Well, despite what many people believed, foretold, and promoted, I'm still here to be unable to sleep even in light of the fact that I will be leaving for camp in five hours. I must personally confess myself disappointed. I was told that the rapture would come and I haven't seen a single dinosaur all day!!!
All kidding aside, though, I can't help but feel sorry for those that believed this was going to happen. One of two things has to be going through their minds right now. Either they are extremely embarrassed and disappointed that they were wrong, or they are a little concerned. Think about it, if they still believe Christ came back today and brought all true believers with him to heaven, their continued presence on Earth would suggest that they were left behind. Either way, that's some faith-shattering stuff!
I once read a quote from Martin Luther saying something along the lines of, "reason is the devil's whore." This is one of many points of contention I have with Luther. Sometimes reason is an important and powerful tool. Prime example: the rapture.
I finally heard how this guy came to his conclusion. Basically he rectally derived several numbers, multiplied them together, and squared the result. He then came to the conclusion that that was the number of days since Jesus's crucifixion until his return. He also somehow found out that Jesus was crucified on April 1, 33. I suspect that this date was also rectally derived.
Whether the rapture happened or not and whether or not the apocalypse has begun (in which case we are all doomed to endure about five months of pain and suffering before the world actually ends), I will be departing for camp in a few hours. In light of the lack of internet availability, my blog will be becoming a weekly updated event. My current plan is to update my blog at least once on the weekends.
If the apocalypse has begun, good luck to you all. If you see or hear word of zombies, I highly recommend you head south. Canadians have been waiting for the zombiepocalypse for years. They are cold heartless monsters with no regard for human life who have been lulling us into a false sense of security with their cute little "eh"s and funny accents. ;)
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Music of the Curls
Has your mind ever been so full of ideas that you can't seem to get it to focus on any one thing? That's kinda how my mind has been this week. However, in the interest of giving you something interesting to look at, here's a song list I've been working on. You don't have to listen to them all, but I think it's an AMAZING playlist. These are some of my absolute favorite songs ever:
Yes, I chose the "Mamma Mia!" version of "SOS". Yes, I realize Pierce Brosnan is not the greatest singer mankind has ever been blessed with, but I think his style really fits the song and I like this version significantly more than the original Abba version. I think the male voice adds a lot.
With regards to #8, if you're offended by "bad" words, I'm sorry, but get over it. There's no reason why certain words are bad and certain words aren't and anyone who tells you differently you can send to argue with me. That's one of my favorite debates to have (which I will likely post about on here some day).
If you're surprised at all by "Big Yellow Taxi" being on here, you haven't been paying much attention to my posts over the last couple of weeks.
And, of course, no great playlist would be complete without the appearance of at least one Disney song. Hence, the appearance of "Can I Have This Dance" (which is possibly the only song that can make me cry) and "Why Should I Worry" (which just makes me want to get up and dance around).
While I'm sitting here with the subject just staring me in the face, I'm gonna take a stab at a requested topic brought to you by my bestest friend. Here's a song you should listen to to set the mood:
Terry will also tell you that there are several bands he hates because of some style problems. These style problems include at least one band that he hates because they completely changed their style in order to become more popular and make more money and at least one band that he hates because they play several different styles of music. Both of these style problems are absolutely WRONG as far as I'm concerned and are an insult to professional musicians as a whole.
Hating on the group that can't choose a style is easy to argue against. They don't fit a mold, but if they are making it that way, they appeal to a larger audience and prove themselves to be better musicians. DUH!
Changing your style in order to make more money is often called selling out. This has some very negative connotations thanks to people like HipsTerry. As far as I'm concerned, "selling out" is simply a negative phrase for adapting. As I have ranted about with the church, everything and everyone must adapt to the ever changing world.
If you want to make it as a "rockstar", you're gonna have to do the same as they do in every entertainment industry: fit what people want. I'm sorry to tell you, if you want to be completely 100% true to your artistic style, there is a good chance you will never make it in the entertainment industry. The public is so fickle that until you have made it big and are a household name, you cannot do whatever you want and have enough people like it to make a living. I'm sorry. It simply won't happen.
If you want to remain completely 100% committed to yourself and the type of music you love, music will only ever be a hobby. You probably won't make it. That's fine. Music is a great hobby, but the truth is you cannot make it without "selling out".
