A Rest Stop on the Journey

Peace. Spiritually, I’m at peace.

Not much has changed for me concerning my post-sabbatical journey. I no longer attend the church I had been a member of for more years than I can count off the top of my head. That’s not new. I read the bible a lot less than I did, mainly due to its standing in my life. That’s not new either. And I try to take religion a whole lot less seriously than I did before. And that’s not new either.

I guess what has changed is that I’ve grown comfortable. I don’t feel that my “radical” beliefs are all that radical anymore, and that I can and do “fellowship” with other Christians in a straightforward, honest, and still loving manner. I don’t have the nagging feeling that the other shoe is going to drop and I’m going to find myself in a spiritual tailspin (I know I’m mixing metaphors, but bear with me.)

Part of that is most likely due to the generous acceptance of some friends who have welcomed me into their group (worship team). You see, the one thing I never lost before, during, and after my sabbatical is my desire to worship God. Even though I don’t believe the bible to be a co-equal member of the Godhead anymore, I still desire to give honor and praise unto the One who holds all of existence in His hands. For many years I’ve played harmonica, percussion, and provided bass harmonies in a worship environment. Leaving that former church left me without the avenue to express my love for God with those “gifts”. And again, thanks to the generous acceptance of some friends, I have again the ability to do just that.

Does that mean I am once again in full attendance at a church? No. These friends have accepted me where I am and allow me to join them whenever I can. At the moment that is about once a month. Sometimes more, but pretty much just that. I don’t think it will ever become a weekly thing again. And to be honest, I really don’t think I could go back to a weekly thing anymore.

And that’s okay.

Did I mention I was at peace?

© Emittravel 2019

Down in Front!

Now that I've been attending church again (albeit, not all that frequently), I find I'm amazed at just how distracting people are. The pastor made a comment years ago that when this church started it was the perfect church . . . then the first people walked in (that was a joke - really!) One of the concessions that my wife and I agreed to was that she would attend with me (she was attending a local Catholic church while I was on my sabbatical), as long as I didn't "force" her to sit in the first row.

The first row. The dreaded, mostly empty, first row. A place I've been accustomed to planting my keister for many a year. I have never sat there with an air of "better than thou". I have sat there because I'm so easily distracted. Even back in school I'd sit in the front row. I'm the same with televisions. I actually hate dining in establishments with televisions on. Don't be surprised if I ever ask you to please turn yours off while visiting. I want to give you my undivided attention, and I'm just unable to do that with the damn thing on.

So, I'm accustomed to sitting in the front row. But now, we are in the fifth row from the front, sitting at the end of the row (I've been having a lot of on and off trouble with my knee/leg, and being able to stretch it out helps), and I find people are so annoying.

At this church, the service starts with about 20 minutes or so of (praise and worship) music, followed by a new visitor welcome, a meet and greet, the offering, and then the sermon. As I said, the service STARTS with about 20 minutes or so of music. The service doesn't start with the sermon. Do you hear me people who like to come in three-quarters of the way through the music?!? The music is part of the service. Those songs are not the trailers before the main feature. It's one thing to come in late to a movie and miss a couple of trailers. It is another thing entirely to come in after the main feature has started. I have rarely, if ever, seen anyone come in after the movie has begun. Why? Because nobody would come in late to a movie! So, why do people come in late for a church service?

I've written before about the purpose of the music at the beginning of a service. It is a time to prepare your heart and mind for God - to set aside your burdens and put yourself in a position to truly commune with Him. When people come in late, they disturb those at the end of the aisle - because they want those coveted middle seats - with "Hi!"s and "How are you!"s, taking people out of their spiritual "moment" and forcing them to give THEM attention.

(Being a couple of rows back, and being so easily distracted, I can't help but be pulled out of MY spiritual "moment" either!)

Listen! Why don't you get your ass up out of bed 15 minutes earlier so you get yourself all dolled up and get into your precious seat and not disturb other people who have come to church instead of the local golf course to commune with God. If you can't spare that extra 15 minutes of sleep, don't come in! Go and get your "slam" at the local Denny's instead.

