The Twelve Days of Christmas

Well, it's that time of year again.  The time when people show that they have no idea what the twelve days of Christmas are or when they happen.  The twelve days of Christmas are a season in the Christian church calendar, and they do not fall on the first twelve days of December.  Christmas day is the first day of Christmas.  The following eleven days, the days between Christmas day and the day of the Epiphany (January 6), are the other eleven days of Christmas.
In fact, there are several seasons within the Christian church calendar, complete with color coding.  We are currently in the season of Advent, which is colored purple or dark blue.  Other seasons include Lent, Easter, and Pentecost.

Playing with Wordle

I decided that it might be interesting to make a word cloud of the words actually spoken by Jesus in the New Testament. I looked to see if I could find one and I couldn't. So I started making one. I only got through Matthew. Maybe I'll finish later. Here is what I got. For some reason the code from Wordle isn't working to show it here, but here is the link

Religion and Rock and Roll

As this Lenten season draws to close, I find myself going over two song in my head and contemplating their potential for religious insight. The two songs are Like a Stone by AudioSlave and Michael Jordan by Five for Fighting.

Near the beginning of Lent, I read through the Catechism in my Book of Common Prayer. When I got to the section on prayer it said:

Q. What is adoration?
A. Adoration is the lifting up of the heart and mind to God,
asking nothing but to enjoy God’s presence.
Q. Why do we praise God?
A. We praise God, not to obtain anything, but because
God’s Being draws praise from us.

This was the beginning of my musings on these two songs. First, there was Michael Jordan by Five for Fighting. (I actually hadn't heard the song in some time; it just came into my head.) In it John Ondrasik sings about his adoration for Michael Jordan and lists off the many seemingly outrageous things he would be willing to do in order to be Michael Jordan. At one point in the song he says "my god, my Jordan" and if you think about it, it is apparent that Michael Jordan really is his god, at least in the context of the song. And I thought about it in context of the previously quoted excerpt from the Catechism. It seems to me that this is the type of adoration that God wants us to have for him. Then I have to ask myself, do we? Do we just adore God and wish to do anything to simply be in his presence, or do we always want something in return.

That is what brings me to Like a Stone. In this song Chris Cornell sings:

on my deathbed i will pray
to the gods and the angels
like a pagan to anyone
who will take me to heaven

The truth in this song has struck me for a quite a while now. Do we really just pray to God because we believe that doing so will get us to heaven? To get to some great reward that is often even depicted in a material, worldly fashion (streets paved with gold, pearly gates, etc.)? Is it about the chance to be with God, or is it simply a chance to reunite with loved ones who we have lost?

How could an athlete or a singer or an actor, garner so much more adoration from so many people than we are honestly willing to give to the creator of our entire universe? And yet, if many of us were honest with ourselves we would find that we are willing to do more to see or be close to these types of people than we are to truly be close to God. How do we get past the immediate and the physical to adore someone who is eternal and yet not physically visible to us in a manifest form? Are we willing to do the things that God asks us to do on a daily basis? Would we be willing to do them if our favorite athlete, actor or singer asked us to do them? I wonder.

Now keep in mind that I am not leaving myself out of this equation, nor do I have a real answer to my own questions. These are simply some of the thoughts that have been swirling around in my head this Lenten season and I felt the need to share them with anyone who felt inclined to read them.

Political bumper sticker

Today when I was out finishing my Christmas shopping in Montgomery, I saw a bumper sticker on a car in the Target parking lot. The bumper sticker said "Pray for Obama, Psalm 109:8" I wrote the chapter and verse down so that I could look it up when I got home. When I looked it up it said, in the Contemporary English Version, "Cut his life short and let someone else have his job." And in the King James Version, "Let his days be few; and let another take his office."

If that is not the most un-Christian sentiment, posing as Christian, that I've ever seen I don't know what is. It is one thing to wish him out of office, if that is your politics, fine. But to wish his life cut short is a totally different story. And don't even bother saying that if it is in the Bible it can't be un-Christian, because there are plenty of un-Christian things in the Old Testament.

People like that who call themselves Christian with so much hatred in their hearts just sickens me.

Merry Christmas!

It has been such a busy day today that this is the first chance I've had to blog and I don't have much of a chance now. Mostly I just want to say Merry Christmas. I hope you all have a joyous and blessed day!

Christianity and Heroes

On last night's episode of Heroes, Adam/Kensei said that God had wiped the Earth clean with the flood and that he was trying to do the same thing with the virus.

Prior to that, my middle son and I were discussing the use of Biblical names for characters in the show. And my sister had previously suggested that maybe Kensei had taken the name Adam because he was the first person to have a power like the current "heroes" and we discussed the possibility that he could actually be the common ancestor of all the current characters that have powers, considering that he has been around for 400 years.

