NEWSFLASH: CHRISTIANS HAVE RIGHTS IN SWEDEN

A Swedish preacher arrested for preaching against homosexuality has been acquitted because, of all things, he has free speech, too:

A Swedish pastor convicted of hate crimes for a sermon denouncing homosexuals as a "cancer" was acquitted Friday by an appeals court that said he was protected by the country's free speech laws.

The Goeta Appeals Court said that while Aake Green's (search) views of gays can be "strongly questioned," it was not illegal to offer a personal interpretation of the Bible and urge others to follow it.

"The purpose of making agitation against gays punishable is not to prevent arguments or discussions about homosexuality, not in churches or in other parts of society," the court said.

Green, 63, was the first clergyman convicted under Sweden's tough hate crimes (search) laws, which make it a crime to make inflammatory remarks against racial, religious or national groups. The laws were ratified in 2003 to include homosexuals.

Of course, note that he was convicted and this was an overturning of that conviction on appeal. Someone tell me that's not going to have the proverbial 'chilling effect' on free speech among preachers.

THIS JUST IN: BIBLE MAY BE TRUE

Three highly controversial findings continue to provoke discussion on the validity of the Bible:

Right now, for instance, three highly technical disputes have erupted over materials linked to scripture: In the most important development, scholars say tests on remains from a dig in modern-day Jordan indicate the biblical country of Edom existed during the era of kings David and Solomon, if not earlier. The find could undercut sceptics of biblical history.

Prosecutors in Israel filed fraud charges on December 29 involving a purported first-century inscription of Jesus' name. But this month a prominent archaeology magazine will assail the government's scientific evidence. New testing indicates the "Shroud of Turin," a celebrated relic said to be Jesus' burial cloth, could actually date from his time.

That opposes scientists' earlier conclusion that the artefact is a fraud from the medieval era.

Of the three the findings on Edom strike me as the most interesting and relevant:

the important Edom research has added fuel to one of the hottest archaeological disputes of recent years.

The Bible reports that Edom was a well-defined land southeast of the Dead Sea that had kings before Israel (Genesis 36:31, 1 Chronicles 1:43), barred Moses during the Exodus (Numbers 20:14-21) and warred with King David (2 Samuel 8:13-14, 1 Kings 11:15-16).

But many scholars have claimed the Bible got it wrong, and no Edomite state existed before the eighth century. Part of their thinking stemmed from the fact that physical evidence of Edom was lacking. Meanwhile, Lemche's camp claimed that far-later writers invented David and Solomon and their kingdom, which the Bible says began around 1000 BC.

Related to that, Tel Aviv University archaeologist Israel Finkelstein made a controversial bid to shift the usual dating of major sites in the Holy Land to say they came just after Solomon's reign. Unlike Lemche's group, Finkelstein doesn't deny there was a Solomon -- but his theory means the Bible's record of Solomon is hugely distorted. The argument between Finkelstein and most archaeologists' older chronology was pursued in Science magazine and at a recent radiocarbon summit in Britain.

Now comes the report on Edom, in the current edition of the quarterly Antiquity, by Russell Adams of Canada's McMaster University, Thomas Levy of the University of California, San Diego, and other colleagues.

They say pottery remains and radiocarbon work at a major copper processing plant in Jordan indicate settlement in the 11th century BC and probably before that, with a nearby monumental fortress from the 10th century era of David and Solomon. They are convinced the site was part of the Edomite state.

University of Arizona archaeologist William Dever had been skeptical about Edom's existence that early but says this "discovery is revolutionary" and lends credibility to the biblical kingdom of David and Solomon.

It's not surprising at all that we find from the article that "archaeologist Israel Finkelstein made a controversial bid to shift the usual dating of major sites in the Holy Land to say they came just after Solomon's reign." These are folks who constantly ciriticize those who seek to use the Bible as an archaeological template, a lens through which to view findings in Palestine and other Biblical lands. But they have their own set of biases, not based on any text--reliable or not--but based on their own assumption (and desire) that the Bible is false.

I understand that bias is unavoidable in such instances, but it is the assumption that those who hold the Bible in disdain are those who are unbiased and somehow scientific that tends to blow my gasket. The good news is, the Bible is confirmed every time hard evidence comes to light.

More evidence needs to be gathered on the James ossuary, the Turin and proposed Edom site. But one thing is sure, I'm confident James the brother of Jesus did exist, Jesus was buried and raised again and Edom did exist, just as the Bible says it did.

THAT 'ROLLING STONE' BIBLE

Most of you will recall the controversy over the Today's New International Version (TNIV), the new Bible translation that Zondervan is releasing, when Rolling Stone magazine accepted an ad promoting it, then rejected it and finally accepted it. Lifeway bookstores, as we noted, has refused to carry the book, and many have criticized it, for its gender-neutral translation policy. Well, here are some verses for comparison:

GENDER CHANGES


I Timothy 2:3-4

KJV: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

NIV: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

TNIV: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

------

Genesis 1:27

KJV: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

NIV: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

TNIV: "So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

------

BETTER CLARITY


Matthew 1:18

KJV: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

NIV: "His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."

TNIV: "His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit."

------

Matthew 14:25

KJV: "And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea."

NIV: "During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake."

TNIV: "Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake."

------

MORE PRECISE WORD MEANING


2 Kings 4:2

KJV: "And Elisha said unto her, 'What shall I do for thee? Tell me, what hast thou in the house?' And she said, 'Thine handmaid hath not any thing in the house, save a pot of oil."'

NIV: "Elisha replied to her, 'How can I help you? Tell me, what do you have in your house?' 'Your servant has nothing there at all,' she said, 'except a little oil."'

TNIV: "Elisha replied to her, 'How can I help you? Tell me, what do you have in your house?' 'Your servant has nothing there at all,' she said, 'except a little olive oil."'

Obviously the gender translation is the real red flag here. The problem is that you're approaching the translation process with an agenda of making it more palatable to a modern audience. While I am a firm supporter of modern translations that use better base texts and eschew archaic language, when we start trying to make the Bible's content more acceptable to the culture at large we miss the point. It is the radical no-compromise counter-cultural message that makes the Bible stand as a beacon to a lost and dying world. When we water down the Bible's distinctiveness from the world at large, we are doing nothing but quenching the Holy Spirit.

NEW WORDPOINTS WEBLOG

Gary Henry has started a new weblog:WordPoints to record his Biblical thoughts and spiritual insights. I'm sure it will be one to keep an eye on.

WASN'T THERE SOMETHING ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION...

A group of five jurors who *gasp!* studied the Bible together are cause tofree a murderer from death row:

Jurors who sentenced a convicted killer to die did nothing wrong when they studied the Bible during deliberations - including the verse that commands "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," prosecutors told the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday as they sought to have the man put back on death row.

A lower court threw out the death penalty given to Robert Harlan for raping and murdering a 25-year-old cocktail waitress in 1994.

Defense attorneys challenged the sentence after discovering five jurors had looked up Bible verses, copied some of them down and then talked about them behind closed doors.

Well, now, we certainly can't have people looking up verses and talking about them. What kind of country do they think this is?! Apparently it's a country that seems more ready to call Bible reading wrong than rape and murder.

LIFEWAY REJECTS WHAT ROLLING STONE ACCEPTS

On the heels of Rolling Stone accepting an ad for the Today's New International Version, Lifeway Christian bookstores refuse to carry it:

The Rolling Stone Magazine reversed its decision not to air an advertisement for the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) of the Bible earlier this week, but the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)-affiliated Lifeway Christian Resources has not yet changed its decision to keep the edition out of its 122 bookstores because of the version’s gender-neutral translations.

The controversy over the International Bible Society (IBS) and Zondervan Publishing House’s TNIV began in 2002 when initial publishing began. Fundamentals and evangelicals rejected the version’s rendering of male terms like “son” and “father” into the gender neutral “child” and “parent”, respectively.

The initial plan was to update the NIV itself, but Zondervan pulled back after criticism. The issuing of the TNIV was a dodge of their pledge to leave the NIV alone. So maybe an ad appearing in Rolling Stone isn't out of place at all.

NEW STUDY: AN 'OLD' SHROUD

Long held by experts to be a medieval fake, a new study argues the famed The New York Times > Science > Shroud of Turin is old enough to be genuine:

he Shroud of Turin is much older than the medieval date that modern science has affixed to it and could be old enough to have been the burial wrapping of Jesus, a new analysis concludes.

Since 1988, most scientists have confidently concluded that it was the work of a medieval artist, because carbon dating had placed the production of the fabric between 1260 and 1390.