We should get the ushers to close the doors once the service has started, and refuse to let anyone in!


Bruce Campbell, a.k.a. "the man!" in Spider-Man 2

Maybe it's just a part of the nondenominational/charismatic/Protestant mentality. I've never seen anyone ever come in late to a Catholic service. Oh, they've left early all right, just never came in late.

Or maybe if they served popcorn . . .

© Emittravel 2015

If the Stiletto Fits . . .

A few weeks prior to this writing, Bruce Jenner "came out" publicly as Caitlyn Jenner.

First off, I think it interesting that we still use the expression "came out", as it is directly reminiscent of when those outside the socially-accepted "norm" were IN the so-called closet, and, when going public with the truth concerning themselves, would come OUT of said closet.

Secondly, I think it interesting that the term "closet" is used to describe both the place for those outside of the socially-accepted "norm", AND as the place Christians are encouraged to enter when praying (Matthew 6:6 - KJV). Curious. Ever think that for some people, the very "closet" one spends time in prayer becomes the very place they discover their true selves?

(Yeah, that last thing may upset a few folks . . . )

As I mentioned in my last blog post, one of the difficulties I have with the Christian church is the focus on the depravity of the world, and how those in the church have "overcome" and are separate from, even superior to, it. I was part of that belief structure for many years, and I know how entrenched that attitude can be in one's life. And it is sometimes given from the pulpit with sly humor, all the while reinforcing an intolerance for the very people the church is supposed to be reaching out to.

If you, as a person with such an attitude, find that you have difficulty with folks like Caitlyn Jenner, I want to know something: Is God the author of birth defects?

Think about that for a minute. And no, I'm not calling Caitlyn Jenner someone with a birth defect. Though, in a sense, maybe I am.

We Christians like to say that God doesn't make junk. For example, using the (re)creation account in Genesis chapter one, everything God made was "good". The bible also says that sickness and disease are from the Devil. So, where do birth defects come from? I've already argued that children aren't born with them because of their sins or the sins of their parents (see "Hey Babe: Take a Walk on the Quiet Side"), so where do they come from?

(One way I understand it is, the longer we have been here, reproducing and reproducing, errors in our genetic make-up keep getting passed down, and even transfigured, from one generation to the next. I was born, for instance, without a sense of smell. For me each breath is the same. My mom's sense of smell is normal. My dad's is beyond normal: he's smelled an underground gas leak that the technician couldn't detect with his meter until he had dug two-feet below ground! Yet, MY shnoz is basically useless. With sinus issues, it is sometimes beyond useless! Radiation is known to be a source of some cancers, because of the way it affects cells. I believe that in some cases, cancer can be a genetic disorder.)

Now, if someone is born with a birth defect, and science has come to the point where they can "fix" it, should the person with the defect take advantage of that technology? Or, since God made them that way, should they embrace the way they are and not seek "wholeness"? If one is born without arms or legs, prosthetics today have come a long way to providing someone a higher level of independence than they would have ever experienced otherwise. Would it be wrong to embrace such technology? What about corrective lenses (glasses or contacts), or even LASIC surgery? Would those be abominations because they go to "fix" what God had deemed "good"? Of course not.

Okay, let's not limit birth defects. Since sex is only determined by a couple of X's and Y's (and no, I'm not getting into the whole sex vs. gender argument), what if what one is born with is NOT what they, inside, determine themselves to be? Isn't that a form of birth defect too? And since science has come to the point where they can "fix" that as well, is it wrong for a person to embrace that either?

You have to think, if all wisdom and inventiveness ultimately comes from God, is it so wrong for medical technology to give people a way to live a more "normal" life?

As the title says, "If the stiletto fits . . . "

© Emittravel 2015

Fish or Cut Bait?

