#AND! you make me have to remember that macarthur exists. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

exxar1 · 3 years

Text

Chapter 14 “The Miracle of Easter, Psalm 139

4/3/2021

Psalm 139: 13-16 (NKJV)

“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well.

My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.”

I honestly don’t remember exactly where, when or how I stumbled onto this psalm. It was sometime in the last couple weeks, and I remember being immediately captivated by David’s poetry of God’s perfect knowledge of mankind. Just a few verses before the passage I quoted above, David asks his creator where he can flee that God will not find him? Whether heaven or hell or the highest mountain or the uttermost parts of the sea, David marvels that God will always find him and be with him, no matter what. (This brought to mind that children’s book where a small child asks his mother if she will still be able to find him no matter what animal he becomes and where he hides. The mother answers that she will always find and love her precious son, no matter what.)

Then I read the four verses that I quoted above, and I had to stop short. I read them again and again, soaking in the words that were at once familiar and suddenly brand new. Somewhere in my early childhood I had memorized verses 13 and 14. Now, pairing them with verses 15 and 16 I was struck by David’s message, especially in verse 16. In the KJV translation, that verse reads, “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” This verse was new to me, but I had a pretty good idea of what David was saying. But, to get a better idea, I reached for my MacArthur study Bible which is published in the NKJV translation. As soon as I read verse 16 there, I smiled to myself. Yes, I was right.

For the last two weeks I have not been able to get this verse out of my head. God knew me before I was even conceived. He had numbered all my days, had written my whole life from beginning to end, before I was even born. I have been trying to wrap my puny, finite mind around this inconceivable, quantum-sized yet massively cosmological concept. How does a being that exists outside our known space and time, a being that has always been and always shall be, a being that knows my entire life’s story before it’s even begun, a being more vast and omnipresent than the universe He created, have any interest at all in the comparatively insignificant, finite, puny beings that He created but who then immediately disobeyed and rejected Him?

God could have started over. He had no obligation to Adam and Eve whatsoever. He could have wiped them from existence with a single, spoken word. And, in fact, a millennium or so later, He did wipe out all of the human race and started over with just Noah and his family. And even then, mankind has still behaved towards God with great rebellion and sin. In my own life, I declared a long time ago that God didn’t exist. I even said at one point to myself, in the deepest dark of my teenage despair that I hated God. I hated Him for the way He had made me.

And yet, according to Psalm 139:16, God knew every word, every action, every rebellious thought that I would hurl at Him before I was even born. He also knew the day I would raise my eyes to the night sky behind the neon streetlamps six months ago and whisper a sinner’s prayer of forgiveness and surrender. He knows the exact time and day of my death or if I’ll still be alive the day that His son returns in the clouds to rapture the believers home. He knows my every choice, my every thought, my every deed before I make any of them, and He has always kept me wrapped in His arms my whole life, patiently waiting until I was finally ready to wholly and completely surrender to Him.

I have been trying to understand not only the very existence and nature of God, but, more importantly, the depth and power of that kind of love. I have failed at both counts. Instead, I have only been able to quote verse 14 over and over. “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well.” My soul understands what my frail, limited mind cannot: that God, my Lord and Creator, my Great Savior, loves me in spite of my sin nature; in spite of all I have said and done against him; in spite of all my failures, both past and future.

He loved me enough to provide a way for my salvation.

Tomorrow is Easter Sunday. It’s the day we who believe in God and what His son did for us on the cross celebrate Jesus’ resurrection and His victory over death. This is a Bible story that I have known my whole life. I have sat through countless sermons and Sunday School lessons and family devotionals, and I have listened to my parents, my teachers, and my pastor expound on the greatest truth found in God’s Holy Word. This is the foundation of our faith, the only reason and sole hope of our frail, finite human existence. I know the timeline, the major events starting with the last supper, to the Christ’s anguished, desperate prayer to His heavenly father in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the moment of death and the earthquake that tore the temple veil in two. I know that Peter denied his Lord three times, that the trial was a mockery, that Christ knew that Judas would betray Him, and that Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the matter after his wife told him she suffered a restless night of strange dreams about this particular Jewish rabbi.

I know about the crown of thorns, the beatings, the piercing of His side, the blood and vinegar that flowed from the wound, the nails that were driven into his hands and feet, the excruciating pain and extreme suffering that he endured while hanging there for many hours. I also know about the two thieves – one who acknowledged the lordship of Christ, and the other who stubbornly refused to believe in spite of the evidence right before his own eyes. I know that Christ finally gave up the ghost by raising His weary, bloodied head to the darkened sky and crying, “It is finished!”

I know that He was laid in the tomb after being wrapped carefully and reverently by his followers as they wept with great sorrow and grief. I know that on the morning of the third day, when Mary and Martha came to the tomb, and when they found the stone rolled away and Jesus’ body gone, that they were both afraid and thoroughly confused. I also know that the angel of the Lord asked them, “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, for he is risen as he promised! Go, and tell his disciples the good news!” And so they did.

I have known that story my whole life, every gory and heartbreaking detail. I have memorized many verses from the four gospels that speak of that great story. But, until this year, I have never known it in my heart and soul.

The God that David speaks of in Psalm 139 has known all my comings and goings, all of my thoughts and words, all my choices and heartbreaks, all my joys and accomplishments, all my times of deepest sorrows and despairs, before I was even conceived in my mother’s womb. He knows me from the very molecules of the protein strands of my DNA to every spiritual corner of my soul. His fingerprints are stamped into my genetic code, and He has loved me always.

I cannot fathom this, and my heart breaks as I contemplate the act of sacrifice that His son made on that cross on Golgotha’s Hill two millennia ago. Just writing those paragraphs describing the story of His death and resurrection has caused me to weep for what I did to send Him there. He bore the sin of ALL mankind – past, present and future – on that cross. That glorious, wonderous, terrible cross. He died for you, and He died for me.

Three months ago I started to expand my Apple music library with new albums and songs by current Christian singers and songwriters. One of them, Chris Tomlin, has a song called “The Wonderful Cross”. It’s his own arrangement of the hymn by Isaac Watts titled “When I Survey The Wonderous Cross.” I have been playing this song over and over during my daily commutes to work for the last few weeks.

When I survey the wonderous cross/On which the prince of glory died/My richest gain I count but loss/And pour contempt on all my pride

See from His head, His hands, His feet/Sorrow and love flow mingled down/Did e’er such love and sorrow meet/Or thorns compose so rich a crown

And now Chris’ own chorus:

Oh the wonderful cross/Oh the wonderful cross/Bids me come and die and find that I may truly live/Oh the wonderful cross/Oh the wonderful cross/All who gather here by grace draw near and bless Your name

This verse by Watts is what gets me every time:

Were the whole realm of nature mine/That were an offering far too small/Love so amazing, so divine/Demands my soul, my life, my all

I come before you, O Lord God, a sinner saved by grace. I recognize that I am not worthy of Your love, Your mercy, or Your forgiveness. But You loved me so greatly and so deeply that You sent Your only son to be born of a virgin, to live as one of us, and then to die by our filthy, vile hands so that we could all be washed beneath His pure blood. By this, you gave us a way to salvation, and all that I have to do is accept this gift by praying and believing in Your name. There is nothing that I could ever do on my own to attain this, and I promise you, O God, that for as long as I live, as long as You give me the ability to draw breath, that I will give You nothing less than my soul, my life, and my all.

Amen.

#easter #God #resurrection sunday #Christianity #the cross of calvary

4 notes · View notes

nerianasims · 4 years

Text

Billboard #1s 1978

Under the cut.

Player – “Baby Come Back” -- January 14, 1978

Apparently I'm positively disposed to what's called "yacht rock"? I'd have called it 30-something dinner party rock. Anyway, apparently this is an example. Like all of that genre, this doesn't feel deeply emotional even when the words are. "I was wrong, and I just can't live without you." It's basically calm, and I'd even call it kinda groovy. It's not slow though. It's not going to change the world, but it's good background music for a party among people who have to get home before the babysitter needs to leave.

The Bee Gees – “Stayin’ Alive” -- February 4, 1978

I don't like the movie Saturday Night Fever at all. And I don't like its biggest breakout song either. The lyrics -- who cares, the lyrics are an excuse for Barry Gibb's falsetto to pierce your brain. I was going to clubs during the short disco revival of the 90s and I don't remember this song being played much.

