hold that evolution is true though perhaps guided by God to some degree.

I’m trying to figure out where I am in all of this, but more on that later.

The answers I got are as follows:

benfraley @spiritualtramp c) Other. Not a ‘fall on my sword’ issue for me. There’s an arguement to make for both sides.

Rasplundjr @spiritualtramp Weird combo creationist evolutionist…. or umm C) Other

madpoet @spiritualtramp b) I think “days” as used in Genesis does not mean 24 hour periods.

squirleywrath @spiritualtramp a

etherius @spiritualtramp Theistic Evolutionist. God wrote the “software” & the material universe is hardware running the program via natural laws.

salguod_net @spiritualtramp I’d say I’m an Old Earth Creationist with Young Earth Sympathies.

Chivalrybean @spiritualtramp I’m going to say A, assuming I understand the terms.

JADEDVisalian @spiritualtramp C wasn’t there (job 38)

odin1eye @spiritualtramp hmmm… Guess I’d probably say young earth. Haven’t studied that aspect enough. If wrong, wouldn’t effect rest belief sys

theOJG @spiritualtramp A. But I lean towards C because of Proverbs 25:2

jasonfaylen @spiritualtramp Not surprisingly, I was raised as an IFB to believe the Creation account found in Genesis, presumeably about 10k yrs ago and so far, I’ve found no reason to change my view.

So that’s five for a young Earth, two solid old Earthers, and three C’s mostly due to positions I myself hold. I also took a poll among the teachers at my church and the answers I got were similarly spread out, though my denomination (Presbyterian) skews toward a young earth it seems.

This whole thing coincided with the beginning of a period of my pastor preaching through the book of Genesis. He started on Sunday with the first two verses of chapter one and we’ll proceed from there.

The interesting thing to me about the intro to the sermon was that Hunter (our pastor) couched the current scientific theories in addition to all of the creation myths out there as various genesis stories (I can hear panties/boxers bunching even as I type these words). I think that there’s some meat there to chew on. He, of course, went on to say that the story we have is the true one (no idea yet as to how literally he’s going to interpret the forthcoming passages), but then isn’t that what everyone believes that has there own genesis story?

“But Scott,” I hear some of you say, “we have science on our side. Surely any rational person would put more trust in that than in the Bronze Age poetry/myth whose origins are questionable at best?” And to a point I might agree with you. The intention of first few chapters of Genesis, in my opinion, was not to establish how old the Earth is or how long it took to come into being. However, I think what this really comes down to can be best talked about in terms that a movie we’re all familiar with uses:

Admiral Motti: Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they have obtained. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.
Darth Vader: Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
Admiral Motti: Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels’ hidden fortress…
[Vader makes a pinching motion and Motti starts choking]
Darth Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

No, no, no, this doesn’t reveal my secret desire to Force choke pesky naturalists or even pesky young earthers. Well maybe a little…

Anyway, I think for most people who are naturalists what science tells them about the creation of the universe serves the same purpose as the various religious genesis stories tell religious folks. It gives them a sense of the scope of the universe and an idea that how things got here involves order and forces that most of us frankly don’t comprehend in the slightest. The rest, those on the extreme science-y side and those on the extreme religious-y side are like Motti and Vader, proud of their knowledge and the power that it gives them. Not to mention, at each other’s throats.

I think that seeking the answers about the beginnings of the universe through science alone is admirable and very useful. I think the same about seeking those same answers through religious means. The two schools of thought are frequently going to arrive at different sorts of answers. That’s as it should be given the fact that they are vastly different disciplines, though the answers aren’t always going to be contradictory.

Christians as early as the third century believed that the creation story was less than literal. Believers are and have been involved in science that gives us many of the current theories putting the Earth’s age at 4.54 billion years. Unfortunately there are people who try and shoehorn their religious views into their scientific understanding or perhaps that’s vice versa. I think that’s a mistake. It can lead to bad science and bad religion.

There are also those who look down their noses at the religious among us, holding to our own genesis stories and trying to seek some deeper meaning in the existence of our universe. I think that’s also a mistake. At the very best it keeps folks from even trying to understand your point of view. No one likes to be belittled. You may also be missing some of the deeper discussions that can be had regarding who we are and what our place in the universe is, answers that “hard” science isn’t really set up to provide.

I guess all of that goes to say that I believe that science as it stands gives us a better hint as to how old the universe is. I find it interesting that the number, though large, strives so hard to be precise. I also believe that religion provides some answers about origins. I see an order in the universe that speaks to me of a creator. Christianity tells us what that creator could be (and in my mind is) like. Is that creator “necessary”? That’s a worthy question and one that I don’t think either discipline can provide a clear answer to. It’s those sorts of arguments that I would rather be focusing on.

Creation Stories is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Well Scott, you asked a while ago why I was no longer in full-time ministry after earning a MDiv degree from Duke. The short answer is that I am not a pastor. I did/do not have the skill set required to successfully pastor a church. I will say that I do have certain strengths, e.g. I am a good preacher, I care for people, I love the church. This is not enough.

People are often surprised to find out that I am an extreme introvert, and I do mean extreme. On the Meyers-Briggs Inventory, I could not be any more introverted on their scale. While this is not an insurmountable obstacle, it takes a lot of work to overcome. This surprises a lot of people because I know how to function in public and many would maybe guess that I am introverted, but not to the extent that I am so.

This, perhaps, leads to a related problem; I am not real good at initiating and maintaining “small talk”. I am bright enough and articulate enough to be a great responder. My interests are universal enough that I can converse with almost anyone about something of interest to them, but for the life of me I am at a loss to figure out what those interests may be and how to get to them on my own. Again, I am not totally socially inept, but it is indeed a struggle for me.

Another problem that may not seem a problem on the surface is that I am an idealist. I think that I have a fairly good idea of what the church should be but am impatient with imperfections that I perceive in the local body. A good pastor/leader should not be too far in front of their followers, but I sometimes think that I am not even on the same planet with many in the local church. As an example, I am now working on a book dealing with the Christian’s relation to the state. Most Christians, especially evangelicals with whom I identify, seem to have a serious confusion around Christianity and civil religion. For many it seems, civil religion is Christianity and Christianity is civil religion. Think of church services around Memorial Day and the 4th of July and you may understand my concern here. The church should be the church and the state should be the state and I am not convinced there should be that much over lap, if any. I served mostly small rural churches where it seemed that the US was considered the “promised land” and I have difficulty with this whole ideation.

