I was watching a YouTube video of a science series that I enjoy. The female host does a wonderful job of explaining current happenings with intelligence and flair. And as an added bonus, she has an accent (I know, we all have accents, but hers isn't mine), which makes listening even that much more enjoyable.
On this particular episode, she was reading some of the YouTube "hate mail" she has received. Why? To show us, her audience, what kind of morons are out there. Very little of what she read dealt with the content of her videos. There were a few, but no one provided any form of opposing viewpoint: just vitriol. The comments were of a very hateful and personal nature.
What surprised me the most was NOT the flagrant use of the "F" word (you know the one: rhymes with "truck"). Nor was it the use of the "C" word (that one rhymes with "hunt"). It was that the "C" word was "bleeped", whereas the "F" word (and about every other known swear word) was used outright. (I'm reminded of a comment by the comedian Lewis Black: "You might think I use the word f*** a lot. Well, I don't give a s***. I'm from New York, and in New York "f***" is not a swear word; it's a comma!")
Which brings me to the point: the "C" word has become the new "F" word. Maybe we as a society have become so desensitized to the "F" word that we no longer find it offensive. My question is, why are any words still considered offensive? In a society of openness and acceptance (okay, maybe not across the board, but it's getting closer), should anything anyone says be considered offensive? Doesn't it fall more upon the hearers than the speakers? And if so, doesn't that say something about the attitudes of the hearers?
I could get all sensitive at this point and cry out against the fall of culture, but frankly, I really don't give a f***.
© Emittravel 2014
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Monday, April 14, 2014
Ashamed to Be a Christian
I've come to the point in my life where I have to declare that I'm ashamed to be a Christian.
I was listening to a podcast where a well-known astrophysicist was talking about Copernicus, and how he had moved the sun into the center of the universe, and how this was heresy, because the Bible declares that the earth is the center of the universe. Now, he wasn't considering Copernicus' viewpoint as heresy, the Church was. Since this astrophysicist is well known, a lot of people who listen to him will go away with the same viewpoint: the Bible is an archaic book that is scientifically flawed, and Christians who claim the Bible to be without error are flawed as well.
I've read the Bible through a number of times. I've read the King James Version (more times than I can remember), The Living Bible, The New King James Version, Youngs Literal Translation, the Douay-Rheims Version, the Modern King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Weymouth New Testament, the Voice in the Wilderness Bible, the Amplified Bible, and am currently reading the Darby translation. I've been a devout Catholic, been in the Charismatic movement, the Word and Faith movement, and the Prosperity movement. All that and I've come to the realization that I'm ashamed to be a Christian. Am I ashamed of Jesus the Christ? No! I'm ashamed of Christians.
Christians have done more to push the world away from Jesus than anything the world can come up with on its own. Christians have taken the Bible to be this inerrant book that has ALL of the answers to life within its pages, and have trumpeted it to the world. Really? All you need to do is watch the recent "debate" between Bill Nye (the Science Guy) and Ken Ham (young-earth Creationist), and to read about current "trends" in Christianity (like "Grave Sucking"), to find yourself trying to remove the fish from the back of your car.
I will go into a lot more detail in an upcoming post called "Science is the Answer. What's Your Question?", but to touch on at least one point:
The Bible is best viewed from the 5,000 foot level. When looked at from this vantage point, you see what the overarching topic of the Bible is: God's relationship to Man, and Man's relationship to God. The problems come when we find ourselves dissecting every verse and creating doctrines out of them.
Let's take the "creation" account in Genesis. Again, I will go into much greater detail in "Science is the Answer … ". Do you really think God was trying to get across a detailed description of how everything started so we would understand the intricacies of the universe? Go up to the 5,000 foot level. From that vantage point you see that the "creation" account is to give Man a starting point to the relationship - a rough synopsis, if you will.
Look at this example: "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.' - Genesis 1:14-17 (NKJV) Let me ask you: what was the greater and lesser lights? Think about it. Take your time. I'll wait. I've been taught that the greater light was the sun (to light the day) and that the lesser light was the moon (to light the night) - and the stars are referenced separately. Think about this: The sun is the greater light for the day. The sun actually PRODUCES light. The moon is the lesser light for the night. The moon DOES NOT PRODUCE light - it only REFLECTS that from the sun. And besides that, when the moon is in the New Moon phase, there is NO light reflected - there is NO light for the night. So, either God was wrong, or the Bible was not trying to lay down scientific explanations.