I'm really quite afraid to think about the philosophical ramifications of that last statement.
Are you willing the sell out or are you simply interested in a hobby?
- "Haven't Met You Yet" - Michael Bublé
- "Handlebars" - Flobots
- "Good Morning" - Chamillionaire
- "Just Dance" - Lady Gaga
- "SOS" - Mamma Mia!
- "I Don't Wanna Be In Love" - Good Charlotte
- "Don't Stop Believing" - Journey
- "[AHEM] Off Song" - Reel Big Fish
- "Thanks For the Memories" - Fall Out Boy
- "Can I Have This Dance" - High School Musical
- "Forget You" - Cee Lo Green
- "The Middle" - Jimmy Eat World
- "Take A Chance On Me" - Abba
- "Big Yellow Taxi" - Counting Crows
- "Shake It" - Metro Station
- "Pray For You" - Jaron and the Long Road to Love
- "Drops of Jupiter" - Train
- "Why Should I Worry" - Oliver and Company
- "Harder to Breathe" - Maroon 5
- "Billionaire" - Travie McCoy
- "Everytime We Touch" - Cascada
Yes, I chose the "Mamma Mia!" version of "SOS". Yes, I realize Pierce Brosnan is not the greatest singer mankind has ever been blessed with, but I think his style really fits the song and I like this version significantly more than the original Abba version. I think the male voice adds a lot.
With regards to #8, if you're offended by "bad" words, I'm sorry, but get over it. There's no reason why certain words are bad and certain words aren't and anyone who tells you differently you can send to argue with me. That's one of my favorite debates to have (which I will likely post about on here some day).
If you're surprised at all by "Big Yellow Taxi" being on here, you haven't been paying much attention to my posts over the last couple of weeks.
And, of course, no great playlist would be complete without the appearance of at least one Disney song. Hence, the appearance of "Can I Have This Dance" (which is possibly the only song that can make me cry) and "Why Should I Worry" (which just makes me want to get up and dance around).
While I'm sitting here with the subject just staring me in the face, I'm gonna take a stab at a requested topic brought to you by my bestest friend. Here's a song you should listen to to set the mood:
"Sell Out" - Reel Big FishHaving spent a lot of time around people that could effectively be labeled "hipsters" (i.e. they think things are better simply because other people have not discovered them), I have heard much hate for the "mainstream". HipsTerry (my archnemesis of the music genre) will tell you that all mainstream music sounds the same. Basically, if everyone likes it, it's not original.
Terry will also tell you that there are several bands he hates because of some style problems. These style problems include at least one band that he hates because they completely changed their style in order to become more popular and make more money and at least one band that he hates because they play several different styles of music. Both of these style problems are absolutely WRONG as far as I'm concerned and are an insult to professional musicians as a whole.
Hating on the group that can't choose a style is easy to argue against. They don't fit a mold, but if they are making it that way, they appeal to a larger audience and prove themselves to be better musicians. DUH!
Changing your style in order to make more money is often called selling out. This has some very negative connotations thanks to people like HipsTerry. As far as I'm concerned, "selling out" is simply a negative phrase for adapting. As I have ranted about with the church, everything and everyone must adapt to the ever changing world.
If you want to make it as a "rockstar", you're gonna have to do the same as they do in every entertainment industry: fit what people want. I'm sorry to tell you, if you want to be completely 100% true to your artistic style, there is a good chance you will never make it in the entertainment industry. The public is so fickle that until you have made it big and are a household name, you cannot do whatever you want and have enough people like it to make a living. I'm sorry. It simply won't happen.
If you want to remain completely 100% committed to yourself and the type of music you love, music will only ever be a hobby. You probably won't make it. That's fine. Music is a great hobby, but the truth is you cannot make it without "selling out".
I'm really quite afraid to think about the philosophical ramifications of that last statement.
Are you willing the sell out or are you simply interested in a hobby?
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Paradise for a Parking Lot
Ok guys, here's the deal. I'm leaving for camp in a week. This week is already stressing me out, so I can't make any promises about when I'll get out the second part of "Rehumanizing the Christ". I'll try to slip in a few insightful thoughts here and there throughout the next week but I can't make any promises.