In an article this month in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Dr. Raymond N. Rogers, a chemist retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, said the carbon dating test was valid but that the piece tested was about the size of a postage stamp and came from a portion that had been patched.

"We're darned sure that part of the cloth was not original Shroud of Turin cloth," he said, adding that threads from the main part of the shroud were pure linen, which is spun from flax.

The threads in the patched portion contained cotton as well and had been dyed to match.

From other tests, he estimated that the shroud was between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

Regardless of age, the shroud is a fraud simply based on a reading of the pertinent Biblical passages. Still, the dating is passingly interesting.

ROLLING STONE GETS RELIGION

After accepting an ad for the "Today's NIV" Bible, then rejecting it and sending the check back, Rolling Stone has decided Zondervan's money is green, too:

After initially rejecting an advertisement for a new, highly promoted translation of the Bible, Rolling Stone magazine has reversed course and decided to run it.

The ad for Zondervan's new Bible, called Today's New International Version, will appear in the magazine's Feb. 24 edition.

"We're thrilled that they've decided to accept our ad for the TNIV," Doug Lockhart, Zondervan's executive vice president of marketing, said Tuesday.

The music magazine, which has 1.2 million readers, sent the nation's largest Bible publisher a contract accepting the half-page ad for the issue, which hits newsstands Feb. 11.

Zondervan received the contract Monday from Rolling Stone publisher Wenner Media LLC without any explanation for its change of heart, Lockhart said.

"Internal miscommunications" have been corrected, according to Rolling Stone.

The counterculture message of the the Bible again infiltrates the cultural establishment.

INTOLERANT, OR JUST TIRED OF BEING SUCKERS?

A study has found that "church-going Americans" have grown "increasingly intolerant", well that's certainly what the Reuters headline yells at you. But what have they grown intolerant of?

Church-going Americans have grown increasingly intolerant in the past four years of politicians making compromises on such hot issues as abortion and gay rights, according to a survey released on Saturday.

At the same time, those polled said they were growing bolder about pushing their beliefs on others -- even at the risk of offending someone.[emphasis added]

Is it unreasonable for church-going Americans to be upset at constantly being played the fool in American politics? I'm a little intolerant of that, too.

'LUTHER': THUMBS UP

One of last year's movies that wanted to see, but never got around to, was Luther starring Joseph Fiennes. It's now out on DVD and my wife and I watched it last night. I must say, I was quite impressed. Obviously there is a lot of complexity that cannot be adequately shown in two hours, but the points were clearly made. I'm sure Catholics would feel church abuses were shown with a heavy hand, but it was just those abuses that drove the honest monk Luther into Luther the reformer.

One of the most striking themes to me personally was Luther's often heated rants in private against Satan, whose presence he felt so very strongly. The way to prospering spiritually becomes all the clearer the stronger our own recognition of sin and temptation grows.

I'll give the movie a solid thumbs up, as did my wife who does not always jump into my historical movies with the same gusto that I have.

You may want to see this earlier review as well, which gives a good overall plot summary, list of stars, etc.

TOO RADICAL FOR ROLLING STONE

Rolling Stone magazine has taken a stand against a controversial ad, finding it unsuitable for its readership. That's right, you can't promote the Bible in Rolling Stone:

Rolling Stone magazine accepted advertising for a company selling a T-shirt emblazoned with the image of Jesus Christ. Indeed, a color ad with the image of Jesus and the message, "Put down the drugs and come get a hug," appears on page 71 of the current issue.

But when it came to running an ad for a new Bible aimed at twentysomethings, the magazine said forget it.

With little warning, the youth-worshipping Rolling Stone reneged on a deal forged nine months ago with Zondervan, the nation's largest Bible publisher, ultimately rejecting the company's ad for "Today's New International Version" of the Bible — "TNIV" for short.

"We were surprised and disappointed," said Doug Lockhart, spokesman for the Michigan-based publisher, which sells more than 6 million Bibles per year.

"We have no comment on the situation," a Rolling Stone spokeswoman said yesterday.

The Bible publisher remains mystified.

"Initially, Rolling Stone was excited, and we were excited. The fees had all been negotiated. They had second thoughts, I think, when they saw the ad itself," Mr. Lockhart said. "Their first comment was that this just wasn't 'the right time.' We really wish they'd reconsider."

If Rolling Stone wants something really radical, then try Jesus Christ's book.

DEMS STILL GETTING RELIGION

Give them points for trying. After fits and starts during the campaign, their defeat seems to have spurred the the Dems toward God:

Those Dems are getting religion.

On Wednesday, the very liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) went to the National Press Club and proclaimed the need for Democrats to talk more about values and said it was useful that a Democratic candidate "talked about God."

The previous week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) cited a pair of biblical passages on the House floor, saying the Scriptures "tell us that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship."

This is no accident. After exit polls showed that "values voters" contributed to President Bush's reelection victory, Democrats have been looking for ways to keep the faith. So when Senate Democrats met at the Kennedy Center on Jan. 5 as Congress convened, they invited as their main speaker the Rev. Jim Wallis, a liberal minister who has been urging Democrats to speak more openly about religion. "They gave more time to this than any other issue," Wallis said in an interview.

The problem is, at some point you really need to mean it.

HAPPY HOLIDAY

Here in Alabama I'm recognizing the official state holiday: Robert E. Lee Day. He is certainly a man worth remembering.

DOES FAITH PROTECT AGAINST TORTURE?

Oxford University plans to find out:

Oxford University scientists will carry out experiments on hundreds of people in a bid to understand how the brain works during states of consciousness.

One aspect of the two-year study will involve followers of both religious and secular beliefs being burnt to see if they can handle more pain than others.

Some volunteers will be shown religious symbols such as crucifixes and images of the Virgin Mary during the tests.

I think I'll pass on the opportunity to volunteer for that. In the meantime try Hebrews 11:36-40.

[Bonus points to Cronaca for her post headline: "Nobody expects the Oxford Inquisition" found via Instapundit]

MMMMM, DINOSAUR...

Throwing evolutionary assumptions on their head is the recent discover of dinosaur eating mammals:

Two newly discovered fossils show that this lowly image of early mammals, long the reigning view of science, did not do them justice. A few of these animals were as large as a dog and spunky enough to devour dinosaurs, at least juvenile dinosaurs.

The 130-million-year-old fossils, announced yesterday by Chinese paleontologists, challenge conventional thinking and lead to a new and more diverse perception of mammal life in the Mesozoic era, 280 million to 65 million years ago.

In interviews and a report being published today in the journal Nature, the researchers described finding the skull and most of the bones of what they say is the largest mammal known to live in the age of dinosaurs. The animal's skull was half again the length of the next largest mammal of the period. The entire body probably weighed 30 pounds and stretched more than three feet, longer than a good-size basset hound's.

From the same fossil beds in northern China, the paleontologists also uncovered the remains of a related species about 15 inches long, the size of an opossum, and made a striking observation. The mammal's last meal had been a juvenile dinosaur. Its limbs, fingers and teeth were lodged within the mammal's rib cage where its stomach had been.

I look forward to them finding a dinosaur recipe written on a cave wall.

I understand dinosaur tastes just like chicken...

A SKEPTICAL LOOK AT THE JAMES OSSUARY

One expects this gang would be skeptical of anything Biblical, still it's healthy to see what they have to say about the James Ossuary and the recent indictment of its owner:

A responsible approach to the James Ossuary would have been to start with skepticism and wait for a consensus of several independent experts. Instead, Shanks, BAR, and the ROM jumped at their opportunity for publicity before giving science its opportunity to arrive at the truth.

To use the hackneyed phrase, there was something of a "rush to judgment" although we still don't know if it is, in fact, a forgery. The Antiquities Authority has its own agenda, too. But I've always urged caution in relation to the ossuary while admitting my own desire that it be genuine. Time will tell.

WHAT A WAY TO GO

A Presbyterian preacher has seemingly good timing:

A Presbyterian minister collapsed and died in mid-sentence of a sermon after saying "And when I go to heaven ...," his colleague said Monday.

The Rev. Jack Arnold, 69, was nearing the end of his sermon Sunday at Covenant Presbyterian Church in this Orlando suburb when he grabbed the podium before falling to the floor, said the Rev. Michael S. Beates, associate pastor at Covenant Presbyterian.

Before collapsing, Arnold quoted the 18th century Bible scholar, John Wesley, who said, "Until my work on this earth is done, I am immortal. But when my work for Christ is done ... I go to be with Jesus," Beates said in a telephone interview.

Now that's the way to make a point.

[Link via Drudge]

SAXON'S WAR ON HOMESCHOOLERS?

