I’m taking an Introduction to Philosophy Course this semester.  As we’ve learned about the advent of the Christian era, I have begun to think about the continued role of philosophy.  What should be the relation between the gospel and philosophy?

A Bad Name

Philosophy seems to have been given a bad name in the scriptures, specifically for the way it leads us away from God.  In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul warns, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8,emphasis added).

In this dispensation, the Lord explains that it is because of the creeds of men that many have been unable to find the truth.  Through Joseph Smith, he says,  “For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men” (Doctrine and Covenants 123:12, emphasis added).

In these cases (and others – see Jacob 4:10; 2 Nephi 9:42-43), we are warned that sophistry and learning can lead us into spiritual darkness.

But philosophy is not inherently evil.  In fact, it can be beneficial if we exercise wisdom and prudence.  Jacob tells us,  “When [men] are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God….  And they shall perish.  But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God” (2 Nephi 9:28-29, emphasis added).

What Good – The Scriptures

There are a few scriptures which speak of the benefit of philosophy and learning, including Jacob’s quote above.

In the Book of Mormon, Mosiah made sure that his sons were “taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord” (Mosiah 1:2, emphasis added).

In the Old Testament, Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-nego, and Daniel were honored for their “knowledge and skill in all learning,” and Daniel specifically for his understanding of visions (Daniel 1:17, emphasis added).

In these and other situations, individuals were able to deepen their spirituality and understanding of spiritual things because of their philosophical preparation.

What Good – The Philosophers

Scholars and church leaders have had varied opinions on the value of philosophy.  As Tertullian asked, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” or “the Academy with the Church?”  It’s a valid question, and one that has garnered many answers since its inception.  Some believe that it is useless, others essential, and still others that it serves a purpose only until we find the gospel.

In teaching the Galatians, Paul described the law as a pedagogue that would bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24).  Clement expanded on this idea when he said that philosophy was actually inspired of God, and also a pedagogue that could bring men to Christ.  A pedagogue, rather than a schoolmaster (as its translated in the KJV), was a servant who would lead children to school.  Clement argued that philosophy, in that same way, can lead us to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Philosophy has always been used to answer man’s questions about how they should live their lives – how they might best act so as to be happiest, or most well, or most just.  The gospel, coming from a divine source, meets these same needs, so we can see how one might lead to the other.

Others thought Clement’s position does not go far enough, arguing that while valuable for leading us to Christ, philosophy can also enrich our experience with Christ once we have found him.  This position mirrors that of Augustine, who said in prayer, “I now believe that it was thy pleasure that I should fall upon these books [of Plato] before I studied thy Scriptures, that it might be impressed on my memory how I was affected by them….  For had I first been molded in thy Holy Scriptures… they might have pushed me off the solid ground of godliness.”  Augustine was able to, using the tools given him by his study of philosophy, remain on the ‘solid ground of godliness.’  Origen’s position is similar, believing that we can understand who God is through reading Plato‘s writings on the “good.”  In either case, using the teachings of the great philosophers allowed these men to better understand the gospel.

The analytical tools of philosophy also allow men to explore belief.  Epicurus, an ancient philosopher, used philosophy to outline the problem of evil and a belief that led some to charge him as an atheist.  Since his time, philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and BYU’s David Paulsen have used philosophical logic to refute this problem of evil (see the Free Will Defense and Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil) .  Others can now study their arguments and have more than a superficial experience with their religion.  Instead, they can understand both what they believe and why they believe it.

What Good – My Experience

I offer my own opinion, with an example from just a few days ago.  While philosophy can work in such a way as to bring men to Christ, it should not be abandoned when religion is found, but rather embraced as a way to deepen and enrich religious experience.

Philosophy is essential in giving us the tools to have constructive discussions about the gospel.  In my short philosophical experience, I have become much better at recognizing, formulating, and refuting arguments.  I also have experience with common mistakes people make, including fallacious arguments that pop up frequently, and this has allowed me to better discuss controversial issues with others.  Those who have less experience in philosophy are not as adept at having constructive discussions.

I am a “fan” of The Book of Mormon on Facebook.  In an effort to gain more control over the discussions that took place on the topic, the administrators opened a forum at MormonTopics.net.  I thought it would be fun to join in, and registered.

My first contribution was regarding the question, “Are Mormons Christian?”  This is a good question, and doesn’t have a clear answer.  There are lots of questions to clarify, including what the term “Christian” means, what the requirements may be to qualify as Christian, what may disqualify a group as Christian, or if there is even more than one way to be Christian.  The majority of LDS posters ignored these types of questions, and wrote things like “Of course we’re Christian!” or “The name of the Church proves we’re Christian!” or “The subtitle of The Book of Mormon proves we’re Christian!”  The majority of non-LDS posters wrote things like “Mormons aren’t Christian!” or “You worship a different Jesus!”  As you can see, such posts are ineffective at resolving, or even coming to a greater understanding of, the question.

My post differed from the norm.  While certainly not polished or perfect, it offered a different view from the views being expressed.  Few others seemed to agree or care.  Still, I was grateful for my experience in philosophy, for it allowed my religious experience to be deeper and more fulfilling, and still does.  Those who study religion without the aid of philosophy can still have wonderful experiences that draw them closer to God.  It seems clear to me, though, that a philosophical background can assist in deepening and enriching those same experiences.

Balance

Certainly balance is the key to any such situation; being extreme in either direction will ultimately end with some sort of loss.  And clearly, priority should be given to divine counsel – the scriptures and the words of living prophets.

What are your thoughts on balance?  Or on the original question of what “Athens has to do with Jerusalem”?

Sminkedamen siger jeg skal kigge op i loftet og drypper omgående mine røde øjne. Hun smører mit ansigt ind i to forskellige slags foundation. Pudrer mig. Giver mig voks i håret og i mine øjenbryn. Dette er ikke virkelighed. Normalt har jeg æblekinder og ser lidt træt ud. Jeg låner hendes computer og godkender en kommentar på min blog fra Lars Løkke Rasmussen, hvori han siger tak for inspirationen og linker til dagens tale. Dette er virkelighed.

Dagen er startet med at min blog blev citeret fra talerstolen i åbningstalen på årets landsmøde for Venstre. Det er Statsministeren, der citerer mit blogindlæg. Tilsyneladende fordi, at når man googler “den danske drøm”, er det første svar mit blogindlæg med samme titel fra maj 2008. Det har Statsministeren gjort. Og nu sidder jeg i sminken i DR Byen og venter på at komme i Ugen Med Clement, sammen med en standupkomiker, en vejrpige og Danmarks klima- og energiminister, Connie Hedegaard. Sidstnævnte spørger venligt om jeg er vant til at være på tv, hvortil jeg ganske ærligt kan svare nej. Derefter beroliger hun mig og giver mig et par tips om, hvordan jeg gør mig bedst. “Glem at der er publikum og kameraer, kig på Clement og svar på det han spørger om. Det går meget hurtigere end du tror”, siger hun – stadig meget venligt og med fuld øjenkontakt.

Jeg aner ikke hvordan jeg kommer ned af trappen med følgespot og steadycam i ansigtet og da programmet er slut kan jeg intet huske af hvad jeg har sagt i interviewet, kun at jeg har været med – at jeg har haft mine femten minutters fame og at Warhol tilsyneladende havde ret. Det er først, da jeg timer senere er tilbage i Odense, at jeg opdager at de spillede Aerosmith “Walk this way”, da jeg gik ned af trappen – og at jeg faktisk fik formuleret flere sammenhængende sætninger, som svar på spørgsmål fra værten.

På en måde føler jeg mig lidt som et dyr fanget i forlygterne fra en tonstung lastbil, der kører meget hurtigere end mine reflekser kan hjælpe mig. På den anden side føler jeg en lille ligegyldighed overfor projektet, for det er ikke mit. Det jeg gerne vil sige, siger jeg her – og har sagt her. På min blog. Og her bliver det fundet – ikke i en ugentlig og fælles spotlight med minutknaphed, men når det er relevant for nogen. Som det altså viste sig at være relevant for Statsministeren, da han googlede den danske drøm fra et hotelværelse i Singapore.

