Interests:Beatles, mewithoutYou, Billy Joel, Beach Boys, Woven Hand, Herman's Hermits, Armor for Sleep, Dredg, Supremes, Air, Alanis Morrisette, Daft Punk, Bob Marley, James Taylor, Sigur Ros, Gordon Lightfoot, Jimi Hendrix, Iron and Wine, Temptaions, Lovedrug, John Denver, DC Talk, Modest Mouse, Elvis, Jimmy Eat World, Zero 7, Queen, Cool Hand Luke, Brantson, Mae, Ester Drang, Unwed Sailor, Carpenters, Most Serene Republic, Sufjan Stevens, Decemberists, Explosions in the Sky, Bob Dylan, Bright Eyes, Godspeed You Black Emporer, Cat Stevens, Over the Rhine Expertise:
I had planned this big entry about what a weird time it is in my life. About how three of my best friends are getting married and how weird that is. About how I only have a year and a half left of school and how weird that is. About how I will not be home this summer and how weird that is. About how I've been feeling a little lost lately and how weird that is. But two things happend. 1, I realized not many people would want to read that. 2, I saw something on TV on Wednesday night that I just had to write about.
I was minding my own business, watching a great episode of Lost when I saw some commercials about how after Lost was over there was going to be this show in which two opposing sides debated the existance of God. Since I am home for a few days and have absolutely no reponsibility, I decided to spend the half-hour and stay up and watch it.
I guess a good place to begin is to say how disappointed I was with the story. The stereotyping was out of control. The Christian side (one of which happened to be Kirk Cameron) was defensive, mystical, and used rediculous cartoon drawings to support their points. The athiests made sweeping, universal statements based on "science" and came across as bloodthirsty, angry, nihilists. One of them said, "I would rather burn in Hell than be in heaven with a . . . meniacal tyrant [God]".
Overall the program was just very poorly done. The debate was adventised as some kind of final word on the existance of God. If this program was suppoed to have any answers I would begin by finding some more credible people. A washed up TV star and an the leader of an internet group are hardly the people I would entrust with the lofty responsibility of arguing for or against the existance of God. Terribly arguments were used by both sides, which was very frustrating. It was moderated poorly and ended up into a debate largely concerning evolution.
I guess more than anything else I was reminded why I try not to watch much TV, especially those "specials" that get so much publicity. An occasional escapist show such as Lost or the character driven humor of the Office is something I can get into. I will definitely be watching the Cavs as they march to the NBA finals. Mostly everything else however I will not waste my time with.
If you have ever visited one of the above sites and have been as appalled as I have been you will appreciate this. One of my friends from here at BBC took the time to write and open letter to the organization (I can't bring myself to call them a church) that sponsors these sites. For those of you who are not aware, this organization wanted to picket at the funerals of VT students claiming the following: "Why did this happen, you ask? It's simple. On April 16, 2007, this nation, through the offices of your
military and conspirators therewith took a shot at the servants of God -- your marksman was limp and lame
and he had terror all around, so he did a lousy job. But what you get for your trouble is that your God
shot at you! The LORD your God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children, and he didn't miss. Get
this straight -- God sent this South Korean madman to kill 31 of your children at Virginia Tech. Was God
asleep while this took place? Was He on vacation? Of course not. He willed this to happen to punish you
for assailing His servants."
My friend Vijay says this in response:
Re: God Hates Fags. – An Open letter to The Phelps Family & Westboro Baptist Church.
cc: Mike Gallagher
My
name is Vijay and I am 26 years old. I am a graduate of a Bible College
in the North East, holding a B.S. degree in Bible. I work as an
Operations Manager in a Restaurant Corporation. I have been a follower
of Jesus Christ for 10 years. I attend a Baptist church, and I am an
unwavering 5-point Calvinist. I respect the decision of Mike
Gallagher to grant to members of WBC airtime on his show, in exchange
for their agreement to not picket at the funerals of students that were
killed in the Virginia Tech massacre. I honor Mike for the complex
usage of his radio show to allow for one form or evil while stopping a
greater evil. While I respect Mr. Gallagher’s decision, I do not think
that WBC’s radio appearance should be without challenge & scrutiny.