Linda Schrock Taylor smells a rat with homeschooling curriculum stalwart Saxon Math:

I have communicated with sellers of homeschooling materials who explain that Harcourt refuses to sell them any hardback books, hinting of some contract Harcourt signed with schools. If this is true, the contract supposedly prevents H.A. from selling the previous hardback editions to homeschoolers. If such a contract exists, it was a ridiculous decision with grave implications....

...[A] decision to restrict sales would make sense if the following rumor is in actuality a truth: that Saxon's goal may be to dumb down the homeschooling children with these new materials. In light of the suggestion of a contract to restrict sales, this additional tip/rumor causes me to wonder whether state schooling could be pressuring Saxon to harm homeschooling in hopes of compromising the academic progress that homeschooled students are making; of putting an end to homeschooled students excelling as publicly schooled students fail.

If Saxon has sold out under their new ownership, other options will appear. Homeschoolers are a resourceful lot. But why would Saxon actively seek to alienate what has been a segment of its business that has given it nothing but loyalty and support?

HE'S AT IT AGAIN

The California dad who sued to have "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance now hopes to stop prayers from President Bush's inauguration:

The California lawyer who tried to have the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his inauguration.
Michael Newdow, an atheist doctor and lawyer from Sacramento, has filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to remove prayer and all "Christian religious acts" from the Jan. 20 inauguration.
Mr. Newdow, 50, asserts that the presence of Christian ministers who pray publicly at the inauguration, Christian songs and the swearing of the oath of office while a president places a hand on the Bible violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Such practices turn people "into second-class citizens and create division on the basis of religion," he said yesterday.

Back in my younger days in college I once submitted a resolution to the student Senate that would have censured a campus gadfly as officially "annoying" (alas, the spineless campus politicians wouldn't bite). I think a similar move might be called for here.

QUOTING THE BIBLE IS CONSTITUTIONAL AFTER ALL

A federal appeals court has ruled that a Cincinnati judge did not act unconstitutionally when she quoted the Bible:

A Cincinnati judge did not violate the constitutional rights of a convicted rapist when she sentenced him to 51 years in prison after quoting a Bible verse, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The decision clears the way for a possible showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the role a judge's religious beliefs should - or should not - play in court.

The case began in 1998 when Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Melba Marsh sent James Arnett to prison for repeatedly raping an 8-year-old girl.

Marsh quoted a Bible verse that described drowning as an appropriate punishment for those who harm children. Arnett appealed, arguing that the judge's religious beliefs influenced her decision.

In its 2-1 decision Thursday, a panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the sentence should stand because the Bible was just one factor in determining the sentence.

The mind boggles at the idea that quoting Scripture could negate the sentencing of a man who repeatedly raped an 8-year-old girl. We clearly have a society that needs a lot more Bible quoting (and reading), not less.

WHO KILLED TUT?

Egyptian King Tut received a CT scan yesterday in hopes of solving his cause of death:

A team of researchers briefly removed King Tut's mummy from its tomb Wednesday and laid bare his bones for a CT scan that could solve an enduring mystery: Was it murder or natural causes that killed Egypt's boy pharaoh 3,000 years ago?...

The 1,700 images taken during the 15-minute CT scan could answer many of the mysteries that shroud King Tutankhamun's life and death — including his royal lineage, his exact age at the time of his death — now estimated at 17 — and the reason he died....

Hawass, part of the 10-man team that conducted Wednesday's tests, said the results of the Tut scan will be announced later this month in Cairo.

Tut is reportedly resting well, but complained the CT tube felt like a coffin...

THE SECULAR CHURCH

David Klinghoffer writes we need to face the truth about the secular churchA 2004 survey of religion and politics revealed a religious minority that constitutes at least 7.5 percent of the American population. It referred to this informal denomination as "Secular."

Sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the poll shows the fairly uniform political orientation of secularists: Only 21 percent regard themselves as politically conservative. A large majority, 79 percent, favor what the survey terms "gay rights" and support legal abortion.

For each element in the Judeo-Christian family of faiths, secularism has its counterpart: a strict ethical code, albeit focusing on health issues ("Thou shalt not smoke," etc.); the use of shame when individuals disregard ethical rules (e.g. fat people); a related promise of eternal life through medical advances; a creation story (Darwinian evolution); and so forth. All that's missing is a deity, but not every religion has one, as the case of Zen Buddhism attests.

The secular church is populous and dynamic, with a membership far exceeding that figure of 7.5 percent. Many individuals who identify nominally as Jews or Christians in fact are devout secularists.
The problem, of course, is that while claiming 'neutrality' this stealth religion is in fact quite aggressive in proselytizing:

All this would be fine—after all, America is a big country with plenty of room for every spiritual predilection—but for the tendency of secularists to use aggressive means in advancing their political agenda and spreading their faith.

Consider state education, where the secular church has ensured that its creation account alone be taught. According to the Discovery Institute, Ohio, Minnesota, and New Mexico are exceptions to this rule, now requiring students to know about scientific evidence critical of Darwinian evolution. Everywhere else, evangelism for this secular doctrine is a staple of 10th-grade biology class.

The prejudice on behalf of the secular faith emanating from the media is likewise hard to ignore. HBO's Bill Maher, raised Catholic but later converted to a harsh secularism, is among the frankest of news and entertainment industry figures in his contempt for competing religions, notably Christianity. The host of Real Time with Bill Maher speaks of himself as "spreading the anti-gospel."

Indeed.

ISRAEL CRACKS DOWN ON ANTIQUITIES FORGERY

Israel has been hurling accusations for awhile, but now seems bo getting serious

The former head of the antiquities laboratory at the prestigious Israel Museum is the fifth suspect in a sophisticated forgery ring that allegedly produced a treasure trove of fake Bible-era artifacts, a government official and museum spokeswoman said Monday.

The rings has been accused of forging what had been heralded as perhaps the two biggest biblical discoveries in the Holy Land in recent years - the purported burial box of Jesus' brother James and a stone tablet with written instructions by King Yoash on maintenance work at the Jewish Temple.

Justice Ministry spokesman Uri Steinberg named the suspect as Rafael Braun. He said he was the fifth person appearing on an indictment that was handed down by a Jerusalem court last week.

Among those named is Oded Golan, owner of the James ossuary. Biblical Archaeology Review has already put him on trial.

WHEN IS FREE SPEECH NOT FREE SPEECH?

Why, when it's religious speech, of course. The International Bible Society sparked controversy when it paid for New Testaments to be included in a newspaper. Some, as you might imagine, are not happy:

hen the International Bible Society paid to insert a copy of the New Testament in last Sunday's issue of The Colorado Springs Gazette, it thought it had found an astute way to spread Scripture.

The volume went into the same pocket of the newspaper's plastic pouch where items like CD's from America Online or soap samples often go. The Bible group paid the standard advertising rate, and its spokeswoman, Judy Billings, said it considered the 91,000 copies of the New Testament a Christmas gift to the people of Colorado Springs....

Some Jews and Muslims said getting the New Testament with the Sunday paper felt like being proselytized in their homes. Journalism critics debated whether this was free speech or skating too close to an endorsement of a particular religion.

Does anyone assume the newspaper endorses Moe's Hardly Damaged Automobiles when he advertises? Well of course not. Thankfully, the paper's publisher seems to be a sensible fellow:

Bob Burdick, publisher of The Gazette, said that the paper regularly took advertising from religious and political groups, and that most readers understood that such advertisements did not amount to an endorsement of their ideas.

"We're not in the business of stifling ideas," Mr. Burdick said. "I don't think papers have to back away from ideas because they're religious ideas, just as they shouldn't back away from ideas because they're political ideas."

Some were a little silly about it:

Rabbi Anat Moskowitz* canceled her subscription to the Gazette because she didn't approve of the way the text was delivered.

"All Jews treat holy books with reverence and respect," Moskowitz said. "I don't like the fact that most people drive over their newspaper in the morning. We find that disrespectful."

Moskowitz and other worshipers from Temple Shalom in Colorado Springs didn't protest the giveaway per se, but have decided to give copies they received to local churches that want them.

Most astonishing to Moskowitz was that IBS spent $125,000 to distribute the New Testament rather than donate the money to a homeless shelter or some other needy organization.

"There are so many things that the money could be used for," she said. "There are families who cannot get through the week, let alone the day. Get them a box of food. Feed their bodies and their souls."

The rabbi also was disturbed that photographs of the city of Colorado Springs and other landmarks were printed on the cover as if to suggest the city is a Christians-only city.

