Tête-à-Tête-Tête

Not the review I would have written

smijer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:03:44 +0000

Buzz Thomas visited Chattanooga a year or two back & a dear friend* invited me to accompany him and his wife to a book signing event. I picked up a copy… breezed through it, then set it aside. I found it pretty weak tea, with a propensity to overstate some issues, understate others, and to leave way too much unsaid regarding the controversies surrounding all of them. But this isn’t James McGrath’s take.. His review is much more gracious than what I might have written. He says:

While it is not the case that all the things Thomas mentions are things that all ministers would tell you if they could, I suspect that enough of them are, and if not these things then there are other things that they could tell you were they not afraid that ordinary Christians, rather than welcoming a deeper understanding of the faith, of the Bible, and of Christian history, would complain, argue, and eventually drive the minister out who dared expose them to uncomfortable truths.Although a very short book, it packs a serious punch and reveals more in its 108 pages than many other works of much greater length on more specific subjects.
[...]
His recognition not only of [these facts is] refreshingly honest but even more than that refreshingly Biblical compared to the selective quote mining of the fundamentalists.

Despite my dimmer view of the book, I agree wholeheartedly with McGrath’s final word:

To paraphrase a famous quote that the book mentions at one point, all that has to happen for fundamentalism to thrive is for those who have actually studied the Bible and understand it in depth and detail to keep silent.

*not in the Mark Sanford sense

Strong Words

smijer — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:00:15 +0000

And, while I wouldn’t take some of Larison’s positions vis-a-vis the legality and propriety of the Honduran coup as strongly as he does, I’m generally in agreement with him, that Obama has gone cowboy in this case.

War on Drugs

Buck — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:26:45 +0000

I got the biggest kick out of the picture that was posted along with the story in my local paper.

Look at this guy.

Somebody needs to give that guy a Mountain Dew and a sleeve of chocolate chip cookies! He spent too much time down in the harvest room.

James, Brother of Jesus.

smijer — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:22:37 +0000

A friend from church lent me his copy of James the Brother of Jesus. Rather than review it properly, I’ll just list what the author tries to achieve in terms of my response to it.
Heading 1: Those items I felt the author achieved convincingly.
These are items which the author convinced me of or that I already accepted and found that he wrote convincingly of…

That James was likely Jesus’ biological brother.

That James was possibly among the twelve, and likely a supporter of Jesus before his death (and that Jesus’ family generally were likely supportive of his ministry)

That James was a very important figure in the Jerusalem church, and therefore in early Christianity

That James was a devout Jew, continued to worship in the Temple, and maintained good standing with the non-Christian Jewish community in Jerusalem

That there was real tension between Paul and the apostles, especially those associated with the Jerusalem church, and this tension was resolved in Paul’s favor only after the death of James and the sack of Jerusalem. This tension was chiefly due to Paul’s view of the Law.

That the Saducees were opposed to James because of his disapproval of Temple polity, a disapproval shared by Jesus.

The role of James (and the family of Jesus generally) was intentionally obscured in the canonical gospels, and the controversies with Paul were intentionally played down in Acts and, to some degree, in Paul’s epistles.

Heading 2: Those items I felt were inadequately argued, but toward which I entertain at least a somewhat sympathetic view…

That James was a Pharisee

That James upheld a very strict view of the Law, and was possibly a Nazirite

That Jesus’ view was very similar to James’ in terms of mission and eschatology

That Jesus was also a Pharisee.

That James’ leadership and subsequent leadership of the Jerusalem church were held dynastically, corresponding to a more-or-less literal view of Jesus’ kingship.

Jewish Christianity in the Diaspora, including the Ebionites and other so-called heretical sects of “Judaizers” are the remnants of the Jerusalem church and represent a more authentic Jesus tradition than does the “proto-orthodox” movement.

Heading 3: Those items which I feel are inadequately argued, and toward which I am quite suspicious…

That Jesus’ view was very similar to James’ in terms of the Law, and that Jesus was also likely a Nazarite.

That Jesus, knowing the fate of John the Baptist and being devoted to a similar mission, predicted his own death.

Heading 4: Unqualified statements, not argued per se

At least some among the disciples of Jesus during his life experienced or thought they experienced resurrection visitations. This is uncontroversial.

That James and the Jerusalem church held a low and adoptionistic Christology, with higher Christology emerging in stages at a later time. This is controversial, but I believe as well or better founded in the evidence as any other. A quesiton of particular importance is how views of the Divinity of Jesus arose in a monotheistic Jewish culture. Several lines of evidence are currently under discussion that relate the origin of Jesus’ Divinity to certain Jewish notions of Divine Emanation, the bestowal of the Divine Name, and/or Angelic co-Divinity. I am inclined to think that adoptionistic Christology represents a form of this so-called “Two Powers” thinking, and that such thinking represents a first step (or two) in the direction of the Divinity of Jesus. No arguments in favor of a Two Powers interpretation of the Divinity of Jesus or in favor of adoptionism appear in the book.