My desire, though I imagine unlikely, would be for some portions of
this open letter to be used to expose and challenge the viewpoint of
the WBC. To the Phelps & WBC, I say that I am appalled at the
incongruity of your stated viewpoints and the vehemence wherewith you
verbally attack and propagate raw hatred towards people, specifically
homosexuals. The following is an open letter of challenge and scrutiny
to you, the Phelps, WBC, & the Internet community at large. I will
use 6 points of contention to demonstrate that your views and actions
are inconsistent with God’s Word, the Holy Bible.
First, let
me state my convictional presupposition, that the Bible is the Word of
God. It is authoritative upon any matter it addresses, and all matters
of faith and practice. As a Baptist, I believe that it is the
responsibility of every person to know and understand God’s Word.
Therefore, I believe that the only logical way that multitudes of
individuals can approach the Bible to arrive at a singular message is
to use a “plain interpretation” or “literal hermeneutic.” When
approaching the Bible for its truth and guidance, one must do so with
regards for the historical background, context, language & grammar,
and compare scripture with scripture to arrive at a consistent and
meaningful interpretation. The only other option would be either
arbitrary interpretations or even mystical impressions of scripture,
where the meaning of scripture resides in the whims of the individual
readers. This kind of interpretation would undermine the Bible as a
whole unit, inspired by a singular Being (God). Also, an arbitrary
interpretation would abrogate any question of moral value or absolute
standards or wholesomeness of the Bible. That being said, the following are my 6 arguments against WBC:
1.
Your defense of your viewpoints is essentially arbitrary and ultimately
illogical. On cbsnews.com, Shirley Phelps-Roper is quoted, reasoning
that the VATech students died because they were not true Christians. As
evidence, she states that “...they were not Christian. God does not do
that to His servants.” Precluding these remarks, there are hundreds of
pages of articles, emails, reactions, etc… on WBCs website, making
numerous arbitrary statements in this vein: That America is too
tolerant of homosexuality, and therefore the occurrences of evil and
suffering faced by Americans (9-11, Katrina, tragedies in Iraq, VA Tech
massacre) are directly the judgment of God upon America. Biblically,
what evidence can you provide, beyond your arbitrary statement? What
solid case can you make, beyond restating the same sentiments in a
variety of destructive ways? Notice the circular reasoning, “God did
this because they were not true Christians; we know this because God
doesn’t do that to Christians.” Your circular reasoning evidences a
purely arbitrary and therefore illogical argument. 2. In keeping
with point # 1, you emphatically state (in many articles and comments)
that tragic events, such as 9-11, Katrina, Iraq, VA Tech, etc… are
directly the judgment of God upon America. I still implore you to
provide meaningful evidence of this. But I would also ask 2 questions:
Must God only have a singular purpose in the adversity he brings into
the lives of men? Meaning, is the only possible purpose in any
suffering only judgment for sin? Doesn’t the Bible show a multitude of
Divine purposes in adversity and suffering? Sometimes judgment,
sometimes to grow in faith and patience, sometimes for God to
accomplish a greater purpose in the long run. How can you be so
emphatic on a singular purpose of God in these tragedies? And more so,
how can you be so certain on what that purpose is? Secondly, do you not
see the theme of righteous or ‘innocent’ suffering in Scripture?
Meaning, aren’t there examples in the Bible where individuals suffer as
righteous or innocent? The examples that come to my mind would be Job,
Joseph, and most perfectly the Lord Jesus. 3. While I agree that the
Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful in foundation and practice,
I would challenge your emphasis that seems to imply that it is the
worst of sins. Literally you say that God has called you to preach your
particular message, that very few others have the ‘courage’ to do. I
would ask, why do you believe homosexuality is the most profoundly evil
sin? In the New Testament, the book that speaks most specifically about
the sinfulness of homosexuality in the epistle to the Romans (ch. 1.)