Uh, yeah. It's the International Bible Society, Ms. Moskowitz, not Meals on Wheels. There are far too many churches already that would rather spend their time and energy handing out food for the body instead of food for the soul:

But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" (Matthew 4:4)

Jesus was quoting Moses from Deuteronomy 8:3. Ms. Moskowitz would do well to read it and see if she's able to learn what the Israelites of that generation failed to.

But I've gotten off track. Ultimately I can think of no better evangelistic effort than giving someone a Bible. And that's what has the anti-Christians upset.

[*Obligatory woman preacher quote from Samuel Johnson: "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."]

THE WORLDWIDE WAR ON CHRISTIANS

Columnist Michelle Malkin tells us that the secularist's war on Christmas is nothing to a war on Christians:

Around the world, a bloody, repressive war on Christians rages on.

In Iraq, Islamist rebel troops have declared open season on Christian churches, priests and missionaries. In February, four American pastors were traveling in a taxi near the capital when terrorists ambushed them. Rev. John Kelley, pastor of Curtis Corner Baptist Church in rural Rhode Island and a former Marine, was killed in the attack. The missionaries were starting up a new church south of Baghdad.

The article is enlightening and troubling. It makes me think of all the Christians I know who go to foreign fields to spread the gospel. Lord willing, I myself will be going on my first such trip in 2005. Pray for the safety of those who take the gospel, but pray more that the gospel will spread.

[Link via BuzzMachine via Instapundit]

CANA'S WATER POTS

Archaeologists think they may have found Biblical Cana, site of Jesus's first miracle:

Among the roots of ancient olive trees, archaeologists have found pieces of large stone jars of the type the Gospel says Jesus used when he turned water into wine at a Jewish wedding in the Galilee village of Cana.

They think these could have been the same kind of vessels the Bible says Jesus used in his first miracle and that the site where they were found could be the location of biblical Cana. But Bible scholars caution that it will be hard to obtain conclusive proof — especially since experts disagree on the location of Cana.

Diggers at a rival site urged caution:

U.S. archaeologists excavating a rival site several miles to the north, however, also have found pieces of stone jars from the time of Jesus and think they have found biblical Cana.

Another expert, archaeologist Shimon Gibson, cast doubt on the find at modern Cana, since such vessels are not rare and it would be impossible to link a particular set of vessels to the miracle. "Just the existence of stone vessels is not enough to prove that this is a biblical site," and more excavations are needed, he said.

While the finding are interesting, it's always odd to me that these scientists seem to assume that if they dig up a shard in what might be Cana then it's bound to be from the water pots Jesus used. It's similar to the fellow who recently revealed the supposed cave of John the Baptizer--hey, it had some areas that look like they could have been used for baptisms! It must be John's cave.

I'm sure there were thousands of pots just like the one's used in Jesus's miracle in Palestine at the time. Who knows how many in Cana? I believe that Jesus certainly turned water into wine at Cana. I'd love for them to find the actual location of the city. We'll never know the site for the wedding or find those jars.

A PROBLEM OF PERSPECTIVE

In the middle of an article on the horrible and upsetting murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett and theft of her baby was a startling loss of persective by someone who ought to know better:

The Rev. Mike Wheatly, pastor of First Church of God in Melvern [,Kansas], said he wrote his sermon about the birth of Jesus before details about Stinnett's death surfaced.

Titled, "A Baby Changed Everything," it had added relevance.

"You could've put the situation of Bobbie Jo Stinnett in the same sermon because they are both special babies," he said.

Well, yes, they are both "special babies" but not in any sort of comparative sense. I understand getting caught up in the moment, but I think Wheatly might ought to read the source text of his sermon again.

THE SANTA DISCLOSURE

I was discussing with a friend of mine about whether we've allowed our children to believe in Santa. We both have, although my four year old seems hot on the trail of exposure. Having seen Santa thrice this holiday she told my wife after Santa visit #2, "Santa didn't seem to know me. He called me 'child' and not 'Haydon'." Perhaps better than the child my friend told me about who said in Bible class, "Daddy said there used to be a real Santa but he died. I want to pray for him."

The Mobile Register has polled southern Alabamians to find out when is the best time to tell children about Santa:

A new poll suggests that Alabamians have widely differing opinions about exactly when children should become more fully informed about the fellow they know as Santa Claus.

Eleven percent of respondents to the Mobile Register-University of South Alabama poll said that children should be told before age 6, while 16 percent preferred ages 7 or 8. Another 16 percent said 9 or 10 is appropriate, according to the poll of 417 adult Alabama residents conducted Dec. 9-14.

If only my parents had seen this poll. I think they told me when I went to college...

THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS

We've seen how the Bible can be hate speech in Canada, in Philadelphia the Bible can be fighting words:

Four Christian protesters who demonstrated at a Philadelphia homosexual event face a possible 47 years in prison if convicted of felony charges filed against them, while a prosecutor referred to Scripture verses they read as "fighting words."

The four are part of 11 demonstrators who went before the Philadelphia Municipal Court in a preliminary hearing this week. Judge William Austin Meehan Tuesday ordered four of the Christians to stand trial on three felony and five misdemeanor charges....

It's not a pretty picture.

[Thanks to Susanna at cotb for the tip.]

POOR HERMENEUTICAL APPROACH

A woman who killed her baby by cutting off its arms was, ahem, 'guided' by the Bible:

A mother who admitted killing her baby daughter by severing the girl's arms was guided by a Bible passage, the woman's attorney said Tuesday.

In the passage, Jesus refers to cutting off body parts to cast away sin, said the lawyer, David Haynes.

Dena Schlosser, a 35-year-old housewife with a history of mental illness, has referred to the New Testament passage since the killing of her 10-month-old daughter, Haynes told The Associated Press.

In the book of Matthew, Jesus says: “If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”

Schlosser has been charged with capital murder.

Haynes said that Schlosser was mentally ill at the time of the slaying. Schlosser is still disoriented, he said, but is improving under medication.

Now, it's well to note that Jesus said "if thy hand offend thee, cut it off". He failed to mention that if your hand offends me I can cut it off. (Biblical interpretation hint: Jesus was not advocating self-mutilation.)

DO BRITS KNOW WHERE JESUS WAS BORN?

Yes, most of them do, actually. This story seems to think it's news that "almost a third" don't. I'm shocked that many do!

Almost a third of people in the UK do not know Jesus was born in Bethlehem, according to a survey published today.

Asked “Can you name the town where the Bible says Jesus was born?”, 28% of respondents did not know.

The survey, which was conducted by YouGov for Sky Box Office, also highlighted “You shall not kill” as the Old Testament Commandment people felt was still the most relevant to their lives.

This was followed by “Honour your mother and father”, “You shall not steal” and “You shall not commit adultery”.

The least relevant of the 10 Commandments was identified as “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me”.

Many theologians believe this was the Commandment Christ himself considered the most important.

The poll, which coincides with the UK TV premiere of the controversial Mel Gibson movie The Passion Of The Christ, was put together in consultation with The Very Reverend John Drury, Chaplain at All Souls College, Oxford.

It surveyed about 2,000 people on questions such as where Jesus was born, what happened on Easter Day, and who was the first man in the Bible.

I'm not the only one who was suprised they did as well as they did:

He added: “The questions were designed to be very basic but it is remarkable that 70% of all those surveyed gave correct answers. There have been times in the past when it might have been higher. However, Christian basics nowadays seems to be better than I expected.”

The survey is published just two days after the Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope, said that Britain would now be “hard-pushed” to be called a Christian country.

The research showed the over-50s fared significantly better than 18 to 29-year-olds when answering these knowledge-based questions:

Who is the first man in the Bible? (73% said Adam: 83% of church-goers; 70% of non-practising Christians);

Can you name the town where the Bible says Jesus was born? (72% said Bethlehem: 85% of church-goers; 71% of non-practising Christians);

What is the name of the special table normally found at the east end of a church? (61% said altar: 66% of church-goers; 62% of non-practising Christians);

Can you name the authors of the four gospels in the New Testament? (71% named Luke and John and 70% named Matthew and Mark: of church-goers Luke 80%, John 78%, Matthew 78%, Mark 80%; of non-practising Christians Luke 71%, John 72%, Matthew 70%, Mark 69%);

What was Jesus’s race or nationality? (71% said Jewish: 83% of church-goers; 72% of non-practising Christians;

According to Christian religion, what was supposed to have happened on Easter Day? (85% said the Resurrection: 92% of church-goers; 88% of non-practising Christians).

There may be hope for that bunch yet.

