Savage

Well, this is going to be short & ranty. I sometimes listen to Michael Savage. Lately, I've noticed how often he rants on the subject of salvation. Specifically, he rants that there can't possibly be one path to salvation, and that people who think there is are one of, if not the, main sources of trouble in the world.

This pisses me off.

He says he is a good person; he believes in God. He is therefore going to heaven. But why should we think that Christianity is the only way to heaven? Why can't we just keep our religious beliefs to ourself? Don't we see what haaaaaarm we're doing? How dare Christians say that everyone else's religion isn't just as good as theirs? Why do we have to say that our way is right? Don't we realize how much better the world would be if we just shut up and went away?

Bah. Humbug. BULLSHIT.

[Sorry. If you'd like, I can share with you my rant on the difference between cursing, blasphemy, and plain old vulgar language. It's a fun rant, but I'm in a hurry.]

There is such a thing as absolute truth.

All religions cannot be true; they are contradictory. Someone who truly and completely believes the tenets of their religion cannot also believe others are true at the same time--not even if the basis of their religion is that all religions are true, because all those other religions are exclusive. How can you believe in both Christianity and Islam--believe that both are true ways to God? In order to believe in both, you have to dismiss such large portions of both that you aren't really believing in either.

I'm sick of pussy-footing around. All religions are not true. All religions are not a path to the same place. They are not different revelations of the same thing. And I'm not going to sit back and be told that I must think that they are--and that if I refuse to think that, I am evil.

One world non-religion religion... hrm, such a familiar goal. *church lady*

I know, Michael. You don't like the thought of so many people being lost. (Read Romans 2:12-16; it'll help a bit.) I don't like it either. But just because you don't like the truth, that doesn't make it stop being true.

Yeeech. Is it any wonder that "politically correct" is just about the dirtiest phrase in my vocabulary? I'm sick of it. I'm done with it. There's a time when you shouldn't offend, but for goodness' sake, there's a time when you should.

Benevolence aforethought

Or, "Give thanks in all things."

Ok, a few months ago, I would have titled this thingummy "Insult onto Injury," but God's done it again, so hey. And once again, wow, that sense of humor...!

So anyway. I have multiple sclerosis, and due to various symptoms including temporary blindness (and the most ridiculous dental nightmare ever) I spent most of the second half of 2006 on heavy doses of steroids. For the record, I hate being on steroids, and short of another bout of blindness or the hideous bone pain I had with the dental snafu, I will not be going on them again. Not surprisingly, the steroids gave me first a terrible rash all over my back, then shortly thereafter, some horrible acne all over my face, which refused to go away.

Argh. I fight the whole vanity thing as most young(ish) females do, but I thought I was making a bit of progress until I noticed how much I was being affected by my zitty face! I literally couldn't stand the thought of being seen in public. I did my grocery shopping at 2 am. I did some playful griping at God about it, and as a result found that I kept thinking of Corrie ten Boom's "Thank you, Lord, for the fleas" episode.

So I started giving thanks for the freakin' zits. I will admit that I was not feeling particularly thankful at the time, but by gosh and by golly I gave thanks for 'em.

Nevertheless, I kept trying to get rid of them. After spending a few months trying all the OTC acne medication I could find, only to see things getting worse and worse, it occurred to me that maybe the acne was somehow a symptom of MS rather than directly caused by the steroids. MS messes up your immune system, and a healthy immune system is bound to help fight off the bacteria involved in causing acne, so it sorta makes sense, right? Anyway, I did some web searching on the idea, and immediately found...

"Acne medicine helps fight MS." Tons and tons of articles (though most of them basically the same article) kept telling me that a commonly prescribed acne antibiotic had been shown to actually fix some of the damage caused by MS lesions. !!!! Not just help stop, but actually fix, which is downright revolutionary. The effect wears off after a couple of years, but still!

So, I hotfooted it down to a dermatologist, and killed two birds with one stone. She was perfectly happy to prescribe the antibiotics, and after about a month I was feeling so much better that, at my 6-month checkup, my neurologist said that if she didn't know better she'd think I was perfectly healthy. We're talking remission levels of healthy. Really, how often do you get to hear a doctor call you perfect? I recently got an MRI (haven't gotten the results back yet) but I fully expect to see a serious reduction in lesions.