In the wake of my preparations for camp, however, something came up.
I was trying to plan out when I was going to spend time with certain people before I leave. As I was talking this out with my mom, she pointed out that one of the people I was trying desperately to make time with, I haven't really been particularly interesting in spending time with all semester. We laughed about it and pointed out that this is similar to what happens with a lot of people.
As I thought about it some more, I thought about this morning in church. Preach'rman called me and the other guy that's going to camp up to the front to pray over us before we left. He then also asked that we stand at the back of the sanctuary with him and allow everyone else a chance to wish us well. As an interesting side note, our closing hymn was "God Be With You Till We Meet Again". While the people were all leaving and I was hugging all of them, I starting getting rather emotional.
Anyone that knows me very well will tell you that there are not many people in the world that I legitimately miss. I can't honestly say that I think about most of those people from church during the week. I'm sorry if any of you are out there reading this, but that's the truth. However, as all these people were bidding me farewell, I could feel their love so strongly that it really started to get to me.
All this has, of course, reminded me of a song. I've brought it up before, but it just seems WAY too appropriate to pass up:
How often are we sitting in paradise and all we can think about is where we are going to park? How many times in our life are we willing to pave paradise and put up a parking lot?
For me, I have to admit that this last year I have taken the people in my life for granted. I know some of the most wonderful people in the world. They are loving, fun, and just generally good people. I don't know why I haven't made a point of spending more time with all of them. I can tell you, however, that now that I'm not going to have the chance to spend time with them, I'm regretting not having spent more of my life with these absolutely amazing people.
The good thing about this is I haven't paved over my paradise. Rather, I'm just moving from one paradise I've never really fully appreciated to one that I would consider the happiest place on Earth.
What's your paradise? Have you paved over it? If so, can it still be excavated? If not, is there another right across the street you haven't taken the time to dance in yet?
In the wake of my preparations for camp, however, something came up.
I was trying to plan out when I was going to spend time with certain people before I leave. As I was talking this out with my mom, she pointed out that one of the people I was trying desperately to make time with, I haven't really been particularly interesting in spending time with all semester. We laughed about it and pointed out that this is similar to what happens with a lot of people.
As I thought about it some more, I thought about this morning in church. Preach'rman called me and the other guy that's going to camp up to the front to pray over us before we left. He then also asked that we stand at the back of the sanctuary with him and allow everyone else a chance to wish us well. As an interesting side note, our closing hymn was "God Be With You Till We Meet Again". While the people were all leaving and I was hugging all of them, I starting getting rather emotional.
Anyone that knows me very well will tell you that there are not many people in the world that I legitimately miss. I can't honestly say that I think about most of those people from church during the week. I'm sorry if any of you are out there reading this, but that's the truth. However, as all these people were bidding me farewell, I could feel their love so strongly that it really started to get to me.
All this has, of course, reminded me of a song. I've brought it up before, but it just seems WAY too appropriate to pass up:
"Big Yellow Taxi" by Counting CrowsI absolutely LOVE this song. It is wonderful and has such a good message that is so true.
How often are we sitting in paradise and all we can think about is where we are going to park? How many times in our life are we willing to pave paradise and put up a parking lot?
For me, I have to admit that this last year I have taken the people in my life for granted. I know some of the most wonderful people in the world. They are loving, fun, and just generally good people. I don't know why I haven't made a point of spending more time with all of them. I can tell you, however, that now that I'm not going to have the chance to spend time with them, I'm regretting not having spent more of my life with these absolutely amazing people.
The good thing about this is I haven't paved over my paradise. Rather, I'm just moving from one paradise I've never really fully appreciated to one that I would consider the happiest place on Earth.
What's your paradise? Have you paved over it? If so, can it still be excavated? If not, is there another right across the street you haven't taken the time to dance in yet?
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Rehumanizing the Christ Part I
Through the course of time, views tend to change. This applies to everything from relationships to politics to religion to what kind of foods taste good. This is especially true with religion. One of the major examples of this is portrayal of Jesus.
During Jesus life and shortly after his death, he was very much viewed as a man. To the world, he was a man, so for the gospel writers, it was very important to highlight his divine nature. Thus, they wrote their gospels such that Jesus seemed to be more than just a man. They wrote their gospels so that his divine nature shown though bright and clear.