I dag er verden anderledes. Jeg blev ikke citeret af nogen officiel person i morges. Jeg skal ikke på tv i aften. Jeg er ikke længere det første svar på Google, når man søger efter den danske drøm. Den plads har nyhedshistorierne om Statsministerens tale. Det er fint. Det kan godt være at jeg har opmærksomhedsrelapse lige nu, men der er ingen pointe i at forsøge at fastholde spotlightet. For jeg har ærlig talt ingen andre formål med fastholdelsen end at fodre mit ego. Jeg har ikke mere at byde på eller byde ind med lige nu. Og jeg trænger til ro. Ro til at tænke over det, som Statsministerens tale handlede om – og som mit oprindelige blogindlæg handlede om, nemlig den danske drøm. Hvad er det for et tankemæssigt fællesgods, der driver os til at sejle på tømmerflåden sammen og ikke gøre oprør og skubbe de andre ud over kanten, for at få maden for os selv?

Verdenshistorien har vist os, at vi danskere skal finde det store i det små. Vi har ikke uendelige kilometer af land eller en undergrund fyldt med utømmelige naturressourcer. Vi er ikke nok til at gå i krig, vi er ikke store nok til at være uindtagelige, vores økonomi er for lille til at betyde noget i en handelsblokade. Vi har det store i det små og det er vi specialister i. Vi har fået uendeligt meget mere ud af det vi har og det vi kan, end så mange større lande har fået ud af meget mere. Primært fordi vi har specialiseret os i at respektere individet uden at sætte fællesskabet over styr.

Den danske drøm er ikke at blive citeret af Statministeren og komme i Clement (forstå mig ret, jeg er dybt beæret over det første og synes det andet var sjovt), vores drøm er snarere at kunne være os, sammen og hver for sig. Vores fattige er rige i forhold til de fleste andre landes fattige, til gengæld er vores rige ikke superrige – ligesom vi ikke er en supermagt. Men de er dog rige og vi er dog en magt. Spændet i Danmark er ikke så stort. Vores bjerge er bakker og vores dale forsænkninger. Vores vinter er lunken og vores sommer kølig. Men vores hjerter – de sidder sgu på det rette sted. De banker for en historie om et af verdens ældste fællesskaber, hvor ingen skal tro de er noget, men der fandmegalemig heller ikke er nogen, der skal tro, at de ikke er.

Vores sværd er tveægget – for når vi bliver smålige med storheden går det galt. Så bliver det hurtigt uklædeligt at se en af verdens rigeste og sikreste nationer, sidde på sine værdier af frygt for at jeg ikke skal få nok. Sandheden er jo, at der er rigeligt til alle. Når fællesskabet bliver for småt, bliver det en spændetrøje, der ikke rigtig passer til vores danske temperament. Derfor er det også altid befriende at se den månedlige historie om danskeren, der lærer minoriteten at kende – og pludselig ikke ønsker den sendt hjem eller over kommunegrænsen. Dér blomstrer den danske folkesjæl og den danske drøm. At selvom vores fællesskab er småt, er vi ikke en ensrettet elite, men en gruppe af fællesskabsorienterede fritænkere, der sætter den enkeltes mulighed for at være med højest. Hvis man altså vel at mærke er kommet ind.

At hytte sit eget skind er frygtelig menneskeligt, men meget lidt del af den danske drøm. For hvordan skal vi passe på hinanden, hvis vi kun passer på os selv? Jeg får en glidende fornemmelse af vi står i et vadested, mens jeg kører over den natbelyste Storebæltsbro. Det er tillokkende at skifte hest og ride ud i solnedgangen alene. Sørge for sig selv. Klare sine egne behov. Skyde skylden på Janteloven og give de andre fingeren. Men er det rigtigt? Og er det folkesjælen? Eller er vi, som der er sagt utallige gange, alle socialdemokrater i hjertet, som symbol på at vi faktisk har et fællesskab, hvor ingen er større end fællesskabet men fællesskabet aldrig er større end den enkelte? Jeg tror ikke en dansker kan forklares via hans eller hendes politiske standpunkt. Partipolitikken i Danmark har for få smagsvarianter på hylderne til at kunne være andet en færdigretter i den frysedisk, hvis udvalg stort set kun har tilpasset sig siden anden verdenskrig da vi købte huse og da vi fik biler. Den laveste fællesnævner kan aldrig blive andet end den ukrydrede og henkogte gryderet. Men en dansker kan forklares med retten til at have det godt med andre og sig selv. Og kan sagtens finde et politisk individ at sætte sin stemme ved, som repræsenterer netop det. Den ret er ikke hævdvunden og det er faktisk den der står i vadestedet.

Derfor er det så vigtigt at rette ind, fremfor at rette åen ud. De politiske beslutninger vi som folk træffer, skal ikke være af angst, men af vilje. Det skal sgu være fordi vi vil noget, det skal ikke være for at undgå noget. At være dansker er en holdsport, hvor der er plads til individer på holdet – men drømmen er fælles. Det gør det mere trangt på vinderpodiet, men nemmere at komme derop. Det gør også at vi er mange om at dele æren, til gengæld er den indenfor rækkevidde for flere. Det kan godt være vores verden er lidt mindre, men netop derfor er den så meget større. Derfor blev jeg glad da Statsministeren kom forbi.

We seem to be in a state of chaos at my house these days.  My roommate, Hannah, bought a house, which is great – for her.  But for Cody and I, who have been in this position before, it meant spiraling into New Roommate Mode. 

Lucky us, we found Autumn, a fantastic new roommate!  The only problem: she needed to be in mid-month, and Hannah wouldn’t be out till December.  So right now, my living room has all of Autumn’s possessions piled to the ceiling and poor Autumn is spending her nights on the couch.

But despite the chaos, I always get excited about an opportunity to change, refresh and update my living quarters.  Especially around the holidays!  Today Cody will pick up the couch he found abandoned on Lee Street from the upholsterist (vintage parlour frame, recovered in blue/grey chenille); next week, the dark wood, vintage coffee table from Clement, our favorite home decor store in Little Rock.

For once, we’re actually agreeing on the general direction we want the living room to take!  So I thought I’d post a few photos that we’ve drawn inspiration from.

domino

domino

domino

La loi hadopi, récemment votée et censée lutter contre le téléchargement illégal, a fait couler beaucoup d’encre ces derniers mois (tapez Hadopi dans ASLN ou bien dans Google, vous verrez) et quelques semaines avant le lancement de la campagne de mail d’avertissement prévu pour janvier, l’émission Envoyé Spécial a enquêté sur ces vilains pirates qui selon les Majors du disque et du cinéma, mettent toute notre industrie culturelle en péril… [MAJ : pour voir l'émission, c'est sur cette page]

Je ne ne vais pas a priori mettre en doute l’objectivité de la télévision lorsqu’elle commente les usages des internautes mais les j’avoue que certains reportages TV m’ont laissé pour le moins dubitatif…

Tout le monde sur le Net garde un “grand” souvenir de ce sujet diffusé sur Arte et Planète : Clément le No Life ou 7 minutes de poncifs, d’a priori, de caricature, de “foutage de gueule” (désolé mais ça me rend dingue) autour de ce qu’est un jeune quand il a accès à internet !