So, wow. Thank you, Lord, for my acne!

...And now for something completely pointless.

My cats have an impressively wide vocabulary.

I say: "Hi, cat."
Catface hears: [nothing]
Satch hears: "Stop whatever you're doing and mew for me."

I say: "Good night!"
Catface hears: "I'm leaving you forever to go have fun behind this closed door without you, and your only hope of stopping me is to go into full hissing, clawing, and snapping attack mode."
Satch hears: "I'll no longer be able to see you if you jump on the counter."

I say: "Outside?"
Catface hears: "Come stand by the door and wait patiently while I hook your leash to your harness."
Satch hears: "The door has magically become insubstantial, and all you have to do to get through it is scratch frantically at the door jamb."

I say: "Inside!"
Catface hears: "Time to go inside."
Satch hears: [nothing]

I say: "Let me unhook you."
Catface hears: "Stand still so that I can remove your leash."
Satch hears: "Strain against the leash as hard as you can, because it will help me get it off faster."

I say: "Hang on..."
Catface hears: "Stand still."
Satch hears: "Try harder! The leash will disappear if you just pull hard enough!"

I say: "Food."
Catface hears: "No matter how long it takes you to get here, all your food will still be waiting for you."
Satch hears: "FOODfoodfoodfoodfoodFOOOOOD."

I say: "Go get the Catface, Satch."
Catface hears: "You still have a good 20 or 30 minutes to get downstairs."
Satch hears: "Stand beside me at the foot of the stairs and look impatiently up them waiting for the Catface to appear."

I say: "Not yet, cats."
Catface hears: "I'm going to feed you now."
Satch hears: "I'm going to feed you now."

I say: "It's OK, cat."
Catface hears: "I'm going to feed you now."
Satch hears: "I'm going to feed you now."

I say: "Oh, oops, I'm sorry cat, are you ok?"
Catface hears: "You can stop hiding now."
Satch hears: "I'm going to feed you now."

I say: "Get down!"
Catface hears: "I'm going to spray you if you don't get down."
Satch hears: [nothing]

I say: "No!"
Catface hears: "Run!"
Satch hears: [nothing]

I say: "Good cat."
Catface hears: "Run; I'm going to pet you now."
Satch hears: "If you beg enough, I may feed you now."

I say: "I'm home."
Catface hears: [nothing]
Satch hears: "I have a present for you!"

I say: "Get the bug!"
Catface hears: "Stop chasing the bug, I want Satch to have it."
Satch hears: "Stop chasing the bug and stare blankly at me."

I say: "Oww!"
Catface hears: [nothing]
Satch hears: "Keep playing, you're winning!"


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Analysis, complete with spoilers! I'll do it the old-fashioned way: highlight the text in the box below if you want to be spoiled.

So, I'll leave it up to someone else to go into the detailed analysis, but...! Having just read that page at the end that details the typesetting choices, I really can't stop myself from commenting.

Well, first of all, I knew Snape wasn't evil. Pah hah! A friend of mine subscribed to a very convincing literary theroy, in which he would play each side off the other, then when one seemed victorious, would swoop in at the last moment to kill the victor, thus defeating both and leaving himself with no enemies capable of stopping him. It was a well-researched, well-reasoned theory, and I'm delighted that it was wrong. I'm mildly disappointed that it was all because of Lily, but I liked how much depth Rowling put behind that aspect; when I got through the penseive segment, I felt satisfied, even if it wasn't quite what I had in mind.

And second, wow did she ever put a lot of effort into making sure every loose end was tied up! I can't really think of any that is bugging me at the moment. I may come across some on later readings, but nothing has hit me yet.

Third, I can't entirely tell what I think of the book yet, or if I think it was all it could be. It hasn't completely sunk in yet. I do have one notable disappointment: I really expected Ginny to participate more, in spite of what Harry wanted. I don't really think less of the character because of it--and if you've known any military wives you'll understand why it would actually make me think MORE of her--but I was still expecting such a young, hormone-charged, defiant tomboy to lose her head more than she did.