Nowadays, I believe the opposite has happened.
Since for the last two thousand years the only way we have learned of Jesus is through these gospels that were written to highlight his divine nature, I believe the world has managed to lose Jesus' humanity. We as a collective whole have forgotten that Jesus was a man with friends and feelings and jokes and desires. Many people have attempted to do things to highlight his humanity once again (such as the disturbing movie "The Passion of the Christ"), but I don't think many of them have hit the mark.
It's easy to see how Jesus is a man during his passion. The gospels give enough information that you can get that feel just reading them. The problem is finding the human Jesus in the rest of his life. I have made it my personal mission to find as many points of humanity and relatability in the life of Jesus.
One of the first ones I found was with Peter.
In "The Gospel According to Biff", what I consider to be one of the few successful attempts at rehumanizing Jesus, Christopher Moore weaves together a hilarious (somewhat altered) story of Jesus. In his version of the gospel, whenever Jesus walks on the water and asks Peter to join him, Jesus laughs as Peter begins to sink. In this version, Jesus had never expected Peter to also walk on the water, but thought it would be funny to watch him try.
Personally, I love this version of Jesus, but I know other people wouldn't be happy while reading that. Either way, it led me to my first personal humanization of Jesus: nicknames.
Peter was not the "real" name of the disciple of Jesus. His name was actually Simon. Most people will tell you that Jesus "changed his name", but I disagree. The gospels generally tell us that he was CALLED Peter, much the same way Elvis Presley is called the King (i.e. a nickname).
"The Gospel According to Biff" got me thinking that maybe Simon's nickname was not such a deep meaningful name as we have all thought. What if "Peter" came from something else? I personally believe that Peter could not swim. Whatever Jesus' motives were in calling Peter out from the boat to walk on the water with him, Peter's inability to swim would make his stepping out of the boat an even more meaningful act. It also explains where "Peter" came from: he sank like a rock.
My dad as a teenager was given the nickname "Lightning" ironically because he was working too slow. To this day, that is the name he is called by among my mom's family. I like to think that this is how nicknames worked with Jesus too. He gave them as a joke, then they stuck:
Nicknames, however, are just the tip of the iceberg with a rehumanized Jesus. I shall bring more to you later, but for now, consider this:
During Jesus life and shortly after his death, he was very much viewed as a man. To the world, he was a man, so for the gospel writers, it was very important to highlight his divine nature. Thus, they wrote their gospels such that Jesus seemed to be more than just a man. They wrote their gospels so that his divine nature shown though bright and clear.
Nowadays, I believe the opposite has happened.
Since for the last two thousand years the only way we have learned of Jesus is through these gospels that were written to highlight his divine nature, I believe the world has managed to lose Jesus' humanity. We as a collective whole have forgotten that Jesus was a man with friends and feelings and jokes and desires. Many people have attempted to do things to highlight his humanity once again (such as the disturbing movie "The Passion of the Christ"), but I don't think many of them have hit the mark.
It's easy to see how Jesus is a man during his passion. The gospels give enough information that you can get that feel just reading them. The problem is finding the human Jesus in the rest of his life. I have made it my personal mission to find as many points of humanity and relatability in the life of Jesus.
One of the first ones I found was with Peter.
In "The Gospel According to Biff", what I consider to be one of the few successful attempts at rehumanizing Jesus, Christopher Moore weaves together a hilarious (somewhat altered) story of Jesus. In his version of the gospel, whenever Jesus walks on the water and asks Peter to join him, Jesus laughs as Peter begins to sink. In this version, Jesus had never expected Peter to also walk on the water, but thought it would be funny to watch him try.
Personally, I love this version of Jesus, but I know other people wouldn't be happy while reading that. Either way, it led me to my first personal humanization of Jesus: nicknames.
Peter was not the "real" name of the disciple of Jesus. His name was actually Simon. Most people will tell you that Jesus "changed his name", but I disagree. The gospels generally tell us that he was CALLED Peter, much the same way Elvis Presley is called the King (i.e. a nickname).