Another problem that I face(d) is that I am an academic. While I grew up in a lower middle class family in a small town in Illinois among farmers and assorted small business people and have some understanding and much respect for their lives, it is not where I have lived. I have tended to live my life in the world of ideas. I did not want to go to my high school graduation because I knew that it was only a step on my path. I knew that I was going to go to college. When I was at college, I ended up being a Classics major (ancient Greek and Latin) because I knew that I was going to graduate school so that my major did not matter particularly as long as I had the prerequisites for my graduate studies. Most people that I know, if they have gone beyond a high school education, have been much more practical and goal oriented than I. Education and academics for most is a means to an end, I view education and academics as an end in themselves. While I am not totally ivory tower, I am probably only pragmatic enough to get by in this world. This is not a great characteristic for a pastor.

Perhaps the greatest problem for me as a full-time minister is that I am not a political person. Even if we use the term politics in its best sense, and I want to do that with respect to the church (although it isn’t always applicable), there is politics involved and I am not good at playing that game. I understand that where there are two or more people involved there will be politics, but when it gets beyond about two people I start having problems doing the politic thing, whatever it may be. I may usually do the politic thing because it is the right thing to do, but if there is a question of doing what is politic and what is right in my mind, I usually do what I think is right and that can get one into trouble. The real problem is that I usually don’t even recognize the politic thing to do. A serious blind spot if one is to be in leadership for any length of time.

I guess that I would conclude by saying that what a person needs to enjoy success in ministry is at a very minimum an outgoing personality coupled with a sense of being one with the people. A person also needs to be more concerned with the “real”(?) world and accept it as it is to a certain point. While I am convinced that an educated clergy is extremely important, it should probably be tempered by a greater concern for the day to day exigencies of life. While I do not feel that a minister should be a player, he or she should be more attuned to the games people play when they gather together. If you ever need a preacher to challenge you from the pulpit, I am your man, but if you need a pastor you need to look elsewhere.

How I Spent My Summer Vacation; or Why I Am No Longer in Full-Time Ministry is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Always up for a good argument I said sure. He pointed me to a post he made on Orkut and since I can’t reply there for some reason I figured I’d do it here. I’ll incorporate some of what he said and hopefully he’ll pop in and reply at length.

He liked that it was self paced and customized to him. He also said “My parents (probably wisely) decided to do very little of the actual instruction themselves, so I wound up studying with some very knowledgeable people in their fields.”

There are several things he didn’t like then or doesn’t like now. The first, and this shows up fairly frequently in these discussions is “the whole issue of socialization”. Marnen had neither siblings nor a home school association and feels that his social skills didn’t kick in until he was in college. That’s a fair point. We have three kids, ages nine, six, and four. In addition to playing with one another, which they do somewhat well, they also have their home school group kids and kids from church and the neighborhood that they hang out with on a regular basis. Their friends are a mix of home school, private school, and public school kids so they get the advantage of a range of backgrounds. If you’re thinking of homeschooling this is a vital part of what you need to consider.

Another thing he addresses are his own “poor work habits and lack of discipline”. He, rightly, isn’t blaming anyone for that, but goes on to say, again rightly, that his experience in home school formed the basis of it more than likely. To that I would say in our case we strive to set a schedule and stick to that. Proper behavior during school time is expected and there is structure. It’s not as rigid as public school, but there are good reasons for a more rigid setting when you have the sort of student/teacher ratio that public schools do. I can say for my part I am a product of public school and also have poor work habits and a lack of discipline. Again when you make the decision to home school, flexibility of schedule is touted as one of the big advantages and it is, but you must have some structure and discipline in order to be successful.

In the same vein he says, “The fact that it was self-paced often meant that I didn’t have to deal with deadlines or curricula.” Again, just speaking for us, we use a curriculum called Classical Conversations and their material is very structured. Being self paced to a point is good, but if that becomes “Hmmm what shall we do today?” you’re in a troublesome place. Our nine year old has projects and deadlines, just like she would in public school (perhaps more so). When they are older they will likely take advantage of duel enrollment in Community College and will definitely need to be prepared for the deadlines and curricula they have there.

To that level of structure Marnen says “if you’re going to be that regimented, you might as well just send the kids to school”. I’m not so sure I agree with that. Structure is a good thing. Regimentation is a good thing. Still as I said, we are flexible and Leigh does take advantage of that. Sometimes during the week most work gets set aside and the group will go berry picking or have a play date or just go swim. That’s the exception and not the rule, but the ability is there. So again, if you home school you can have as much or as little structure as you like, but knowing what I do of developmental psychology a good amount of structure is healthy.

In closing he says “I know a number of other folks who were homeschooled, and in my opinion, just about none of them got a decent education in the process — I know I didn’t.” To that I would say that I can say the same thing about public school kids and I have gotten to know a group of home school kids that are in early adulthood and are getting in to some fine schools. All of that is anecdotal on both sides of course. What that boils down to is this, your education is likely to be only as good as your teachers and your materials. That’s why when you decide to home school your children you need to ask yourself if you have what it takes.

Homeschooling is not for everyone. You don’t have to be the best teacher in the world. Good curriculum can take you a long way. You do need to be willing to be a teacher though. Being your child’s buddy or social director isn’t going to cut it. My wife is one of the best teachers I know mainly because she is passionate when it comes to learning. Your primary purpose in home schooling has to be the drive to give your children the best education you can. Part of that will eventually mean acknowledging that you can’t do it all. That’s why you should be part of a coop of some sort. Find other parents who have strengths you don’t. Work together and have a good foundation with the materials you’re using and you can give your child at least as good an education as the public school system can (that bar is not very high believe me).

Okay that was a passionate rant, at least for me, and I’m done for now. So class, any questions?