Fourth and most important, WOW were those last 3 chapters ever close to a Christian allegory. I've definitely detected signs--whether Rowling's a Christian or not, and I don't know which she is--that there was a deep understanding of Christian principles woven through the books. (Love. Sacrifice. What's right, rather than what's easy. And put not your faith.... There's so many others, but those spring to mind first.) I'd thought of it as being Tolkienesque: Tolkien was a Christian (and played a part in C.S. Lewis's conversion) but though you can find the Christian viewpoint all over his books, it's never really brought to the forefront. Now it seems a bit more Lewisish; biblical parallels that are immediately visible if you just look for them.

And okay, I find myself a bit indignant and offended that Rowling would turn a flawed human character (emphasis on the 'flawed') into a messianic figure. That's not entirely reasonable; the hero couldn't have been anything other than a flawed human character. Still, it annoys. Slightly but undeniably.

And yet...

It's a lot more than the death and resurrection. It's what's behind the death: why he had to die, why he chose to die, why the death didn't stick, why his death changed everything, and why his death robbed Voldemort of the power to injure not just Harry but all on Harry's side. It's the fact that what Voldemort thought was his ultimate victory was actually the moment of his defeat. And it's the fact that the only thing that could have saved Voldemort--not from death, but from something worse--was remorse. Repentance.

I mean, COME ON.

I have to confess that there's a teeny tiny nasty part inside of me that's saying "nanny nanny boo boo" to all the Christians who are so certain that it's wrong for a Christian to read the Harry Potter books.

...And as a tangent, I'm still trying to decide exactly who I think Dumbledore represents. There's a Christianese concept, that of the type, where a person, place or thing is an imperfect earthly foreshadowing of something relating to heaven or to the Messiah, etc. For example, marriage is a type of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Well, I see Dumbledore as a type of Harry Potter, paving the way. The most obvious bit of evidence in support of this is of course Dumbledore's defeat of Grindelwald. I haven't really worked the theory out too completely or well, but I'm sticking with it. I see Dumbledore as a bit of a John the Baptist, especially after the last book: not worthy, but preparing the way for the one who comes after him, who is worthy. And all chosen-like, you know?

Honoring the Sabbath

[This post is the text of a devotional I delivered a little while back. For those of you not in the St. Louis metro area, Goedecker's is a local home furnishings store whose TV ads explain that they're not open on Sunday because it's one of the ten commandments.]

Tonight, I’d like to tell you all about my adventure in legalism. About two years ago, I started feeling guilty for not honoring the Sabbath. That’s something Christians do, right? I mean, just watch the Goedecker's commercials. I try to keep all the other commandments, so shouldn’t I try to keep this one, too?

So, I decided to try it. I knew that the Sabbath was actually supposed to be Saturday, but since church is on Sunday, I decided to go with that. At first, I just didn’t work on Sundays, and since my work is also what I do for fun, that was pretty hard. Then I remembered that if you’re keeping the Sabbath, you’re not supposed to make OTHER people work on the Sabbath either, so I stopped going out to eat or shopping or even gassing up the car at the self-serve pumps on Sundays.

I had to do something with all that spare time, so I started studying bible commentaries, which is one of the few things you’re actually supposed to do on the Sabbath, and naturally, the first topic that came into my head to study was “Honoring the Sabbath.”

Now, I’m a perfectionist. If I do something, I HAVE to get every single little detail exactly right. So, after spending a little while looking into whether or not Christians are supposed to keep the Sabbath, and immediately dismissing everything that said they shouldn’t, I started looking into exactly HOW you’re supposed to go about honoring the Sabbath. And of course, that information is in the Old Testament. So, after I read all about it there, I had a lot of questions about how exactly to translate those laws into modern terms. And of course, the most obvious source I could think of for the answers to those questions was to take a look at what the Orthodox Jews do—and DON’T do—to honor the Sabbath.