Clément le No Life

Et que dire de ce “reportage” scandaleux sur les dangers de Facebook diffusé par… Envoyé Spécial fin 2008 ? Certes, je mets en garde ceux qui pensent que Facebook est un espace privé ou confidentiel et je reste également vigilant quant aux dérapages que peuvent provoquer les réseaux sociaux mais jetez un oeil sur le sujet de France 2 : A part une introduction qui aborde le partage et le contact avec des amis éloignés, la vidéo relate sur 25 minutes tous les démons qui caractériseraient Facebook ! Addiction, vol de données, drogue, meurtre, vol d’identité, pédophilie, inconscience des ados,… tout ça est monté dans bout à bout nauséabond auréolé d’un commentaire orienté dit par un journaliste (?) un brin moqueur… Il faut attendre le “retour plateau” pour entendre que certaines précautions (limitations d’accès à son compte, création de groupes, bannissement des photos compromettantes,…) permettent quand même de se protéger des dangers de Facebook. Mais rien, rien du tout sur les vertus d’un réseau social, quel qu’il soit d’ailleurs. Rien sur ce nouvel espace où toute une génération échange, partage ou discute avec sa communauté. Rien sur la façon dont les ados utilisent Facebook pour travailler et améliorer leur images, rien sur la façon dont Facebook contribue à l’intégration dans un groupe, à la collaboration, à l’entraide,…

Le sujet d’Envoyé Spécial sur Facebook (en 4 parties car YouTube limite les séquences à 10 minutes)

La télévision ne peut-elle espérer faire de l’audience qu’en exploitant les mécanismes de la peur ? La télévision traite-elle internet comme un ennemi dangereux ? J’aurais tendance à répondre par l’affirmative mais peut-être que le reportage de ce soir sera… comment dire… objectif. Réponse ce soir, France 2 à 20h35.

Et si on faisait un blind-test ? Je te mets une chanson et tu dois reconnaître qui chante ? Ok, t’es prêt ? GOOOOOOOOOOOO !

Je commence avec du lourd…

Alors ? C’est Miss Safin…. Oui, ben je préfèrerai presque Nolwenn en comparaison…

Christel, présidente autoproclamée du fan-club international d’Arnaud Clément

Marat Safin serait sur le point de se fiancer selon plusieurs média russes… Avec Nastya Osipova, une bimbo russe dont lui seul a le secret… Parce que franchement, elle casse pas trois pattes à un canard cette nenette… T’assures largement plus avec la mignonnette Nolwenn…

Après avoir décuvé de sa jolie sortie des terrains, l’ami Safin pourrait bien présenter sa belle -je ne pense pas qu’on va la lui voler celle-là- à ses parents… Son père aurait déclaré qu’il attendait avec impatience de voir celle qui est au bras du beau Russe…

Alors pour la petite info, la miss Safin est une chanteuse de pop russe… Oui aussi, vous vous copiez ou quoi, les gars ?  Vous cherchez à vous reconvertir après ? Ou il y a quelque chose de planant dans leurs chansons ? Bon je ne sais pas… Mais ce qui est sûr c’est que niveau maquillage, miss Safin bat facile miss Nolwenn… Tous les matins, il doit lui falloir au moins trois heures dans la salle de bain… C’est déposé à la truelle même… Puis alors cette robe, mes amis, même un pied dans la tombe, je n’en voudrais pas… Heureusement Nolwenn est mieux fagotée…

Safin, rangé, c’est comme moi arrêtant le journalisme ? ! Je n’y crois pas… C’était un vrai fou… Toutes les boites de nuit du monde entier l”ont vu au bras d’ une minette différente chaque semaine, tellement le géant russe craquait  sur le premier decolleté plongeant qui trainait autour de lui… C’est un truc de fou… Du coup, il en perd tout son sex-appeal…

Pff, Safin rangé, Federer papa… Le tennis deviendrait presque rabat-joie… Il faudrait un peu de piment…

Ahhh, Arnaud, je ne sais pas…. Va falloir trouver des idées…

Christel, présidente autoproclamée du fan-club international d’Arnaud Clément

Les statistiques doivent rassurer l’inconscient collectif. Je ne vois pas d’autres explications à tout ce bla-bla journalistique… Gaël Monfils rejoint les 3 Français à être allés en Finale de l’open de Paris Bercy. Alors qu’en soi, il n’y a aucune ressemblance avec ces compatriotes.

Gaël, c’est un style bien à lui, un showman qui a besoin de pas grand chose pour exploser le jeu des ses adversaires. Il peut paraître prétentieux parfois dans ses propos mais il ne l’est pas. Il s’est nourri à la hargne et à la volonté, a choisi de se faire un nom… Une cool attitude qui gêne parfois dans ce milieu si established qu’est le tennis. Mais lui, il s’en fout. Il joue, il aime ca et ca se voit.

Sa nonchalance apparente dissimule grossièrement son désir de perfection en matière de frappe, il punche la balle avec une détermination qui se lit sur son visage. Les gens croient voir un mec qui joue bien au tennis mais non, ils ont tout faux. Il joue divinement au tennis quant il parvient à se relacher , quand il est relax et concentré.

J’aime bien sa grande gueule, aussi. Il cache avec difficulté sa timidité. En fait, c’est un grand sentimental, ce mec… C’est pour cela que ses résultats fonctionnent à des détails : l’amour d’un public, un lieu qui le galvanise, un arbitrage délicat… Et voici notre GI-JOE qui se met en branle… Et quand il est lancé, il est difficilement stoppable.

Demain, ce sera chaud face à Djoko. Je pense qu’il n’aura peut être pas la possibilité d’exploiter son jeu mais son audacieux opportunisme et sa dose de folie me laisse à penser qu’il aura bien des chances de faire le jeu… Même si la tache ne sera pas facile, Gaël est capable de se galvaniser pour un match… Un détail… Et hop c’est parti…

Transformer. moduler, Photographier… La beauté d’un geste, un physique avantageux, des formes sublimes… C’est un peu le tour de la question de ce matin. Vous l’aurez peut-être remarqué mais en ce moment, toutes les stars de tennis se plaisent à dévoiler leur physique avantageux. Les magazines sont très souvent alléchés par ces pages là qui permettent d’augmenter les tirages…

Voilà donc quelques uns des clichés les plus stunning ! J’en suis restée complètement sur le c..l !

Il y a ces beautés naturelles qui ne peuvent qu’embellir une publication. Héléna Dementieva fait partie de celles-là…

Mais il y a des surprises vraiment surprenantes… En anglais, j”aurais dit :” unbelievable” à la Ivanovitch…

Vous connaissez tous la petite sœur de Marat Safin, comme cela :

Oui c’est pas terrible, terrible

Ben, la miss “je tape fort dans la balle” s’est revêtue d’un pouvoir attractif magique sur une série mode du Harper’s Bazaar :

On aurait presque du mal à la reconnaître…. Mais si, c’est bien elle !

Métamorphosée, Safina hein ?

C’est ce que j’aime dans ces séries mode car cela est nullement leur job de prendre des poses et pourtant le résultat est vraiment étourdissant !

Il y a aussi Amélie qui s’est lâchée… Celle que les médias et l’opinion publique en ont vite usé de raccourcis vis-à-vis d’un physique pas assez féminin à leur goût, s’est transformée :

On la connaît joueuse… Elle est bien entourée, là. Non ?

Pose suggestive mais franchement elle est pas canon, notre Amélie nationale ?

Et puis, il y a Serena Williams… Alors comment dire, c’est un peu le Grimmlysss du tennis…Et pourtant, en usant de charme, elle a réalisé une série de photos assez amusantes !

Coquine, va !

Comme quoi, avec un bon retoucheur photo, on peut faire n’importe quoi…

Photos : droits réservés

]]> http://mike42lan.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/the-early-apostlic-father-clement-of-rome-on-the-martyrdom-of-peter-and-paul/ Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:31:06 +0000 mike42lan http://mike42lan.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/the-early-apostlic-father-clement-of-rome-on-the-martyrdom-of-peter-and-paul/

Chapter V.—No less evils have arisen from the same source in the most recent times. The martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. 25 Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. 26 Let us set before our eyes the illustrious 27 apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, 28 compelled 29 to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, 30 and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. 31 Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

Chapter VI.—Continuation. Several other martyrs.

To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished us with a most excellent example. Through envy, those women, the Danaids 32 and Dircæ, being persecuted, after they had suffered terrible and unspeakable torments, finished the course of their faith with stedfastness, 33 and though weak in body, received a noble reward. Envy has alienated wives from their husbands, and changed that saying of our father Adam, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” 34 Envy and strife have overthrown great cities and rooted up mighty nations.