Heading 5: Grand notions of the import of James scholarship to modern politics and religion… to say that I am skeptical of this is quite an understatement.

Because Muhammed is likely to have encountered Jewish Christians in his travels and to have been influenced by them in his theology,a Jamesian (since “Jacobite” is taken) Christianity would represent common ground between Islam and Christianity. Since Jamesian Christianity was thoroughly Jewish, it represents a common ground between Christianity and Judaism. Since such common ground can exist, a revival of James can serve to bring together an ecumenical fellowship of Jews, Christians, and Muslims and bring peace to the modern world. Pollyanna would be proud.

Pauline Christianity was the salvation of Jesus’ ethical message despite being unfaithful to it. Without Paul’s missionary work to the Gentiles and his insistence on eradicating barriers to their full fellowship, Christianity would not have survived the fall of Jerusalem and become a major world religion. Without Paul, the writings that do authentically represent Jesus would not be available to us today. While there is some truth to this, very similar ethical teachings from Hillel and other first century Jews would likely have survived, as would have those from other major religions that echo the progressive ethics shared by Jesus.

A couple of final notes… I found this book disappointingly haphazard on critical backgrounds for the texts, both canonical and extra-canonical, upon which it relies. Traditions are often cited with only the barest speculation about their provenance in historical reality, leaving one somewhat at a loss to evaluate the strength of the arguments they support. Furthermore, I was disappointed by the absence of mention of Marcion who existed at the anti-Jewish extreme of early Christianity, and whose interaction with the proto-orthodox might have been instructive. Lastly, I found that the book places too much importance on the (much later) Catholic doctrine of perpetual viriginity in explaining the New Testament treatment of Jesus’ family. I would not recommend this particular volume to anyone, but I would encourage anyone to try to get a better glimpse of James and the implications of his tradition for ancient Christianity.

Jadarms’ Top 10 Biggest “Richard’s” in the Professional Sports World

jadarm — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:42:43 +0000

World being the key word here folks.

I am going to just throw some names out:

T.O. (Terrell Owens)

Chad Ochocinco

Bill Belichick

Barry U.S. Bonds

Mike Tyson

Jeff Kent

A-Roid

Roger Clemens (Remember Piazza?)

Pete Rose

Steve Spurrier (Yes, he was in the NFL and ran up the score when he could, he ultimately paid the price for his actions.)

Scott Boras

Kobe Bryant

Michael Vick

Bill Romanowski

David Beckham

Jim Rome

…This is pretty much what I came up with, I am going to do my best to list them, in my opinion, from worst (10) to worst-EST (1).

Here is my top 10:

10. Barry U.S. Bonds

Barry, to me at least, is a tragedy in the sense that I honestly believe that he may have been one of the greatest 3 baseball players to ever play the game…had he not taken steroids and help to corrupt the historical statistics that baseball purists hold in such reverence. He wasnt the first, he merely followed the pack…but nevertheless, the same ol’ argument about the asterisk on Maris’s single season homerun record will probably never be uttered again due to McGwire, Sosa, and …unfortunately, Mr. Bonds.

I honestly believe, had he not taken steroids, that Barry could be the undisputable 3rd best player the game has ever seen, right behind Ruth and his own Godfather Willie Mays.

My problem with Barry stems not only from reports from the media about “what a Richard he is” but from his own teammates. His own coaches, …and the fact that he let his own best friend, Greg Anderson, remain in prison on his behalf. Even good pal Gary Sheffield claimed that Bonds knew what he was doing and that he himself was drug underneath the bus without his knowing.

I luv ya Gar…but cummon.

Barrys story is sad. I always admired his natural abilities.

9. Bill Belichick

Bill is a fine guy, an absolute football genious. My only problem with him is when he gets caught doing something that 7 out of 10 other coaches probably do…and then, all of the sudden, he gets to value his privacy.

Its like a pitcher winning a big game…all the media comes up afterwards and wants to interview him. Of course, he is there, all smiles, telling how tough it was but that he hung in there, and thanks to his teammates, he had the guts to pull it out.

Same pitcher, different night. He gets skunked, gets pulled in the 3rd inning. The reporters come up and he tells them to f#$% off.

Well, either you are or you arent, which one is the real you? I understand competitiveness but cummon, where is the sportsmanship?

Actually, I dont really mind that all that much. I do admire his competitiveness, his determination. My biggest problem with Bill is when he walks across the field, after losing a game, and doesnt shake the other coaches hand.

Man up a bit Bill, tell everyone why you taped those practices, why you didnt shake that coaches hand, …tell them that youre just a competitive bastard and you cant help it and I will gladly take you off this list.