Home Schooling is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with sharing your beliefs with others. I mean heck if you’re dead certain that Obama is the anti-Christ or that if non-Christians don’t start believing that they’re screwed then you’d being doing folks a disservice by not doing so. What I’m speaking about here are those instances where you’re talking so loud that you can’t even hear yourself think, much less hear any opposing viewpoints.

This is a blog so mostly I’m talking to those in the blog-o-sphere. I read Christian blogs who are so busy berating other Christians that they don’t have time or column space for spreading the Gospel to non-believers. I read atheist blogs that spend gigabytes of bandwidth talking about how completely stupid religious folk are (stupid but not dumb) and somehow this is supposed to turn us into “free thinkers”? I read blogs on the right and the left that attack the content of a person’s character rather than the substance of their argument. What’s the point?

I mean, I understand having an audience, a point of view, a central purpose to your own space on the net. I’m still looking for one myself, but I know that if you want readers you should be pretty focused. I also understand that being “controversial” is one way to drive traffic. However, remember that if you (and your audience) become so convinced of your rightness, you have nothing left but an echo chamber.

If that’s what you want then well, it’s your time and your money. And maybe how you look to others isn’t really all that important to you. If someone thinks you’re arrogant then hey isn’t that the price of being right sometimes? But if you really want to bring someone around to your way of thinking then encourage discussion and discourage flame wars. Invite folks to participate in your space, in an active way, that you don’t agree with.

Odds are neither of you is going to convince the other, but maybe in the process you’ll learn to see each other as human beings. Am I right?

Right Thinking is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Megrahi was sentenced to twenty seven years in prison in 2001. The entire time he maintained that he was innocent. In 2007 his case was referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh. He is being released on compassionate grounds because he has terminal prostate cancer. He will be returning to Libya to die. Apparently some people have a problem with that.

I don’t know if I do or not. Let’s assume a few things. Let’s assume that he’s guilty and that he’s completely healthy. At 57 years of age he would be 76 when released, having served his full term. Odds are good he wouldn’t live very long beyond that. It would be, in effect, a life sentence.

Would serving those extra nineteen years serve any good purpose? They wouldn’t “reform” him. They wouldn’t bring back his alleged victims. The only real purpose it would serve would be to give the families of the victims some sense that the man responsible has lost that which he took away. I think that’s fair. I certainly prefer that to the death penalty.

As it stands right now he has little time left to live. I don’t know how long he has before the cancer takes his life, but if it’s serious enough for them to release him then I would wager not long. If he’s guilty then he has in essence served a life sentence, whether they release him or not. If he’s innocent and is left in jail then there will not be sufficient time to discover that and free him.

So I ask those who have a problem with his early release, what would keeping him in jail do? As President Obama said I also have “deepest sympathies to the families who live every day with the loss of their loved ones. We recognize the effects of such a loss weigh upon a family forever.” Would making this man sit in jail for his last few months assuage that loss?

Broken Sentences is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Accidental Hedonist – Fiji Water – The corruption of bottled water.

Accidental Hedonist – Fiji Water – The corruption of bottled water is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Snark Infested Waters for 8/13/2009 – Scott Roche author of Archangel.

We talk about my writing and stuff.

Snark Infested Waters for 8/13/2009 – Scott Roche author of Archangel is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Today I want to talk about the morality of taking another human life. The sixth commandment is not the earliest place in the Bible where God deals with it, but it’s arguably the best known and most oft repeated.

This particular commandment is one I’ve given a lot of thought to as both a writer and an armchair theologian. On its face it seems to leave us no options when it comes to taking another’s life. I’ve been told that “properly translated” the word we most often see as kill is actually better translated as murder. I’m not an expert in any ancient languages so I can’t say that with certainty, but almost every recent translation certainly uses murder in this passage.

Murder implies malice. Christ expands on that when he says in Matthew chapter five, “21 You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” That seems reasonably clear. So we are not to take another life with anger or hatred as our motivation.

What does that leave open? Soldiers can kill in an act of war. Civilians can kill in an act of self defense. If you take a life in the course of an accident then you’re in the clear morally. In all of these cases it would seem that both man’s law and God’s law agree. When we get beyond that though things get morally sticky and gray.

If malice is the only criteria that makes killing someone a sin, then what about the burgalar that breaks into your house? Human law allows for that under certain circumstances. Does God’s law? If you shoot him not out of any hatred for him as an individual it would seem so. You’re protecting your family after all. In doing so though, isn’t there other thing for us to consider? What is the state of that criminal’s soul? If you take the life of another person and that person doesn’t know Christ then what have you done? You may be in the clear morally on one level, but isn’t what you’ve done worse?

Then there’s always abortion, suicide, and euthanasia. Are those morally neutral depending on the amount of “malice” you have in your heart? We could argue about whether or not the mother hates the baby or the person hates themselves who commit these acts. Ultimately we can’t clearly judge their hearts. Only God can. However since we’re talking about hypotheticals to some degree let’s argue that the acts are committed without malice in some cases. Does that make them okay? Why or why not?

For me all life is precious, human life moreso. Ending it should never be an easy decision and is rarely a clear cut question of right and wrong. I’ve talked to people who seem to have an innate idea of when it’s okay and when it’s not. Some will engage in an act of comlex moral calculus to determine as best they can, when they have time to do so, whether or not it is the moral thing to do. Others will say that it is better to err on the side of caution and take no life. Personally that’s where I fall.

When it comes to my fellow man I can’t see any instance where I personally would determine that taking a life is the correct moral decision to make. I can envision a cirsumstance where it is my only best choice, but moral? No. So for me? I’m going to leave this verse as the King James Version translates it. What about you?

Thou Shalt Not Kill is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Today Dave and I tackle violence and sex in our culture. Hopefully we don’t screw it up. (See what I did there?) There are a lot of ways to go with this. Dave took one very good swipe at it. Tempting as it is to piggy back on his awesomeness, I’m going to look at this slightly askew.

Perusing television or movies that have come out in the last couple of decades leads me to think that we as Americans have some truly odd notions when it comes to creation and destruction. Many times it seems we want to conflate the two. Consumers want their violence sexy and their sex to be violent.