As I sit here, mentally preparing to write, I find I'm stuck between two different topics. One was an opinion piece on the Bruce-to-Caitlyn Jenner announcement, and the other was a reflection on my first "full" service at my "home church" (today) since the start of the sabbatical. While having a late breakfast with my  lovely wife this afternoon, I found both topics intertwining. The church experience stepped into the Jenner topic, providing almost further support of the opinion piece yet to be written. With both topics being fenced in by the timeliness of their occurrences, I think I will focus on this morning's experience, and refer to it in a later blog when I go back to the Jenner story.
 
As I wrote in "B.I.B.L.E.", now that I'm at the end of my sabbatical, "Where do I go from here?" I decided to make this Sunday the day I would not exit after the praise and worship portion, and stay until the end of the service. My wife went to the church she has been attending during this period, so if I really felt I couldn't stay, walking out in the middle wouldn't be something that would embarrass her (I, for one, am difficult to embarrass.)
 
The pastor of the church preached the sermon. This is nothing new. It is actually a rare thing for him to not be preaching.
 
Let me add right here, that this is not the first time I've sat through a sermon since the start of my sabbatical. It's just the first time in my "home" church. I've had the pleasure of going to a friend's church, playing with him in the band, and listening to his pastor preach. That experience held little-to-no anxiety for me. I was hoping for a similar experience at my "home" church.
 
(Note: I was thinking of going into a detailed description of the sermon, but I think that it does not fit the purpose of this particular post.)
 
I found myself, not necessarily bored, but more mentally disengaged. This is not a reflection on the pastor's preaching ability: he is a hermeneutically excellent preacher/teacher. It was me.
 
I felt very disconnected. Not just while listening to the sermon, but the whole morning. The long and short of it is, I find I don't believe in what the church preaches anymore. It's more than the "worship" of the bible. It's how the church looks at the rest of the world outside of its stained-glass walls. There is this air of perfection required for God to accept you. That is not what is spoken, but that is the attitude. There is a focus on the depravity of the world outside of the church, and that focus helps to solidify the "we have overcome" persona the church claims. Unfortunately, it is THIS attitude that keeps many outside of the church from wanting anything to do WITH the church.
 
As my wife and I chatted (over some awesome chocolate-meringue pie), I realized that I had changed a lot. She used to shut down during conversations, because she was afraid that what she would say would seriously conflict with my belief structure. Now she says that has changed. I've become more tolerant. I've become more accepting. I've become less . . . religious.
 
In a sense, I would like to think I've become MORE Christ like. Jesus would not hesitate to eat with sinners. He would even occasionally invite Himself over to a sinner's house for lunch. He was tolerant. He was accepting of those "outside". He never made it seem one had to clean up their act BEFORE He would accept them. He was not religious.
 
The pastor mentioned that the pronouns in the passage he referred to (in Genesis) were plural ("Us" and "Our"), showing that the godhead was relational. As I've written a few times previously, if you look at the overall story of the bible, God is a relational god. Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship. We have gone and made it into a religion. What is religion? Religion, at its root form, means "to strangle".
 
So, "Where do I go from here?" Do I give my "home" church one more shot? Do I, instead, continue to attend the way I did in the sabbatical (making a graceful exit at the "meet and greet")? Or do I make the decision to "cut bait"? Is it the whole idea of church, or the idea of this PARTICULAR church?
 
I told my wife that I had this fear, that if I left my "home" church, without having another place to go, I would find that I would stop believing all together. She doesn't think that would happen. My beliefs have transitioned over this period, not waned. Like REM, maybe I'm just "Losing My Religion".
 
There is the chance, that if I walk away from my "home" church, that I will never again find myself in a worship (music) team. And would I be okay with that?
 
You know what? I think I am.
 
© Emittravel 2015

The Holy Quartet

I fall into the Trinitarian viewpoint concerning God. Discussions of the Trinity have a tendency to either create deep conversations, or a glazed panic to fall over an individual's eyes. Not surprising, as the idea of a triune Godhead fills some folks with complete bewilderment.

Putting it simply, the basic viewpoint of the Trinity is one God represented in three separate and distinct individuals. Not three separate gods. One God, but three representations. You have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost), all functioning in three different roles, but as one entity.