8. Chad Ochocinco

Look, he is a T.O. wannabe. T.O. danced on the Star in Dallas, …then went to go play for them for chris’sake. All 08′ wanted to do was “When I score a touchdown, I am gonna go kiss da star.”

Needless to say, Mr. Ochocinco didnt score a touchdown.

I hate picking on stupid people but good grief, but being a stupid person myself, I feel a bit of wiggle room here.

Mr. Ocho would have been higher up on this list had it not been easily observed that he is lacking in the mental department worse than I am.

God help him.

7. David Bechkam

Yes, I said David Beckham. Listen, the guy got ultra millions to come here and help vitalize the most popular sport in the world that is still stagnant in the United States. What the hell was he expecting?

He goes to Italy….”Hey, this team is pretty good, I dont wanna go back!”

D0nt come back Beckham, we dont want u cuz ur a Richard.

Here’s ur sign.

6. T.O. (Terrell Owens / Team Obliterator)

Just because he is an alumni of my hometown university (U.T.C. – Go Mocs!) doesnt mean that we can all sit here and absolutely excuse him from being a clubhouse cancer to absolutely every team he plays for.

I think he is talented, a supreme athelete, and someone who is only capable (at this point in his career) of thinking of himself…team? There aint no “I” in team…but there sure the hell is an “ME”.

I wish him luck (I wish his quarterback luck too…and his coach, and his other recievers, his tight ends, …anyone who he can point a finger at? Well, good luck guys.)

5. Roger Clemens

I know Pro Sports is a business. That doesnt mean I have to like it.

The Bo-Sox nurtured this kid, put up with his injuries year after year? What does he do in return? He goes to Canada, then to the dreaded evil empire we all know as the New York Yankees.

Then what does he do? He goes back from New York to Houston (TX anyway). Its all business. But folks, to a fan, you want to see some loyalty. J.D. Drew played for us for one year in Atlanta, …I wish him well, but I adored him for one year.

Does anyone remember when the Yankees actually delayed the game to announce that Roger Clemens was actually inside the Steinbrenners owners box and that…by God, …he was actually going to play for the Yankees that year?,…err, maybe the last half of the year, at a pro-rated 25+ MM contract and personal jet services via the Steinbrenners.

Gosh, I’ll bet his teammates were thrilled, especially when he wound up with a mediocre single digit won-loss record w/ an ERA over 4.

My biggest problem with Clemens isnt the fact that he used his wife as a scapegoat in front of Congress, it isnt that he lied or cheated is teammates and fellow ballplayers. It isnt the fact that he kept his teams in limbo over the last 3 years of his career (is he going to pitch?)

No.

My main problem with Clemens, cheating and pandering aside, …boils down to this.

4. Jim Rome

This guy is a friggin’ joke. I know he is worthless in the scheme of things but he gets on my every last nerve. What a friggin prick. I tried to look up prick in the dictionary…couldnt find it…then I had a brainstorm…Jim Friggin’ Rome, …sure enough, I turned to the page and I saw a penis…it was very small though. I was sad.

I understand the nature of shock jocks and that they are supposed to do, whats expected of them…I see this guy on T.V. and I think he is an absolute jerk…but folks, listen to him on the radio. These people that listen to him are an absolute glutton for punishment.

He thinks he is cute, thinks he is cool, …how do you tear your own demographic apart and speak condescendingly to everyone who crosses your airwaves (that doesnt bow down to you)…and still maintain a job?

I understand Howard Sterns audience, I dont understand this guys’.

Maybe thats because its in the A.M. station here in town and I can barely pick it up.

I would listen more often to his shinanigans if things like this happened more often.

If he wasnt such a damned nobody, I would have listed him number 1 on my list.

3. Bill Romaowski

Just a mean MF’er…He tried to do a teary eyed interview a few years back.

Sorry, I dont hold up to someone who takes pride in ruining another mans well being. People who know who I am talking about know what I am talking about, nuff’ said.

2. Mike Tyson

Usually when someone says they want to “chew on my ear” then I will give a slight *sigh* and listen to whatever they have to say.

Word of warning folks, if Mike Tyson comes up to you and says he wants to “chew on your ear” it means he didnt get his bologna sandwich this morning and he is probably hungry. I would suggest, in good faith, that you should decline his offer.

I remember the first time I saw a picture of Mike. It was on a Sports Illustrated cover….titled “Kid Dynamite“…nothing could have been any clearer or more precise.

Cus D’Amato took this kid from the rough streets of NY CY and took legal guardianship of him once his foster mother (nice white lady) died. Cus had this kid and took care of him. Mike was a good kid.

Cus died.

Don King entered the picture.

The rest is….sad.

Mike lost all grounding, lost every since of family he ever had. Don King drained this young talented heavyweight American icon of everything he had. His money, his talent, and mostly, …I believe, his soul.