LDS 'DISFELLOWSHIPS' AUTHOR

The Mormons Strike Back, disciplining an out of line author:

After an exhausting six-hour disciplinary hearing Sunday, Mormon leaders temporarily suspended Grant H. Palmer's membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Palmer, a longtime Mormon educator, was asked to defend himself on charges of apostasy stemming from his 2002 book, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, which challenged traditional beliefs about the church's history.
The all-male priesthood leaders in his Willow Creek Sandy LDS stake could have excommunicated the 64-year-old author, but chose instead a lesser punishment - to "disfellowship" him - which means he may not enter the temple, serve in a church position, give a talk, partake of the weekly sacrament or offer a public prayer. This typically lasts about a year, but the length will be determined by his LDS stake president, Keith Adams, who may also spell out more conditions of the suspension in a letter sometime later this week. Palmer has the right to appeal the decision to higher church authorities.

What shocking things did Palmer write in his book (which has sold a staggering 3,000 copies):

In the book, Palmer argues that the faith's scripture, The Book of Mormon, reflects LDS founder Joseph Smith's own 19th-century environment, not ancient America as Mormons believe. He further suggests that Smith embellished his divine revelations to respond to critics and to stabilize the church.

This is in dispute somehow? Had Palmer concluded otherwise he would have been disfellowshiped by the historical community.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN 'CONVERTS' ATHEIST

Long time English atheist Anthony Flew has become a believer in, at least, some sort of divine hand in creation:

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew is far from being a Christian, however:

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Flew's conclusion is an interesting one. Intelligent Design can be used as a wedge (see Johnson's The Wedge of Truth) to show that the heavens do indeed declare God's existence. Once that acceptance of God's general revelation of creation is made the next step is to gain acceptance of God's direct revelation of Scripture. Not all will do that, of course, but for a professional atheist like Flew to change is an amazing thing.

IN THE BEGINNING...

The Bible meets the Far Side is how artist Chris Sushynski describes his new comic strip, "In The Beginning...". I have to admit, this one's pretty funny.

HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PULLING BACK?

I wouldn't risk a lot of money on it, but there is a struggle to come to grips with November's setbacks at the ballot box:

Leaders of the gay rights movement are embroiled in a bitter and increasingly public debate over whether they should moderate their goals in the wake of bruising losses in November when 11 states approved constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages....

The leadership of the Human Rights Campaign, at a meeting last weekend in Las Vegas, concluded that the group must bow to political reality and moderate its message and its goals. One official said the group would consider supporting President Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security partly in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the program.

"The feeling this weekend in Las Vegas was that we had to get beyond the political and return to the personal," said Michael Berman, a Democratic lobbyist and consultant who was elected the first non-gay co-chairman of the Human Rights Campaign's board last week. "We need to reintroduce ourselves to America with the stories of our lives."

What November shows us is that the visceral reaction against homosexuality is still there, "Queer Eye" and "Will & Grace" notwithstanding. As I've written before, there is a window of opportunity to push through a constititutional amendment banning homosexual "marriage" but it is closing fast. I don't believe you're going to find many national politicians who sincerely want to lead the charge, the Bush Administration chief among them. They've ridden the campaign issue and will likely be content to let the issue fade into the sunset. I assure you the homosexual activists will not let the issue go away:

But others involved in the drive for gay and lesbian equality say the Human Rights Campaign's approach smacks of pre-emptive surrender and wrong-headed political calculation.

"For a certain segment of the movement, for which I would certainly elect the H.R.C. as poster child, it means that the error was that we were wanting too much too fast," said Jonathan D. Katz, executive coordinator of the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies at Yale. "It is entirely characteristic for them to believe that what is required is a sort of retrenchment and a return to a more moderate message. They are, of course, completely wrong."

Mr. Katz and other aggressive advocates of gay rights said they believed that marriage rights were the key to winning fundamental equality for gay men and lesbians and that retreat from that struggle was self-defeating.

George Chauncey, director of the Lesbian and Gay Studies Project at the University of Chicago, said the marriage debate had galvanized gays more dramatically than any other issue in recent years.

Those who are supporters of God instituted marriage better be sure that regardless of this past November's results, the homosexual activists aren't going away on this.

THE OBLIGATORY (& PREDICTABLE) CHRISTMAS STORIES

Time and Newsweek have both provided cover stories on the "Christmas story", i.e., the birth of Jesus. Rob Moll provides a breakdown. Needless to say, the results are predictable:

Both Newsweek and Time have Jesus on their covers, and neither article quotes an evangelical scholar in its attempt to narrate how Christians concocted the story of the birth of Jesus....

Newsweek says they want to find the middle, somewhere between London's childlike faith and severe skepticism. Then, author Jon Meacham goes on to report only what those scholars say who do not believe what the Gospels report about Jesus' birth. "The first followers, we should always remember, believed that the Risen Lord was going to return and usher in a new apocalyptic age at any moment."

But when Jesus didn't return, these followers decided they'd better write down the story of Jesus' life, says Meacham. This Gospel story, Newsweek says, cannot be trusted historically because early Christians were by then far removed from the actual events, and, besides, they were only using the story as a means to gain believers....

But, rather than telling us why many scholars find no contradiction between faith and history, Meacham gives those of us who do believe the Gospel story a piece of advice. "Christianity is a religion of perplexing contradictions. To live an examined faith believers have to acknowledge those complexities and engage them, however frustrating it may be."

Shocking! There's no place in the story for the believer's perspective? Well, there's really not at Time, either, it seems:

Time's story goes through all the same scholarly dilemmas, but with a little more sympathy. For example, some of the differences between Gospel narratives, David Van Biema writes, can be understood by recognizing the different audiences intended to read the story.

Van Biema, though, ends without condescending advice. Even those with a "politically progressive analysis of Scripture" find something miraculous in the birth of Christ, as the Gospels tell it. During the nativity pageant at Arlington Heights First Presbyterian in Illinois, pastor Dianne Shields won't be including her historical qualms. She's preached her "scholarly sermons on the Magi and the meaning of Mary's answer to Gabriel," says Van Biema. But she's also going to play the angel in the play.

As she walks down the aisle holding Jesus, Van Biema says, "Many will cry out, if only silently within their hearts, Hallelujah!"

So, even if the Gospel accounts aren't true, it really is fun to pretend it is once a year--woohoo!

I really don't think it's possible for the national news magazines to bring themselves to take the Bible seriously, or even consider letting serious believers speak for themselves.

THIS JUST IN: VIRGIN BIRTH TRUE!

Newsweek has polled Americans and they have declared the virgin birth of Jesus true:

Seventy-nine percent of Americans believe that, as the Bible says, Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, without a human father, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll on beliefs about Jesus.

Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmas—the Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the East—is historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible.

In the NEWSWEEK poll, 93 percent of Americans say they believe Jesus Christ actually lived and 82 percent believe Jesus Christ was God or the Son of God. Fifty-two percent of all those polled believe, as the Bible proclaims, that Jesus will return to earth someday; 21 percent do not believe it. Fifteen percent believe Jesus will return in their lifetime; 47 percent do not, the poll shows.

Really, these are some encouraging numbers. Two polls I would love to see the results of: the same questions asked of Americans in July, divorced from the Christmas season, and the same questions asked of Western Europeans.

NEW BIBLE RELATED PRODUCTS

Just in time for the Christmas season are a couple of new products for the computer inclined Bible student. First is a new Palmtop version of the NIV Study Bible, which, although not my favorite NASB version does give access to the Zondervan Study Bible notes that I consider very good. It lists for $30 but can probably be found cheaper.

A bit more expensive, but a lot of punch for the dollar, is the new offering from BiblePlaces.com, an 8-cd set of Historic Views of the Holy Land. It's high on my "to get" list. I have their original 10-cd Pictorial Library of Bible Lands, which I highly recommend especially if you do any PowerPoint presentations. It's indispensible. The new Historic Views set is being offered for an introductory price of $99, which is half off regular price.

Theosebes has no financial interest in either of these products, but they both caught my interest.

THE DRUG NATION

In statistics released yesterday, the government reports that 40% of Americans are on drugs:

More than 40 percent of Americans take at least one prescription drug and one-in-six takes at least three, the government reported Thursday.

"Americans are taking medicines that lower cholesterol and reduce the threat of heart disease, that help lift people out of debilitating depressions, and that keep diabetes in check," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said in a statement.

The annual report on Americans' health found that just over 44 percent of all Americans take at least one prescription drug, and 16.5 percent take at least three.

Those rates were up from 39 percent and 12 percent between 1988 and 1994, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported....

The report said prescription drug use was increasing among people of all ages, and use increases with age.