Andy Gibb – “(Love Is) Thicker Than Water” -- March 4, 1978

This guy was a teen idol. I didn't understand the popularity of the teen idols when I was a teenager either. To me, they almost always have the sex appeal of a potato. As for this song, musically it sounds like a TV theme, and the lyric "love is thicker than water" gives me the giggles.

The Bee Gees -- "Night Fever" -- March 18, 1978

Barry Gibb's falsetto. Nope. The lyrics make this technically a love song, but they don't matter, this song exists to be danced to. Badly.

Yvonne Elliman -- "If I Can't Have You" -- May 13, 1978

This was written by Barry Gibb. Obviously I don't like it, though thankfully Yvonne Elliman's voice is fine. It's about how if she can't have you, she doesn't want anybody else. She sings in a kind of weird breathy way. And, as it's a Barry Gibb song, the second half of the song consists of the chorus repeating 50 times with some boring instrumental stuff.

Wings -- "With A Little Luck" -- May 20, 1978

That's quite the synth blast. Some of the lyrics are nice: "There's no end to what we can do together." But others are terrible: "The willow turns his back on inclement weather" and "with a little luck" repeated at least two dozen times. The message seems to be that you should pretend difficulties aren't there and just chant a bunch or something. But willows don't turn their "backs" on the wind. They bend with it, and that's how they avoid breaking. So this song's message makes no sense and it is musically boring except for the first couple bars.

Johnny Mathis and Deniece Williams -- "Too Much, Too Little, Too Late" -- June 3, 1978

Musically this sounds like a parody of the late 70s. It's weirdly peppy and sounds like a commercial jingle, but it's about breaking up. My brain keeps trying to mash these things together and returning a divide by zero error. These two paired up again later to sing the "Family Ties" theme, which is actually a better song, and I'm not saying the "Family Ties" theme is great.

John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John -- "You're the One That I Want" -- June 10, 1978

I confess: I like Grease. The musical, not the substance. Yes, it's nostalgia-bait, and it's goofy as hell in many ways. And yet I can't resist it. I also like this song. It's been picked over and analyzed to death, about how Sandy's changing for Danny how awful blah blah blah. Well, he was wandering around in a letter sweater before this song, planning to become a square for her. Then Sandy sings at him "You'd better shape up," and he ends up following her around in public on his knees. Sandy wouldn't have wanted Danny in the first place, and become friends with the Pink Ladies, if there weren't a "bad girl" in her screaming to get out. What can I say -- I identify. Also this song is catchy and fun, Olivia Newton-John is excellent at acting a song, John Travolta was excellent at cheese, and they had great chemistry.

Andy Gibb -- "Shadow Dancing" -- June 17, 1978

Andy Gibb died young because massive amounts of cocaine and alcohol wrecked his heart, so I feel bad about disliking all his songs. But feeling bad about his short life doesn't mean I feel good about his music. This was written by Barry Gibb, so of course I want nothing to do with it. Also Andy Gibb's voice is incredibly weak. The lyrics are about sex, whatever, I don't care because musically this song is pretty appalling to me.

The Rolling Stones -- "Miss You" -- August 5, 1978

It's interesting hearing Mick Jagger try to weaken his voice to sound like other male singers of the time. This is disco. With a rock edge, because it's the Stones, but still... disco. Specifically, Bee Gees-inspired disco. Including the falsetto interludes. Nope nope nope, I do not accept this from The Rolling Stones.

The Commodores -- "Three Times A Lady" -- August 12, 1978

I can't hear this song without hearing Buckwheat. So um. Lionel Richie is the lead singer here, and I don't like any Lionel Richie song I have ever heard, and this is a Lionel Richie song. Eddie Murphy's version as Buckwheat is better.

Franki Valli -- "Grease" -- August 26, 1978

Grease, the musical, is a not-really-guilty pleasure of mine. "Grease", the song, isn't. It's the worst song on the track. It's about nothing, it sounds 70s and not even 70s pretending to be 50s, and it's Franki Valli. Thankfully he doesn't do falsetto, but I still find his voice unpleasant. Also the song has almost nothing to do with the musical.

A Taste of Honey -- "Boogie Oogie Oogie" -- September 9, 1978

Disco, but disco with actual oomph, unlike anything that came anywhere near Barry Gibb. It's one of those dance songs commanding you to dance, and it works. It's got an interesting, and existent, bassline. Hazel Payne's voice is good. The song changes up a bit musically throughout. It's excellent, even if "boogie" sounds a little silly these days.

The Exiles -- "Kiss You All Over" -- September 30, 1978

I said "ew" when I saw this song on the list and I stand by that. There's a lot worse, certainly. I can't even pinpoint exactly why I feel "ew" about this song. The sentiment is fine. The music is fine. It's not a song where the guy demands something of the woman he's singing to without thinking of her feelings. I dunno. It's probably fine. Maybe it's the whole "fine" thing that makes me feel somewhat creeped out. It should be a sexy song and it's just not.

Nick Gilder -- "Hot Child in the City" -- October 28, 1978

This guy looks like Tom Petty. But he's no Tom Petty. The song's about a teenage sex worker, so uh, there's that. The singer doesn't sound too upset about it, but he doesn't sound too anything about it. This song should have some kind of grit one way or another, but it doesn't. It's nothing. And that's particularly bad when it's such a heavy topic.

Anne Murray -- "You Needed Me" -- November 4, 1978

Anne Murray has a beautiful voice. This song is about having been at the absolute bottom, then someone comes along and loves you, which is a great sentiment. But it should soar and never does. It lacks a chorus, and it needs a big blowout of a chorus. As-is, it feels unfinished and unsatisfying.

Donna Summer -- "MacArthur Park" -- November 11, 1978

Donna Summer is an amazing singer. But wtf is this. "Someone left the cake out in the rain" sung with incredible sorrow is just odd. And then it goes disco, because of course, but -- what? Show me someone's master's thesis on this and maybe I'll understand the song. As it is I am simply confused.

Barbra Streisand and Neil Diamond -- "You Don't Bring Me Flowers" -- December 2, 1978

One singer whose singing I despise, and another singer whom I forget exists when I'm not reminded of him. Looking up the lyrics after trying to listen to the song for about 20 seconds, they're lamenting about a failing relationship. With the reasons apparently being "you don't bring me flowers/ you don't sing me love songs." Yeah, uh, if you want the same exact kind of romantic effort put into a long-term relationship as was there in the beginning, you will be disappointed. She doesn't bring you flowers, but what about that dinner she cooked? He doesn't sing you love songs, but how about the fact that he does the dishes and puts the kids to bed? No wonder divorce rates were so high in the 70s. Yep, I hate it.

Chic -- "Le Freak" -- December 9, 1978

This one was played a lot at the clubs I went to in the 90s. It's a good funky dance song with a memorable bassline.

BEST OF 1978: "Boogie Oogie Oogie" by A Taste of Honey. WORST OF 1978: "You Don't Bring Me Flowers" by Barbra Streisand and Neil Diamond, but also anything with Barry Gibb's fingerprints on it.

#billboard number ones

4 notes · View notes

fluorescentpipedream · 4 years

Photo

“About 11 years ago,” Mike starts as he scans the room “I attended my last Mensa party, I was pushing 18 and had enough of these kinds of things. It was the night some of you will get to experience tomorrow, the sort of ball where all us nerds get to dress up in nice clothes and pretend for a moment that we’re normal…”

He pauses, taking a drink of water and fixes the rather uncomfortable tie around his neck. He hated attending these gatherings, to him they were just a waste of time. But for some of these kids, they were the only chance to get out and realize they weren’t the only ones who were brilliant beyond measure.

As he looks around the room there’s an interesting cross section of people gathered in the auditorium. There are the ones he refers to as the Sheldon Coopers, the kids who are entirely too intelligent for their own good but not only are they that smart, they’re also holier than thou little pricks who believe that because they’re smarter, somehow they’re better than everyone. The parents of the Sheldons don’t help matters much and are often making it worse than their devil spawn has. Next were the kids who have the overly helicopter parents, the ones who judge everything their child does, and try to force them into molds of what the “gold standard” of geniuses are. These kids end up…well probably like the man he was about to start talking about. They were also the ones he noticed were early onset vegans and have very little amusement in their lives. The others were either the brilliant kids who had the terrible parents, which was his case, or they were…wait.