"The Gospel According to Biff" got me thinking that maybe Simon's nickname was not such a deep meaningful name as we have all thought. What if "Peter" came from something else? I personally believe that Peter could not swim. Whatever Jesus' motives were in calling Peter out from the boat to walk on the water with him, Peter's inability to swim would make his stepping out of the boat an even more meaningful act. It also explains where "Peter" came from: he sank like a rock.
My dad as a teenager was given the nickname "Lightning" ironically because he was working too slow. To this day, that is the name he is called by among my mom's family. I like to think that this is how nicknames worked with Jesus too. He gave them as a joke, then they stuck:
- Peter - originally Simon. Peter means rock. Simon couldn't swim, therefore he sank like a rock.
- The Sons of Thunder - originally James and John. Several times in the gospels, they are shown arguing. Likely this made lots of noise reminiscent to the sounds of thunder.
- The Twin - originally Thomas. Since Judas had to point out Jesus to the guards that arrested him, likely at least one of his disciples looked a lot like him, as if they were twins. Thomas looked almost frighteningly like Jesus and, therefore, was "the Twin".
Nicknames, however, are just the tip of the iceberg with a rehumanized Jesus. I shall bring more to you later, but for now, consider this:
Do you believe God has a sense of humor? If your answer was yes, doesn't that mean Jesus had a sense of humor?With that in mind, reread some passages in the gospel with Jesus as a humorous person, possibly even a practical joker. At the very least, it makes some of the more dull passages a bit more interesting.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
What is Love?
I'm finally done with (stressful) finals!!! After one of the most stressful classes I've ever taken, I'm back from another hiatus.
I completely agree with the idea that the guy is in love with the idea of her. I'm sorry to tell you that a visual component is part of any relationship with someone. Also, if your entire relationship is based on a lie, that's a shaky place to start. It's hard to build on rocky ground.
Here, I'd like to focus on the idea of being in love with an idea.
I will confess that I am currently in love with an idea. There is a girl that I have taken in my mind and idolized, effectively turning her into something that no one could never live up to. She's also a very good friend of mine. For a long time, I believed I was in love with her. I am willing to say that I love her, but I'm now fairly certain I'm not IN love with HER. In my mind, what I'm actually in love with is this person that looks like her and is everything I've ever wanted in a significant other.
To the girl that made the Myspace, shame on you. You have convinced this guy that you are everything he ever wanted and that it is something he can get. You are going to break his heart when he learns the truth. To everyone else, check yourself. Are you actually in love with "that person" or are you in love with what you have made them in your mind?
With the 16-year-old boy, I have one word for you: hormones. At 16, your hormones are still raging and they will lie to you. I give great credit to these two for staying together for six years, but if you've been with that person since the age of ten, how do you know who you are without them? How do you know what you want out of life? This is the biggest problem with kids dating younger and younger. Eventually that means they have to grow up faster, and humans just aren't built for that.
As far as choosing to have a baby together, I can only tell you that that is going to make your life infinitely more difficult. That is a tiny person with a self-destruct button that you are responsible for. You are risking the future welfare of yourself and that child by choosing to bring a baby into an unstable relationship at a young age. A baby will never fix a problem between a couple, though it will likely make it worse.
The last girl, I have to point out that the host was, again, right. Just because you are in love with someone, that doesn't mean they're a good thing for you. The perfect example is abusive relationships. Often times, the abusee is completely in love with the abuser. That doesn't mean they should stay with them.
As far as family approval goes, I know the way most people think. If we're in love, no one should stand in our way. I'm here to tell you that in a healthy and loving family, the people in that family know you better than anyone.
Granted, they can't tell you how you fell about that person, but they can tell you whether or not that person is good for you. If they don't like the person, there's probably a reason for that that has nothing to do with them wanting to ruin your life. That's not even to mention the fact that if you choose to date someone your family is not OK with, you risk forming a rift between you and your family that may never fully heal.
I'm just really fed up with people throwing around the word "love". Yes true love exists. I've seen it. I've felt it. However, saying you are in love with someone should be a bigger deal than people make it out to be. Check yourself first:
As I wrote this, I couldn't help but think about this song: What is Love?