But yet, therein, if you look at the argumentation of the Apostle Paul,
from chs. 1-3 he is establishing the condemnation of all men, those
religious, those pagan, those apart from the Law, those under the Law.
Would you not agree, just from Romans, that homosexual offender is no
more guilty that the coveter? Furthermore, notice that in ch. 1 of
Romans, homosexuality itself is a symptom of an even greater distortion
– the distortion of Worship. Homosexuality is the result of the dark
exchange of the Glory of God for the glory of man. Biblically, isn’t it
more consistent to say that the most profoundly evil sin is unbelief,
because it is the root of all other sins? 4. In Romans ch. 1. Paul
expounds the ‘downward spiral’ from the rejection of God’s Truth to the
perversion of sexuality & the created order. But Paul only does so
after establishing in v. 16-17 that the Gospel is the “power of God
unto salvation,” The Gospel provides an escape from the Wrath of God
(v. 18) that justly comes upon man for the rejection of God’s revealed
truth. After Paul completes establishing the just condemnation of all
men in the first 3 chapters of Romans, he again magnifies the Gospel
(ch. 4-5) Before the condemnation and after, Paul exalts the Gospel, as
the central glory of the epistle. The gospel is interposed between the
wrath of God and doomed men. Thru the Gospel, we are saved by God, from
God. In reading your website, I perceive only a message of condemnation
and doom. Are you not calling people to anything? Are you greater and
more enlightened on God’s purposes than the Apostle Paul? Why don't you emphatically compel people to believe the gospel? If you do not
call people to any response, then what is the point of your “preaching”? 5.
As a Calvinist, I believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity. I believe
that the natural man has no good intention whatsoever, nor any
inclination to love God. I believe the best and most socially
acceptable of mans works are rooted in unbelief and rejection of God,
and therefore “our righteousness is as filthy rags.” This is my
expectation in my outlook of the world. I have no hope for the world of
fallen man. Would you not agree with that? Then why would you except
man to be more righteous that you would chide and picket concerning
homosexuality? How do you expect fallen man to behave, sexually?
Certainly not consistently according to God’s created order, correct?
If Romans ch. 1 describes the practical outworking of man’s rejection
of God, as sexual perversion, namely homosexuality, then why would you
be so amazed and offended at it, as though the Bible didn’t tell you of
it? 6. Lastly, as a Calvinist, I believe in the doctrine of
Unconditional Election – that there is no human condition in salvation.
God elects people without condition. Notice that you say “God hates
fags” and when challenged on the word “hate” you respond, “God hated
Esau.” Notice however, that in Romans ch. 9, Paul explains
Unconditional Election, using the example of Jacob & Esau – born of
the same parents, twins, before their birth, before they committed any
good or evil, the mother is told that God favors the younger (Jacob)
over the older (Esau). Paul quotes, as it is written “Jacob have I
loved, but Esau I hated.” Observe - they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. One
is God’s electing love on Jacob contrasted with his rejection of Esau –
apart from their works! But you repeatedly state “God hates fags” – a
hatred on the basis of works. That’s the first thing. Secondly, in the
doctrine of Unconditional Election, God does not elect a person on the
basis of foresight of their good deeds. Conversely, He does not reject
anyone on the basis of foresight of their wicked deeds. The purpose of
God, according to election, stands by reason of HIM WHO CALLETH.
Because of the truth of the doctrine of Unconditional Election, there
is no person who will ever be so wicked that they cannot be elect! An
example of this – In 1 Cor. 6:9, listing those kinds of people who will
not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul lists “effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind,” etc. and in v. 11 says, “AND SUCH WERE SOME
OF YOU. but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” Oh the
Glory of UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION!