Chapter XLI.—Continuation of the same subject.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. Ye see, 177 brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.

Clement of Rome was either a disciple of Peter or Paul.He writes of the events of Peter and Paul being martyrdom under the Emperor Nero as being recent.I assume that he wrote the epistle between 69 A.D. and August 70 A.D. between the year of the 4 emperors and the Destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. He mention sacrifices still in Jerusalem,that would have been imposible after August 70 A.D.Some commentators place it between 80 A.D.-100 A.D.I believe that it was written earlier.Does anybody agree with me?

How does one engage other Chrisitans about doctrinal disagreements?  Why would one want to?  How do you speak the truth without losing sight of love?  Since the theoretical answers to these questions don’t mean much, I recently embarked on a some experimental dialogues with Christians that believe some very different things than myself, hoping to gain some insight, and to practice my ability to be gracious and loving in the midst of ugly theological conflict.  I don’t know how to measure my success.  Should I measure by how many peopled I convinced that I was right?  If so, I was a dismal failure.  Should I measure success by how few times I lost my temper or said something rude?  According to this standard, I was fairly successful–not perfect mind you, not an “A+”, but maybe an “I” for Improved.  Here is a sampling of my experiments, which mainly centered around getting an into an argument/dialogue concerning eschatology with very conservative, and outspoken bible “prophecy” bloggers.  I have not changed a word of the following argument, except that I have erased the name of the person with whom I was arguing.  I have put editorial comments in italics and brackets.

The original blog post was about how Bible “prophecy” should be more important to the church today than it is.

ME:

The rapture was a concept made up in the 19th century. Standing up for peace, justice, and unity should be more important for the church today, not an erroneous interpretation of Revelation and Daniel.

http://theophiliacs.com/2009/11/03/eschatology-and-the-american-lawn-a-parallel-history-part-iii/

[Editorial Note: I fully admit that this isn't the most graceful way to begin a conversation, but it did garner some attention.  Still working on my entrance.]

——–

HIM:
Both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul made statements that clearly establish the rapture doctrine. Jesus said, in Matthew 25:13, “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” Paul affirmed in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.”

jstambaugh, your belief in liberation theology is leading you down the wrong path. Liberation theology replaces the traditional message of salvation based on faith in Jesus’ death with one that is focused on salvation through political and social reform. Salvation is simply reduced to the goal of freedom from oppression in this life. Liberation theology allows the Gospel of Christ to be swallowed up by socialism. God is seen as a “hidden force,” and the New Testament is merely a collection of useful illustrations of Marxist truths.

[Editorial Note: Damn my bio, it is apparently of more interest here than my post concerning the raputre!]

——–

ME: 
B_____,

Please don’t get me wrong here, I believe very much that Christ is returning to judge the living and the dead. I simply do not believe that Christ will return once to take away all true believers, and then they’ll be a tribulation in which an anti-Christ (according to Bob Jones the anti-Christ will be a homosexual robot) will make everyone take the mark of the beast, and then the Tribulation force will come in and kick some anti-Christ butt, etc., etc., etc. until Christ returns again to establish a reign of peace and justice on the earth. Why not cut out all the stuff in the middle?

The return of Christ has always been and will always be a primary doctrine in the Church, the doctrine of the ahead of time rapture of true believers to spare them from the tribuation, etc. etc., has only been around since the 19th century.

I understand where you’re coming from on the whole Liberation Theology thing, but I think you’re oversimplifying things quite a bit. Using your logic and method, I could just as easily say that evangelical/fundamentalist doctrine has been swallowed up by nationalism, that God is seen as the protector and blesser of rich, white America, and that the New Testament is a collection of truths that verify our own predispositions toward capitalism, greed, and oppression. But the above statement, too, while there is a kernel of truth there, is not the whole story, and so is unfair.

I believe that in his life Jesus taught us to have concern for the poor, the oppressed and the outcast. In his teachings he taught us to be peacemakers and to love our enemies. He died in a self-sacrificing act of salvation for all, and he rose again to conquer death and establish a new reign of a different sort of Kingdom on this earth. As those who believe in what he did and said, our job is to live in the Kingdom of God now, and work toward the reconciliation of all Creation to Christ (Rom. 8), not in our own power, or through the use of political ideology (marxist or conservative), nor through the use of violence (like many marxist and fascist groups would use), but through the power of Christ’s self-sacrificing, world-changing, Love, which we have access to through reliance on the Holy Spirit.

In short, I do not take the teachings of Marx (or Glen Beck) seriously, nor do I take the efforts of governments to institute social reform seriously. Rather, I take the Beatitudes seriously; I take the Sermon on the Mount seriously; I take Matthew 25 seriously; I take Romans 12 seriously, etc.

In any event, I hope you take my words with grace, not as attacks but as a sincere desire to talk about serious issues that face us as brothers and sisters in Christ. Thank you for allowing me the voice to do this on your site.

May the peace and blessing of Christ be with you.

James

 ——–

HIM:
James,

There is nothing wrong with being an “escapist.” Noah was an escapist and so was Lot. And Jesus said that when the end time signs begin to appear, we are to pray “to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man” (Luke 21:36).

Certainly we are called to suffer for Christ (Romans 8:17). And anyone who truly stands for Jesus in this world will be persecuted (John 15:19). We are assured that as believers we will suffer tribulation in this world (John 16:33), but we are promised that we will be exempted from the great tribulation that will one day come upon the entire world (Revelation 3:10).

One of the early Church fathers, Clement, wrote quite extensively on the principles of the rapture in an epistle to the Corinthians he drafted in either 68 or 97 AD – less than 70 years after Christ’s death on the cross – a considerable period of time before 1830.

I have also given other historical evidence in prior comments that validate the teachings of the rapture preceding anything related to Darby.

The history of the social gospel (which the Emergent Church teaches) is, in nearly every case, a sincere attempt by Christians to do those things that they believe will honor God and benefit humanity. In every case, however, the practical working out of “benefiting humanity” has compromised biblical faith and dishonored God. Why is that? God’s Word gives no commission to the church to fix the problems of the world. Those who attempt to do so are starting out under a false premise, “…a way which seemeth right unto a man,” not God’s way. So where can it go from there? “The end thereof are the ways of death,” i.e., destruction (Proverbs 14:12). Furthermore, the problems of the world are all symptoms. The root cause is sin.

Consistent with its amillennial/postmillennial beginnings, the efforts of the social gospel are earthbound in their attempted restoration of the kingdom of God. Eugene Peterson has infiltrated that heresy into his Message Bible: “God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again” (a perversion of John 3:17).

Anyone who puts his hope in this social gospel, which employs “people of faith” to make “this world the kind of place God can come to,” needs to heed the words of Jesus in Luke 18:8 “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” People of all faiths, yes, but certainly not “the faith,” for which Jude exhorts true believers to earnestly contend.

B______

——–

ME:
B________,

What exactly did Clement say? I will agree with you that he speaks extensively of the Second Coming of Christ and the bodily Resurrection. But these things are not what I am talking about when I talk about the rapture. Give me some chapters from Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians so that can see what you’re saying.

[Editorial Note: Strangely enough, Clement has nothing to say concerning the rapture, or the imminent formation of the Tribulation Force, or about the fact that the leader of the EU is going to put barcodes in everyone's foreheads.  There is, in Clements letter, a fascinating discussion of the Resurrection and the immenent return of Christ, in which he invokes the imagery of the Phoenix, however.]

You said:
“God’s Word gives no commission to the church to fix the problems of the world. ”

What do you mean? Are you saying that Scripture has nothing in it about taking care of the poor? Does it not have anything in it about being good stewards of Creation? Does it not have anything in it about standing up against injustice and oppression? About taking in the widow and the orphan, about being kind to the stranger and the immigrant? Nothing about paying workers fair wages?