Mike wasnt the same person once he hooked up with “only in America!”

I had watched boxing closely while he was in it. That Sports Illustrated mag got me back into, that and a guy named Sylvester Stallone…lol.

I honestly thought that Hollyfield, well…if he couldnt take him, at least he would give him a helluva fight.

Don King thought that too. Thats why, when arrangements were trying to be made between a fight with Hollyfield and Tyson that Mr. King said that Hollyfield “couldnt draw flies to a picnic.”

Was Don looking out for Tyson?

No.

Don was looking at his own wallet and the demographic marketabiility of Tyson. He knew Hollyfield would be an absolute bastard in the ring.

I hate Mike for what he did, but I feel sorry for him at the same time. People took advantage of him. Having said that, I wouldnt have him listed at #2 on this list if it werent for the savageness of what he did…and the fact that he did it twice in the same fight.

No excuse Mike.

1. Michael Vick

I am a die hard Falcons fan.

I am also a die hard dog fan….no, I dont mean that, I like the vols…I mean that I like, no not like, I love dogs…the wuff wuff kind.

Michael, there is absolutely no excuse for what you did. You are going to have to live with it. I hope you never forget it.

Now, I also hope that people can say that Mike served his time, he has apologized, and will not do it again…and give him a 2nd chance…and not just in Atlanta.

I know the black community will give him a 2nd chance. I hope the white community will reciprocate.

I love Vick, I hate what he did, …but I think everyone deserves a 2nd chance.

…Whoever is reading this…I am sure you have had a 2nd chance once upon a time.

Quite a Story

smijer — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:00:15 +0000

I’m still, you know, basically an addict and I decided to get addicted to something that was good for other people

With a little help from his friends, this high school grad has done something most people would consider beyond their reach.

While all those around are losing theirs…

smijer — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:45:41 +0000

Daniel Larison continues to keep his head.

Speaking of the subject line, I think it would be nice to compare Kipling’s poem to Roger Whittaker’s answer to it:

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
‘ Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!

Now if you load your rifle right
And if you fix your bayonet so
And if you kill that man my friend
The one we call the foe
And if you do it often lad
And if you do it right
You’ll be a hero overnight
You’ll save your country from her plight
Remember God is always right
If you survive to see the sight
Friend now greeting foe

No you won’t believe in If anymore
It’s an illusion
It’s an illusion
No you won’t believe in If anymore
If is for children
If is for children
Building daydreams

If I knew then what I know now
(I thought I did you know somehow)
If I could have the time again
I’d take the sunshine leave the rain
If only time would trickle slow
Like rain that melts the fallen snow
If only Lord if only
If only Lord if only

Oh I don’t believe in If anymore
It’s an illusion
It’s an illusion
No I don’t believe in If anymore
If is for children
If is for children
Building daydreams

No I don’t believe in If anymore
It’s an illusion
It’s an illusion
No I don’t believe in If anymore
If is for children
If is for children
Building daydreams

Accommodation

smijer — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:45:08 +0000

Another biology blog on religion… but at least he’s talking sense.

Activist Scalia

smijer — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:02:38 +0000

When Scalia and Thomas join up with Ginsberg, Souter & Stevens on the side of the angels (the same day Thomas is the lone Justice to advocate strip-searching 13 year old girls for no good reason)…

And when Kennedy and Breyer join forces with Roberts and Alito to buttress the government’s unilateral power…

You know the end must be near.

JC has the dope.

A B Cees

smijer — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:19:09 +0000

Arsenal: 1 or more weapons.

Bill of Rights: The first 10 amendments to the constitution specifying what rights the people hold unless the president thinks otherwise.

Commander in Chief: Preferred term for Republican presidents.

Defense: Offense.

Estate Tax: Something only dead people pay

Family Values: Antipathy toward gay people.

Foreign Oil: Oil.

Gitmo: A place for coddling terrorists.

Health Care: Socialism.

Iran: A country filled with people who don’t care much about us, but for whose sake we can turn our twitter icon green, thus adding a fourth color to the red, white, and blue. Also, useful for keeping our minds off of places like Darfur.

Korea: A country whose leadership has tested the new Obama administration by developing nuclear weapons during his predecessor’s administration.

Legal: In accordance with the applicable laws or the president’s opinion.

Mandate: 1% margin of popular vote.

Media: The reason for these definitions.

Nancy Pelosi: Creature of popular imagination used by parents to frighten children into behaving.

Oil: See foreign oil.

Pro-life: Anti-abortion.

Racism: No longer exists.

Sex: Something that is ok to do on television with your girlfriend, but not at home with your boyfriend.

Terrorist: A person in armed conflict of any kind.

Uighurs: Terrorists, if you give them a chance

Victory: The accomplishment of a mission, whether or not it is accomplished.

War: A conflict that only ends with victory (see above), is never over.

Zero: A healthy amount to care.