Nearly half of all women were taking prescription drugs - 49 percent - compared to 39 percent of men.

Usage peaked at 84 percent for people aged 65 and over, with the top rate at 89 percent for black women over 65.

Even for people under age 18, however, nearly one-fourth - 24.1 percent - were taking at least one prescription medication. The rate rose to 34.7 percent between age 18 and 44; for those ages 45 to 64, it was 62.1 percent.

I certainly recognize the increasing life expectancy and that an aging nation will, on average, take more prescription medicine. But do one fourth of all children need to be on drugs and one third in my age group? Personally, I find these statistics highly disturbing. Particularly when it comes to mental health in children and women it seems the first option is drugs. I have a hard time accepting that as a wise choice.

METHODISTS CONVICT LESBIAN MINISTER

The United Methodist Church has declared guilty an openly lesbian Methodist minister:

A jury made up of United Methodist Church clergy convicted a lesbian minister Thursday of violating church law by openly living with her partner in a committed relationship.

The Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud could be defrocked as a result of the ruling, which came on the second day of her church trial. The same 13-member jury was set to meet Thursday afternoon to decide her penalty.

Methodist law bars "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" from ministry. Nine votes were necessary for a conviction and the jury voted 12-1 to find Stroud guilty.

The last time the 8.3 million-member denomination convicted an openly gay cleric was in 1987, when a New Hampshire church court defrocked the Rev. Rose Mary Denman.

Well, they'd eliminate half the problems with homosexual clergy if they'd stop ordaining women.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of this. It looks like the Methodists will live up to their tradition of being Episcopalian Lite in the long run.

TRADITION, CONSERVATISM & POLITICS

Readers of theosebes may recall my not infrequent references to Dr. Russell Kirk, America's greatest 20th century expositor of conservatism. I had the good pleasure of working for him for a year. Dr. Kirk was, of course, a Catholic, an allegiance that informed his conservatism. I, of course, am not a Catholic and the issue of religion and conservatism came up on a listserv in which I participate. Below is a recent post somewhat adapted for inclusion here. It is presented without full context as it was part of an ongoing discussion. Still, the comments largely stand on their own. Someday I intend to write an extended essay on it all that will be of great interest to almost no one but me.

What is the purpose of tradition? Not tradition for tradition's sake, certainly, but rather as a means for generations of men to arrive at truth, or at least place a brake on man's experimental fancies. As Edmund Burke says: "The individual is foolish; the multitude, for the moment is foolish, when they act without deliberation; but the species is wise, and, when time is given to it, as a species it always acts right." Tradition is the action of the species. It is particularly valuable when it comes to political and societal concerns.

However, traditions (in this context the handed down decisions of generations of man) are not necessary to arrive at truth when we have God's revelation. God tells us what truth is, because man, regardless of how many generations, cannot ever apprehend the great mysteries that God knows unless we are told by Him, ie, revelation. In the face of revelation tradition becomes an impediment. Jesus said to the very religious, but tradition bound Pharisees "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." (Mark 7:8) They had allowed generations of man's teachings to obscure God's revelation.

My ultimate goal is to live true to the word of God as revealed in His word. Traditional responses and understandings of that word can inform my understanding of it, but it must not dictate it. Man's ways and understandings-even if done as a species-can only obscure what God has made clear in His word.

Now Catholics claim that God has instituted authority in a pope and a church, which I deny. Catholics operate from a point of definition-the primacy of the Catholic Church-which I do not accept. I see the Catholic Church as an obscuring of God's word by man's tradition. I do not think that makes me a radical at all, other than I seek radically to hold to God's word. I understand Catholics will disagree with that. But I would submit that there is, in fact, respectable ecclesiastical scholarship that disagrees with the Catholic historical understanding. And I'm not speaking of iconoclastic scholarship of the left, but rather work done by men who have great respect for God's word.

Yes, incomplete comments, but food for future discussion.

ALEXANDER GOES DOWN IN DEFEAT

Oliver Stone's $150 million movie Alexander tanked at the box office in its opening weekend:

"Alexander", director Oliver Stone's three-hour epic starring Irishman Colin Farrell as the youthful Macedonian warrior, opened at No. 6 with ticket sales of just $13.5 million (7.1 million pounds) for the three days beginning Friday.

Since opening on Wednesday to get a jump-start on the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, the film has earned $21.6 million from cinemas in the United States and Canada -- short of the $25 million hoped for by the film's financier, Intermedia Films.

The Brits think its because we're 'homophobes' (whatever that is). Or maybe Americans are tired of poorly made agenda movies and being told its entertainment.

THE SCHULLER LEGACY

Joshua Clayborn reports on a white sepulchre at the Crystal Cathedral:

Yesterday I watched "Episode 108" [of MTV's Laguna Beach] and for the first time realized that one of the show's characters, Christina, is actually the granddaughter of famed minister Dr. Robert H. Schuller and daughter to Dr. Robert H. Schuller II, also a well known minister. The two are ministers at Crystal Cathedral, which has a congregation of over 10,000 members and plays host to the internationally televised "Hour of Power." None of this would seem like a big deal if it weren't for Christina's antics and behavior, both with friends and in relation to the church.

In episode 108, Christina must stay behind from camping with her friends because of a singing engagement at her father's church. But on her way there she listens to rap music filled with profanity and, prior to walking on stage, she mercilessly mocks her father's sermon and delivery style to her sister nearby. But after a heartfelt introduction from her father, Christina walks on stage to sing an angelic, gospel song as her father and grandfather look on in admiration and prayer. The next frame cuts to Christina walking out, eager to leave and exclaiming "Thank God that's over." (You can watch part of the scene on MTV's website.) In other episodes she discusses hooking up, her desire for more sex, and other such things.

With the Schullers' continuing watering down of the Bible message are we really surprised?

RALPH REED'S (FURTHER) PERFIDY

One time head of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition Ralph Reed has reached a low even for him: liquor lobbyist. Reed, he of the perpetually boyish features (are he and John Edwards long lost brothers?), used the trust of millions of sincere religious people to launch a career of political enrichment, which is seemingly void of principle and character. Nice hire, Pat.

HANKS SIGNS ON FOR 'DA VINCI'

In a bit of a disappointing move, actor Tom Hanks has signed for the lead role in the upcoming Da Vinci Code movie:

Superstar actor Tom Hanks has signed on to play the lead role in The Da Vinci Code. Director Ron Howard and producer Brian Grazer landed the actor they wanted to star in their adaptation of Dan Brown's controversial best-selling novel.

Hanks will play Robert Langdon, the professor who follows the clues into a mystery that uncovers shocking "revelations"—that Jesus was not divine after all, that he married Mary Magdalene and had a bunch of unusual children, and that The Last Supper is a painting with a bunch of scandalous secrets painted into it.

The adaptation will be written by Akiva Goldsman, who wrote Lost in Space, Batman Forever, and A Beautiful Mind.

I think we need to be ready for a full assault on Jesus and the Bible when the movie comes out. This is Hollywood's answer to Mel Gibson's The Passion.

Of course with Tom Hanks' recent track record (Polar Express, The Ladykillers) and the movies Goldsman has written (Lost in Space, Batman Forever) we may not have a lot to worry about...

RED STATES & BAD TV

Regardless of whether they voted for 'values' in the Presidential election or not, Americans whether red or blue are still The New York Times > Business > Media & Advertising >watching bad tv:

In interviews, representatives of the four big broadcast networks as well as Hollywood production studios said the nightly television ratings bore little relation to the message apparently sent by a significant percentage of voters.

The choices of viewers, whether in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City, New York or Birmingham, Ala., are remarkably similar. And that means the election will have little impact on which shows they decide to put on television, these executives say.

It is possible that some secondary characters on new television shows will exhibit strong religious beliefs, and an occasional plotline may examine the impact of faith on some characters' lives. But with "Desperate Housewives" and "C.S.I." leading the ratings, television shows are far more likely to keep pumping from the deep well of murder, mayhem and sexual transgression than seek diversion along the straight and narrow path.

For some reason, people are a lot more willing to vote for their (self-perceived) values in the voting booth than the television. If the red states really want to have an impact they'll start changing the channel--or even (*gasp*) turning the television off.

'HOW DO YOU GET TO HEAVEN?' UPDATE

Mentioned below is our local NBC affiliate's series on 'How Do You Get to Heaven?' done by anchor Mike Royer. Royer spoke to (in order) a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim and a Baptist. The website is updated to include all four story write-ups and also video clips if anyone is interested in watching them.