If you ignore the parts of the Bible which lay out God’s outline for a better world you have to ignore about 3/4 of it…and I thought you reformed folks were Sola Scriptura. :)  [Editorial note: I am not particularly proud of this little jab]

I am not purporting the social gospel as taught in the early 20th century, or post-millenialism. I don’t think we’re gonna fix the world’s problems before Jesus comes back, nor do I think we’ll do anything of lasting value without reliance on the Holy Spirit. But I do believe that we are called to be witnesses the Kingdom of God now, here on earth. I do believe that all Creation is groaning for Christ to return and set everything straight, and we need to be witnesses to that redemption in our actions and our words.

And furthermore, I believe that unless we are following God’s earlier commissions, like Micah 6:8 which tells us that all the Lord requires of us is to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly before God, and like the roughly 2,000 verses that deal with the poor and our responsibility to them, that the “Great Commission” of Matthew 26 is meaningless. Our failure to witness to the true Gospel in our actions invalidates the witness of our words.

——–

HIM:
James,

You have come on the scene disputing the rapture doctrine, but have given no supporting scripture for your point of view. Instead, you throw some un-Biblical website out there.  [Editorial Note: that would be THIS website he's talking about ]

Then you have spouted socialist and marxist views, but you try to use Scripture to disguise the ideology.

You made the comment “I don’t think we’re gonna fix the world’s problems before Jesus comes back”. That’s a glaring humanistic comment in my opinion. [Editorial Note: I think his eye must have skipped the "don't" in my sentence.  It happens to the best of us.]

Your comment “Our failure to witness to the true Gospel in our actions invalidates the witness of our words” incorporates salvation through works it seems.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works; shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Works will never produce salvation, nor will faith plus works save, but good works always accompany true saving faith.

This conversation is closed as far as I’m concerned. Points of view here are polar opposites. I stand firm in my faith and beliefs of what the Bible has to say about the Rapture and Prophecy.

——-

ME:

Thanks for the responses, B_______.

May the peace, love and joy of Christ our Saviour be with you, my brother.

James

Entering into the element of New Orleans, the key becomes the essence of spirits whether flowing on Bourbon Street or through the nether alleys. The annual Tales Of The Cocktail event created a vision of melding new spirits and the re-invention of old ones but the journey is not within one tier but three acts. Act One begins in earnest.

As the rain progressed on the grooves of Canal Street,  The Astor Crowne Plaza New Orleans, one half the center of the proceedings, offered solace as the die was cast, its luxurious walls offering rest and relaxation from the libations at hand.

The kick off “Cocktail Market” at Hotel Montelone, the center of all things Tales, offered a display of different tastes to begin the evening’s festivities. The essential smoothness of a lavender cello by LOFT, a brand based out of Emeryville, CA with distillery settings in Portland, Oregon, initialized the journey. The essence of its flavor was sweet and tangy without too much bitter. The concoction can be found online but also in a consistent chain of events at Astor Wine & Spirits in Downtown Manhattan right off Cooper Union Square. Another highlight of note is that LOFT’s offices are only steps from nearby Pixar. Organic, a boutique vodka brand, also made its presence known in purity simply by the motivation of its flavors: cucumber and tomato. While basic in many ways, the taste does capture the spirit viscerally of these flavors quite well but interaction with Bloody Marys might be overestimated through the slightness of the cucumber imprint makes it perfect for martinis.

Tito’s Tequila were also making their presence known in earnest. The dare of the space rested within “Fire In The Hole”, a hotter-than-hell shot which involved a hollowed out jalapeno nub encrusted in cayenne pepper and rock salt then filled with tequila and lemoncello. The key was to do the shot and then bite down and eat the jalapeno in one bite which scared more than a few onlookers.

After drinking some water to cool the jets, a hidden room within the back of the Carousel Bar revealed the essence of Tee Punch, using the essence of Clement from Martinique. Donning the hats of lore, the bartender mashed and poured her way through the proceedings, The Punch had a light sweet Mint Julep taste with a kick giving a nod to its cousins in Kentucky.

On the back end of that party, as can be expected at such confabs, smaller distillers bring out some of their wares to get feedback from far reaching connoiseurs. A specific one of note was Hudson Real American Whiskey, one of the first companies to begin making whiskey in the Hudson Valley, north of Manhattan, since Prohibition. Supplied to a limited amount of Soho Clubs and building brand awareness, the bottles released are smaller though the distiller himself brought a 750ml bottle which is not available commercially on the market. The taste can be described as tusky yet smooth.

The Opening Night Ceremonies began anew with a party celebrating the release of Beefeater 24. Enveloping a ballroom at newly renovated New Orleans Roosevelt Hotel, the vision of both courtesans and drag elements melded into the bar as masks were donned for waiting photographers as Beefeater concoctions swirled in the mind. In the shadowed nooks and crannies of the room, four different food stations served a variety of morsels from oysters with spinach risotto to sliced pork being cut off right from the pig. In between, a toned blonde girl provided the requisite black derby hats as sweet cherry vermouth and 24 ended the soiree.

As the evening enveloped ever so quickly, a downstairs ballroom as the Roosevelt opened revealing a barely covered lingerie angel. The opening of the Hendrick’s Gin Burlesque show was about to begin. From the angle of view sipping a gin cocktail with cucumber, a leather clad seductress on an O-Ring writhed under a black light while girls dressed in black ruffles, perched above the bar, watched and smiled. As the show began, emceed by a peculiar ringmaster, the elements of the burlesque became more and more pronounced from a girl riding a unicorn with her breasts galloping to the fire girl setting her nipples on fire. The looks from the sides and the cheers from the girls in the audience solidified the performers’ focus as a monkey boy contortionist and his mate began stripping off their clothes in direct order. Burlesque was the still the name of the game so the tease was made in congruence. A drink of “Gnome Sweet Gnome” made with Hendricks, cherry liquer and a splash of citrus flittered the tongue.

The night later on Bourbon Street was dark and dingy. Inside the Bar Smarts party within Bourbon Cowboy off Iberville, the music pumped loud and the Jameson shots were aplenty. As the girls danced on the bars in the spirit of “Coyote” to the likes of Def Leppard’s “Pour Some Sugar on Me”, Chivas shots were shared with some hotel executives coincidentally on a separate conference. As the night wound down and the hangovers set in, a quiet conversation with one of the shot girls, newly transported from California, brought a good ideal to mind. Before she came to New Orleans, she was a bit introverted she said. But now she’s not.

Lunch required glasses in the beginning since sleep was not yet of the essence. In the Soul Revival Suite atop the Hotel Montelone, different lunches in respect to certain days highlighted spirits of specific placement. After settling the stomach with a bit of rice and pork serenaded in ranch dressing, Averna made itself known. With a variety of four different sambucas, the challenge here was palette. One of the key things at “Tales” which was more, at times, common sense than anything else was an influx of bottled water which Fiji was nice enough to provide. Averna’s citrus label sambuca was the smoothest by far while the straight-up version singed with the normal twang. However, it was the Sicilian Fizz combining strawberries, a bit of soda water and Averna’s licorice-spun sambuca which provided the most kick with a gentle aftertaste.

The first attended panel of the conference “Taking The Bullshit Out Of Port” (originally called “Not Your Grandpa’s Port”) set the tone. The key with many spirits is being able to let loose inhibitions and look at them a different way. Absinthe at this conference was used specifically in this way. With port, people see it more an after dinner drink. Here the idea was to show the possibility of a port cocktail which, while not in wide acceptance, is already being done. The first major point made of Port (which was originated honestly in Portugal) is that, in 110 degree heat in the summer in that country, people were going to want a cool cocktail, specifically with port.

The first sample used the essence of egg yolk mixed with port and bitters which gave it a light almost translucent taste. The next two cocktails were specific but, in breaking down their structure, one can see the construction. The first true port cocktail sampled combined the essence of Grand Mariner, Asombra and 127 Port to interesting if not smoky textures. The tip of possibility is there though it still needs more coaxing. The second port cocktail combined bitters, maple syrup, Ronseca and Makers and is then served up like a Manhattan with three cherries on a pick. The result is silky yet a bit brisk as the taste buds struggle to interpret the colliding of structures which, despite any preconceived notions, is quite good.