So, anyway, my son and I came up with a list of several characters with Biblical names including: Peter, Isaac, Noah, Micah, Matt (if his name is Matthew), Nathan, Gabriel (aka Sylar), Eden. Then after Adam made the reference to the flood, I really wondered if Mr. Bennett being named Noah had any significance.

So, what do you think? Does it mean anything?

Interesting

Via The NYT - Use of Wiccan Symbol on Veterans’ Headstones Is Approved

To settle a lawsuit, the Department of Veterans Affairs has agreed to add the Wiccan pentacle to a list of approved religious symbols that it will engrave on veterans’ headstones.

[. . .]

Though it has many forms, Wicca is a type of pre-Christian belief that reveres nature and its cycles. Its symbol is the pentacle, a five-pointed star, inside a circle.

I suppose that if we are truly going to advocate freedom of religious belief and recognize the religions of soldiers then the religions of all soldiers should be recognized. It is discrimination if we do not.

I was surprised by this statistic quoted in the article:

There are 1,800 Wiccans in the armed forces, according to a Pentagon survey cited in the suit, and Wiccans have their faith mentioned in official handbooks for military chaplains and noted on their dog tags.

This statement, however, doesn't surprise me at all.

“I don’t think witchcraft is a religion,” Mr. Bush said at the time [1999], according to a transcript. “I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made.”

The decision Bush alludes to in the quote is the decision to allow Wiccan soldiers to worship at Fort Hood, Texas.

I'm sure there are many people who view Wicca as witchcraft, maybe even some who practice it, and I will admit that I personally know next to nothing about it. But I just get tired of continually hearing people make assumptions, judgments, and condemnations of religions that they know little or nothing about or that they do not even attempt to understand.

A possible return to normal blogging

Now that Lent and Easter are over, there is at least the potential that I will return to normal blogging. My Lenten act of self-discipline was not to look at site meter during Lent and I accomplished that goal. Also, I greatly limited the time that I devoted to blogging/reading the news during Lent because I had other tasks that I wanted to try to accomplish during Lent. So, now that Lent is over, the potential returns of normal blogging, but we will just have to see how that potential develops.

Happy Easter

From the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer

Rejoice now, heavenly hosts and choirs of angels,
and let your trumpets shout Salvation
for the victory of our mighty King.

Rejoice and sing now, all the round earth,
bright with a glorious splendor,
for darkness has been vanquished by our eternal King.

Rejoice and be glad now, Mother Church,
and let your holy courts, in radiant light,
resound with the praises of your people.
(Book of Common Prayer, Easter Vigil, page 286)

The Pope says no to KFC

From PETA's Action Center - Why Christians Should Boycott KFC

Pope Benedict XVI had condemned the type of factory-farming abuses KFC's suppliers commit against animals, saying that "this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible." In slaughterhouses, birds are degraded in such a way that they become caricatures of their natural selves. They are confined to dark, filthy warehouses and denied everything natural to them. They never breathe fresh air, enjoy the warmth of the sun, dustbathe, or nurture their young. They are drugged and bred to grow so large that many suffer crippling injuries, and their bones often break beneath the weight of their massive bodies.

n slaughterhouses, the birds' legs are forced into shackles—often causing more breakage—and their throats are slit while they are still conscious. Many are scalded to death in defeathering tanks. Workers at a KFC "Supplier of the Year" were documented spitting tobacco into live birds' eyes, spray-painting their faces, and stomping on them. These practices are clearly contrary to the teachings of Jesus, St. Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, and basic Christian values of compassion and kindness.

Despite how they allow animals to be abused in the facilities, KFC's top executives are boasting about being good Christians.

I lived in front of about 5 chicken houses for about 2 years and the conditions in a chicken house are not good. I don't know how they compare to the ones specifically used by KFC. If one really thinks about it, the raising of any animal for meat and then its subsequent slaughter is no walk in the part for the animal in question. Maybe KFC is really worse than the next guy, I don't know. However, I feel like if I were to boycott KFC for these reasons I'd practically have to become a vegetarian to keep from being a hypocrite.

The one thing that does bother me a little about the story is the fact that the KFC people are lauding themselves as good Christians while using these business practices, but I really can't judge what is in a person's heart and I'm not going to start trying with these people.

I should probably be asking my priest, but. . .

This post is actually a culmination of many thoughts I've had for some time now. Most recently, however, I was reading a post over at Poliblog about Dobson's comments about Thompson and what makes a person a Christian. And it made me think of something that occurred to me the other day when I was listing to an AudioSlave song, Like A Stone. The line in the song that particularly struck me was this:

On my deathbed I will pray
To the Gods and the angels
Like a pagan to anyone
Who will take me to heaven

As a good Christian (or at least a good Episcopalian), I've been trying to observe Lent this year, including some religious introspection. That said, the question occurred to me: Is it wrong to be a Christian (or any other religion for that matter) just because you want to go to heaven? That is not to say that it is necessarily wrong to want to go to heaven, but is it wrong for that to be one's only reason for being religious? Somehow that just seems too self-centered to me.

