July 2009 - Posts
I've said for years that prayers and songs straight from the Word of God are the pinnacle of worship. Whether that makes me cooler than you or I have finally caught on to something that you've know for years, I don't know. But check this out:
via
Felt a need to put this one in the Napalm archives:
Christ the King engenders in his elect zeal for reconciling themselves to God: first of all by showing that all men are under sin, and in the kingdom darkness, especially because since all men have the knowledge of God naturally engrafted in them and the work of the law by nature written in their hearts, and by the things created are constrained to know God, but nevertheless do not glorify him, but do sin contrary to the law of nature (Rom. 1) The thing which they witness in their deeds, and their own conscience convinces their thoughts, either accusing or excusing them. Again by encountering all and every of their wickednesses, and in accusing them by the law written, and by the threatenings which are manifest everywhere throughout the whole prophets, many wickednesses also being heaped together as plainly may be seen in the Epistle to the Romans Chapter 3 v. 9-14. And also by showing that this is the unchangeable will of God, whereby he will not only that all men be conformed to the law of nature, but also to the law written, otherwise that he will so long account them for sinners and enemies till they be converted, and through faith be reconciled unto God. (Expositio [1576], Kaspar Olevianus, co-author of Heidelberg Catechism)
On July 15, Jimmy Carter severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention. I argue that he never really was in step with the Convention, but only remained a member as long as it was politically expedient.
Expect to hear it reported that Carter left the SBC and speculation about reforming the SBC, but read his position in his own words (on an Australian newspaper website of all places) and you'll see that he is leaving Christianity, not just the SBC.
In addition to leaving, it appears that Carter has been drinking from the same toilet as The Da Vinci Code author, Dan Brown. In his opinion paper he says that there is a conspiracy being perpetuated even today.
The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.
I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.
Carter is one of many men in a long line of idiots who overlook the protections and empowerment that is found in Christianity -- not the liberal, progressive kind, mind you, that enslaves women to image and career. In no other religion in the world will you read of role models like Sarah in Genesis, Miriam in Exodus, Hannah in 1 Samuel, Ruth, Esther, Mary the mother of Jesus, Lydia and on and on and on. In stark contrast lies Buddhism, Judaism and the worst offenders, Islam and Hinduism.
However, most interesting to me is the final line of this severely disillusioned man: "It is time we had the courage to challenge these views." And he is going to do this how? By quitting? Sissy boy.
... And get a free AK-47 at a dealership in Missouri. Nice.
This rates right up there with the video of the general calling Sen. Boxer "ma'am:"
Normally I would link to posts such as this, but this is just too good to simply link. On July 7, the NY Times published an interview with Justice Ginsburg:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
So, what's the saying? "It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you?" This is admittance that there is a eugenics conspiracy deeply ingrained in the pro-abortion movement. What would be interesting would be to ask Ginsburg to elaborate on which populations she understood we needed to control and about which subject did she change her mind.
Another non-church has decided to not follow the clear teachings of Scripture that they profess to ... not follow? You know, I just don't know how to report it. The Episcopal Church of the US has decided to most definitely separate from the Anglican Communion by allowing the appointment of persons in active and open same-sex marriages. Why this is even news, I don't know. It's like reporting that a bunch of kooks have committed mass suicide. Isn't that what kooks do? And isn't ordaining homosexuals to the ministry what US Episcopalians do?
All seriousness aside*, today, July 10, 2009, John Calvin, French theologian, pastor and benevolent dictator of 16th-century Geneva is 500 years old. Although we won't see him until we get to Heaven -- Heaven or the zombie apocolypse, whichever comes first, I guess -- we can only speculate that he would be aghast at the misuse of his name. It will only be then when Calvin will remind us that he died in 1564 (Big party in 2064, anyone?) and "Cavinism" started shortly afterwards.
Because one "aw crap" can erase a thousand attaboys and because Calvin only had 1,553 attaboys and two "aw craps," he is best known for being wrong and as an unsympathetic killer. First, despite clear textual proof in Scripture, he embraced the concept of double predestination. In it, he, as a French Huguenot, found strange comfort. To us, we find we're stuck with John Piper.