The Muslim and the Baptist both affirmed the necessity of their faiths, while the Catholic and Jew were wishy-washy about it all. The only one really to focus on the grace of Christ was the Baptist theologian from Samford, who clearly did the best job of the four. He was also the only one not to emphasize works salvation. The fact is, without the grace that comes from Jesus Christ all we have is earning it. And I think most of realize how good we are at that.

NOTE: At the time of this posting the page wasn't updated with the correct stories, but I emailed the station webstaff to alert them to it. It likely will be fixed soon.

GREEKS OUTRAGED BY STONE'S 'ALEXANDER'

Oliver Stone's upcoming movie 'Alexander' has infuriated Greeks who deny the conqueror was bisexual:

A group of Greek lawyers are threatening to sue Warner Bros film studios and Oliver Stone, director of the widely anticipated film "Alexander," for suggesting Alexander the Great was bisexual.

The lawyers have already sent an extrajudicial note to the studio and director demanding they include a reference in the title credits saying his movie is a fictional tale and not based on official documents of the life of the Macedonian ruler.

"We are not saying that we are against gays but we are saying that the production company should make it clear to the audience that this film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander," Yannis Varnakos, who spearheads the campaign by 25 lawyers, told Reuters on Friday.

The lawyers say they have a right os keep the movie's potential audience properly informed:

Varnakaos said as Stone has the right to freely express himself, the audience should have the right to know.

"We cannot come out and say that (former U.S.) President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay," Varnakos said.

Are they trying to suggest there might be a pro-homosexual agenda in Hollywood?

'ALEXANDER THE GAY'

One of those movies I had some thoughts of seeing has been marked off the list. Oliver Stone's movie 'Alexander' (surname, 'the Great') puts heavy focus on Alexander and homosexuality:

As Alexander the Great, [actor Colin] Farrell speaks softly and sports a blond pageboy and mini-toga, looking a bit like something out of Queer Eye for the Macedonian Guy.

In scenes that may raise eyebrows with some action-movie fans, the Irish actor kisses two men - a Macedonian soldier and a hunky topless Persian castrato named Bogoas, who becomes his lover - full on the mouth.

While Farrell has a steamy sex scene with an unclothed Rosario Dawson as Alexander's wife, Roxane, the film leaves little doubt that the true love of the conqueror's life is his boyhood friend turned fellow warrior, Hephaistion, portrayed by Jared Leto.

How pleasant. I will enjoy seeing it bomb.

BEER FOR JESUS

An Australian brewery is offering a swap of beer for a stolen Jesus:

Six cases of beer for a stolen baby Jesus: that's the deal an Australian brewing company is offering.

Someone swiped the infant Christ figure from a nativity scene this week.

Now, the South Australian Brewing Company in Adelaide is offering a reward in brewskis for the return of the baby Jesus. The nativity display is an annual tradition at the brewery.

Officials say security footage showed a man climbing a fence and lifting the baby Jesus from his manger.

I suppose the fellow can partake of some holiday spirits...

FROM ALABAMA TO HEAVEN

In one of those stories that would probably only fly in Alabama, our local NBC affiliate has been doing a four part series on "How Do You Get To Heaven". He's asking representatives of four faiths: a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim and a Southern Baptist (lots of those around here). You can read the Catholic answer and the Jewish version. I'll post links to the Muslim and Baptist answers as they become available.

What has struck me in the segments is the focus on what is essentially works salvation. Yes, I too believe God will judge us on our earthly deeds. But I can tell you, if that's all I've got to go on then I'm in big trouble.

I will say, I was at least pleased the Muslim was willing to stand up for the uniqueness of his faith. So far everyone else has peddled some version of the "God's got a place for everyone" line.

DEMOCRAT GETS RELIGION

After John Kerry's election defeat, Democrats are trying to figure out how to get some of the religious vote for themselves:

Bested by a Republican campaign emphasizing Christian faith, some Democrats are scrambling to shake off their secular image, stepping up efforts to organize the "religious left" and debating changes to how they approach the cultural flashpoints of same-sex marriage and abortion.

Some call the election a warning. "You can't have everybody who goes to church vote Republican; you just can't," Al From, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, said last week at a forum on the election.

Religious traditionalists including Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, and Jim Wallis of the liberal evangelical group Sojourners say Democratic officials are calling them for advice on reaching conservative Christians. And they and some other theologically orthodox supporters of Mr. Bush say it may not take much for Democrats to make inroads among their constituency, if the party demonstrates a greater friendliness to religious beliefs and even modestly softens its support for abortion rights.

But many--including Democrats--see difficulties ahead:

"It would not be hard," said the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the journal First Things and a conservative Catholic who has advised Mr. Bush on how to handle the issue of abortion.

But Democrats disagree about how to establish the party's spiritual credentials. Some play down the need for changes, saying poorly framed surveys of voters leaving polls are overstating the impact of conservative Christian voters. Others argue that Democrats need to rephrase their positions in more moral and religious language. And an emboldened group of Democratic partisans and sympathetic religious leaders warn that Mr. Bush has beaten Democrats to the middle on social issues like abortion that resonate with religious traditionalists, arguing that the party should publicly welcome opponents of abortion into its ranks and perhaps even bend in its opposition to certain abortion restrictions.

In an interview, Mr. From pointed out that Republicans invited officials who disagreed with the party's position on abortion rights, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, to speak at their national convention. Democrats should do likewise, he argued.

"I want to win some people who are pro-life, because they probably agree with us on a lot of other things," Mr. From said.

Even that, however, would shock some Democrats. No prominent opponent of abortion has come anywhere near the podium of a Democratic convention since 1992, when abortion rights groups blocked a speech on the subject by Robert P. Casey, the governor of Pennsylvania and an observant Catholic.

"Our platform and the grass-roots strength of the party is pro-choice," said Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of Naral Pro-Choice America. The party needs more religious language, Ms. Cavendish said, but not new positions.

The last quote is telling, and really is all we're likely to see from them. Dropping by the pulpit on the way to the abortion clinic isn't going to win them any points. The Democrats have become a party dominated by practical atheists and are awash in secularism. Don't look for the religious erosion on the Left to stop any time soon.

HOW DID TUT DIE?

We may know pretty soon as scientists subject the mummy to X-ray tests:

The mummy of King Tutankhamun is to be X-rayed in an attempt to solve the mystery of how the teenage Pharaoh died at age 17, Egypt’s chief archaeologist said Sunday.

Zahi Hawass said that this month the mummy will be taken from King Tut’s tomb in the Valley of the Kings, outside the southern city of Luxor, and flown to Cairo, where it will be X-rayed in the Egyptian Museum. It would be the first time in 82 years that Tutankhamun’s remains left the tomb.

“The question of whether he was murdered or not will be answered completely,” Hawass told The Associated Press.

To put Tut in Biblical perspective, he reigned (briefly) around the time of Joshua leading into the Old Testament Judges. It will be interesting to see what we find.

ATLANTIS FOUND...AGAIN

Yet another claim has surfaced (haha) as to the location of lost Atlantis:

Robert Sarmast says a Mediterranean basin was flooded in a deluge around 9000 B.C., which submerged a rectangular land mass he believes was Atlantis, lying a mile (1.5 kilometers) beneath sea level between Cyprus and Syria.

“We have definitely found it,” said Sarmast, who led a team of explorers 50 miles (80 kilometers) off the southeast coast of Cyprus earlier this month.

Deep-water sonar scanning had indicated human-made structures on a submerged hill, including a 2-mile-long (3-kilometer-long) wall, a walled hill summit and deep trenches, he said. But further explorations were needed, he added.

“We cannot yet provide tangible proof in the form of bricks and mortar, as the artifacts are still buried under several meters of sediment, but the circumstantial and other evidence is irrefutable,” he claimed.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Of course, you can always rely on theosebes for your breaking Atlantis updates.

DAVE RAMSEY ON 60 MINUTES

Well, he was last Sunday anyway. If you missed seeing it you can read it. It's well worth it.

BUSH'S COURT

One of the big issues that most Republican types hammered leading up to the election was the necessity of re-electing Bush in order to secure a "conservative" Supreme Court that will perform such duties as overturning Roe v. Wade. Not wishing to spoil the party, but how many Supreme Court Justices currently on the court were appointed by Republican Presidents? And somehow another couple of appointments is going to fix it? At any rate, Jeffrey Rosen raises the question of whether Bush can deliver a conservative Supreme Court?:

Mr. Bush repeated the pledge he made in the presidential debates: "I would pick people who would be strict constructionists."

Liberals fear that "strict constructionists" - those who believe the Constitution should be read literally - would ban affirmative action, resurrect school prayer, dismantle the regulatory state and overturn Roe v. Wade.