I think the best explanation I've ever heard was the simplest, and it came from a comedian named Mike Warnke. He said that understanding the Trinity was as simple as cherry pie. Now, a good cherry pie is runny in the middle, with a light and flaky crust on top. If you have ever had such a pie, you know that if you try to remove a slice, you have to WHIP the piece from the pie pan to your plate, or the filling falls out. Now, take a freshly-made cherry pie, take a knife, and make three slices - or, slice the pie into three pieces. When you look at the crust, you can see three separate pieces of pie, but the runny filling inside moves back and becomes essentially one pie inside. Three pieces - one pie. Same with the Godhead. One God, in three separate "pieces". Why? Mike's reasoning was that we finite individuals couldn't swallow that pie whole, so we have to take Him in slices. Simple as cherry pie.

(I love that analogy, though I have to admit: I really don't like cherry pie! Not enough ice cream in the world . . . )

Some Christians have gone beyond the Trinity to the worship of the "Holy Quartet": the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Bible. They have placed the bible on equal footing as God. I've even heard people take "The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it," to the extreme of "The bible says it, and that settles it whether I believe it or not," and that is dangerous. It's "the word of God" this, and "the word of God" that. They put so much emphasis on "the word" that they miss the meaning of it. The "word" is not the bible. The bible does not refer to itself as "the word".

There are two commonly used Greek words for "word" in the New Testament (you know, the part written in Greek): logos - the sum total of God, and rhema - the word of God expressed. Many Christians take the word "logos" to mean the bible. Unfortunately, that is a bit off base.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God. HE was in the beginning WITH God." (John 1:1 NKJV - emphasis mine)

"And the Word became FLESH and dwelt among us, and we beheld HIS glory, the glory as of the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14 NKJV - emphasis mine)

Seems pretty straight forward to me that John was referring to Jesus as "the word", and not the yet-to-be-written-and-compiled-into-a-leather-bound-book known as the bible. The word "word" used is logos. What was the definition? The sum total of God. Jesus is the sum total of God according to John, not the bible. As an exercise, look up the Greek word for "word" when you come across it in the bible. If it is the word logos, substitute it with "Jesus". But be prepared for your bible-worship theology to be shaken.

As I sense my sabbatical drawing to a close, I felt it worthwhile to get at least one more blog written concerning bible worship. I've grappled with "intellectual Christianity" - the impetus for the sabbatical (why I couldn't sit through anymore sermons, for instance) - and have come to the conclusion that it is not necessarily discussions of Christianity or religion, but misplaced worship of the bible in Christianity that has pushed me away. Now I need to determine if I am ready to once again attend church on a regular basis. I've gone back to my "home church" several times as of late, but have left after the worship has taken place (at the beginning our services). I've visited the church of some long-time friends and played with their music team - and have NOT left afterwards (I'm a guest - that would be RUDE!) I find I'm not squirming in my seat as much, but do find I have to focus. I also am trying to not get so disturbed when I hear references made as to the bible's importance. You know, being more "tolerant" of other people's beliefs (even if I disagree with them).

As I have written before, I believe the bible CONTAINS the words of God, but is not of itself THE word of God. That honor belongs to THE word of God: Jesus.

Remember: The Godhead is a trinity. If you want a quartet, go to a barbershop.

© Emittravel 2015

Be Careful WHAT You Worship

Today I went to church. Being a Sunday (the day I'm writing this blog), I'm sure that comes as no surprise to a lot of my readers. But if you have been reading for a while, you know that I've been on a sabbatical for the last several months. I had a lady ask me this morning what church I've been going to, since I haven't been around, and I told her "None. I'm on a sabbatical." That, of course produced a puzzled look, but that's expected. More on the sabbatical later.