The passage above does reference time and seasons, but no details are given. Why? "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2 (NKJV) God WANTS us to explore and understand. He gave us the very intellects, and hunger to know, to search out His creation. The Bible says that all creation shows forth the glory of God. That is ALL creation: from the micro to the macro. God does not give details concerning the speed of light, neutrinos, the atom, or the cell in the Bible. He DID give us the tools (brains) to seek those things out. Like a parent watching their child open a gift at Christmas, the joy for the parent is not the gift, but it is in the discovery FOR their child.
The Bible is NOT a scientific treatise with detailed information on the universe. It is a relational book first and foremost. If you parse it too much, guarantee you will find yourself in grave-sucking error!
I've heard it said that you should always look at scripture in the context in which it was written. Again, look at the scripture from the 5,000 foot view and see if it lines up with the overarching story. If it doesn't, you may not be lined up with what God is trying to tell us.
So, please, if you are a Christian, STOP giving the world excuses. I, for one, do not want to be the reason someone does not get to know Him.
© Emittravel 2014
I was listening to a podcast where a well-known astrophysicist was talking about Copernicus, and how he had moved the sun into the center of the universe, and how this was heresy, because the Bible declares that the earth is the center of the universe. Now, he wasn't considering Copernicus' viewpoint as heresy, the Church was. Since this astrophysicist is well known, a lot of people who listen to him will go away with the same viewpoint: the Bible is an archaic book that is scientifically flawed, and Christians who claim the Bible to be without error are flawed as well.
I've read the Bible through a number of times. I've read the King James Version (more times than I can remember), The Living Bible, The New King James Version, Youngs Literal Translation, the Douay-Rheims Version, the Modern King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Weymouth New Testament, the Voice in the Wilderness Bible, the Amplified Bible, and am currently reading the Darby translation. I've been a devout Catholic, been in the Charismatic movement, the Word and Faith movement, and the Prosperity movement. All that and I've come to the realization that I'm ashamed to be a Christian. Am I ashamed of Jesus the Christ? No! I'm ashamed of Christians.
Christians have done more to push the world away from Jesus than anything the world can come up with on its own. Christians have taken the Bible to be this inerrant book that has ALL of the answers to life within its pages, and have trumpeted it to the world. Really? All you need to do is watch the recent "debate" between Bill Nye (the Science Guy) and Ken Ham (young-earth Creationist), and to read about current "trends" in Christianity (like "Grave Sucking"), to find yourself trying to remove the fish from the back of your car.
I will go into a lot more detail in an upcoming post called "Science is the Answer. What's Your Question?", but to touch on at least one point:
The Bible is best viewed from the 5,000 foot level. When looked at from this vantage point, you see what the overarching topic of the Bible is: God's relationship to Man, and Man's relationship to God. The problems come when we find ourselves dissecting every verse and creating doctrines out of them.
Let's take the "creation" account in Genesis. Again, I will go into much greater detail in "Science is the Answer … ". Do you really think God was trying to get across a detailed description of how everything started so we would understand the intricacies of the universe? Go up to the 5,000 foot level. From that vantage point you see that the "creation" account is to give Man a starting point to the relationship - a rough synopsis, if you will.
Look at this example: "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.' - Genesis 1:14-17 (NKJV) Let me ask you: what was the greater and lesser lights? Think about it. Take your time. I'll wait. I've been taught that the greater light was the sun (to light the day) and that the lesser light was the moon (to light the night) - and the stars are referenced separately. Think about this: The sun is the greater light for the day. The sun actually PRODUCES light. The moon is the lesser light for the night. The moon DOES NOT PRODUCE light - it only REFLECTS that from the sun. And besides that, when the moon is in the New Moon phase, there is NO light reflected - there is NO light for the night. So, either God was wrong, or the Bible was not trying to lay down scientific explanations.
The passage above does reference time and seasons, but no details are given. Why? "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2 (NKJV) God WANTS us to explore and understand. He gave us the very intellects, and hunger to know, to search out His creation. The Bible says that all creation shows forth the glory of God. That is ALL creation: from the micro to the macro. God does not give details concerning the speed of light, neutrinos, the atom, or the cell in the Bible. He DID give us the tools (brains) to seek those things out. Like a parent watching their child open a gift at Christmas, the joy for the parent is not the gift, but it is in the discovery FOR their child.
The Bible is NOT a scientific treatise with detailed information on the universe. It is a relational book first and foremost. If you parse it too much, guarantee you will find yourself in grave-sucking error!
I've heard it said that you should always look at scripture in the context in which it was written. Again, look at the scripture from the 5,000 foot view and see if it lines up with the overarching story. If it doesn't, you may not be lined up with what God is trying to tell us.
So, please, if you are a Christian, STOP giving the world excuses. I, for one, do not want to be the reason someone does not get to know Him.