I’m a big fan of watching the police procedurals that litter the little black box. I’m talking about the CSIs, NCISs, and L&Os. The violence there, particularly the autopsy scenes, has all of the up close shots, bodily fluids, and odd poses that one might expect from pornography. The intimacy of the killing and the sexual overtones that many of the murders have (for the uninitiated many of the killings are sexually driven/motivated) is striking.

Much of the sex or sexuality that I see isn’t necessarily violent in the sense that it is forced (though the aforementioned shows contain rape as a common theme), but it’s often fast and furious. When it is consensual, there’s not a lot in the way of emotional intimacy. It’s frequently sex of the “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” variety.

I guess what it all gets back to for me is intimacy in both cases. Perhaps given our country’s history when it comes to violence in the media I shouldn’t be surprised at our level of intimacy with it. During my lifetime violence in cinema has always been more acceptable. Not so with sex. Granted there was a time prior to the 1940’s where it was dealt with in a much less puritanical way, but for most of the last half of the twentieth century the ratings boards were much stricter on movies with any sexual content. Though to be fair the PG-13 rating was introduced largely due to film violence.

Is it that level of comfort that has lead to this? Is that why some of my brothers seem to be okay with movies showing decapitations, but not so much with masturbation? Have we truly been desensitized? I certainly think that that’s a contributing factor.

Intended For Mature Audiences is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

“And the National Rifle Association says that, “Guns don’t kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, “Bang!” That’s not going to kill too many people, is it?”
- Eddie Izzard

We have a long history of gun culture in this country. It’s not for nothing that the second amendment of our Constitution gives us the right to own a gun. Whether that right was given to us individually for private use or as a means to corporately defend ourselves from tyranny has been the fodder of debate for, I would wager, two hundred years. According to the five minutes of research I put in to any given blog post like this, it seems that the Supreme Court decided recently that it is in fact an individual right.

I’ve lived in the southern US for most of my life and it is here that the gun culture is most distilled. Hunting is a big part of that. High schools and middle schools teach gun safety. In certain states NRA memberships and the infamous “Cold Dead Fingers” bumper stickers are seemingly handed to us at birth. By the age of eighteen I had handled and fired a variety of weapons. Every form of entertainment I had access to involved guns on some level. You’d think, as a result, I would be very pro-gun. I’m not.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti-gun. I do agree that owning a gun should continue to be an individual right. I understand and appreciate the fruits of a hunter’s labor and would be the last one to see that taken away. I love me a good action movie. I did own a shotgun once upon a time and I could even see me owning a handgun down the road.

For all that I am very much in favor of gun control. I think that handguns should be registered and you should undergo a serious background check before you can legally own one. I don’t see any reason for anyone outside some government sanctioned organization to own an “assault rifle” or a fully automatic weapon of any kind. You say you’re a “collector”? Then collect replicas. You don’t need one to hunt with and I’d need some serious convincing to believe that a Mac 10 or an MP5 is required for you to defend your home and property.

This gun culture we have has made some of us a bit “gun crazy”. Whenever anyone gets shot I hear the chorus sing the praises of everyone going around packing heat. “If only one (or all) of the civilians at the scene of the tragedy had been armed!” It would seem that there are those who want us to go back to the Wild Wild West. Much as I loved the show and the Will Smith movie (shut up) and the romance of the period pieces we’ve been given, that’s not a place I want us to be.

And, this being the overall tone of my blog, I’ll give a word about this when it comes to Christians. Is it in the character of Christ for us to own a weapon with the purpose of using it on another human being? I’ll address killing and the complicated morality therein later this week, but actually carrying a weapon brings with it some serious cognitive dissonance.

For those of you that are prepared to remind me of the passage where Christ tells the disciples to go buy swords if they don’t have one, well have you read it? The scriptural reason for that was apparently that he needed to be numbered among the transgressors and the two they had was sufficient for that. The only actual use of such a sword was decried by Christ and the wound caused was killed.

Does that mean that I think that a Christian using a gun to harm another is a sin? Stay tuned.

Packin’ Heat is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

What Kind of Nerd Am I? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

By michaelspence @spiritualtramp Because if I had to purchase it on my own, I couldn’t afford it. And, at the moment, can’t.

One excellent reason why it shouldn’t be.  If you don’t have a job you should either be able to purchase it for a reasonable amount or the government should pick it up.  I mean there are people right now who fall in to those groups and they need care.  Either they aren’t getting it or they’re getting it in a way that’s inefficient and expensive (Emergency Room).  Unless they’re lucky enough to have access to a free clinic.

By DannyMachal @spiritualtramp if you are high risk because of previous conditions or even being overweight … insurance on your own will cost a fortune.

Exactly and it shouldn’t be that way. In most cases being overweight can be helped. Being a diabetic or having cancer can’t be.

By salguod_net It’s not

Concise and to the point. I concur.

By madpoet Shouldn’t it be more like car insurance – insure against big expenses not checkups/oil changes?

Yup. I’m actually not in favor of having the government take care of everything. I think much like the situation in Israel “which provides coverage for basic and essential health care”. What does that mean exactly? I’m researching that, but I’d think anything your GP can do should be covered 100%. Specialists may require some sort of private health care unless you’re in special circumstances like what Medicaid/Medicare cover now.

Thoughts?

Should Insurance Be Tied to Employment? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I agree with C.S. Lewis when he said, “Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another, ‘What! You too? I thought I was the only one.”    I share something in common with all of my friends.  That “thing”, the primary friendship driver is almost never religious in nature.  In fact I can’t think of a single instance where it was.

Many Christians seem to limit their close friendships to only fellow believers and then only believers that believe the same as them.  I don’t think that’s a conscious decision in most cases so much as it’s just part of the reality that many times we as Christians limit our interaction with others to church activities (a different post).  Or maybe I’m wrong, maybe it is conscious.  Many of my brothers choose to only consume Christian art and fill their time with activities that are mostly spiritual in nature.  Are there people that do the same thing with relationships?

If so I think that’s incredibly misguided.