Considering some of our recent discussions at church, I'm sure some would suggest that if wanting to go to heaven encourages an individual to follow the teachings of Christ and be helpful and kind to others, then it is not a bad thing. It is undoubtedly true that it is not a bad thing for those being helped, but the question remains whether it is bad for the person who is actively seeking heaven.

It seems to me that Jesus taught that thoughts and motivations matter. I think most all Christians have heard the story of Jesus saying that it is as much a sin to lust after a woman as it is to commit adultery. This seems to me to indicate that what we want, what we truly madly deeply want, is just as important as what we do. So if we truly want the reward of a mansion on the hill or pearly gates or streets paved with gold, and we are willing to put up with some lowly earthly toils to get it, does that really comport with what Jesus was teaching? I'm not sure it does.

Seriously, do we think it is right in an Earthly relationship to only want to be with a person for what they can give us? For example, Anna Nicole Smith married an elderly millionaire. She was willing to fulfill her wifely duties and produced a child with him. She did what was expected of her in hopes of a lucrative reward. The problem is the whole world saw her as a gold digger.

And then there are also those churches that recruit converts with stories of the power of Christianity. I've heard radio commercials for a church in a nearby city that says something to the effect of ". . .having faith that can swing out over the pit of hell on a shoe string and spit in the devil's eye". Somehow that just doesn't sound very Jesus-like to me either. To me it sounds like something that will appeal to people who want to have the power to condemn others. And I just don't think that is what Jesus had in mind either.

Which brings me to the ultimate question: What should be want, as Christians? I feel like we should have love in our hearts. We should truly want to ease the suffering of those around us. We should really want to be helpful and kind for it's own sake. And if we do have a desire of a heavenly reward, it should not be about golden streets, it should be about wanting to be with God, whatever that means. And it certainly shouldn't be about having the power to condemn, but about having the tools to save them.

Now this may be evidence of my lack of faith, I don't know, but one question has recurred in my mind for many years. What would you do if you found out that your religion was wrong? What if there was nothing that came after this life? Would you feel like being good and behaving like a Christian was a waste of time? My personal answer is no. I don't think it would be a waste of time. I think it would be just as important if not more so. If this life is all we have, we should definitely make it as easy as we can for all concerned.

I'm reminded of the story of Moses. He was given the task of leading the Israelites to the Promised Land even though he knew that he would never get to enter it himself. Maybe that kind of faith is not necessary for the common person. Moses was obviously and extraordinary person. I don't know, but it is something I often contemplate.

A few answers to my questions

In a post yesterday, I mentioned a story from the BBC about the Discovery Channel's upcoming documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus. The article mentioned DNA testing, but gave no explanation of what DNA was tested and what it was compared to. A story in today's NYT gives a little more information. Crypt Held Bodies of Jesus and Family, Film Says

However, the documentary’s director and its driving force, Simcha Jacobovici, an Israeli-born Canadian, said there was enough mitochondrial DNA for a laboratory in Ontario to conclude that the bodies in the “Jesus” and “Mary Magdalene” ossuaries were not related on their mothers’ side. From this, Mr. Jacobovici deduced that they were a couple, because otherwise they would not have been buried together in a family tomb.

In an interview, Mr. Jacobovici was asked why the filmmakers did not conduct DNA testing on the other ossuaries to determine whether the one inscribed “Judah, son of Jesus” was genetically related to either the Jesus or Mary Magdalene boxes; or whether the Jesus remains were actually the offspring of Mary.

“We’re not scientists. At the end of the day we can’t wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA,” he said. “We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, ‘I’ve done my job as a journalist.’ ”

I find that very interesting. They want to make it sound like it is scientific, but then he plainly states "We're not scientists." It doesn't even sound to me like good journalism. If you are not going to wait for all the facts before you start making grand hypotheses, then you are just taking part in sensationalism, not real scientific documentary work.

I personally tend not to watch Discovery Channel documentaries anymore for that very reason. All of the ones that I've taken time to watch seem to follow that same formula. Hype something up like they really know something about it, and then when the show is over, you really have very few facts and a lot of speculation repeated over and over.

My guess is that all devout Christians that watch the show will realize that it is not scientific and won't allow it to affect their beliefs at all. However, many who regularly watch documentaries or shows on that same channel will continue to swear by the accuracy of their other stories. It seems to me, if you can't trust one of their documentaries, you should at least be skeptical of them all? Maybe that's just me.

Take it or leave it.