On my drive this evening, I was listening to one of the nightly call-in shows on the radio where people talk about there problems and always make you fell slightly superior in the fact that your life doesn't suck as badly as theirs. There were a few that stuck out to me:- One girl called in talking about how she created a fake Myspace account with a fake name and picture in order to get a guy to "fall in love with [her]". The host attempted to make it abundantly clear to her that this guy was not in love with her but with an idea she had created for him.
- One 16-year-old guy called in talking about his girlfriend of six years. That means they started dating when they were 10. Basically, they decided to have a baby together and then a whole bunch of drama started that's way to crazy for my blog to deal with.
- One girl called in talking about her boyfriend. According to her, she "loves him", but her family does not approve. The host brought up that feelings are not the only thing on which to base a relationship. However you feel about a person, if they aren't good for you, they probably aren't right for you. He said if they don't pass the "dad test", they probably aren't a good guy.
I completely agree with the idea that the guy is in love with the idea of her. I'm sorry to tell you that a visual component is part of any relationship with someone. Also, if your entire relationship is based on a lie, that's a shaky place to start. It's hard to build on rocky ground.
Here, I'd like to focus on the idea of being in love with an idea.
I will confess that I am currently in love with an idea. There is a girl that I have taken in my mind and idolized, effectively turning her into something that no one could never live up to. She's also a very good friend of mine. For a long time, I believed I was in love with her. I am willing to say that I love her, but I'm now fairly certain I'm not IN love with HER. In my mind, what I'm actually in love with is this person that looks like her and is everything I've ever wanted in a significant other.
To the girl that made the Myspace, shame on you. You have convinced this guy that you are everything he ever wanted and that it is something he can get. You are going to break his heart when he learns the truth. To everyone else, check yourself. Are you actually in love with "that person" or are you in love with what you have made them in your mind?
With the 16-year-old boy, I have one word for you: hormones. At 16, your hormones are still raging and they will lie to you. I give great credit to these two for staying together for six years, but if you've been with that person since the age of ten, how do you know who you are without them? How do you know what you want out of life? This is the biggest problem with kids dating younger and younger. Eventually that means they have to grow up faster, and humans just aren't built for that.
As far as choosing to have a baby together, I can only tell you that that is going to make your life infinitely more difficult. That is a tiny person with a self-destruct button that you are responsible for. You are risking the future welfare of yourself and that child by choosing to bring a baby into an unstable relationship at a young age. A baby will never fix a problem between a couple, though it will likely make it worse.
The last girl, I have to point out that the host was, again, right. Just because you are in love with someone, that doesn't mean they're a good thing for you. The perfect example is abusive relationships. Often times, the abusee is completely in love with the abuser. That doesn't mean they should stay with them.
As far as family approval goes, I know the way most people think. If we're in love, no one should stand in our way. I'm here to tell you that in a healthy and loving family, the people in that family know you better than anyone.
Granted, they can't tell you how you fell about that person, but they can tell you whether or not that person is good for you. If they don't like the person, there's probably a reason for that that has nothing to do with them wanting to ruin your life. That's not even to mention the fact that if you choose to date someone your family is not OK with, you risk forming a rift between you and your family that may never fully heal.
I'm just really fed up with people throwing around the word "love". Yes true love exists. I've seen it. I've felt it. However, saying you are in love with someone should be a bigger deal than people make it out to be. Check yourself first:
- Are you in love with this person, or the idealized version of them you have created in your mind?
- Is it really love or are there other things in play (such as lust and hormones)?
- If it is love, is that person good for you?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Jesus vs Batman
Internet Bible thumpers, you have pissed me off yet again. Guy being ambushed by said thumpers, way to stick to your guns and make some of the most entertaining and impressive arguments I've heard since Godzilla as a human rights activist. Here's what I'm talking about:
What really got to me about this whole thing is that Ronald's first comment was a joke. It probably deserved and "lol" maybe a "that's awesome" and several "like"s. It didn't deserve a forced debate by a group of literalist holy rollers.
Sadly, that's the group that is the representation of Christianity in the modern world. I've complained about it before, but the louder voices always tend to drown out the rest. That means that people like Julie and Enrique that can't take a joke are standing out as the sample set of Christians in the world over those quieter more tolerant ones (that could possibly be the majority).