I’m not saying you should go out of your way to make friends outside your faith just for the sake of doing it.  I also don’t think that you should make friends with someone solely for the purpose of evangelism (though if you aren’t evangelizing your friends in some way then I don’t think that’s good either).  I’m just saying when it comes to friendships/acquaintances variety isn’t a bad thing and can in fact be a wonderful thing.

One major benefit as I see it to having friends you disagree with when it comes to these issues the fresh perspective it can bring.  Thanks to my wife I know how some conservatives think (and yes they do think).  Thanks to Sid I have a clearer idea of the atheist pov.  I realize I’m generalizing here and that neither person is 100% representative of their own self-identified groups, but hopefully you see my point.  It’s also harder to set up a straw man when you are putting a face on that hay filled head.

Now I now some of the Christians in the audience might be thinking that there is a pitfall here.  Might not having an atheist or a scientologist or a democrat or whatever friend “drag me down” somehow?  I suppose that’s possible.  I’m not advocating that one dumps one’s friends who are of a like mind.  That would be silly.  But, if the only “defense” you have against the “others” is hiding in the herd (whatever herd that is) don’t you belong here?

So, go out and hug someone who you disagree with.  Buy them a beer.  Find some common ground.

Friendship, Just The Perfect Blendship is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

He commented via Facebook on my “End of Life” post”:

I consider government something to be tolerated as a necesarry evil and whatever they want to do with the money they take from me, as little as it is, is acceptable if not laudable. I, as an act of conscience, do not participate in the political process so I really don’t complain about much that they do.

We chatted about it further and his belief seemed to be linked to Phillipians 3:20-21

²⁰But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, ²¹who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

On a certain level that makes sense.  We’re told in Romans 13 that

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ²Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

So if government is ordained/established by God does that mean there’s no point in us as Christians a) working towards a political goal or b) complaining when the current administration does something we disagree with?  In addition since this is a fallen world and since Satan is in some ways in control of things does that mean we should expect any less than fallen leadership?

I have no plans to pull out of the process any time soon.  I think that if we have a positive right (one granting us the ability to do something) in this country we should have a good reason before we choose not to exercise it.  Still this whole thing does give me pause.  Do we as Christians often focus too much on trying to control the government and mold it to our own morality?  Is that one of our callings?  What are our responsibilities as Christians who have citizenship in America?

Christian Citizenship is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

1) There are some folk I know that won’t let their kids spend the night at anyone else’s house for fear that they may encounter a corrupting influence.

2) Watching and listening to “news” that basically tells you that the current administration is eee-ville.  (For the record I’m aware that the same thing happened on Bush’s watch.)

Fear of others keeps us from interacting with others and discovering truths or interacting.  If you find yourself avoiding interaction with others because you are afraid of something (feeling stupid, contamination, their reputation) then you need to check that, shove it down and interact anyway.

If you’re in a position of power and find yourself using fear as a tool or (more importantly/likely) if someone is in a position of power/authority over you and is telling you to fear something/someone then I recommend you question them strongly.  If the only thing they’re pushing is fear and you’re getting bad information or no real information then you might want to look elsewhere for authorities.

As Christians we’re not supposed to have a “spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2 Tim 1:7).  Don’t be afraid of non-Christians.  Don’t be afraid of liberals.  And don’t try and instill that fear in others.

The Power of Fear is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

For the sake of argument let us assume that this was our new federal health care policy.  If you have a terminal illness with less than a five percent chance of being cured, should the government pay for it?  Secondarily, should tax payer dollars go to paying for physician assisted suicide?

Here’s my $.02.  I don’t think the government should pay for just any treatment.  It is wise to take into account the efficacy of any procedure and just how experimental/risky it may be.  Insurance companies do that now and I don’t have a problem with it.   A five percent chance of success seems a reasonable benchmark.  I’m not sure how they arrive at those numbers, but again this is a hypothetical (though I would like to know).  Any lower than that and you would have to use private health care or pay for it out of pocket.

On the payment for physician assisted suicide I think that if a person is sound in mind and facing a terminal illness they should be allowed to end their own life.  I can’t imagine that it would be an easy decision, but if the choices are staying in some sort of drugged up fugue state, being in a tremendous amount of pain, or ending it all I think that the latter choice is certainly reasonable.  It can even be ethical.  “Should the government pay for it?” is the next question.

I don’t see why not.  It’s another form of medical care albeit a final one.  If you object on the basis of being morally opposed to it and don’t want your tax dollars to go towards it then I would ask you why I should be forced to pay for the war efforts we are currently undertaking?  Certainly there is a place for you as a citizen to object to perceived misspending of government money, but aren’t you saying to this person “My morality trumps your quality of life.”?  That sort of thinking happens all the time I suppose, but this is at least one instance where I can’t agree with the reasoning.

The person making the decision, and in my opinion it should always be in the hands of the individual or the person holding the power of attorney,  is the only one in my mind that could be held morally responsible.  It is their life.  With abortion or the death penalty or any similar end of life issue another individual is being acted upon without their consent (whether they can give consent or not is another topic).  I can see the question there.  That isn’t the case here.

Are you opposed to this should it come to pass?  Why or why not?  And as always don’t count your words.  Let the comments flow.

End of Life Issues is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Rules: Don’t take too long to think about it. Fifteen books you’ve read that will always stick with you. First fifteen you can recall in no more than 15 minutes.

1) Watership Down – I read this book every year at least once a year during high school.  The story of these rabbits and the darkness in their lives was startling to me.

2) Mere Christianity – This is my favorite CS Lewis non-fiction book. I love his arguments, but more so the tone.

3) The Hobbit – This is hands down the best Middle Earth book. At least from a story perspective. Can’t wait to see how it looks on the screen.

4) Cool Hand Luke – One of my favorite movies, I picked up the book a year or so ago and have read it at least twice. The use of language and dialog is fantastic.

5) All Creatures Great and Small – English country vet James Herriot’s adventures, this was another of those “read until the covers fall off” books.

6) On Writing – The best book on the craft I’ve read.

7) The Stand – While not my favorite King novel it is the most epic and it’s the one that stands out.

8 ) Farenheit 451 – The first Bradbury novel that jumped to mind. I read sooooo many of his books while growing up.