Are those kids playing Pokemon? He leaned forward slightly over the podium, looking at one of the pools of light on the auditorium floor where there was a small group, maybe eight or nine kids gathered together in a small circle with what looked like bags of chips or fruit slices, sharing like good kids and….yep. They were trading Pokemon cards in serious but hushed voices. Mike chuckled and looked back up at the room again, clearing his throat.

“I’m sure everyone in this room has heard of the tragedy of Dayton Foster.”

The gasp and whispers made him nod, somberly.

“I met him…Eleven years ago at the banquet, and I was with him when he suffered his seizure.”

Dayton wasn’t exactly hard on the eyes, with piercing brown eyes, his hair tousled and had an odd, rugged appeal to him. Mike had been enthralled during his speech, it was eloquent, despite the fact that man delivering it looked as though he’d just rolled out of bed, ran water through his hair and somehow managed to pull off a suit without looking like a complete disaster. Mike had approached him with a question, originally it was supposed to be about his theories on the Utopian like drift the United States was heading towards as he’d discussed but when Dayton had turned his attention to him, Mike forgot all that and had instead leaned into him and said he wondered what his kids tasted like. Dayton had stared at him for a moment with a quixotic expression on his face, almost like he hadn’t heard Mike.

There was only a moment of awkward silence before his response came, telling Mike to come to his hotel room at the Hyatt and he could find out. Considering the man had opened the door fresh out of the shower with a towel around his waist, Mike had assumed he hadn’t expected the boy to come, but he’d taken hold of the front of Mike’s shirt and pulled him into the room without a word, only a smirk. When Dayton had kissed him, he tasted of cloves and whiskey, and Mike had been putty in his strong hands. For a moment, his minds’ eye lingered on the taste on his lips, the stubble and the hair in the man’s eyes and he started to realize why he was drawn to Travis in the first place. Damn he wanted to call him…

“Foster, at the time, had an IQ of over 230, which is impressive, especially for the fact that he was also a known alcoholic.” And a lech. But he left that part out. “He and I met in this very room and we spoke at great length, he was a brilliant mind, getting ready to start work in Washington for the FBI as a criminal investigator and serial profiler, which at the time was a pretty big deal, especially since he had…” Mike looks down at his papers, skimming through them to find his place again. “Four degrees and spoke seven languages by the time he was 12. Despite several people warning a very young and naive me not to take too much of what he said to heart, I found myself drawn to him almost like a moth to the flame. It probably had something to do with his outward appearance, I mean…he was hot.”

He chuckled and heard a few others in the back do the same. Ah…so they did know who he was talking about. Good. Mike leaned back from the podium, taking a few steps to the side and turned on the headset, making sure it worked before he moved. His eyes fall again onto the kids who were sorting energy cards off to the side and he smiled. He always wanted to be one of those kids. While still looking at them, he started again. “During our conversation at the ball the next day, he issued an unusual warning that, at the time, I assumed was just him being a little loose lipped but following his seizure, I realized was actually very true. He told me to be careful the kind of things that I used to distract myself. Distractions can be key, he said. But it’s the vices you choose to use that will either be your saving graces or your worst nightmare.”

That conversation had taken place after they’d had sex, he’d been laying beside Dayton as he smoked. It had been Mike’s first time with anyone and at the time he wasn’t listening that closely for what he was being told. In fact, he’d been more interested in moving back under the blankets.

“For me, I wandered down the same road as Mr. Foster for several years, falling into the pitfalls of being exactly what he said I would. I am, like many in this room, smarter than your average bear and when you’re surrounded by everyone else, you sometimes feel like you would give -anything- to just be normal.”

Mike sighed softly and looked down at where his friend Ali was sitting in front row looking up at him with pride in her eyes. After they left this hell, they were going to England to meet her boyfriend’s parents for the first time and find out exactly what being with the Lord would entail. A little over a week ago he had been dancing in a cage in a gay bar in St. Louis, blown out of his mind on ecstasy and cocaine, anything to not deal with his breakup, revenge fucking his way through St. Louis and attempting to not exist for a while. He let out a sigh, realizing the Pokemon Trainers had tuned into the lecture as well.

“I’m going to come right out and say it. Normal is boring. And trying to be like everyone else isn’t worth anything in the world. You are all here because you aren’t normal, you’re geniuses in some way. You stand above the class because it’s how you are, and you know what? That’s okay. It’s taken me another 11 years to realize that what my mentor was trying to warn me about is inevitably something we all end up going through in some degree. Some of you will be up here in ten years thinking back on something that happened to you that changed your life, and some of you might not be with us again ever again. Either you will have realized that, as reassuring as it is for there to be a whole club of other people just like you, they can’t help you in the real world. Or…you may end up like Mr. Foster.” He took a moment to look at the wide-eyed kids in front of him. “And if that is the case, I want to extend my greatest sympathies to you now.”

Mike sighed. “My message actually isn’t for the young ears out there, but rather the people fueling your genius right now. Aside from being awarded with the MacArthur grant, and solving not one but two of the unsolvable math problems in my 28 years,” He had to pause for a moment as the room erupted in applause. Raising his voice an octave, he started again “I also work as a video director for Revolver Records.” And a gay porn director with his drag queen friends, but he left that out too. “I’m outspoken about my identity as a homosexual man and I don’t feel the need to hide behind anything in order to make everyone else more comfortable with my existence but that is because I’ve lived through my mistakes and my slips have luckily been caught by friends who are willing to keep my head above water. I wasn’t always that brave or that strong. I came from a family that wanted me to be smarter than everyone else but never really step out and stand up for myself. Something changed in me when I met Foster, because I began to see for myself that I have control over my own life. In that vein, my message, is to the parents and guardians.”

Mike’s parents weren’t there for him. They tried, endlessly to use him for their own means because he was smarter than everyone else in the room. The same had been true of Dayton Foster, he was in his 30’s when he suffered a seizure and fell to the ground, striking his head on the ground and the resulting brain damage caused him to lose a lot of what had made him the man everyone had respected. Mike had knelt beside him, helping him to roll on his side so he didn’t asphyxiate and had rhythmically run his hand along the man’s back, attempting to soothe him. He was scared that night and realized that while Dayton was wearing a wedding ring, he never actually spoke of his husband and aside from the boy he’d bedded the night before, he had no one with him. Mike shivered and brought himself back to his speech.

“Your children are different than the rest of the world. Some of them may be in college before they can even drive a car and while that’s okay, you need to remember they are still children and they still need you. I see the look of the parents out there who have already forgotten that they still have a child because of how ‘adult’ they seem. My parents weren’t there for me and for the longest time no one else was either. I found friends later in life that kept me from completely imploding but with everything I’ve told you about Mr. Foster, you can probably guess he didn’t have the same luck. He worked for everything he had but it all fell through his fingers as he drank himself to sleep most nights and spent his days trying to make himself not feel anything. Foster lost everything that made him the man he was known for and I don’t want to see that happen to any of you.”

Mike had been punctuating the words ‘any, of and you’ by pointing at the kids in the audience. “It is so easy to fall into the pitfalls of ‘I’m smarter than all of you and I know it so that makes me better than you’ but what you’re going to find when you get out in the real world is people…all those average people who have bullied you for being too smart, they’re going to look down on you -because- of your intelligence and you acting like you’re better than them now is only going to make it worse going forward. Mensa can help you, it looks great on your college admissions, especially when you’re 12 and going to college. But in the end, you must know how to function with the rest of society, and you need someone in your corner. You parents out there, you must be there for your kids. If you aren’t…” He let the words hang in the air in for a moment and could already see the phones coming on in the back and middle rows, the Karens ultimately mad that he called them out for their shitty parenting practices or the ones who were tweeting about how they do everything to make sure their child succeeds but when they leave here, they won’t go where the child wants, they’re going to make them go back to doing ‘smart people things’. He sighed, picking up a bottle of water from a stool near the back of the stage and took a drink. Turning back around again he made a motion for the house lights to come back on.