Now I suppose if a "strict constructionist" reads the Constitution "literally" the liberal would read it figuratively? It raises the interesting question of exactly what the framers or modern legislators need to do in order to get courts to recognize their intent. Of course, "intent" simply is a fallacious "strict constructionist" assumption, now isn't it?

But Rosen exposes the dirty secret that has was alluded to above (and on theosebes in the past):

By promising to appoint strict constructionists, Mr. Bush has embraced the mantra of every Republican president since Richard Nixon, who first made that promise in his 1968 campaign. Yet Republican presidents have largely failed in their efforts.

In the last 36 years, four Republican presidents have appointed all but two of the current nine justices.

But on the most contested social issues - abortion, affirmative action, school prayer and gay rights - the court has sided with liberals, while only modestly advancing the deregulatory agenda of the Republicans.

"If the goal of Republican presidents was to build a court that exercised its own power with greater restraint or adhered strictly to the original constitutional text, then they have clearly failed," said Thomas Keck, a political science professor at Syracuse University and author of "The Most Activist Supreme Court in History."

I think we have a winner.

Why do we think that Bush II is going to succeed where others have failed (assuming they legitimately had the goals we ascribe to them)? I think we need to recognize the courts hold little promise for those seeking to preserve Biblical and Constitutional principles in our society.

DO HOBBITS GO TO HEAVEN?

Christopher Howse ponders the question of those troubling "hobbits" found in Flores:

But don’t these new creatures in Flores, so gratingly christened hobbits, prove that the Bible is rubbish, Darwin is right and everything can be explained by evolution? Well, for so-called fundamentalists, the difficulties of keeping to the sentence-by-sentence literal truth of the biblical account of the Creation should not be much greater than they already are, even if a delegation of Flores hobbits arrived in Downing Street demanding equal rights and bus passes.

For mainstream Christians, Darwin was never much of a problem anyway. He was only thought to be so by those who presumed he had somehow either: 1) proved the Bible wasn’t true, or 2) proved that men had no immortal souls. He had proved neither.

One might not agree with all of his conclusions, but it's an interesting discussion.

[Link via LRC]

WHY BUSH WON

Jane Smiley, author of the novel Moo, offers a veritable parody of elitist thinking that points to why Kerry lost. Oh, it's called The unteachable ignorance of the red states:

Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

I pulled out the part of most interest to theosebes readers. The greatest pleasure I have from the Bush victory is watching the squirming of those it upsets the most. Reading the story makes it clear who is the one who gave up on complex thought.

[Link via Power Line]

ELECTION & VALUES RUNDOWN

Ted Olsen at Christianity Today has a nice rundown from left:

He's not one of "us," says James Ridgeway in The Village Voice. With the deck, "Bush gets mandate for theocracy," Ridgeway gets apocalyptic. "The dream of a secular, liberal democracy is lost: Christians are stronger than ever, and whether it's true or not, the spin will be that they played a key role in building the Bush base. The visceral, cutting edge of the Bush mandate is the attack on same-sex marriage, led by the Christian Right."

and right

"Evangelicals voted in force in this year's election, securing the presidency for George W. Bush, granting parents in Florida the right to be notified before their minor daughter's abortion, and passing marriage protections laws in every state they were offered — even liberal Oregon," writes [Concerned Women for America] senior policy director Wendy Wright. "President Bush knows his strongest base, who they are and what drives them. Perhaps this is because, as many evangelicals and conservative Catholics can relate, he is one of us."

on the effect of values and evangelicals in the election. Olsen points out the problems, too.

THINGS THAT WON'T WORK

Perhaps remembering the fate of Roman Christians or the danger that Daniel faced, a man in Taiwan has tried to convert lions to Christianity:

Chen Chung-ho jumped into the lions' ensclosure at the Taipei City Zoo in Mucha, reports the China Post.

Raising his hands above his head, he shouted: "Jesus will save you!" and "Come bite me!" at the two African lions.

At first the big cats, lounging under a tree, paid no attention to the man but finally they attacked him, injuring his arms and legs.

The two lions pulled back after the 46-year old man put his hands in front of his chest to pray.

After a standoff that lasted for about 30 minutes, zoo staff used water cannons to chase the lions away and calmed the animals with tranquilizer guns.

The rescued man was rushed to the nearby Wan Fang Hospital for treatment.

Zoo officials claimed Chen would have been more seriously hurt had the lions not been fed earlier in the day.

I wonder what he had in mind had they listened...

(The link actually has pictures of the guy and the lions.)

THE ELECTION & HOMOSEXUAL 'MARRIAGE'

Finally, the post I tried to write on Wednesday morning when Blogger wouldn't let me (post-election blogging overload, one suspects). Much has now been made of the fact that eleven of eleven states passed marriage definition measures:

In a pointed vote against same-sex marriage, voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly supported amendments to their constitutions that would define marriage as between only a man and a woman.

Voters in 10 of the 11 states with such initiatives on their ballots supported the amendments by wide margins.

Gay-rights groups had expected to lose their battle at the ballot box and said the results were not surprising.

"We knew that we were underdogs in every state when we started out," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Putting a basic right up for a popular vote is always wrong and always extraordinarily difficult to win."

Social conservatives were expectedly pleased, though they were preparing for the possibility that gay-rights groups could pull off a lone victory here in Oregon. "I think it is a real warning shot across the bow of politicians, but also a warning shot across the bow to activist judges," said Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, a political action committee that supported the constitutional amendments.

Of course, it passed in Oregon (a solidly Kerry state), too.

One Kerry sympathizer even blamed the Massachusett's Supreme Court for Bush winning:

Since George Bush ended up winning, the "most important event" title ought to be something that helped him, not something that helped John Kerry.

With that in mind, I'll plump for the Massachusett's Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage. The result was nearly a dozen initiatives across the country to ban gay marriage and a perfect wedge issue for Republicans. (Link via Instapundit)

Amusing, but likely some truth to it.

The polls show that Bush rode the 'moral issues' issue to victory:

Moral values topped the list of issues voters were most concerned about when they went to the polls on Election Day, with Catholics, evangelicals, blacks and Hispanics joining an ad hoc coalition that re-elected President Bush by 3.5 million votes.
A national exit poll of 13,531 voters found 22 percent cited moral values as the "most important issue," with the economy and jobs second at 20 percent and terrorism at 19 percent, according to a joint survey by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. Iraq came in fourth at 15 percent.

This, of course, is a rude awakening for the elites on the two coasts. But for Red State America it's a very real concern. People are tired of the amorality of the dominant culture being shoved down their throat and being told they're racist, homophobic, etc. [insert condescending insult here] unless they like it.

Now, will all of those evangelicals and religiously minded Bush voters be rewarded for their loyalty? I keep being told that a Republican had to be elected so we can overturn Roe v. Wade. Well, it's been 32 years and counting and after five Republican Presidents since the ruling it still stands. How many current Justices were appointed by Republicans? How many GOP appointed Justices sat on the court in 1972? You do the math.

After that reality sets in, lets see which happens first: Roe v. Wade is overturned, or the Supreme Court finds a Constitutionally protected right for homosexual marriage and all those state initiatives passed on Tuesday suddenly become little more than wasted ink. I know which one I'd be more likely to pick.*


*Note that GOP Senator Arlen Specter already is warning Bush not to send nominees to the Senate who might overturn Roe v. Wade.

CORNETT-CORNETT 2040



The only ticket I trust.

BRITAIN'S DESIGNER BABIES

In the first step toward designing your own baby (maybe one day with a little polo pony on the chest) Britain has okayed embryo choice:

PEOPLE with inherited forms of cancer have won the right to select embryos free from genes that might trigger the disease in future generations, The Times has learnt.
Four couples affected by a genetic form of bowel cancer will start the procedure by the end of the year, after the Government’s fertility watchdog allowed a London clinic to screen IVF embryos for the disorder.



One of the patients, a 35-year-old accountant from Bristol, said: “We are overjoyed to have been given this chance, not only to do as much as possible to make sure our children don’t have this gene, but to stop them from passing it on.”

The ruling by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority deepens the controversy over designer babies. It sets a precedent that will allow doctors to “cherry-pick” embryos for a much wider range of traits than at present. Applications to extend the procedure are expected within months.

Such tests can potentially eradicate some disorders, enabling parents to be certain of having healthy children. But critics said that the decision will push Britain farther towards “designer babies” chosen for social reasons.

Of course, this is simply the next step after the widespread acceptance of abortion. I really don't see a happy end for this, certainly not for the embryos that don't measure up.