9) 1984 – I read this in middle shcool for the first time. I didn’t “get” it all then naturally, but what I did get scared me.

10) Huck Finn – Perhaps my favorite Twain novel. Read most of his stuff growing up many times over.

11) The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – I almost didn’t think of this one. It certainly tickles my funny and sci-fi bones at the same time.

12) The Count of Monte Cristo – Love this story and actually enjoy the movie made of it in 2002 quite a bit.

13) The Horse and His Boy – My favorite Narnia story.

14) The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes – Another of my re-re-re-re-read books.

15) The Martian Chronicles – This is perhaps my favorite Bradbury collection.

What would your fifteen be?

Fifteen Books is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There was a point that night, about 9:42p to be precise, that I was at the lowest point that I had been in in quite some time.  I texted a good friend, the substance of which was “Did losing your faith hurt?”.  I guess that reveals the depth and content of my struggle.

I looked in to the evening sky and contemplated what it must be like to lose your faith in God utterly.  How would it change my world view, my marriage, my friendships?  Would I let it slip through my fingers, like the proverbial grains of sand or fight it tooth and nail?  Is it something that can be fought for?

Eventually I made it to sleep.  Saturday dawned (very early) with a lighter heart still beating in my chest.  The question was far from answered and remains such.  Struggles in faith are nothing new in my life.  Quite a few posts on this blog will testify to that notion.  I yet remain a Christian, at a least in as much as I define it.

I still believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, though imperfect in its translations and full of stories that I can comfortably call myths (this doesn’t mean those myths aren’t true).  I still believe that Christ was both man and god though I don’t know how that’s possible and I will follow his example as best I can (though the example he sets is not the point of his coming).  I still believe myself to be a sinner in need of grace and salvation though at my heart a good person (good in the sense that I seek to love the unlovable).  I believe that the universe is a created thing, though how and how long of a process that was I have no idea.

Faith is a complicated and in my case a fragile thing.  If you still have yours what helps you cling to it?  If you have lost yours, what was it like to lose it?

Dark Night is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

So the police arrived and words were exchanged and the aging academic was arrested for disorderly conduct.  When he was asked to provide them with proof that he lived there, he provided it along with a few choice words, at least according to the police report.

Based on what I have heard it seems likely that both the officer and the professor showed a lack of respect to one another.  The later is a matter of fact, the professor yelling at the officer and pulling the “don’t you know who I am” card.  The former is certainly conjecture on my part, but I feel comfortable in saying that I don’t find it hard to believe that there was some provocation on the officer’s part.

The charges were dropped and there is an ongoing investigation in to the whole mess, but that’s not what I really want to focus on.  Even if it were just Professor Gates that was in the wrong (and he was in the wrong), this would still be worth talking about.  There seems to be, in the world today, a general lack of respect for one’s fellow man.  You see it in traffic, in the movie theater, in public office.  We don’t treat others as we would want to be treated in that same situation.

The golden rule, which ever form you see it in (do unto others or don’t do until others) is an olden rule and not unique to Christianity/Judaism.  I think in today’s culture of hurry, hurry, hurry we jump too quickly to take offense and we speak without thinking about how our words will affect others.

In your comings and goings today I urge you to love your fellow man, showing them the respect they deserve as a human being.  As Christians that is one thing God requires of us again and again, but it is clear to me that regardless of your religious or philosophical belief it is the least you can do.  Literally.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Migrating rays in the Gulf of Mexico

Cow Nose Rays is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I read an article in the Home School Legal Defense Association’s magazine which I believe came from ParentalRights.org that talks about a UNICEF brochure called “No Guns Please, We Are Children.” The article can be found here. Some bullet points that the article talks about include:

• Efforts must be ongoing to overcome the destructive messages that small arms and light weapons are essential instruments for survival and protection in daily life.
• Governments must support communities in eliminating the insecurity, fear and instability that often lead people to acquire and keep guns.
• Regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children.

Now, I agree with points one an two and most of three. The sticking point for me is where they say that small arms and light weapons should never be accessible to children (defined as those under eighteen). Like it or not we have a “gun culture” in America and part of that culture includes hunting. When you have a culture where guns are used to hunt you are going to have children who want to be part of that and parents who want them to be a part. I personally don’t have a problem with that. I know that the heart of the brochure is referring to children used as soldiers and I don’t think that most sane people in this country want to see Johnny packing heat to commit violence against another person, but I think the UNICEF brochure goes to far in wanting to remove all access to guns from kids. Parents do need to be responsible and as such when there is an incident involving a gun and parental neglect the book needs to be thrown. That shouldn’t preclude a sixteen year old from being able to hunt with their dad.

The other big thing I hear bandied about is the stance of the CRC on corporal punishment i.e. spanking. The most interesting and disconcerting part of the wiki article on the CRC is this:

The Committee on the Rights of the Child of its own volition decided in 2006, long after the Convention had been signed by member states and come into force in 1990, and without any public consultation or democratic input, to interpret Article 37 as meaning that any form of corporal punishment, even the mildest spanking, should be made a criminal offence.

Article 37 concerns cruel and degrading punishment. So again this sounds like a case where the CRC wants to do something really good, something that all right minded folks should agree with and takes it one step too far.

I guess that’s the scary thing for me. I mean on the one hand I don’t want to be the only country other than Somalia to not sign/ratify the thing. On the other hand this is a pretty major deal when it comes to changes our country’s way of doing certain things. If this is considered a treaty then Constitutionally we are bound to uphold it. We could ratify it with reservations as others have done and that may be the best course of action.

At what point does it cease having meaning if we do that though? I mean Saudi Arabia ratified it and they impose capital punishment on minors. Oh wait, we did too until very recently. So should we even bother based on hte grounds that it has no teeth? What do you think?

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

A post on a blog I found thanks to Sid, called Unreasonable Faith, says much the same about Christianity. Or at least it asks the questions “Is the only thing that unites Christians the fact that they all call themselves Christians? Is anyone who finds the golden rule a good idea a Christian? Are we all Christians now? Are none of us?”