The second inkling of port within the panel involved that of the Croft Pink Port which uses white grapes for its rich texture. Pink port can be made by adding red and white grapes together in a mix but, as the lead panelist Spencer Best commented, it comes out as “pedantic”. The key is specific aging. Late bottle vintages take about 4 to 6 years while the “Reserve” takes about 2 to 3. The key with the Pink is that 12 hours initially of fermentation needs to be taken of the skins. Spencer’s three main words needed, in his mind, to describe port were specifically recited: nutty, fruity and complex.

The two port cocktails that followed using the Croft Pink faired better simply because of the construction inherent in making this vintage. “Bubbles + Pink”, an apertif by nature, combined bitters, Cointreau and the port, chilled heavily and stirred. The result is a slightly off-put drink that goes down smooth the more you drink of it naturally by paradox. The second outing of Croft Pink wasn’t as successful in essence because of the different chemical natures of the mixing spirits. This drink, “The Smoking Gun”, combines orange juice, Pink and scotch and while, surprisingly sweet considering, comes off a bit too citrusy.

After compelling oneself with water, the hall upstairs at the Montelone began to brim with anticipation for the Absinthe Green Hour where the recently legalized spirit would get its perspective.

Near the end of the hall, a secret offering in the guise of the Cointreau Tasting Room kept the synapses firing. As mint, strawberries and cucumber were mashed in rapid order, the figure of the drink “Rosy Lady” tickled the fancy combining Cointreau, lemon and gin with the fruity essence of the mash and shaken. The result was a more than adequate missile of flavor that jump started the thought process.

As green began to fill the vision as the Absinthe Hour reigned, the key thought was the aspect of differentiation. Lucid, in full regalia as seen in the visage of Ted Breaux, was in highlighting a new Swiss absinthe not of his own creation but of a close friend. When inquired, there was not yet plans to create a super premium form of Lucid but to be revealed. Flowing through other tables, the essence of Czech absinthe (sampled on a Prague press trip last year) is making its presence known with its coming premiere in the States in the form of “The Green Fairy” which oddly enough, distilled in the Czech Republic, is actually made by Australians.

The essence of a sampled Philadelphia absinthe was actually infused with a bit of twang as a shot was toasted with a distiller from Pacific down the way. But it was Pacific Distillery, out of Seattle, whose master blender Marc Bernhard was on hand to discuss its intent, that had the smoothness to beat. In balance, Le Tournment Vert, readily available at the Palms in Las Vegas, kept a discreet but strong presence including a ready endorsement from The Doheny in Downtown LA where it can also be found prevalently.

Another interesting fusion progression made its ability apparent in one of Marteau’s absinthes which blended scotch whiskey with the spirit allowing for a smattering of bitters. Interesting taste but not without drawbacks.

As the dusk shined the golden warmth into darkness down Royal, the structure of The Presbytere arose out of the square as skateboarders jumped the rails at a nearby church. Entering the halls of the museum of time, the stairs upstairs reveled in a texture of blue.

The spirit that made its presence most known even as the party wound down was the essence of Zwack, a Hungarian spirit with the right amount of kick. When mixed with Campari, its sweetness can become nicely euphoric. The current head of the company, whose grandparents started its distillation, stood watching with interest as the different tastes became apparent to her from people’s faces. Zwack’s strength is that it has the essence of being smooth and rich without being overpowering.

At another table within the corridors Don Julio mixed its tequila in a blend of simple syrup which, while diluting the power of the impact, gave the cocktail might despite its intensiveness in this form which functioned more as a cordial. This drink, most accurately, would be finely enjoyed on a sweet afternoon as the brown sugar around the rim of the glass added to its beauty while the fizz gave it the consistency akin to The Sicilian sampled from Averna.

The evening continued to evolve with a private cocktail-paired dinner at Mila just around the corner from the Roosevelt. The personage of Elixir, out of San Francisco, populated the table as the courses began. The tuna tartare in trollop form lying across a waffle crisp went down smoothly as a mojito was simply insisted. The cucumber-embossed salad rolled in thin slices, hiding the cream cheese center inside, slid down with silkiness as the sugar alternative of the mojito also gave it breath and beauty making it divine.

The fish course that followed was draped over a bed of morels that gave it enriched substance. The flaky meat simply melted in the mouth not unlike a similar entree sampled in Stockholm, Sweden a year prior. Flounder cooked precisely this way is usually the only dish that can come off with this type of precision. Add to that fact a light but forceful molasses sauce that makes the poisson proceedings almost devilish.

The meat course envisioned a cross of lamb which melted in the mouth with a hard lemonade envisioned concoction as a fusion point. However it was the mind blowing taste of the short rib hidden on the plate that sent everyone over the top.

After smoking Parliaments in the growing chill of the night discussing the baths of Hungary, a dessert of a chocolate cordial floating in a strawberry liquid pond surrounded by whipped cream made the indulgence that much more so.

The late night climax of the first section of “Tales” belonged to the Hornitos’ Party at Mardi Gras World on the river past the convention center which required a Hunter Thompson trek in vision jumping fences just to arrive as the hour approaching 12.

There, the center bar swirled in oranges as two sweet drinks turned to six quickly in the guise of a tequila punch down low. The platforms danced with girls in skintight leather as beads were handed out. Deputized after a few shots, the beads became a sign of dance intensity. After rewarding a couple debouchkas, the dance floor heated up. The drink was ready. Moving towards the floor was a given. As the cut off approached, the shuttle outside was definitely music in motion.

Next cocktail please.

Je n’arrive pas à choisir le forfait grippal et la dictature démocratique
(OM vs PSG 0 – Ben Ali 1)

Spielen häufig Politiker, zwischen öffentlichen Ämtern und Großkonzernen.

So jüngst wieder geschehen im Fall Joschka Fischer.
Der ehemalige Aussenminister der Ära Schröder und Grünen Ur-Vater zählt nun zu den Beratern der Firma Siemens. Seine ehemalige Kollegin Madeleine Albright wurde ebenso angestellt, berichtet die Financial Times Deutschland.

Beide sind ebenso als Berater für BMW tätig.

Ebenso hat Fischer sich verpflichtet für den politischen Zupruch der Nabucco-Pipeline zu sorgen, die die Gasversorung Europas von Russalnd unabhängig machen soll.

Grafik: Tagesschau.de

Damit arbeitet er gegen Kanzler a.D. Gerhard Schröder, der mittlerweile im Aufsichtsrat des russischen Energieriesen Gazprom tätig ist. Ein ehemaliger Kollege Schröders im Aufsichtsrat hat nunmehr das Präsidentenamt in Russland inne.

Am 8. September 2005 wurde der Vertrag über den Bau der Pipeline von der russischen Gazprom und den deutschen Konzernen E.ON und BASF im Beisein von Gerhard Schröder und Wladimir Putin unterzeichnet.

Grafik: Wikipedia

Auch der ehemalige Super Minister für Arbeit und Wirtschaft, Wolfgang Clement sitzt unter anderem im Aufsichtsrat des Energiekonzerns RWE. Während seiner Zeit als Ministerpräsident in Nordrhein-Westfalen hatte Clement RWE den Bau des umstrittenen Braukohletagebau Garzweiler II genehmigt.

Ehemaliger RAF-Anwalt und Innenminister Otty Schily hat sich während seiner Amtszeit für die Einführung des Personalausweises mit biometrischen Daten eingesetz. U.a. dafür erhielt er den “Big Brother Award“.

Nach seiner Amtszeit wurde Schily in die Aufsichtsräte der Firmen Safe ID Solutions und Biometric Systems AG berufen. Beide Firmen wären maßgeblich für die Herstellung des biometrischen Passes zuständig.