And I found a LOT of information, because there’s a LOT of things that Orthodox Jews do and don’t do to honor the Sabbath. Here is a partial list. To observe the Sabbath, you can’t do any of the following:

  • Kneading
  • Baking
  • Shearing wool
  • Washing wool
  • Beating wool
  • Dyeing wool
  • Spinning
  • Weaving
  • Making two loops
  • Weaving two threads
  • Separating two threads
  • Tying
  • Untying
  • Sewing two stitches
  • Salting meat
  • Cutting hide up
  • Writing two letters
  • Erasing two letters
  • Building
  • Tearing a building down
  • Extinguishing a fire
  • Kindling a fire
  • Hitting with a hammer
  • Taking an object from your home out into public, or carrying an object in public.

Some people even say that you shouldn’t carry things, period, or do anything even vaguely resembling housework. And of course, you’re not supposed to cause anyone else to do any of the things on that list, either.

In modern terms, you can’t use any technological means of doing anything on that list, which means that you can’t use machinery, you can’t drive, you can’t even use electricity, because electricity counts as ‘kindling a fire.’

Now, I actually tried to keep a lot of these. In order to attend church and to eat and drink, I had to do a few of them, but I told myself, “Well, you don’t want to be a Pharisee, do you?” So I allowed myself to drive to church, to get a drink of water from the fridge, to turn on a light so I could read my commentaries, to answer the phone if someone called, that kind of thing.

And I was miserable, absolutely miserable. I think I managed 2 Sundays of this, and maybe a month before that of gradually increasing my legalism.

I finally caught myself feeling horribly guilty for carrying the paper towel I’d eaten my ham sandwich off of into the kitchen and throwing it away, and finally, FINALLY, I actually listened to the little voice in my head that, for weeks, had been saying several times each Sunday, “This CAN’T be right. This just CANNOT BE RIGHT.”

But did I stop immediately? NOOOoooo, that would have been sensible. First, I had to figure out what to do instead. But at least I was finally taking the right approach. Instead of reading all the convoluted commentaries that explained why I shouldn’t pay attention to the most obvious meaning of the parts of the New Testament that talk about the Sabbath and the Law, I started actually reading the Bible, and reading those passages in context.

And all of a sudden, things became MUCH CLEARER. I’d read all the verses before, when I was persuading myself that I should honor the Sabbath. This time, I actually listened to what they said.

For example:

The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant.
Exodus 31:16


The Sabbath is a part of a covenant made with the Jewish people. I am not Jewish! The Sabbath set the Jewish people apart from the Gentiles. I am a Gentile!

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Galatians 3:24-25

This is the point that’s made over and over again in the New Testament—we are not saved by the Law. We are saved by our relationship with God. In fact, we are no longer bound by the 10 commandments!

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Romans 7:4-6

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?
2 Corinthians 3:6-8

But the New Testament gets clearer than that, much clearer. In Galatians, Paul gets very worked up about the subject:


You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
Galatians 3:1-5

He talks more about this in Chapter 4 (and really, in all of Galatians).

But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
Galatians 4:9-11

And in Colossians, Paul mentions the Sabbath specifically, in a verse that I really should have taken at face value the first time I read it!

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Colossians 2:16-17

Now, am I saying that I think it’s wrong for a Christian to observe the Sabbath? Absolutely not. To me, this means that it would be just as wrong to criticize someone FOR observing the Sabbath as to criticize them for NOT observing it. The important thing is to glorify God, whether you do it by honoring the Sabbath or by NOT honoring the Sabbath.

Now, this whole devotional probably sounded like it was about the Sabbath. And ok, yeah, it was, but the real point I want to make tonight is this: it is absolutely amazing what you can learn when you actually read the bible in context, and pay attention to what it actually says rather than listening to what people tell you it says!

God's Foolishness

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." 1 Corinthians 1:25

The word "foolishness" here has always bothered me a bit. I've had no problem understanding it as hyperbolic contrast, denigrating man's wisdom--IF God were to be foolish, even that depth is far above any sort of wisdom that humanity could hope to achieve. And of course, it should be taken as the conclusion of a longer thought. Is there anything else here, though?