“I look around this room…And I see so many different types of people and I’m sure you’re all doing exactly what -you- think you should be doing for your kids. When was the last time one of your kids went for the bike ride with their friends? When was the last time they went to an amusement park or even Chuck E Cheese?” He looked down when he heard an ‘ooh!’ off to the side and smiled, seeing a little girl run over to her mom and excitedly motioned with her hands, probably asking about the same thing. And honestly the mom looked like she was thinking about it.

“Kids need to be kids. You can be brilliant and still be a kid. You can go play with your friends, have sugar or play sports for the fun of it. If you’re not able to find something to enjoy in your life, you may find yourself sitting in a window watching the world go by and wondering why you’re still a part of it.”

This wasn’t the lecture he had written and that had been approved when he’d been invited to speak, but for some reason he had been thinking about Foster for the last few days, unable to really get him out of his head, probably because he’d hit the ground a little too hard and realized he was headed in the same direction. That and he’d been thinking about Travis and the two were…a lot alike. When he and Ali had arrived at the banquet the day before he had seen a lot of kids being kept away from the sweets and the snacks, some of them looking the way he used to, bullied and uncomfortable and then there was the Trainers he’d noticed tonight. These were animated, chatting with adults and other kids, wanting to hang out and talking about going to the museums or go to one of the parks in Washington and spend the day playing. All these different personalities had caused him to change his tone a bit.

As he moved back over to the podium again, Mike picked up his papers and shuffled them a bit. He had notes about Dayton because he was just going to mention him as a cautionary tale and for a moment wondered if the man ever gets on Youtube, because this was inevitably going to be on there.

“You know, I realize, your programming card said I was going to talk about how I solved the world’s most complicated math problems and how focus and determination can win you the biggest prize but honestly…I figured out the first one because a mathematics professor in college was annoyed by an impetuous thirteen year old finishing his whole semester in a week and the other one because I was bored and wanted something to challenge myself with.” He chuckled softly before he started speaking again.

“I have another quote from Mr. Foster for you, and it’s one of my favorites from one of his books. “Boredom is a prerequisite for genius, and sometimes for so many other things. Try new things, you’re always going to be learning but sometimes it’s nice to detach your brain and just…Do something considered trivial. Fun should never be criminalized, especially for us smart people. We sometimes forget what it’s like to do something with no other intention but to do it.”

Mike bowed his head, thanking everyone for having him and stepped off the stage, bending down when he stepped on an abandoned Pokemon card. He put his foot over it for a moment as he was bombarded by several people coming up to talk to him. When they left him, he knelt and picked up the card, turning it over in his hands. It looked like a normal card on the back but turning it over it was holographic. Raising his voice, he noticed the Trainers were all gathering again around a taller boy named Isaac and the littler one he’d seen wanting to go to Chuck E Cheese.

“Who lost a Legendary Mew card?”

The little girl was the one who came up and asked for it and he smiled, handing it down to her. He had met her the day before while she was playing with a Nintendo DS and her mother seemed to be fielding off the glares of the other mothers here who thought those things were less than appropriate for smart children. Her brother, Dakota had been playing what seemed to be a never-ending game of tic-tac-toe with their father. He had inadvertently broken her heart when he’d expressed his surprise that she had good parents.

Beatrice, which was a big name for a such a small girl, swished her little dress as she stood there, patiently waiting her turn to talk to him and rolled on the heels of her sneakers. While she waited for him to be done with the adults she turned to talk to Isaac, Mike only caught a couple of words, something about Pokemon Go, something about the Smithsonian and then something about a...soda stream? Whatever...She said said goodbye to her friend, hugging the older boy around the waist before turning back to him again. Once everyone was gone he knelt in front of her so he could watch her eyes.

“So...how bad was I?”

She giggled and started to speak when a woman very rudely interrupted her. Mike held his hand up to silence the woman, telling her he had no intention of talking to her now that she had interrupted their conversation and widened his eyes, looking at Ali over Bea’s shoulder.

“You did great! But...um...What happened to him?”

“Who?”

“Mr. Foster…what happened to him?”

“Oh…” Right. “When I looked him up last night Google said he’s living in a place called Monroe Manor in New Orleans.” It was a type of adult care facility. Mike had been on the website for a while looking at it, the idea was interesting. There was the main hospital building and then on the property there were duplexes where the patients that wanted to try living on their own could try. He paused for a moment before speaking again. Beatrice was probably five, he wasn’t sure about her internet time but decided to mention Dayton’s blog. It was depressing if you read into it too much but there was still something left of the man in there, you could tell by his very long posts. “He’s staying where people can help him, he’s been there for a couple of years, I think.” He watched her eyes widen and she seemed to be thinking about something very serious. Looking up at her mother, Mike smiled. “Um...Dayton has a blog on Tumblr, I don’t know if she could actually get on it, but it’s kind of interesting.”

A quick Google search would also tell you that Dayton Foster had been in and out of jail several times over the last eleven years, from drunk and disorderly to public intoxication and spitting at a cop during an arrest for public urination and ‘lewd’ behavior, whatever that meant. When Mike had looked him up there was also a report about his attempted suicide a few years ago. Someone had found him sitting in Audubon Park with a gun in his mouth, apparently playing a very dangerous game of roulette.

“He’s doing better now.” The look in her big green eyes told him she didn’t believe him. Mike sighed as she looked at him square in the face and said exactly that.

“We’r/e at a Mensa meeting, I’m very smart...just like you. So...how is he doing?”

Mike wondered for a moment how Dayton would react getting a picture from a little girl that said, ‘Get Well Soon’ but all he could really do was shrug.

“He’s not exactly giving TedTalks, but I guess he’s doing okay...I haven’t actually spoken to him.” And now he felt bad about it. He sighed and looked at Bea, earnestly wondering how he was supposed to explain how he used this man to tell a cautionary tale but knew nothing about his health.

“I don’t think he’d remember me, honestly. Uh...you’ve got my e-mail right? If you want to talk, I’m always around.” Plus they live relatively close...for now. Is it weird for him to be friends with a 5 year old? Probably...at least he’s gay.

Another handful of people came up and started asking him questions about what he was doing now, how he’d solved the problems or what he had done with the money from both the problems and the grant and about 100 other things. Mike sighed and slumped against Ali once they’d all left him alone. None of them had actually paid a lot of attention to his speech, instead they focused on something minute or accused him of not knowing what he was talking about because he wasn’t a parent. His dry comeback with ‘no but I am a genius’ hadn’t gone over well. Looking at his friend he sighed.

“The only one that cared was 5....” He cursed.

“Get me out of here…I think I’ve had enough of these kinds of people for a lifetime.” He’d depressed himself and aside from being hungry and ready to be anywhere other than here, he also now wanted to call Travis and tell him he missed him.

Dammit.

#Ben schnetzer #character

6 notes · View notes

whats-a-reading · 4 years

Text

Yknow what? Screw it. I vent/rant here anyway, also this thought is just still in my head all the time and I’d like to get it out by screaming into the void.

I’ll put this whole thing below the cut because it’s long, but if you wanna know the topic, it’s about Pinoy Pride (yes, that thing exactly) and how I feel like it’s at least kind of unfair to call it obnoxious.

Let’s start with a history lesson. Spain colonized the Philippines for 333 or so years. In 1898, the Philippine revolution occurred and then was promptly wrecked by the Americans arriving and kickstarting the Philippine-American war which ends around 1900-1901. ...And at some point the British showed up, but that isn’t important. And then the Japanese occupation, and Douglas MacArthur, and then Martial Law... after that it’s the present day administration and the status quo.

...You know this. You know you do. (Unless you don’t which is fair because it’s not like Filipinos are that common on this site from what I’ve seen tbh.) But the point is, the Philippines is a post-colonial country. But it still doesn’t feel like one. The US came over here with their propaganda, set up the Commonwealth government, and then ingratiated us to them by “liberating” the country from the Japanese (not from mindanao, but this is mindanao erasure excuse me... last I checked the guerrilla forces there kept the Japanese out). Either way, colonial mentality. Wooooooo.