Matthias Wissmann, ehemaliger Bundesverkehrsminister ist heute Präsident des Verbandes der Automobilindustrie. Darüber hinaus ist Wissman Mitglied des Lobbyverbandes Pro Mobilität, der sich für den Ausbau des Straßennetztes einsetz. Pro Mobilität wird u.a. von der Allianz Pro Schiene kritisert.

Die Gründung des Verbandes sei eine “dreiste Irreführung” und  “unter der Deckmantel des Mobilitätsbegriffes werden  einseitig Straßeninteressen vertreten”, so Dirk Flege in einer Presserklärung der Allianz Pro Schiene.

Nee is een ludieke politieke verkiezingslijst in Antwerpen die in 2005 het levenslicht zag.

De leden van NEE vertoonden na de verkiezingen van 2007 geen politieke activiteit meer en verlegden hun activiteiten naar een filmproject.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEE

Good Morning.  I am sitting at the kitchen table, listening to the bird’s chirp outside my window, sipping on a nice bottle of diet Mountain Dew (my caffeine fix, most of the time).  The children are gone to school, and my wife is at work.  With four young children, two dogs, and two cats, peace and calm is infrequent in my household.

Today is also Columbus day.  Can you picture the dedication Columbus, and his sailors had to be on the open seas for months and/or years, at a stretch with only a hope of finding islands large enough to support their daily food and equipment needs?  It definitely took a special person to carry out such a feat.

It also took a special person to come to human kind, and allow himself to be ridiculed, beaten, crucified, and die – just for us, sinners.  Jesus is OUR hope in finding enough to support our daily, and eternal, needs.

Today’s Meditation:

[Hail holy Queen] … O clement, O loving, O sweet virgin Mary.  Pray for us, O holy Mother of God …

Clement is an interesting word, and one not used a lot in my circle of friends.  It basically means one who is meek or mild in nature, as well as merciful.  ‘Meak - mild – merciful – loving – sweet’ are virtues that anyone would love to emulate.  Through the hard times of exile to Egypt with a newborn baby; the constant ridicule and threats to her and her  son; to the scourging and ‘criminals’ death by crucifixion, Mary never deviated from these virtues. 

There is not a better model of  Christianity, than that of Mary.  There is not a better model of motherhood than Mary.  There is not a better Model of a person in love with her son, and with the Godhead, than Mary.  We should all pray daily to ask for Mary’s help in living her model in life.  We need to ask Mary, and her Son, to give us all the help we need to live a life worthy of God. 

Pax et Bonum

Dan Halley, SFO

*****

Franciscan Saint of the Day:   St. Seraphin of Montegrano 1540-1604

Seraphin fostered a tender devotion to the Blessed Mother and occasionally visited her shrine at Loreto, not far from his home. Once, on his way to the shrine, he found the River Potenza so high that no boatman ventured across. In his eagerness to get to the shrine, Seraphin stepped on the water, and it became like solid ground beneath him; he crossed the river on his way to the shrine and back without so much as wetting the soles of his feet.

Desiring to consecrate himself to the service of God, he entered a Capuchin convent when he was only 16 years old. The high degree of perfection he had already attained was soon noticed and admired. His brethren were edified at his humility, charity, mortification, and self-sacrifice. Punctual in performing all the duties assigned to him, he still found time to be of service to the other brothers.

During a famine he ate but a fourth of his own meager meal, in order to have so much more to give to the poor. As porter of the convent, charged with providing for the poor, he once exceeded the bounds of obedience. For, as he had nothing more to give and there were still some poor waiting for help, he went into the garden and gathered a supply of the vegetables growing there. When his superior took him to task for it, the good brother assured him that the community would in no way suffer on his account, and the next morning a new growth of vegetables appeared in the garden.

The miraculous power with which God rewarded the charity of His servant continued to manifest itself. Countless sick were restored to health when he made the Sign of the Cross over them.

Inflamed with the love of God, Seraphin departed from this life on October 12, 1604, in his 64th year. Many miracles occurred at his grave, and Pope Clement XIII canonized him in 1767.

from: The Franciscan Book of Saints, ed. by Marion Habig, ofm., © 1959 Franciscan Herald Press

(From http://www.franciscan-sfo.org website)

Steve’s response to my two posts on Canon, as well as a few other posts on the general subject, have produced a few new thoughts.

E. Russo said:

…the Bible we have today is filled with all sorts of interpolations, additions, and other errors that clearly shows the handiwork of Man. But, I’m not going to toss it out because it may be theologically, politically, or even historically skewed (which seems like the direction that Ehrman is leaning towards). By realizing our own fallibility we come one step closer to walking a life of humility and love. And with that understanding we can grasp a deeper meaning found buried within the Bible.

What does it matter if the Comma Johanneum was not added until centuries after the closing of the canon? Do we keep it in there for tradition’s sake or just to support our theological views? Should we butcher the Bible like Thomas Jefferson did with his and take out what doesn’t jive with our worldview? And what about the non-canonical texts that the church decided were not divinely inspired? Can we grow spiritually from non-canonical texts like the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Paul, or even the deuterocanonical books in the Catholic bible? If a text is not “divinely inspired” does it carry any worth at all? What then guides us to read, say for instance, the Bible as oppose to the Book of Mormon?

Russo makes some good points here; I certainly think that we can grow spiritually from non-canonical texts. I think Christianity as a whole has established this as a standard belief, from the testimony of the booming Christian publishing industry. The question, rather, is what weight ‘divine inspiration’ really carries. Why is it that we consider the Bible more greatly inspired than other texts? Why are we to believe the bible over other texts? The Weekend Fisher (Steph, I believe?)  points out that:

Ehrman’s work doesn’t list every single piece of early Christian writing, but it does tally up an impressive 42 additional works. If you compare the 27 writings that did make the New Testament with the 42 that Ehrman lists that did not, we find that the church was, actually, fairly selective. If we just work with these two simple numbers — the list that the early church ultimately accepted and the list that Ehrman proposes — we find that the church screened out just over 60% of the proposed writings.

It’s a legitimate question: On what did the early church screen works as being “in” or “out”? But it’s not legitimate to say they weren’t screening.

That is, that something was certainly separating the choices that included our New and Old Testaments in ‘the List’ that became canon. We just don’t always know what it is; one such a characteristic seems to have been apostolic authorship, although not all texts purported to be written by the apostles were included in the canon (there are a number of additional letters of Paul, I believe). If they were indeed chosen according to a theological agenda, we have to be sure that agenda was God’s agenda. Or further, is ‘the List’ even valid if we’re interpreting outside of the agenda that produced it? Christians before this list was made believed other texts were ‘divinely inspired’. What characteristic made the texts on  ’the list’ the only ones that still own that label?

In current language, ‘inspiration’ is pretty general; this post was inspired by Steve, Steph, Russo and Jon. At this moment, I wonder if this is all that that phrase meant: The texts are inspired by God. But it was their theology that made these specific texts special. They were inspired by God and Orthodox. But then, there are plenty of Orthodox texts that did not make it into the New Testament – Didache and the letters of Clement, for example. And certainly, nobody would contend that much of the modern Christian publishing industry deserves to be in the New Testament. Jon Sweeney quoted from an interrogation of St Joan of Arc recently, which made me wonder about the nature of inspiration:

Joan: I hear voices telling me what to do. They come from God.

Robert: They come from your imagination.

Joan: Of course. That is how the messages of God come to us.

The solution for me lies not only in elevating the Church’s opinion of the extracanonical but in reining in our expectation of canonical authority. If we view the canonical books as divinely influenced rather than as divinely authored literature, I think the need for examining extracanonical literature becomes apparent.

I think Steve might be right; perhaps our solution is not to elevate texts outside the canon, but rather to expect less from the canon itself. The authority, for Steve, seems to be in the List and in the sufficiency of the list. It is not the texts (which are fallible), but rather the list (which is sufficient).

In Judaism, the Torah holds a place of extreme reverence; the rest of the Bible holds a lesser place; and the volumes and volumes of writing on God – agree or disagree with it – holds a place of esteem as well. We could equally hold the extra-canon, and everything written by Christians on the subject of God, in esteem; it’s inspired by God, in a flawed way that I have difficulty distinguishing from the way by which the Bible was inspired.