As we have gotten further afield from the origins of these words they do seem to have become diluted in their meaning. In some cases the later title has even picked up a few negative connotations. I’ve read of Christians distancing themselves from the title because of that. Part of the blog post I linked to (which I encourage you to read) goes on to say that

“The only reason I bring this up at all is that atheist blogs are frequently beset by commenters who are eager to explain the real Christianity. The more even-handed just want to be clear that there are many different interpretations, and that fundamentalism isn’t the only form of Christianity. The latter group is right, of course, but when pressed to provide a criteria for their interpretation, things get vague.”

The biggest question he has and one that resonates with me most is, does anyone have the right to define what Christianity is? Certainly I as an individual have the right to define what it means for me, but should I try and define it for others. Is it my job to divine the sheep form the goats? Is Christianity like porn, in the sense that you’ll know it when you see it? I think that’s a good working definition since the Bible does say that we’ll be known by our fruits.

What do you think? When you use the term what do you mean? What do you think of? Do you use it to divide or unite? Is it a term of derision for you?

A Gentleman and A Christian is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

XKCD for those, that don’t read it, is a sharp webcomic that usually focuses on the oddities of the geek culture, making broader social commentary at the same time. This one seems pretty much aimed at everyone (though if you hover over it at the XKCD site you’ll see who it’s really aimed at).

One of the things I strive for is to be free of the sheeple mentality. Some would argue that as long as I stay a Christian that won’t be entirely possible. Even the Bible says that we are all sheep in need of a shepherd.

How far should that analogy be pushed? Should being a “free thinker” be something we strive for? Is there any such beast among us? What sets you apart from others in your world view?

I don’t think that we’re sheep in all things. I think pushing the envelope and asking difficult questions that I don’t have the answer to is a good thing so long as it doesn’t lead me to despair. The tricky thing is that I don’t think that any of us are truly “free” in our minds. There is too much going on in our brains that clouds our judgment, including that very appealing notion that we are different.

Perhaps you think that you have seen your way through the lies that you perceive in organized religion. What makes you think that you aren’t seeing a whole new batch? What keeps you from being a sheep of a different color?

Sheeple is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Leigh and I will celebrate tonight by going forth and playing pool/having a date.  If it’s your birthday too yeah then sing along with me.  If not, well sing anyway.  More substantive blog posts to come.

Birthday Bash is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

You guys read this (God knows why, and I mean that as it stands, only he knows why everyone reading this is reading this) and so I’m taking a bit of a poll.  Would you like to see more content?  What sort of content would you like to see?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Bloggedy Blog is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Paeter does a great audio drama and also some interviews.  He was kind enough to interview me about Archangel.

Interviewed by Paeter at Spirit Blade Underground is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

4) Jesus must have been sent by, or been part of, Yahweh (i.e. I don’t think the Trinity is strictly necessary for Christianity to be true, but Yahweh’s involvement is).

His problem is as follows:

Link 4 in the chain is whether or not Jesus was from Yahweh.  If the gospels are to be believed on the details of Jesus’ life and teachings, it’s quite obvious that he wasn’t.  Or, at least, if you believe that Yahweh is the God who gave the law of Moses.  You see, Deuteronomy 13:5 and 18:22 lay out the test for a false prophet — a test which Jesus fails in a number of minor ways, and then majorly in the Olivet Discourse.  Jesus, being a false prophet (by encouraging others to break the law of Moses and by predicting events that did not happen).  Even C.S. Lewis admitted that Jesus prophesied falsely in his book “The World’s Last Night” on page 97-100 of the 1988 version (which is the one I have here).  This theological link is irreparably shattered, unless one throws out the gospels as reliable — but of course, if one does that, one must then throw out the resurrection, since the gospels are the only source of the resurrection story.

I’m interested in knowing where he encouraged rebellion against God.  That first Dt. passage talks about those who would encourage you to serve other gods.  I know there are instances where he was accused of encouraging others to break the law of Moses.  I’m not certain that that is the same thing.  He never said that anyone should turn away from God.

As far as the Olivet Discourse is concerned.  He predicted things that have not happened yet.  That’s not the same as predicting something that did not happen period.  Verse 34 does say “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”, but then he goes on to say “of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone”.  How does one reconcile the two?

Does “this generation” refer to the people living at the time?  Not necessarily.  It is possible that the word generation could be referring to Christ’s spiritual offspring or the Jews or both.  That would reconcile your difficulties and would make the two verses compatible.

As far as Lewis “admitting to” Jesus’ failing as a prophet, doesn’t he begin that essay by saying “I have no claim to speak as an expert in any of the studies involved, and merely put forward the reflections which have arisen in my own mind and have seemed to me (perhaps wrongly) to be helpful. They are all submitted to the correction of wiser heads.”  So what he says is not the Gospel.

In any event, none of this means he’s not “from Yahweh” or not sent by Yahweh.  He was a man and limited, as he said in vs. 36.  He was perfect only in the sense that he was free from sin.  Assuming he prophesied incorrectly it only means he was incorrect.  Something even he admitted was likely to be the case.

Was Christ “Of” Yahweh? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

What Did the Resurrection Accomplish and How? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Personal Effects: Dark Art is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

What Was Jesus? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

1) Jesus must have actually existed in physical, earthly history, rather than in a spiritual or mythical realm.

I can say that this must be true in order for Christianity to be true in “any meaningful sense”. If there was no Christ then there can be no Christianity. Daniel has this to say about point one and following:

Over the years, I’ve become convinced that almost all the available evidence runs *against* every one of those points, with the exception of point 1, depending on how one frames the argument. Since that’s a LONG (like, several books long) conversation and is not relevant to my rejection of Christianity, I will leave it be.

This seems to indicate that even he accepts that most likely Jesus actually existed, though perhaps not as more than a man. This is a hard one to prove or disprove. A lot of the extra-Biblical references to Christ (not that there are many) are “tainted” in some fashion or another. We can’t be certain that the references in Josephus’ Antiquities weren’t added or changed later, for instance.

Books upon books upon libraries of books have been written on this topic. For my two cents the notion that Jesus existed as a real person isn’t much of a stretch and shouldn’t require any sort of extraordinary evidence. Personally I am comfortable accepting the Biblical writings as enough proof of that at least. What say you?