I don't even know what to do about this. There's no way you're going to be able to drown out the Bible thumpers while being loving and tolerant. I guess, then, that this post is directed more at the holy rollers.
Here's the deal folks. First of all, lighten up. Learn to take a joke. Yes, I realize that Jesus is extremely important and that he did wonderful things for all of us, but I really don't think he cares. Think about it. When you hear someone tell a joke about your friend, do you get deeply offended if it's a little derogatory? Probably not. If someone jokes that their best friend can beat up your best friend, does that upset you? If so, I think it's safe to say you might need counseling.
Next, quit shoving the Bible down people's throats. I'm fairly certain that that would be extremely uncomfortable for all parties involved. When your parents forced you to eat vegetables, did that make you like them? When your teachers forced you to work with fractions, did it make you enjoy math? When the government forces you to give them money, does it make you look forward to taxes? The gospel is the same concept for some people. Forcing it on them is not going to make them accept it and it definitely will not help them love Jesus. It may, in fact, do just the opposite.
Finally, if you are going to debate someone whether over the Jesus vs Batman debate or ANYTHING else, do your homework! If you are in the middle of a debate and you don't know for sure the origin of your opponent, look it up! If you get DC and Marvel mixed up, you will immediately lose the debate with any hardcore fan!
Most people who are strongly against the Bible, they know quite a bit about it. Therefore, if you're debating the Bible with someone, there's a good chance they know the main stuff in there. They don't need reminding of it and can likely use it against you. Know what basis they're using backward and forward. If you're trying to debate someone who is working off of science, know your science. It's your only chance.
Also, while I'm sitting on the subject, don't ever blatantly deny a scientific fact. The Bible is not a scientific work and, therefore, it's not evidence against science. If you try to use the Bible against science, you're just going to make Christianity sound like a cult.
When I'm talking about fighting science with the Bible, I'm looking directly at you people that would have creationism taught in public schools. Creationism is not a scientific theory. You can claim that there is evidence to support creationism, but that same evidence can support the big bang theory and evolution. You only evidence for creationism is that that's what the Bible says happened. The Bible will never stand up as evidence in any scientific circle. Did you ever consider the possibility that the story of creation is symbolic? Or the fact that for the first five "days" no one was around to know what was happening?
I actually disagree with that post. There's NEVER a time to shove your beliefs down someone else's throat.
Is there something you need to lighten up about? Is there something you are taking way too seriously? What's your Jesus vs Batman debate?
Jesus vs BatmanAs the true geek that I am, I saw what was coming when the thumpers said Batman was from Marvel Comics. Anyone who knows about comics knows that with hardcore fans (like Ronald OBVIOUSLY is) you absolutely under no circumstances should get Marvel mixed up with DC. Ronald's comeback, however, was absolutely brilliant and had me rolling in my seat cracking up:
"I never claimed Jesus was a hero of the Qur'an, so don't mix my hero's origins up."Brilliant!
What really got to me about this whole thing is that Ronald's first comment was a joke. It probably deserved and "lol" maybe a "that's awesome" and several "like"s. It didn't deserve a forced debate by a group of literalist holy rollers.
Sadly, that's the group that is the representation of Christianity in the modern world. I've complained about it before, but the louder voices always tend to drown out the rest. That means that people like Julie and Enrique that can't take a joke are standing out as the sample set of Christians in the world over those quieter more tolerant ones (that could possibly be the majority).
I don't even know what to do about this. There's no way you're going to be able to drown out the Bible thumpers while being loving and tolerant. I guess, then, that this post is directed more at the holy rollers.
Here's the deal folks. First of all, lighten up. Learn to take a joke. Yes, I realize that Jesus is extremely important and that he did wonderful things for all of us, but I really don't think he cares. Think about it. When you hear someone tell a joke about your friend, do you get deeply offended if it's a little derogatory? Probably not. If someone jokes that their best friend can beat up your best friend, does that upset you? If so, I think it's safe to say you might need counseling.
Next, quit shoving the Bible down people's throats. I'm fairly certain that that would be extremely uncomfortable for all parties involved. When your parents forced you to eat vegetables, did that make you like them? When your teachers forced you to work with fractions, did it make you enjoy math? When the government forces you to give them money, does it make you look forward to taxes? The gospel is the same concept for some people. Forcing it on them is not going to make them accept it and it definitely will not help them love Jesus. It may, in fact, do just the opposite.