© Emittravel 2014
Friday, March 21, 2014
Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar
I remember being in Mrs. Taylor’s English class back in the tenth grade. One of the things we covered in the class was a read through/study of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Scarlet Letter”.
When I was a kid, I was an avid reader. I read far more back then than I do now – I’m ashamed to admit. One thing I’ve never been good at: read more than one book at a time. Today I do read blogs, magazines, and the bible, and have no issue reading all of them at the same time. But I only read one book at a time. I think this falls more so into fiction than nonfiction reading. I can only really grasp one STORY at a time.
When I started Mrs. Taylor’s class, I asked her if she would give me a week or two notice before we were to start “The Scarlet Letter”, to give me time to finish the current book and hold off on the next one. And that she did. She was a good teacher.
The issue I found when we got into “The Scarlet Letter”, was something that has since framed how I look at a lot of literature – and that includes such things as the bible. During the class, Mrs. Taylor kept trying to get us to understand what Nathaniel Hawthorne MEANT when he wrote certain passages. The overall book was full of nuanced social and political issues that he apparently was trying to address.
My opinion of “The Scarlet Letter”? Nathaniel Hawthorne was trying to make a buck! That’s it. Nothing more. Sure, there were cultural things around him that affected how/what he wrote, but how in the world could we understand what he MEANT? He didn’t leave us a commentary track on the DVD (or whatever).
When I read devotionals and listen to various preachers talk about certain passages, sometimes their idea is to pull out some nugget of information that has never been addressed before, and help you see more of what God MEANT when a passage was written. They take a verse from this book of the bible and connect it to that book of the bible and try to convey something about something.
You know what? The bible is a giant story of the relationship of God to mankind, and mankind to God. That’s pretty much it. Sure there are cool things like prophecies that we see fulfilled (AFTER the fact – nobody caught the meaning of the prophecies WHEN they were given), but most of it is a collection of stories showing how mankind – full of flaws – is loved by a God without any.
Sometimes a story is just a story. Yes, there are lessons to be gained, but sometimes a story is just a story. And that’s okay.
© Emittravel 2014
When I was a kid, I was an avid reader. I read far more back then than I do now – I’m ashamed to admit. One thing I’ve never been good at: read more than one book at a time. Today I do read blogs, magazines, and the bible, and have no issue reading all of them at the same time. But I only read one book at a time. I think this falls more so into fiction than nonfiction reading. I can only really grasp one STORY at a time.
When I started Mrs. Taylor’s class, I asked her if she would give me a week or two notice before we were to start “The Scarlet Letter”, to give me time to finish the current book and hold off on the next one. And that she did. She was a good teacher.
The issue I found when we got into “The Scarlet Letter”, was something that has since framed how I look at a lot of literature – and that includes such things as the bible. During the class, Mrs. Taylor kept trying to get us to understand what Nathaniel Hawthorne MEANT when he wrote certain passages. The overall book was full of nuanced social and political issues that he apparently was trying to address.
My opinion of “The Scarlet Letter”? Nathaniel Hawthorne was trying to make a buck! That’s it. Nothing more. Sure, there were cultural things around him that affected how/what he wrote, but how in the world could we understand what he MEANT? He didn’t leave us a commentary track on the DVD (or whatever).
When I read devotionals and listen to various preachers talk about certain passages, sometimes their idea is to pull out some nugget of information that has never been addressed before, and help you see more of what God MEANT when a passage was written. They take a verse from this book of the bible and connect it to that book of the bible and try to convey something about something.
You know what? The bible is a giant story of the relationship of God to mankind, and mankind to God. That’s pretty much it. Sure there are cool things like prophecies that we see fulfilled (AFTER the fact – nobody caught the meaning of the prophecies WHEN they were given), but most of it is a collection of stories showing how mankind – full of flaws – is loved by a God without any.
Sometimes a story is just a story. Yes, there are lessons to be gained, but sometimes a story is just a story. And that’s okay.
© Emittravel 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Stuff My Brain Says #70
I really have no problem with "the theory of evolution". I do, however, have a significant problem with "evolution". Many of the podcasts I listen to that deal with science, and even the recent "Cosmos" incarnation, refer to "evolution". What they (knowingly?) forget, is that "evolution" is not a proven fact. By dropping "the theory of" they propagate false information, and present something that is ONLY a theory as something more.
Remember this when someone says that "creation" should not be taught in schools because it is not a proven fact.
Remember this when someone says that "creation" should not be taught in schools because it is not a proven fact.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
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
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
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Christmas Morn
A gift to my readers, and especially to my biggest fan - my darling wife Lisa. Merry Christmas!