What is colonial mentality? To be clear, I’m talking about the inferiority complex over here. It’s about thinking that the West is going to be better than anything in this... shithole, I guess, as the school of thought says the Philippines must be. (Admin does make this country bad, but... colonial mentality says it’s because we aren’t the West. Let me tell you, half of the issue is the aftereffects of Martial Law AND colonial mentality.) It’s idolizing the West. It’s buying the American Dream and immigrating and everything.

How does this relate to comments saying “WOO PINOY PRIDE” any (and every) time someone has Filipino ancestry, or any time the Philippines is downright mentioned, and the other people telling them “to go shut up and no one cares”? Voice in my head telling me to go structure my thoughts, I’m getting to it. A lot of the representation that has these statements in the comments section occurs in Western media or in the international scene in terms of, say, beauty pageants.

Well. The West. That’s the answer. Any scrap of representation in the West is celebrated, because we’ve been forced into adopting more Western ways of thoughts and valuing things. It’s the validation. It’s the desperation. It’s the utter fact that the Philippines does have a tendency to be ignored. Fuck’s sake, the last piece of media that blew up was... the controversial animated Magellan and Whatshisname-TechnicallyTheProtagonist... which depicted Lapu Lapu and tribe as savages aka a racist caricature. And the only other non-Filipino piece of media that comes to mind in terms of Lapu Lapu is uh, that animaniacs song that focused on Magellan. Again. Magellan. I bet that it’s not flattering either, and I barely remember the thing.

So yeah, people are desperate. “But why do you have to be so obnoxious over... some olympic medalist’s maid being Filipino, or Dante Basco, or Miss Universe... isn’t that a stretch? They’re just the same nationality as you, who cares?” Let me ask you, hypothetical reader who may exist or something, what is the Philippines even known for? Any outsider stereotypes?

Let’s count now. OFWs and the jobs they take (depends on the country, but Filipino nurses and housekeepers are among the most well known), being lumped in with ‘South East Asian/Pacific Islander’ stereotypes, (Doesn’t count. Not the Philippines specifically.) and the food. Oh my the food. It’s either ‘that random thing’ aka... Orientalism (e.g. Halo Halo), or just... ‘oh ew disgusting’ especially with balut.

People having jobs, the most well known thing that gets stereotyped and recognized... isn’t a point of cultural recognition, and I don’t think I’d have to explain. There’s a valid point to all this desperation. Despite the cultural wealth from the multitude of cultures, it’s still pretty rare for the West to take inspiration. Which makes sense, okay. The West isn’t supposed to cater to Filipinos because... the West isn’t the Philippines... obviously. So yeah, that is something that has to be worked on. And fixing the stupid Western beauty standards in this country as well in terms of celebrities and media here.

But let’s go back to Pinoy Pride. People are desperate to be seen. They’re desperate for something to be proud of. It’s in part the celebration of a colonial mentality based thought: these mixed race people in another country made it! They accomplished something! Or, it’s in part validation and feeling seen. Lord knows I get happiness whenever I see content on the Philippines, no matter what it is.

Because what else are people supposed to be nationalistic about? What do other countries take pride in? Unique culture? Underappreciated by the colonial mentality that set in. Sports? ...There is basketball and only basketball. Nation’s values? A lot of these values (cough cough, traditional Christian/Catholic values) were forced upon us by the West and frankly, being proud of a nation’s spirit only works when things are prospering. A country’s talent? ...You just described why pinoys love beauty pageants so much.

I get that it can be a bit much when half of a comment section is just pinoys yelling ‘pinoy pride’ without much else to add to the conversation. But what’s the alternative? Shutting up and taking the scraps without celebrating? You can’t blame people for being happy about being seen, about being known. About feeling validated. In a better world, we would’ve gotten over colonial mentality and made our own nice things and exported them. We would’ve figured out a unique identity after all this and tried to preserve all we can. But we don’t live in that world. And sorry to say, but colonial mentality is a really hard school of thought to throw away and you can’t break them away from centering things on the West for quite a while.

But people can have two things. Let people have their pinoy pride, and we can push for being able to have more substantial things to be proud of.

TL;DR: Desperation to get Western approval is ingrained in the culture itself by the West. Underrepresentation of the Philippines culturally and in general is a thing. You can’t blame people for feeling represented whenever there’s Western or international recognition of a fellow Filipino.

#not atla #j rambles #for a really long time #just pinoy ranting #I feel like this is why people keep tossing 'I'm filipino' into the void of the yt comments section #leave the commenters alone they just want to feel seen

6 notes · View notes

quakerjoe · 5 years

Photo

This is a long read, but it’s the best damned thing I’ve read in a long time... ~Joe