Did Jesus exist? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Here is what he had to say:

On the issue of what makes Christianity, I agree with you that the Resurrection is at the heart of it. But from my POV that’s one in a string of doctrines that must be true. For “Mere” Christianity to be true in any meaningful sense (i.e. in a sense that has theological weight by Christianity’s own standards):

1) Jesus must have actually existed in physical, earthly history, rather than in a spiritual or mythical realm.
2) Jesus must have been more than merely a man.
3) There must have been some mechanism by which his death and resurrection accomplished something supernatural in the relationship between God and men (ransom, substitutionary atonement, etc.) and that accomplishment should be identifiable (salvation from hell for some, for all, life abundant, etc.)
4) Jesus must have been sent by, or been part of, Yahweh (i.e. I don’t think the Trinity is strictly necessary for Christianity to be true, but Yahweh’s involvement is).
5) Jesus must be the messiah prophesied in the Tanakh (what Christians call the ‘Old Testament)
6) Jesus must indeed have been sinless and good, and his execution must have been unjust.
7) Jesus’s teachings must logically follow from and/or fulfill the law of Moses.
By extension, Moses must have actually lead an exodus and received a law.
9) Christianity, claiming as it does to be God’s ultimate, final, and true revelation, must proclaim wisdom which men couldn’t arrive at on their own, and/or must proclaim a doctrine unique to that point in religious
10) Yahweh must be both good and just, as well as nearly omnipotent and nearly omniscient.

I intend to go through each point he made and the problems he put forth with each point over the coming weeks/months. It’s certainly too much to cover in one blog post. So as a starting point, what do you think of his list? Is there anything you would add? It’s his list so I don’t know that we can take away, though if you have an objection to a certain point being on the list I’d like to hear it. On the face of them the only one I have an objection to would be nine, but I will go into detail when we get to that.

The Truth of Christianity is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

and I will be eternally grateful. I realize that the economy is making life interesting for everyone and if you can’t then hey, no biggie. I’m not gonna starve and the trip alone is worth it. Expect a thorough trip report and TONS of pictures either way.

Feed Scott At Balticon is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The answer is not simple. There were a number of things wrong: too much time apart, not enough money, little or no support from family, an unsupportive husband.
In truth what had happened was we had lost sight of what marriage is supposed to be about. In all honesty, I don’t think that we ever really knew. You know that passion that you see in the movies? People rushing home after dinner and ripping each others clothes off? We had felt that way about each other and thought that was it. That was all there would be. We had truly lost sight of God in our relationship.
I do think that our love truly was deeper than that, after all we had managed to weather living apart for a number years and had developed a pretty strong friendship, but we were not looking any deeper, and certainly not living any deeper than that. I think our friendship in the end was what allowed us to stay together long enough to fix things…
We tried talking with our priest, and a counselor but it didn’t really work for us. We were both committed to changing things but we really didn’t know how. Ann suggested talking to a natural family planning couple. At that point I didn’t see anything wrong with the way we were doing things, but I was desperate and willing to try anything. I knew that contraception was against Church teaching but I didn’t know why, and really didn’t see anything wrong with it.
So we registered for NFP classes and the first meeting was rather awkward. To say there was a generation gap would be putting it mildly. We left that meeting feeling a bit confused. But, we took the materials home and looked over the program on our own and decided to give it a try. At this point I was willing to try anything. I know I keep saying that but, I don’t know how else to express how desperate I was to find something that really helped us heal. Things were starting to get better between us, if for no other reason than that we were both trying to make them better. But most of the things we were doing were very superficial.
What happened next was the thing that probably saved us. I am not going to say that I handed Ann the thermometer in the morning and our marriage was healed. That was really not the case. For one thing she was not going to get up at 5 a.m. with me to take her temperature. But what we did do was talk about the charting every day. It forced us to do the one thing we had stopped doing. We had stopped talking to each other about anything, and it forced us to do it every day. That led to talking about other things that were important to us, and that was what in the end saved us. By talking every day about something as important and intimate as the way your bodies worked, it gave us an opportunity to open up to each other. Which led to open and honest discussions about marriage. We had to do somethings that we were not used to doing like waiting, and not just do whatever we wanted, and so we spent time talking, and doing some things together. We even took dance lessons. No I am no better at it then I was when we started, and if you are out there sir, I still can’t hear the beat.
I don’t want you to think that we started using NFP and we were healed of all ills. We were not. We still have problems, but even during our roughest times we can talk about the charting everyday and it gives us something to share. It gives us a starting point.
The other important thing that came from this was that we learned some very important things about life, being open to it, and understanding what we had been doing by contracepting and holding ourselves back from one another. We were denying God His role in our lives and our marriage. Soon after we opened our hearts to this thinking, we felt a call to teach NFP so we could share the love we found with other people.
The teaching certification process showed us we were not alone. We found other couples who shared our beliefs. We started seeking out and finding priests and other clergy that were really supportive of the NFP lifestyle. And when finding those that were not supportive, we let them know they should be. It became like a crusade for us. And in the end it helped to draw us together.
We are no longer quite as zealous as we once were in sharing our beliefs. The wacky zealots often get tuned out and written off as nuts. Instead we have decided to focus on trying to share what we know with just one person or family at a time. Or one class at a time. Our hope now is that we will plant a few seeds here and there and that when folks are ready to embrace the truth, they will know where to start looking. Balancing the demands of our growing family and other obligations limits our outside commitments. This is one commitment we have decided is worth our time right now because of the changes we have seen in several friends who have come to share our beliefs. We hope that those of you hearing our words today will one day see the joy we do in living an NFP lifestyle.
If you would like more information about Natural Family Planning, please contact your local Couple to Couple League International teaching couple. You can find out more about Natural Family Planning or the organization that we belong to by going out to http://CCLI.org. There are classes going on almost all the time.
Thanks Jeff. I appreciate your openness. Those of you reading this should also check out Jeff’s podcast Great Hites and follow him on Twitter. He’s a good guy.

What is left after the Crash is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Fat and Happy is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.