Early morning whispers of snow touched trees
Gentle breezes make soft blankets dance
Ghosts in sunlight twirling through branches
The quiet lingering
Inside you lay sleeping still floating in dream
Curled under covers of flannel and fleece
Gone is the hurried preparedness brings
The silence enveloping
The moment too perfect to shatter with speech
The rays through the window gracing your cheek
Moving ever closer the embrace to extend
The stillness breathing
Christmas morn
J.P. Wiegand
© Emittravel 2013
Early morning whispers of snow touched trees
Gentle breezes make soft blankets dance
Ghosts in sunlight twirling through branches
The quiet lingering
Inside you lay sleeping still floating in dream
Curled under covers of flannel and fleece
Gone is the hurried preparedness brings
The silence enveloping
The moment too perfect to shatter with speech
The rays through the window gracing your cheek
Moving ever closer the embrace to extend
The stillness breathing
Christmas morn
J.P. Wiegand
© Emittravel 2013
Saturday, November 2, 2013
The Cleveland Tans
In 1945, Arthur McBride founded the Cleveland Browns - named after Paul Brown, the first head coach of the team. They were part of the AAFC (All-American Football Conference), where they won a championship in each of the four years of the league's existence. Later to become a member of the NFL (do I really have to tell you what "NFL" means?!?), where they won a number of championships in the early years, and made the playoffs a total of fourteen times.
In 1995, Art Modell, then owner of the Browns, moved the team to Baltimore, where they became the Ravens. This put the Browns on a hiatus for a few years, resuming in 1999.
On October 3, 2013, former Cleveland Browns running back Jim Brown, a member of the Football Hall of Fame, was honored during the halftime show between the Browns and the Buffalo Bills at Cleveland's First Energy Stadium. It was an emotional event, and rightfully so. Only one problem: the wrong team was giving him honor.
Like I said above, in 1995, Art Modell moved the team to Baltimore. Not only did he move the team, but he moved the history as well. A football team's history is an amalgamation of players and staff coming and going throughout the years. When the Browns moved to Baltimore, the history of that team, the players current and former, the coaching and support staff over all of those years, went with it. Jim Brown's famous career went with it. When the Browns started up again in 1999, THEY STARTED ALL OVER. Out with Bill Belichick, in with Chris Palmer. Hell, we can even go as far as saying out with the Cleveland Municipal Stadium, in with Cleveland Browns Stadium (now First Energy Stadium).
The only history today's Cleveland Browns can look back to starts in 1999. The Baltimore Ravens? They can look all the way back to 1945 and Paul Brown. The old Browns/Steelers rivalry? In Baltimore. We can have a "new" one if we want, but it's not the same.
For me? I call them the "Cleveland Tans", because they haven't earned the color yet. I'm still rooting for them, and to eliminate confusion I'm still calling myself a "Brown's fan". Though after the above, you too now know what I mean by that.
(On a side note: Whenever Cleveland and Baltimore play against each other, can it be said that the Browns are "playing with themselves"?)
© Emittravel 2013
In 1995, Art Modell, then owner of the Browns, moved the team to Baltimore, where they became the Ravens. This put the Browns on a hiatus for a few years, resuming in 1999.
On October 3, 2013, former Cleveland Browns running back Jim Brown, a member of the Football Hall of Fame, was honored during the halftime show between the Browns and the Buffalo Bills at Cleveland's First Energy Stadium. It was an emotional event, and rightfully so. Only one problem: the wrong team was giving him honor.
Like I said above, in 1995, Art Modell moved the team to Baltimore. Not only did he move the team, but he moved the history as well. A football team's history is an amalgamation of players and staff coming and going throughout the years. When the Browns moved to Baltimore, the history of that team, the players current and former, the coaching and support staff over all of those years, went with it. Jim Brown's famous career went with it. When the Browns started up again in 1999, THEY STARTED ALL OVER. Out with Bill Belichick, in with Chris Palmer. Hell, we can even go as far as saying out with the Cleveland Municipal Stadium, in with Cleveland Browns Stadium (now First Energy Stadium).
The only history today's Cleveland Browns can look back to starts in 1999. The Baltimore Ravens? They can look all the way back to 1945 and Paul Brown. The old Browns/Steelers rivalry? In Baltimore. We can have a "new" one if we want, but it's not the same.
For me? I call them the "Cleveland Tans", because they haven't earned the color yet. I'm still rooting for them, and to eliminate confusion I'm still calling myself a "Brown's fan". Though after the above, you too now know what I mean by that.
(On a side note: Whenever Cleveland and Baltimore play against each other, can it be said that the Browns are "playing with themselves"?)
© Emittravel 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)