I stopped watching Chernobyl after the first episode because a lifetime ago, I was a serious physics nerd and everything they were saying was absurd about the levels of radiation. Last night we watched the other 4 episodes and I thought maybe I might try and push the rock up the hill again and maybe open some eyes about where we are right now in this truly dystopic Orwellian nightmare. J. Robert Oppenheimer was a particular hero to me as a teen because he was so brilliant and accomplished the impossible in just 18 months. If you have not read American Prometheus, I highly recommend it because it details a time when we had a government of imbeciles running around with their hair on fire about communists who threw people in jail who wouldn't admit to that old drunk McCarthy that they were communists. Like all demagogues, McCarthy thought he was the lone arbiter of who was and who wasn't a patriot and he rose to such prominence because he was willing to lie about anything to make his baseless allegations. But Joe McCarthy was no patriot nor was his principle henchman Roy Cohn. They used the collective paranoias of stupid people to manufacture a crisis that did not exist. They destroyed lives and relished doing it to what would be referred now as the 'elitist liberals' like Dalton Trumbo and Oppy. Oppy was an extremely educated liberal who spoke to other people like him. Some of whom were communists. This made him a threat in the minds of the men who put Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to death. Ethel was entirely innocent but that didn't matter to a public brought to full froth by the hysteria of the day. Those men beating the drums of patriotism could not conceive of a man like Oppy talking to a communist and not be a communist himself, the same was said of Trumbo. Guilt by association was just enough for the likes of Cohn and McCarthy. "For each lie, a debt to the truth is incurred." Chernobyl Historians have written heroic books about the great generals of WWII, MacArthur and Patton being the most famous and they do deserve their notoriety but they ignored to a large extent who actually won the war for the allies and that comes down to two men: Alan Turing and J. Robert Oppenheimer. By any measure, Alan was the greatest man of the 20th century. Oppy is a bit harder to fit into that calculus and he said so himself because he knew atomic weapons would change the world and not in a good way. It's true the Japanese were whipped and that Doolittle could have continued to firebomb Japanese cities until the Japanese came to heel but that is still speculation. After Nagasaki, the war was over right or wrong, Oppy did that and saved hundreds of thousands of American troops. After the war, McCarthy went after Oppy. He wasn't treated like the hero he was and didn't want to be. He was treated like a Soviet agent and stripped of all of his security clearances because he would not name names. He was threatened with prison, his jobs were taken from him and he was exiled from the community of scientists that *he* built because of the lies of scum like McCarthy and Cohn. Alan Turing didn't fair much better from his government either. The McCarthys of that time didn't really believe in America at all, he wasn't a patriot no matter how loudly his supporters screamed it. McCarthy didn't think the idea of America could survive 'communist infiltration'. He had no grasp of why communism spread in Russia like wildfire because to his primitive and ignorant mind, he didn't know what it was like to live under a Tsar. 'If it spread there then it can spread here' was the thinking because McCarthy didn't understand or believe in the ideals that founded America. To him, they were so weak and feeble that communism would be preferable than what we had in America. That lie destroyed lives, destroyed families and stands as a black stain on our nation's history. The thing about liars is that they have to tell bigger and bigger lies to cover for all the small ones and then that debt to the truth comes due. It came to McCarthy when Joseph Welch lanced the festering boil that was McCarthyism with the truth. Before Welch delivered his fatal blow, he reacted to McCarthy's slander with this: "And so, Senator, I asked him to go back to Boston. Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is still with Hale & Dorr. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me." Then a moment later, he drew the blade that ended the national nightmare when he murdered McCarthy with the indelible truth: Mr. Welch: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? McCarthy and Cohn of course had no decency. Cohn delighted in going after homosexuals and destroying their lives while being a homosexual himself. They were the most vile hypocrites the world had ever known. McCarthy incapable of feeling shame, drank himself to death after he was humiliated as the coward he was. I sat there thinking about this as the full horror of what happened at Chernobyl unfolded. The entirety of the Russian government played out exactly like Trump having all of his cabinet praising his greatness, it was vulgar, it was disgusting. Then I remembered all the other dictators I've read about in history who surrounded themselves with sycophants. Martin Bormann being the reference example who served Hitler so faithfully. Bormann was a slack-jowled imbecile who was barely qualified to lick stamps but nobody in the Reich dare cross the thug because he was Hitler's favorite yes man. I remember that day Trump's cabinet took turns telling Trump how honored they were to serve under his super terrifically awesomeness and that they were but boot-licking sycophants. Pence really had to lather up Trump's ass before he could muster a vulgar enough kiss to satisfy that insidious git. I sat thinking that this was the lowest moment in the history of the Republic. What separated them from the Soviet Central Committee under Gorbechev? Not a damn thing. They *all* lie for a living and kiss the dear leader's ass. It was the most unAmerican thing ever done in the White House. It was sheer cowardice by each and every single one of them. Any man who had a lick of honor would have walked out in disgust to save what's left of their honor. The *only* one who got out of this administration with any was General Mattis. And you can see this cult in all of its terrible glory if you just glance at any of the stories coming in from visitors to the concentration camps now open on United States' soil. There are zero testimonials from any objective visitor who says conditions are fine. Last Thursday a government Lawyer argued to 3 appellate judges that giving toothbrushes and toothpaste were luxury items not to be afforded for the $700-$800 a day American tax payers are paying private prison companies to house these thousands of misdemeanor offenders. Republicans have strenuously objected to calling these 'detention centers' 'concentration camps' because nothing offends cult members like the truth about what they are really do. Ask any Scientologist if you're not positive of this undeniable fact. Children are living outside, locked up and fully exposed to the elements without food and running water because the man who concocted this policy is a 32-year-old psychopath named Stephen Miller who has devised schemes to strip parents of their children as a 'deterrent' from coming to the US. I remember wondering as I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich how so many people were duped into voting Hitler into office and here I am now witnessing it. I see right wing lunatics actually calling people 'Antifa' as if it is some slur. "Antifa'' meaning 'anti-fascist.' They seem wholly unaware that Americans won a war against fascism because we were all against what the Axis was doing. What the nazis knew was that they needed to control the press. What modern fascists like Rupert Murdoch have learned is that it is easier to control the masses with propaganda and to do that is to obey Goebbels' edict to 'accuse the other side for what you are guilty of.' This is where Republicans are now. There is no Republican party anymore. It is a cult of personality except it isn't Hitler being exalted by the hoards of half-literate morons, it's Trump. Trump lies to them and they breath in his lies and they repeat them with a religious fervor because none of them are aware that for each lie they tell, they incur a debt to the truth. In Germany and in Chernobyl, those lies always caused death on a mass scale either through incompetence or outright evildoing. Here we are at a crossroads in American history with an ignorant electorate chanting 'lock her up' as if that's something that's going to happen. The Secretary of the Treasury is openly breaking federal law in full few of all these miscreants and the cult doesn't care. The Attorney General of the United States, the highest law enforcement official in the land openly committed perjury before the US Congress. The President has committed election fraud, violated the emoluments clause and committed more acts of obstruction of justice than can be counted in full view of the American people and the sad fact of the matter is nothing is being done about it. The Republican cult doesn't even want to pretend like they don't want the Russians involved in the next election. They've done exactly nothing to safeguard our elections from Russian interference because they are so easily bought by Putin that they aren't going to do a damn thing to stop someone who is trying to help them win elections. I don't know what it takes before the people take to the streets but if opening up concentration camps isn't appalling enough to put the spurs in then nothing will. This is how it was done, the chipping away of normalcy with outrage after outrage until insanity became the new normal because as Voltaire so presciently said, 'anyone who can make you believe absurdity can make you commit atrocities.' Little children are locked up outside in the elements without so much as a blanket to protect them. They have no rights to anything because the courts are so overwhelmed with cases now that it will take many years before any of these refugees get a hearing. They're standing children up in front of a judge without a lawyer to defend themselves against imaginary crimes of crossing a line on a rock turning 35,000 mph in a small solar system. Republicans stole a supreme court seat and they will continue to lie, cheat and steal to remain in power. That's why Mitch has delivered over 100 carefully selected members of the Heritage Society to fill vacant judicial posts because he does not care about our democracy, he cares about power. As many Republicans have said, they only need someone to sign stuff, they don't care who. Trump is perfect for their agenda and democracy has never been on their agenda, usurping it is. 20 years of Murdoch's brainwashing has gotten us to this point and if anyone really believed in justice in this country, the heads of everyone at Fox would be rolling down main street as a lesson to future ambitious propagandists who mean to undermine our nation as that rogue Australian has done more than any other. To rid ourselves of this seditious scourge is going to take all of us who agree to speak with one voice at the ballot box. It's going to take protests on a scale not seen in the US. Blood is already being spilled in these concentration camps. Edmund Burke's warning that all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing is coming to pass *yet again* and here we are at tyranny's doorstep. How much is enough? What atrocity must be committed on American soil before we get off our sorry asses and start doing something about it? If you don't think we aren't at war with a very determined enemy bent on destroying our country then you need to wake up to reality before we wake up that one morning like Martin Niemöller did when he said, "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Every single Republican in office right now is an enemy of the United States who are conspiring with our foreign enemies to keep themselves in power. So are the people who vote for them because they are no different than the people who voted Hitler into office. I sincerely hope if you agree with what I have said here that you spread this message with any like-minded people because as of yet, I haven't seen any presidential candidates calling these concentration camps what they are. If we don't start preparing for next November today, we could wake up to another 4 years of Trump. Our nation cannot survive such a reckless criminal administration the likes of this one for another four years. The nation will be bankrupt and in its death rattle. We can start speaking in unison this Independence Day by squelching this Trump celebration in DC by turning the real patriots out on a scale he can't imagine. It's time to start fighting and dirty at that while there's still something worth fighting for. #Resist Your very life depends on it as does our future.

- Thomas Clay

56 notes · View notes

madewithonerib · 5 years

Text

youtube

The Danger of Adding to the Gospel | John MacArthur [Galatians 2:11–12]

Let’s open our Bibles now to Galatians 2. We are coming to a text this morning that on the surface is the kind of text that no one would choose to preach.

But we don’t have that choice, since we go through the books of the Bible verse by verse, & we take what comes, & it usually turns out that those which would be usually ignored by a preacher who might be picking & choosing texts become some of our favorites.

This may be that for you. Let me read you Galatians 2:11-13.

“But when Cephas” – that is the Aramaic word for Peter.

Peter is the Greek word; Cephas is the Aramaic - “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw & hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.”

It’s a rather shocking passage: the apostle Paul confronting the apostle Peter to the face, opposing him because he was to be condemned.

What is behind this confrontation?

In actuality, what is behind this confrontation is what is behind the book of Galatians. And what is behind the book of Galatians is Paul’s desire to defend & declare the true gospel in the face of certain men who have come into the churches of Galatia & propagated false gospel.

This is a polemical book. It is a fight. It is a defense of the true gospel against those who were purveyors of the false gospel. Now with that in mind, I want to back up a little, & we’ll start at altitude, & then we’ll come down & land on these few verses.

Why does religion exist in the world? It’s a big question. Why does religion exist in the world? Materialists tell us that there is nothing but the material world, there is no supernatural world.

But, still, religion exists. Why does it exist? Why is it so universal?

Why is it so personal? Why is it in every period of time, in every location, & culture, every society, every ethnic group that’s ever lived?

Why also does religion take so many forms?

Why is there religion everywhere, and why are there so many kinds of religion?

Those are longstanding questions.

Now let me define religion, just in a dictionary definition.

Religion: the connection between human beings & supernatural beings; that is what religion is. It is a system of belief that connects people to their deities. It is a bridge to the supernatural.

It is universal. Why is it universal? There are just a couple of very obvious reasons. It is universal because all people are created by God & in the image of God.

All people are in some way a reflection of the divine God. They bear the image of God, & they feel innately that connection.

Someone once said, “It’s like the blind boy who flies a kite. He can’t see it, but he can feel the tug of the string that he holds in his hand.”