I got to the church early. As I was walking from my Jeep to the building, I could hear the music team rehearsing. I found a seat in front, stage right (as a former theater person, "stage right" is the right side of the stage, from the perspective of the actors ON the stage looking out at the audience. Since the stage directions are normally for those ON the stage, this makes sense.). I wanted to be there early enough to be there for the rehearsal. I didn't think I'd have the opportunity to actually join the team; I just wanted to be there and "absorb" as much of the praise and worship as possible.

Outside of a few interruptions of people stopping to say hello and ask where I've been - both during the rehearsal and during the actual music portion of the service - I was able to focus on praising and worshipping God.

For the non-Christian, the terms "praise" and "worship" may be a bit confusing. Simplified, "praise" is the jump/shout/dance/run-about portion of the music. It is usually the part where you are expressing your joy of the one you are praising. "Worship", on the other hand, is usually quieter, more tender, and is an expression of adoration. There are times during worship when one may experience an almost tangible feeling of "presence". Usually, it takes "praise" to shed the stresses of the week, and allow one to open oneself to the possibility of getting close to God.

After the music portion, the minister welcomes newcomers, and then there is a period of fellowship, which I like to call the "meet and greet". This is where everybody goes around hugging and shaking hands. I took this as a good time to make my exit.

The sabbatical started initially as my taking a break from "intellectual Christianity". The church I've belonged to for many years refers to itself as a "Family Church, Charismatic Teaching Center, and a World Outreach". I wanted to make my next sentence "There is a heavy emphasis on the 'Teaching Center'," but that would be in error. The church does do a pretty good job of balancing the three, it's just that the sermons, by default, tend to fall heavy into the teaching portion. And that's where I've had to step away, for the health of my Christianity.

I said "started initially" above. What has happened during these few months is that it has become more defined as an intellectual/spiritual crossroads with what I call "bible worship". This is the practice of holding up the bible as something of EQUAL standing with God. I say this because I did exactly that. When I became a Christian, all those years ago, I not only read the bible, I carried around (and used) a Strong's Concordance (a dictionary containing every word in the bible, its English/Hebrew or Greek definition, and every location in the bible it is used). This sucker is bigger than the New York City Yellow Pages (ask your parents). I followed the Finis Dake philosophy of bible reading: "Take the Bible literally wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Preface, © Copyright 1963 by Finis Jennings Dake)

And I wasn't alone. Most of the Christians I hung around with followed this same "adoration" of the bible. Since it was considered "The Word of God", it was equal to God.

As I've stated in a previous blog, I have come to believe that the bible CONTAINS the Word of God, but is NOT in and of itself THE Word of God. And I don't think I'm alone. Even St. John (the writer of the Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John) stated "I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face." (3 John 13). If John, who was called "the one Jesus loved" in the Gospel of John, and the only one of the twelve at the cross (who got protective guardianship of Jesus' mother) didn't think it valuable enough to WRITE down what he wanted to say (scriptures that are considered holy and inerrant), does it not reason that the bible is not the complete "Word of God"? I mean, weren't those things he did NOT write have equal value to what he DID write?

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (Gospel of John 21:25)

Be careful of what you worship.

© Emittravel 2015

Hey, Babe: Take a Walk on the Quiet Side

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog called "Oh to be Ignorant", where I shared my desire to step back from the painting, stop staring at the brush strokes, and take in the whole "picture" of God. I wanted to share what has happened since, to let you know where that blog has taken me, and the uncertainty of where I'm going.

(If you haven't read "Oh to be Ignorant", please take a moment to read it before going on - it will help you understand what follows.)

My wife described what I've been feeling as "burn out". I think she's right. I'm not burned out on God, though. I’m burned out on the brush strokes - the driveway. To misquote Festus to Paul, "Much learning is driving you mad!" (Acts 26:24b NKJV) This is not something new. One of the symptoms of my burn out has been the complete emptiness I've been experiencing sitting through sermons over the last several months. Yes, I said "several". This is not new to me. Again, the sermons have been of high caliber - perhaps too high.