Finally, if you are going to debate someone whether over the Jesus vs Batman debate or ANYTHING else, do your homework! If you are in the middle of a debate and you don't know for sure the origin of your opponent, look it up! If you get DC and Marvel mixed up, you will immediately lose the debate with any hardcore fan!
Most people who are strongly against the Bible, they know quite a bit about it. Therefore, if you're debating the Bible with someone, there's a good chance they know the main stuff in there. They don't need reminding of it and can likely use it against you. Know what basis they're using backward and forward. If you're trying to debate someone who is working off of science, know your science. It's your only chance.
Also, while I'm sitting on the subject, don't ever blatantly deny a scientific fact. The Bible is not a scientific work and, therefore, it's not evidence against science. If you try to use the Bible against science, you're just going to make Christianity sound like a cult.
When I'm talking about fighting science with the Bible, I'm looking directly at you people that would have creationism taught in public schools. Creationism is not a scientific theory. You can claim that there is evidence to support creationism, but that same evidence can support the big bang theory and evolution. You only evidence for creationism is that that's what the Bible says happened. The Bible will never stand up as evidence in any scientific circle. Did you ever consider the possibility that the story of creation is symbolic? Or the fact that for the first five "days" no one was around to know what was happening?
"For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven." Ecclesiastes 3:1 (ASV)The trick is finding that time. Science class is not the time for a religious stand. Someone's Facebook post meant as a joke is not the time for a religious tirade. The proper time for bringing someone to Christ is when THEY are ready. Not when you are ready.
I actually disagree with that post. There's NEVER a time to shove your beliefs down someone else's throat.
Is there something you need to lighten up about? Is there something you are taking way too seriously? What's your Jesus vs Batman debate?
Monday, May 2, 2011
Finals Homework: The Musical
Sorry, everyone. I'm in the middle of my last homework assignment of the semester. In the interest of giving you something interesting, here are the songs that I'm doing my homework to:
It certainly makes things more interesting to stop and break into a musical number in the middle of a paper.
It certainly makes things more interesting to stop and break into a musical number in the middle of a paper.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
A Life for a Life
I wasn't going to put up a post today, but in light of current events, I couldn't not. If you haven't heard by now, you are doing a much better media shut-out than I've seen in years. Osama bin Laden has been confirmed dead by U.S. forces.
Like I said, I wasn't going to post tonight, so I'll keep it brief.
On my drive home, I was listening to the radio. Of course the radio stations were talking about this "historic event". One of the stations I was listening to was reading off people's comments either off of their website or off of Twitter. I can't remember which one. This is actually what prompted me to do this post. One of the comments really hit something in me and disturbed me:
I'm not going anywhere with this, it just really got to me, and I had to get it off my chest. I don't have any answer to these questions, but if we are going to claim that all life is precious and everyone is a beloved child of God, does that not extend to people like Osama bin Laden?
Is it ever right to rejoice in the loss of human life?
Like I said, I wasn't going to post tonight, so I'll keep it brief.
On my drive home, I was listening to the radio. Of course the radio stations were talking about this "historic event". One of the stations I was listening to was reading off people's comments either off of their website or off of Twitter. I can't remember which one. This is actually what prompted me to do this post. One of the comments really hit something in me and disturbed me:
"I'm happy he's dead."For a moment, just take those words for what they are rather than for who they are about. Someone is rejoicing in the loss of a human life. I'm not condemning this person and I can't say that I completely disagree with them, but I know this is how most if not all Americans feel at the moment.
"I'm happy he's dead."Is it ever really right to rejoice in the death of another? I'm not going to defend bin Laden. He did terrible things during his lifetime that, according to virtually every measure of human law, sufficiently earned him what he got. But what kind of world are we living in where it is not only acceptable to rejoice in human death, but is almost unacceptable not to?
I'm not going anywhere with this, it just really got to me, and I had to get it off my chest. I don't have any answer to these questions, but if we are going to claim that all life is precious and everyone is a beloved child of God, does that not extend to people like Osama bin Laden?
Is it ever right to rejoice in the loss of human life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)