It is the tug of the eternal. It is the tug of the divine.

In Romans 1 it defines it this way: “The knowledge of God is in them.”

“The knowledge of God is in them.” It’s part of being human. The Bible says that all societies feel after God.

It’s an internal impulse built in. Not only is that impulse toward God part of being human, but the law of God – that is to say, standards which God has ordained - are also built into every human being.

Romans 2 tells us “the law of God is written in the heart.” We know what is right & wrong, & that knowledge triggers our conscience to excuse us or accuse us.

That answers the reason why there is religion, because man is made for God, & he has something innate in him that drives him in the direction of God, & the law of God is written in his heart, so that he has a sense of fear when he violates that law: fear of the Judge, the God who made him. That is what it means to be human.

But that doesn’t answer the question, “Why are there so many forms of religion?” That only answers the question of, “Why has man a religious longing built in by God?” But why are there so many forms of religion? That is not answered by looking at God; that is answered by looking in the other direction at satan.

The true & living God is known by satan; satan knows the truth about God — satan knows God is a Trinity: Father, Son, & Holy Spirit; satan knows who Jesus Christ is, he knows the gospel. Even when our Lord was on earth, the demons themselves, as well as satan, knew who He was & responded accordingly.

Why does satan then devise so many false religions? He is the archenemy of God. He is the arch-hater of God. He, along with a third of the holy angels who rebelled and fell, compose the demonic forces. Those demonic forces do all evil that they can possibly perpetrate against the purposes of God and against God Himself. They give us the reason why there are so many false religions. There’s only one God. There are many, many, many demons – thousands, upon thousands, and thousands times thousands of demons concocting false religion.

That said, there are only two real religions in the world: that is the true religion of God and the false religion of satan in its multiplicity of forms. satan knows there is only one God, and one Savior, and one gospel, and one salvation, and one way to heaven. But he has proliferated human history and the world with as many religions as conceivable in the sinful hearts of men and the wicked minds of demons.

The earth is overrun with all kinds of forms of false religion. But boiled down, there really are two religions: the true religion, which God has revealed in Scripture, which is that salvation comes by grace through faith through believing; and all forms of false religion, which declare that salvation comes to man by man’s own effort, by his own achievement, by something he does – some morality, some religiosity, some ritual, some rite, some ceremony, some behavior. Either salvation is solely by God through divine achievement, divine accomplishment, or it is by man to a total degree or some kind of degree through human achievement. satan’s religion is the religion of human achievement. God’s true religion is the religion of divine accomplishment.

Now I want you to understand this, because it’s how you define the whole world of religion. So go back to the book of Genesis, back to Genesis, and I want you to see this in its large context. Genesis 1 and 2, God creates in six days everything in the universe, absolutely everything in the universe: the macrocosm of the universe, the microcosm of the universe created in six days. When He finished creating it, He pronounced this statement, verse 31 of Genesis 1, “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” “It was very good.” A perfect creation, including man, a perfect creation. There’s no sin.

Chapter 2, which recapitulates the creation of man on the sixth day, ends this way in verse 25: “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” There was nothing to be ashamed of. There was no sin. You have a perfect universe, and you have a perfect man and a perfect woman – sinless. There is, therefore, no religion. There is no bridge to God. There is no way to God, because there is no barrier, there is no alienation, there is no separation.

Adam and Eve are living in the garden in the fellowship of God. It is a full, blessed, pure, righteous fellowship. There’s no alienation. There’s no separation. There’s no need for a religion, no need to find a way to reconcile with God. God is not alienated; the sinner has not yet sinned.

Come to chapter 3, and immediately satan finds Eve, Eve finds Adam, they disobey God. You remember the Fall occurs there. Now sin has entered the world. Immediately there is alienation and separation. Go down to verse 7: “The eyes of both of them were opened, they knew that they were naked, and now all of a sudden they are naked and there is shame; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.” Now we have gone from communion to alienation, fellowship to separation. Sin has separated man from God. Now we have the need for reconciliation.

What did Adam and Eve do? Verse 7, “They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.” That is the launch of false religion. That is the launch of false religion. That is the symbol of false religion. That is the first act of man to create a way in which he himself could deal with his own shame, in which he could cover his own iniquity. And then he hides, because he hasn’t yet found a way to face God.

This is the birth of false religion: men make ways to cover their own sin. But it does not salve their guilty conscience, and so they hide from God. False religion is a form of hiding from God, hiding from His true presence. That is the symbol of all false religion, that a guilty, dying sinner can make a covering for his own shame, and that somehow he can cover his shame and hide himself from God. He hides himself in his own self-made coverings.

That can’t work, as we see immediately, “The Lord God,” in verse 9, “called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ He said, ‘I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.’” Now what once was a sweet communion with God is over. He fears God, because his conscience is accusing him strongly of sin. That’s why he felt shame. That’s why he and his wife covered themselves. They are now not anxious to commune with God. They are afraid of God.

They are hiding from God. God has become fearful, terrifying to them. Why? Because God said, in chapter 2, verses 15-17: “Don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And if you eat, you will die.” God has now become their hunter. God is stalking them to kill them; that’s what they feel.

Their relationship to God has dramatically changed, and that is the relationship to God that every human being since has. And religion comes along and says, “Make some leaves. Make yourselves some covering for your shame.” It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work. God exposes their sin, and then God begins to curse them. He curses the serpent, curses the woman, curses the man, and the curse is unleashed. That curse in that moment went to the end of the created universe. It touched every molecule of matter, every element of infinite space. The curse went instantaneously to the ends of creation. Everything was cursed - everything, including man. The coverings that man made are useless: they do not cover his shame, they do not hide him from God, and they do not remove him from divine judgment.

And then verse 21: “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” Here is the first act of true religion. If the sinner is to have a covering it has to come from God, and it has to come by death. It has to come from God, and it has to come by death. This is the first death since creation began. This is the first death, and God is the killer. This, of course, is the primary reason in the book of Genesis that you cannot put evolution in chapter 1 and 2, because nothing dies. The theory of evolution is simply an elongated series of deaths.

But there are no deaths in Genesis 1 and 2. The first death is an execution by God, and it’s an amazing thing to think about, because God said to Adam and Eve, “In the day you eat, you’ll die.” And they were ready to die. They were covering themselves to hide themselves from God for fear that their death was coming. And they saw a death, but amazingly it was the death of an innocent substitute. And here at the very beginning, in the garden itself, is the introduction of the Christian doctrine of substitutionary death. An innocent animal gives its life to provide covering for sinners who cannot cover themselves. So in the garden, you have the beginning of false religion, in the covering that Adam and Eve made; and the beginning of true religion, which is the covering that only God can make through death, through death.

From that point on those two religions have never changed. There is the true religion that requires death, the death of the substitute. There were many animal deaths through all of Israel’s history. None of them could atone for sin; but they all pictured the one who would die as the Lamb of God and take away the sins of the world. But they communicated the message that the bridge to God - true religion, the way to God - is through the death of a perfect sacrifice. Turned out that that perfect sacrifice was Jesus Christ. True religion has always realized that the sinner deserves death, that God will provide a substitute, that God will forgive and mete out His punishment on someone else who is innocent. That’s what the sacrificial system communicated.

False religion has always said, “Make something to cover yourselves and hide.” True religion is based on faith in what God will provide. False religion is based on the works that I provide. True religion, the religion of Scripture, is the religion that trusts what God provides; and all false religion by any name, any title, in any form, language, or structural, social context is always the same: “You provide your own covering to somehow satisfy the deity.”

Now, immediately, Adam and Eve got together and had two sons, chapter 4. “Man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, ‘I’ve gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord.’ Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”

Now you know this, that there were not a whole lot of lessons that Adam and Eve would have taught their children; they were the only two people on the planet. But there were some lessons that were very, very clear in their minds. One had to do with sacrifice: that we’re sinful, we’re cursed, the sentence of death is on our heads. Don’t offer God something of your own doing. There must be a sacrifice. There must be a sacrifice to please God. You know that Adam taught his sons that lesson, because that is the one lesson they learned that’s recorded here in Genesis.

So it came time for the offering. Verse 3: “In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground.” This is exactly what his parents did the first time. He’s going to bring something that he received, that he harvested from the work of his hands, and he’s going to try to come before God and cover his sin in that way.