Last week everything came to a head. When we woke up Sunday morning, I told my wife that I just wanted to skip church. She said we should go - since it was a guest minister. I told her I "knew" what he was going to preach on (it was announced the previous Sunday), and I didn't want to go. We went anyway. After the service she said to me, "Halfway through I realized you were right." As a husband, I find those words don't come very often!!

The topic was "Healing Generational Issues". He pulled passages from Lamentations, Exodus, and Jeremiah (all Old Testament) to show where generational curses (sins of the fathers being passed down to the sons) is both acknowledged and contradicted. He then went on to show how the paradox (his word - used incorrectly I might add) can be reconciled. At one point I pulled up John 9:1-3 (New Testament) on my tablet and showed it to my wife. The passage is a discussion between Jesus and His disciples right after He heals a blind man. They ask him "who sinned? He or his parents?" Jesus replies "Neither!" Which, to me, totally wipes out this guy's total sermon. Also, not only does the passage contradict his entire sermon, there is no instance - that I've seen - where Jesus breaks a generational "curse".

He also brought up the "value" of praying in "The name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth Who came in the flesh". In other words, praying in the name of Jesus was not sufficient for this type of prayer. I concluded that this guy was a moron. So much for the value of a minister who has the title "Dr." in front of his name. Besides, I heard this kind of "preaching" back in the 1990s. We were right back to the Name-it-Claim-it-You-can-have-what-you-say-Positive-Speaking baloney that was so prevalent back then.

I spent the rest of the sermon catching up my journal - trying to ignore the blather.

During breakfast (a common thing for my wife and I to do after church) we had the discussion that culminated in a decision. A decision that some of my church friends may not agree with. I decided that I needed to take a break from church. Not God. Church. We call it taking a "sabbatical". I'm not church hopping. At this point I have no expectation of permanently leaving the church I attend. I just have no intention of attending ANY church. I will miss worshipping God in church - since I have NO qualms concerning the praising of God. I just can't go from worship-to-the-offering-to-the-car in good conscience.

I needed to tell someone at the church my decision. I didn't want to be one of those people that you suddenly realized disappeared - you know the ones, where you really can't remember the last time you saw them. And since I've been a member of the worship team for a long time, it was prudent that I told someone in leadership. I contacted the person who has led the worship team, the person I've been able to share concerns with over the years, and met him for dinner. He said that he understood my decision, said we needed to keep in communication (a.k.a. "accountability"), and that he would let the rest of the church staff know.

After dinner we went to the church - he went to make sure it was unlocked. I wanted to remove all of my equipment. There are too many idle hands that mess with things that aren't theirs. I packed up my Jeep, turned off the lights in the sanctuary (with a quick prayer) and went home.

And it's done. How long will this sabbatical last? I have no idea. I know that I'm going to do my best to step back and get as far away from the brush strokes as I can.

If anyone asks, tell them I'm taking a walk on the quiet side.

© Emittravel 2014

Stuff My Brain Says #69

Went to Mass with my wife and her family. According to the Church calendar, it was the "Feast of the Holy Family".

The priest made a comment during his homily (Cliff Note Sermon), when he was talking about the differences between our families and the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph), that actually made me chuckle out loud. I tried to keep it down, but Lisa noticed. He mentioned the mystery of Jesus being conceived miraculously in Mary's womb, and Mary being conceived miraculously in her mother's womb. Okay, Jesus' conception was miraculous. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit overshadowing the (at the time) Virgin Mary. But to say something similar happened to Mary was hysterical to me.

(NOTE: Please understand that this is based on one comment during a 15-minute or so sermon. The rest of it was beautiful, honest, heart-warming, and challenging to us the listeners. It was a terrific sermon by a man who obviously loves God and His people.}

See, the Catholic Church has deemed that Mary is "ever virgin". She was the mother of God, and therefore HAD to be sinless in order to carry Jesus. The problem with that is that in order for Mary to be born sinless, HER mother had to be born sinless, and HER mother before her, all the way to Eve. She never consummated her marriage to Joseph (which means they lived in sin, doesn't it?!?) so she was "ever virgin". Something that powerful should be pretty clear in scripture. It's not. No where do you find a passage that tells of an angel coming to Mary's mother and telling her, "Behold, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the child that will be conceived will be the mother of God, who will have the Holy Spirit come upon HER, so that the child SHE conceives will be Christ the Lord." If the account of John the Baptist's conception/birth would take so much ink, you'd think something as important as Mary's conception would ALSO warrant a few lines of scripture.