I'm about halfway through a book called And God Created Laughter: The Bible as Divine Comedy by Conrad Hyers. (Good book; get it.) Early on, Hyers suggests that perhaps God does, in fact, behave foolishly. OK, Mr. Hyers, I am slightly offended, but you have my attention. How is God foolish? Well, he explains, God behaves in a manner that humans would consider counter-intuitive. He bets on us losers, rather than the odds-on favorites; He put all his Easter eggs in one basket, then invited people to jump up and down on the basket; His big win is death. All right, I can buy that explanation. In fact, I have no problem whatsoever with the whole concept of the book, which is an exploration of God's sense of humor. I love God's sense of humor; I see it in my life all the time. But the idea of God as a contrarian (at least in human terms) doesn't quite explain away that idea of God as foolish to me.

Perhaps it's the word itself. The Amplified Bible renders the verse thusly: "[This is] because the foolish thing [that has its source in] God is wiser than men, and the weak thing [that springs] from God is stronger than men." That does put a different complexion on it, as does the Weymouth New Testament: "Because that which the world deems foolish in God is wiser than men's wisdom, and that which it deems feeble in God is mightier than men's might." In these, it's not God who is being called foolish, but rather certain actions or aspects of His, which would seem foolish from a worldly POV. OK, fine, again, I follow that. Looks foolish to us, but isn't. But... there's still this concept in front of me, that of God as foolish, and it bothers me.

So, I look at the original word used, which apparently is a form of the word "raca," and according to Charles B. Williams means "empty headed idiot." Yow. Now I am more offended. But, ok. Paul is answering the arguments of those who see God's actions as being completely devoid of worldly wisdom, and Paul, using the accuser's own words and POV, is telling them that worldly wisdom doesn't mean jack. He's playing devil's advocate, in other words. "Even if God is foolish like you say He is..." It's not Paul who is calling God foolish, nor is it God calling himself foolish, but rather God's (and Paul's) accusers.

To take this beyond the scope of that verse but closer to the point of Hyers' book--exploring God's sense of humor--there is another sense of the word "fool" which keeps popping into my mind as I ponder the word. I'm interested in history, particularly that of western Europe c1350-1530, so inevitably the medieval idea of the king's fool springs to mind. The court jester is generally remembered as a clown, but that's only a tiny slice of what he was. In theory at least, the jester--often drawn from the lowest classes of society--was the one person who was not required to take anything seriously, including the king. (If the king farted, the jester was the only one who smelled it.) Instead of seeing only the king's position and power, he was allowed to see and react to the king as a fallible human; he was able to describe things as they were, rather than in a politically correct manner. His job was to give the king a sense of perspective, not just about himself but about the world around him. Of course in practice, sometimes fools lost their heads, but I'm dealing with the theory here.

Picture the king as immeasurably below the lowest peasant, and the peasant fool as immeasurably above the highest king, and you might have something vaguely approaching a facet of God. Why on earth would God take us seriously? He sees beyond our position, dignity, power, and opinion of ourselves to what's actually there, and deals with us based on that rather than what we try to persuade other humans to focus on.

And going in a slightly different direction, foolishness--both medievally and modernly--can be silliness. Could God possibly be silly? Oh, I think He most certainly can. But that's a whole 'nother long post.

Taking all of this into account, I no longer find myself bothered by the verse, but I can't help but search my mental concordance. Are there any examples of God behaving foolishly? Was it foolish, for example, for God to grant Abraham's request and bless Ishmael? I mean, we are still feeling the repercussions of that one, aren't we? God knew what would happen; He knew that this was the beginning of thousands of years of hatred. Did God choose to do as His friend asked, rather than to do what He knew to be wise--in other words, did He choose to behave foolishly?

By default, I would never have thought it was possible, and yet 1 Corinthians 1:25 makes a part of me wonder. I know that if He were to choose to behave foolishly, it would be far wiser than anything I could possibly imagine; I do truly know that. I know that His choice was premeditated, and that He knew what would come of it, and that He planned for the repercussions, and wrapped the whole world around them from beginning to end. I know that if He chose to make a decision He considered foolish, He did so because He considered something else more important than wisdom.

What I don't know is whether or not He considered that choice an example of God's foolishness. For that matter, are we an example of God's foolishness? Do we exist in spite of His wisdom, or because of it?