And, second, when not wanting the Catholics to get the upper hand in anything, especially persecution, Calvin decidedly enjoyed the death of that great arch-heretic Michael Servetus. I'm sure before the death there was a great monologue about Calvin's schemes and the presence of a self-destruct button, but it is not recorded for historical posterity. And, alas, Servetus was unable to free himself and was burned alive after being lowered agonizingly slow into a vat of magma.
Today, Calvin is 500. And one day we'll meet. And one day I'll ask him, "What is the deal with the baptistry under your church in Geneva?"
* Posted to comply with the Internet Blog Fairness Act.
The comments that this post at The Heidelblog is receiving are very relevant to my own inquiry of "Reformed" theology. Good questions. Good answers. And, by the way, I love the inference that Anabaptists are still married to the Men of Munster in some bigoted minds.
My blogging activity has decreased significantly, in part, because my self-worth is primarily based on a perceived need. If I'm not needed, what's the point. Right? Maybe I need years of therapy. Maybe the perception is wrong and you guys really need me. And based on recent observations, I suspect the latter is the case and you really need Joe Napalm. Case in point is this first subject: Throwing a ball.
Sometime ago, I commented to a coworker that I'd like to sit in on one of his interviews. He was in the process of interviewing candidates for a job that would directly report to him. I suggested that I could show up and ask only one question and determine whether or not the man* was qualified. I'd walk in with a ball -- baseball, football, tennis ball or whatever -- hand it to the candidate, walk to the other side of the room and then ask that he throw the ball to me. See what I'm getting at? If the candidate throws like a man, he's legit and you can trust that everything he says is truthful. If he throws like a little sissy, then you seriously have to consider that everything that that man is saying is an outright lie. I mean, if he walks in with a swagger, talks a big game and then throws like a little cream puff, can you really trust the guy?
So that's where I come in. I pitched baseball in high school. I know the mechanics of a efficient throw with a good shoulder turn and proper release point. If you can throw, then great. I hope that we can play ball someday -- or better, work together some day. If you can't throw, listen carefully because your claim to manhood is in question and your wife or girlfriend secretly wishes that you could throw like the neighbor. It's for your best interest.
First, let's look at the anatomy of a sissy throw. And where better to start than with our Wuss-In-Chief Barry Obama? Check out this sorry attempt (start viewing at 0:21):
Did you see that train wreck? Are you kidding me, Pinky? Listen, I don't expect that Barry-O will take my advice prior to throwing out the first pitch at this year's Major League Baseball All-Star Game. But if you think that President Bush did irreparable damage to our national image, wait until French President Sarkozy and his umpteen mistresses are pointing and gigglinig at the pantywaist of the Free World.
So with that implanted in your brain. Let's compare it to a real man's throw. And for that, I will defer to eight-time MLB All-Star, all-time leader in no-hitters, Hall of Fame pitcher and current president of the (hat-placed-over-my-heart) Texas Rangers, Nolan Ryan -- "The Ryan Express." (Does Barry Obama have a cool nickname? Point made, hopefully.)
So, hopefully, you noticed the difference. On the one hand, you have a man who talks with bravado yet throws like a feminist. On the other hand, you have a man who you would be proud to have teach your sons the basics of manhood -- like spitting, farting, lighting fires and throwing. In the board room, who is going to get the most respect? There's no contest. You'd put your finger to your mouth and shush the president and tell him in not so kind terms that Mr. Ryan was speaking and you'd rather hear what he has to say.
To recap, let's look at the basics of a good throw. First, turn sideways and point your non-throwing side to the target. Next, either make a "T" shape with your arms extended or at least put the ball and your throwing arm behind your head and bring the ball forward with your elbow high -- not too high, mind you -- and release in front of your body. And don't forget a follow through. Once the ball is released from the fingers -- no man throws a ball with it in his palm ... that's a change-up and another discussion in a more advanced course -- follow through by letting your throwing arm cross your body, allowing it to nearly go in the opposite pant pocket.
But, some may say, throwing style is determined at birth. It's physiological, you may argue. Wrong! It's just one of your many excuses for throwing like a namby-pamby.
Like I said, I'm needed now more than ever. Take this and any future advice from the Napalmster. Men will envy you. Women will swoon. It'll add pep to your step and your wife will call you the smooth operator. I should know. I am Joe Napalm.
Bonus: Nolan Ryan hitting a batter and then showing him who's da man (start at 4:57). Do you think Obama would do this to Chavez? Ha!