Mary was a young girl, never having known a man, when the Holy Spirit came upon her. Because of this conception, Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. If Mary was conceived similarly, SHE would be 100% God and 100% man as well. That is not true. She herself said that she was in need of a savior. Jesus, on the other hand, did not. She was also not "ever virgin". She gave birth to her "first-born" child. To say "first-born" denotes at least a "second-born". Secondly, later in the gospels it is told of Jesus' brothers and sisters (the word used does NOT translate as "cousin"). And finally, it's difficult to believe that God would want Mary and Joseph to never consummate their relationship.

I understand why the Catholic Church came up with this: it was in response to the concept that if Jesus was born of sinful flesh, He Himself would be born with sin. But the solution given doesn't hold water (referring to Mary's whole lineage needing to be sinless).

I'm surprised that nobody even presented this argument at the time.

Or, maybe someone did. People died over "heresy" often back in the day. ;-)

© Emittravel 2013

A Little Christmas Cheer

We just finished performing our third annual dinner theater at the church I attend. One of the "bits" was a parody of a classic Christmas song. We performed it at one of our recent church services for the congregation (so you KNOW it is family-friendly) and it was captured on video. The parody lyrics were written by my dear friend, Jim Toncar. Also filling in vocals with Jim are Ruben Roman, Scott Mintz, and Dave Hasse. I'm the hairless guy doing the lead.

Being that I've only written two Christmas poems over the years, I thought I would share this instead:

Merry Christmas!

-j.p.

© Emittravel 2012

Ptolemy Syndrome

Long before Copernicus discovered that the earth revolved around the sun, Ptolemy believed and taught that everything revolved around the earth. The earth was considered the center of the universe. As a matter of fact, Copernicus got in a lot of trouble with the Catholic Church because of his discovery. Some people just have difficulty believing that the universe does NOT revolve around THEM. I'm sure you have met a few of these in your time. Below are just a few that I thought of. I'd love to hear others - feel free to post them to this blog. Maybe people will be enlightened . . . like Copernicus . . .

People  who can't count in a 12 Items or Fewer line.

Men who think they have better aim than they do, and leave the toilet seat down.

People who use the Entrance as an Exit of a parking lot.

Texting while driving.

Taking the last cup of coffee out of the pot and leaving the empty one on the burner to burn - or better yet, not making another pot for somebody after them.

Those people who travel down the lane that is ending so that they can merge at the front of the line, thereby causing a traffic jam.

People who take two parking spaces.

People who don't use those really convenient shopping cart collectors in parking lots and just leave the cart in an empty space. You know, the space you were about to pull into.

Those individuals who pull out in front of you and then travel about ten miles below the speed limit.

Line cutters.

People who refuse to use the crosswalk buttons/signals, and walk on the "don't walk" - making the traffic wait for them.

Those individuals who drive with their high beams on, even when approaching on-coming traffic.

People using their electronic devices on a plane before they are allowed to.

Two-year olds. Enough said.

Those who come to Mass and make a bee-line to the exit immediately after communion. I mean, this is God's house. Would you go to someone's house and have dinner, and leave before dessert? That's kind of rude.

People who walk around stores and leave things in various places, because they decided they didn't want to buy them, instead of putting them back where they came from.

People who change the diaper of their child inside their car, and leave the dirty diaper on the ground in the middle of the parking lot.

Did I mention the non-use of turn signals?

Those who throw trash out of their car, when they are only twenty feet from a trash can. (See the diaper comment above . . . )

People who believe that their opinion is right over everybody else, and everybody has a right to their opinion. Oh wait a minute, that one is me.

© Emittravel 2012