J’ai vomi dans mes cornflakes

I recently found myself a copy of The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, and so I’ve had a chance to finally read through the writings of the Apostolic Fathers for the first time. Reading through the first letter of Clement, I came across two mentions of Justification. In this post, I’ll talk about the second (I wrote about the first yesterday):

And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or piety, or works that have been done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. (32 v.2)

Now, I freely admit I’m not up on the ongoing debate on Justification. I haven’t read the most recent books by John Piper or Tom Wright. So I’m not talking about justification in the technical senses argued in those books (although, if you wish, you can bring it up for discussion – just be prepared to do a lot of explaining).

This passage – to me – seems to suggest something that I’ve argued in the past by virtue of efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice (in five parts: One, Two, Three, Four and Five). That is everyone who has existed, exists and will exists, have to be saved, simply because the sacrifice of a divinity is worth that much and so much more. To paraphrase what Clement says here: We Christians are not justified on our own, or through our wisdom, or by being devoted to God, or by manifesting our faith in actions, but through faith, and through faith God has justified everyone who has ever been, and everyone who ever will be.

There are two sides to this verse. The first ties into what we discussed yesterday. I said: Only God knows if we truly have faith. But the only true evidence of a life of faith are the actions a man takes regarding his faith. However, here Clement speaks (in my understanding, at least) as if not even our actions justify us. Contrary to what he said in 31 v.4, he says that none of these things, including our actions, can justify us.

But he says something furthermore that I found fascinating: We are justified through faith, by which God has justified all who have existed from the beginning. I must ask the question: How can faith justify those who have not the chance to have faith, that is, the dead? I suggest three possible answers:

• Clement is speaking of Christ descending to the dead: Hell is empty, and that all the dead have faith and are justified.
• Clement is speaking of a common faith: All who have ever existed have possessed faith, but only through Christ has that faith come to justify them.
• Clement is speaking of an abstract faith: Because faith can now be placed in Jesus, all are justified.

One way I find it hard to interpret Clement, is in the way that most view faith: Faith in Jesus justifies individuals. This is because Clement claims that all who have ever been born have been justified. To me, this passage of Clement, whatever his meaning, certainly lends credence to my belief that that for Christ’s sacrifice to regarded as effective, its effect must be universal. Is anyone aware of any interpretations of this passage in the literature or in commentaries?

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS

CHAPTER 1
1 Paul“small; little” and Timotheus“honor of God; valued of God”, the servants of Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ“anointed”, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi“warlike; lovers of horses”, with the bishops and deacons:
2 Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ“anointed”.
3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you,
4 Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy,
5 For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now;
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform [it] until the day of Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ“anointed”:
7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.
8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ“anointed”.
9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and [in] all judgment;
10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ“anointed”;
11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ“anointed”, unto the glory and praise of God.
12 But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things [which happened] unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel;
13 So that my bonds in Christ“anointed” are manifest in all the palace, and in all other [places];
14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
15 Some indeed preach Christ“anointed” even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
16 The one preach Christ“anointed” of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ“anointed” is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ“anointed”,
20 According to my earnest expectation and [my] hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but [that] with all boldness, as always, [so] now also Christ“anointed” shall be magnified in my body, whether [it be] by life, or by death.
21 For to me to live [is] Christ“anointed”, and to die [is] gain.
22 But if I live in the flesh, this [is] the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ“anointed”; which is far better:
24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh [is] more needful for you.
25 And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith;
26 That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ“anointed” for me by my coming to you again.
27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ“anointed”: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ“anointed”, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
30 Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear [to be] in me.

CHAPTER 2
1 If [there be] therefore any consolation in Christ“anointed”, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.
3 [Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ“anointed” Jesus“savior; deliverer”:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus“savior; deliverer” every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ“anointed” [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ“anointed”, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.
17 Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.
18 For the same cause also do ye joy, and rejoice with me.
19 But I trust in the Lord Jesus“savior; deliverer” to send Timotheus“honor of God; valued of God” shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state.
20 For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state.
21 For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ’s.
22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel.
23 Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me.
24 But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly.
25 Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus“agreeable; handsome”, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants.
26 For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick.
27 For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.
28 I sent him therefore the more carefully, that, when ye see him again, ye may rejoice, and that I may be the less sorrowful.
29 Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness; and hold such in reputation:
30 Because for the work of Christ“anointed” he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me.

CHAPTER 3
1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed [is] not grievous, but for you [it is] safe.
2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ“anointed” Jesus“savior; deliverer”, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel“who prevails with God”, [of] the tribe of Benjamin“son of the right hand”, an Hebrew of the Hebrews“descendants of Heber”; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ“anointed”.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ“anointed” Jesus“savior; deliverer” my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ“anointed”, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ“anointed” Jesus“savior; deliverer”.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ“anointed” Jesus“savior; deliverer”.
15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, [that they are] the enemies of the cross of Christ“anointed”:
19 Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ“anointed”:
21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

CHAPTER 4
1 Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, [my] dearly beloved.
2 I beseech Euodias“sweet scent”, and beseech Syntyche“that speaks or discourses”, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.
3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement“mild; good; merciful” also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names [are] in the book of life.
4 Rejoice in the Lord alway: [and] again I say, Rejoice.
5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord [is] at hand.
6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ“anointed” Jesus“savior; deliverer”.
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.
9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity.
11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, [therewith] to be content.
12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
13 I can do all things through Christ“anointed” which strengtheneth me.
14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia“burning; adoration”, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
16 For even in Thessalonica“victory against the Thessalians” ye sent once and again unto my necessity.
17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.
18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus“agreeable; handsome” the things [which were sent] from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.
19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ“anointed” Jesus“savior; deliverer”.
20 Now unto God and our Father [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
21 Salute every saint in Christ“anointed” Jesus“savior; deliverer”. The brethren which are with me greet you.
22 All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household.
23 The grace of our Lord Jesus“savior; deliverer” Christ“anointed” [be] with you all. Amen.
<¶ It was written to the Philippians from Rome“strength; power” by Epaphroditus“agreeable; handsome”.>

Ephesians (NT)	Ephesians 6 (NT)	Philippians 1 (NT)	Colossians (NT)

I recently found myself a copy of The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, and so I’ve had a chance to finally read through the writings of the Apostolic Fathers for the first time. Reading through the first letter of Clement, I came across two mentions of Justification. In this post, I’ll talk about the first:

Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self-controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words. (30 v.3)

Now, I freely admit I’m not up on the ongoing debate on Justification. I haven’t read the most recent books by John Piper or Tom Wright. So I’m not talking about justification in the technical senses argued in those books (although, if you wish, you can bring it up for discussion – just be prepared to do a lot of explaining).

I think that this passage says a lot about what we mean by faith, and what we mean by sola fide: Justification by faith alone. I’ll paraphrase: In situations of argument, we should be graceful, agreeable, humble and self-controlled, and should not retaliate or slander those who disagree with us. It is enough we should be justified by what we do and have done.

There seem to me to be two evidences of faith. The first is our words : “I have believe in God, the father almighty…et cetera” , or, if you’re of a less traditional upbringing, “I accept Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Saviour”. These speak about faith, but are simply words. One can say the words, but have no faith, very little faith, or be a cup overflowing with faith.

The second evidence of faith is our actions: The things that we do.  We can contribute to charity; work at soup kitchens; dig wells. I can have a career as a doctor, or as an aid worker, or as a lifesaver. We can bring good news to those without hope, we can heal those who are broken, we can bring justice to those who suffer injustice, set free those who are captive. James 2:20 speaks of this, saying that faith without works is dead. Again, to paraphrase: It doesn’t matter what we say, for if our actions do not display our faith, we do not have faith.

Only God can see to the issue of what lies in our hearts. Only God knows if we truly have faith. But the only true evidence of a life of faith are the actions a man takes regarding his faith. I think God will judge us on that evidence. It seems to me that I agree with Clement: We are justified by our works, and not by our words.