BBC News - 'Jesus tomb found' in Jerusalem

Jesus had a son named Judah and was buried alongside Mary Magdalene, according to a new documentary by Hollywood film director James Cameron.

It examines a tomb that, it is claimed, belonged to Jesus and his family, and was found near Jerusalem in 1980.

The Oscar-winning director of Titanic says statistical analysis and DNA show the tomb is that of Jesus.

I'd like to find out a little more information about this. I don't understand how DNA can even be an issue here. Where are they getting DNA that they "know" belonged to Jesus to test it against? Without something to test it against, DNA is useless. It's not going to affect my religious beliefs one way or the other, but it still would be interesting to know what they are basing it on.

Ash Wednesday

In honor of Ash Wednesday, a reading from Genesis 3:17-19 (The Revised English Bible version):

And to the man he said: 'Because you have listened to your wife and have eaten from the tree which I forbade you,
on your account the earth will be cursed.
You will get your food from it only by labour
all the days of your life;
it will yield thorns and thistles for you.
You will eat of the produce of the field,
and only by the sweat of your brow will you win your bread
until you return to the earth;
for from it you were taken.
Dust you are, to dust you will return.'

This is God's commandment to Adam after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It is this that we are reminded of in the Ash Wednesday ceremony. In the Episcopal church the ashes are imposed with these words:

Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Let us all remember to be humble during this holy Lenten season.

Intellectual honesty?

NYT - Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules

There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island.

His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”

But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

The article continues on to discuss the use of scientific degrees by creationists to somehow validate their positions as scientific, and the ability (or lack thereof) of universities to use the religious beliefs of degree candidates as criteria for awarding or withholding degrees.

It just seems to me that student here is being intellectually dishonest. He is unwilling to be honest with himself. Either he believes what his dissertation says or he doesn't. All of this "one paradigm or another" business doesn't cut it for me in this circumstance. Now I can say "if one follows a realist paradigm" even if I'm not a realist, but I'm not going to write a dissertation arguing in favor of that paradigm.

I suppose that the universities shouldn't be able to deny people degrees based on their religious beliefs on the one hand, but if the candidates have truly steeled themselves against believing what they are being taught, it seems that they don't really deserve the degree in the first place. Ultimately, it just seems like a really odd thing to do.

To each his own

His own interpretation that is.

CNN - Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he claims have 10 million followers. "These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."
[. . .]
Against him is one of the planet's best-known fossil hunters, Richard Leakey, whose team unearthed the bones at Nariokotome in West Turkana, in the desolate, far northern reaches of Kenya in 1984.

"Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his," Leakey, who founded the museum's prehistory department, told The Associated Press. "The bishop is descended from the apes and these fossils tell how he evolved."
[. . .]
Followers of creationism believe in the literal truth of the Genesis account in the Bible that God created the world in six days. Bishop Adoyo believes the world was created 12,000 years ago, with man appearing 6,000 years later. He says each biblical day was equivalent to 1,000 Earth years.

What neither one of these men are willing to acknowledge is that they are both engaging in interpretation. They are both taking information and understanding it in the way that makes the most sense to them. Neither one is dealing with indisputable, empirical fact. This is not 2+2=4. There are missing links in anthropology. It is an interpretation to say that one biblical day in the creation story is 1000 years. We don't know. We all put our faith in something, even if that faith is in science, it is still, to some degree, an act of faith.

That we all may be one

An article in today's Washington Post caught my attention: Carter, Clinton Seek To Bring Together Moderate Baptists. The article talks about President Carter's desire to form a Baptist coalition that would rival the Southern Baptist Convention. He stresses the fact that he is not looking to form a wholly political group with a religious affiliation, but to change the image of Baptists in the world's mind.

"We hope . . . to emphasize the common commitments that bind us together rather than to concentrate on the divisive issues that separate us," Carter said. "There's too much of an image in the Baptist world, and among non-Christians, that the main, permeating characteristic of Christian groups is animosity toward one another and an absence of ability to cooperate in a spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood."

It was this particular part that struck me. I'm not a Baptist, I'm currently a member of the Episcopal Church, but the Episcopal Church has quite a bit of division within it at the moment as well. Today, in the "Prayers of the People" (a prayer lead by a lay reader and read responsively with the entire congregation) the prayer began:

Father, we pray for your holy Catholic Church;
That we all may be one.
(Prayer of the People, Form III, page 387, Book of Common Prayer)

And this should be the desire of all good Christians, that we can put our differences aside and see the common thread that binds us. I don't know what political goals Carter and Clinton may have in mind for this new organization, there are some undoubtedly. I'm not sure how setting up a rival group will promote unity. But I do understand the desire to present a more tolerant image of the Baptist religion than the SBC gives. And, if the SBC is going to be political, which they obviously are, there is no reason this group can't do the same.