I have given you 6 points of
contention that I have with your views/actions. I do not wish to elicit
your anger or verbal assaults. I’d simply like a logical and meaningful
response to each of my 6 points.
Finally, to the homosexual
person(s) reading this – one of my purposes in writing this open letter
was to challenge the views/actions of WBC and similar individuals &
organizations – to expose and scrutinize them. I also hope that this
can serve to demonstrate that thoughtful Biblically-obedient followers
of Jesus Christ, can truly look at the actions and foundational factors
of homosexuality and call it for what it is, unapologetically, a
perversion and a sin, but do so without hatred at all for the person
and with a care for their whole-well-being. The Bible teaches that the
very best of us in our original state, “fall short of God’s glory.”
There is none that is truly righteous, not even one. Man was made by
God, to know God and to enjoy Him forever. God created us to be
continually satisfied in Him. The greatest moral outrage demonstrated
in the universe is that man rejects the offer of God and attempts to
find satisfaction in everything else. This faithless rejection and
idolatry is the foundation of all sinfulness. “God threatens terrible
things if we will not be happy,” said Jeremy Taylor. We secure our
eternal destruction if we will not come to God to be satisfied. The
central theme of the Bible is the Gospel, the good news that God
punished our sins in Jesus Christ on the cross, and raised Him up from
death to secure our redemption and our eternal life, if we will trust
Him. Hear the Word of the Lord:
“…And you, who were dead in your
trespasses… God made alive together with him [Jesus Christ], having
forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that
stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it
to the cross…”
Faced with a Being as precious and as pure and
holy as the God of the Universe, if any one of us honestly contemplates
the depths of our own wickedness, we would despair and think that He
could not even extend to us the offer of eternal salvation! But I’ve
got news for you – God’s salvation is ABSOLUTELY UNCONDITIONAL… You can
not put against it any measure of sinfulness and thereby conclude, “God
would never save me.” Repent (Decide to change your mind about your
condition) therefore, and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and
trust in Him, as your greatest Treasure, the most Valuable, infinitely
Desirable, beyond anything found in this universe.
I close,
imploring you to love Jesus Christ and commit your life to Him, with
the words of the 16th century minister, Isaac Watts,
How sad our state by nature is! Our sin, how deep it stains! And Satan binds our captive souls, Fast in his slavish chains.
But hark! a voice of sovereign grace, Sounds from the sacred Word; “Ho, ye despairing sinners, come, And trust upon the Lord!”
My soul obeys the Almighty’s call, And runs to this relief; I would believe Thy promise, Lord; O help my unbelief!
To the blest fountain of Thy blood, Incarnate God, I fly; Here let me wash my spotted soul, From sins of deepest dye.
Stretch out Thine arm, victorious King, My reigning sins subdue, Drive the old Dragon from his seat, With all his hellish crew.
A guilty, weak, and helpless worm, Into Thy hands I fall; Be Thou my strength and righteousness, My Savior, and my all.
I don't want this to become the weather channel but it's not every day that you get to have a snowball fight when it's 75 and sunny so I figured I'd tell you about it. We made use of the lingering snow drifts and had a snowball fight today while it was 75 degrees and sunny. There, I told you about it.
"At last, we know not what it is to live in the open air, and our lives are domestic in more senses than we think. From the hearth the field is a great distance." -Thoreau, Walden
"Technique is just a means of arriving at a statement"
I agree
This is art too.
It seems to me that art is a visual or auditory (or audiovisual) representation of something from within the artists very soul. Your doodles in the margins of your notes are not art. I think this is the only requirement for art. There are a lot of things that are classified as art that are not art, likewise much art is not classified as such.
Here are some of my favorite artists.
Franz Liszt Vincent Van Gogh Sufjan Stevens Jack London MewithoutYou J. D. Salinger Michelangelo