“Abel,” verse 4, “on his part also brought, but he brought of the firstlings of his flock” – that means the best of the flock – “and their fat portions” – a full, fatted animal – “And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.”

Now here again you see the two kinds of religion. God accepts the sacrifice, because sin requires a death. The death of an innocent substitute God will accept if the heart is right. The other religion is the religion illustrated by Cain who brings something that he himself has plucked up out of the ground. The plants symbolize false religion and man’s efforts; that is covering without death, without the death of a substitute. Animal death symbolizes true religion and God’s provision by death - a death acceptable to God in the sinner’s place.

Cain then is the prototype of false religion. Cain is the prototype of false religion. Abel is the prototype of true religion. Abel brought a sacrifice. Cain offers the fruit of his labor; that becomes the endless pattern of false religion. Abel offers an animal sacrifice, because he knew he had nothing in and of himself to give. But he knew God would accept a death in the place of his death. That’s how it has to be. Salvation would come by the death of an acceptable, innocent substitute.

The story turns very, very sadly to murder. Verse 5: “Cain became very angry, his countenance fell.” He started to feel the guilt. “The Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? Why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up?’” If you had done the right thing, if you had done what you were instructed to do you wouldn’t be in this condition where you’re both angry and feeling guilt and remorse. “‘If you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.’”

“Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.” And here is the other thing that you need to learn from this: true religion has always been slaughtered by false religion. Look at the world. It is always false religion that leads the massacre against the true people of God - false religion in some form. The way of Cain is the way of works and hates the way of faith; the way of Abel is the way of faith that obeys God. They way of Cain trusts in himself; the way of Abel trusts in another. The way of Cain doesn’t need a death; the way of Abel demands a death.

And as the history goes from there at the Tower of Babel, the people followed the way of Cain. They would build a tower to God, and judgment came. On the other hand, there was Noah who followed the way of Abel, but it was only Noah and his sons and daughters, and the rest of the world was engulfed in the way of Cain, and consequently engulfed in the death that came to them through the global Flood. Even after the Flood subsided and life began again, the way of Cain, the way of satan, dominated the world.

Then you come to Abraham, the story of Abraham – incredibly wonderful story. God calls out a people to follow the way of Abel, the way of faith, the way of sacrifice. Cain’s way was the majority way in the world; it still is. Abel’s was the small believing remnant that came through Abraham, and initially constituted the nation Israel. But even in the nation Israel, there were both religions existing within the framework of Judaism.

And you need to keep that in mind, that false religion is not just outside the boundaries of true religion. It is both outside and inside. There were forms of Judaism that were false, as there are forms of Christianity that are false. satan doesn’t just do his work as anti-Christian; he does his work as subtly pretending to be Christian.

The whole nation of Israel, by way of illustration, was involved in the sacrificial system. The whole nation was involved in it. Sacrifices were given every single day, and repeated sacrifices on special occasions. The whole nation was part of that system, and yet they still were engulfed in false religion, because there were many of them, most of them, the majority of them, going through the sacrificial motions, but not with a pure heart, not with a repentant heart, not like the publican in Luke 16, pounding on the chest, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” They were trusting in their works, trusting in their religion, trusting in their Jewish heritage, trusting in the covenants God had given them in the past.

The world had gone the way of Cain. Most of Israel had gone the way of Cain; and most of Israel, having gone the way of Cain, ended up killing the prophets who were going the way of Abel. Even in Judaism, the religion of Cain was killing those who were in the religion of Abel. It’s been the same in Christianity. True Christians, through the history of Christianity, have been massacred by false Christians.

So the two religions were side-by-side in Judaism as they are side-by-side in Christianity even today. The prophets exposed that repeatedly. You can read many of the things the prophets said in denouncing not only the nations around them and their false religion, but denouncing the hypocrisy of Israel. Isaiah does it repeatedly; they all do it. I think about Amos chapter 5 where Amos says, “Stop your festivals, stop your sacrifices, stop your offerings, stop your music. Your hearts aren’t right. I hate what you’re doing.”

To offer a sacrifice was the right thing to do, but it had to be done with a right heart; and a right heart said, “I know I’m a sinner. I know I can’t earn my salvation. I trust You God to be merciful to me, to be gracious to me, and to provide a substitute in my place to take my punishment,” even though they didn’t know who the substitute was.

Paul picks this reality up in Romans 2 when he says, “Not all Israel is Israel. Not every Jew is a true Jew.” There are Jews who are Jews outwardly, and there are a lot fewer who are Jews inwardly – that is who really trusted God, and to whom salvation came, because they believed like Abraham, and it was counted to them for righteousness.

You come to the time of Jesus and you meet some of the true Jews: Zacharias, Elizabeth, Joseph, Mary, Simeon, Anna – very few. The nation at the time of our Lord was hypocritical, massively hypocritical. Judaism was basically defined by the Pharisees who would say, “I thank You that I’m not like other men. I’m not a sinner like this publican over here. I tithe, I fast” – et cetera, et cetera – “I’m worthy to be received by You, O God.”

The Bible is clear that the Jews trusted in themselves. They did it through their whole history. They certainly did it at the time of our Lord, and even the time of the apostles. They had literally developed an apostate form of Judaism, which was basically designed and defined by rabbinic tradition that had replaced the Word of God. Achieving right relationship to God was done by strict obedience to Mosaic rules and ceremonies, epitomized by the scribes and Pharisees who were the proud, boasting purveyors of that hypocritical, apostate religion.

Then Pentecost comes and the church is born. Now you’ve got Jews in Jerusalem who have become Christians. This is a problem for some Jews. Out of that vast, vast mass of legalistic, proud Jews, rises a group called the Judaizers – Judaizers because they wanted to Judaize Gentiles. In other words, they said this: “We believe in Christ, and we believe He’s Messiah. We believe in His death and resurrection. But we don’t believe you can be saved by simply believing in Him. You must be circumcised, and you must adhere to the law of Moses and the ancestral traditions.” They did not believe that the atoning work of Jesus Christ was all-sufficient. They believed it was necessary, but you had to add your works.

That essentially is what all false forms of Christianity also say today. They denied, rejected the sufficiency of the atoning, substitutionary death of Jesus, and demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised and adhere to Mosaic rules and traditions. They were so adamant about this that they trailed the apostle Paul in his ministry and went into the churches that he founded and began to propagate this and tell the Gentiles, “You are not truly saved unless you are circumcised and adhere to the Mosaic rules. You are not truly saved.” It is in the face of this – and now you can go back to Galatians – that Paul wrote Galatians, the first of his thirteen letters.

Is it true? Do Gentiles have to go through Mosaic formulas: circumcision and ritual and rules? Do they have to be circumcised? Paul writes Galatians to say, “Absolutely not.”

He said it in Romans - we read it, didn’t we - in chapter 4. Abraham himself believed, and it was counted to him for righteousness before he was ever circumcised. Circumcision plays no role in that. And the Mosaic law didn’t come until long after Abraham.

Paul sees this addition to Christ: “Yes, Christ. Yes, He died and rose. But it’s not enough. You have to be circumcised. You have to adhere to the law.” Paul saw that as a false gospel. And in chapter 1, verses 8-9, he pronounced a curse on anybody who preaches that as we’ve been seeing. Paul is fighting now – this is a polemical book - he’s fighting for the true gospel: the gospel of grace alone, through Christ alone, received by faith alone.

Let me sum up what Paul would say based on what we read in Romans 4 and what’s before us. At no time, at no time in history has any person been saved, made right with God, been forgiven, escaped judgment because of anything that person has done - at no time. No one has ever been saved by works, never. That is the way of Cain. No one ever saved by works. That is why faith is so much the subject that dominates Paul’s letters.

So he’s writing because the Judaizers have gone into the region of Galatia. They’ve gone into the churches of Lystra, Iconium, Derbe, and Antioch, and they’ve taken this false gospel, this damning gospel, in and they’ve confused the people. It’s not that the believers have lost their salvation; you can’t lose it. It’s that they’ve become confused about what the gospel really is; and because they’re confused about the gospel, they’re subject then to proclaim a false gospel. Paul is not trying to save them as if they could be lost again. He is trying to save their usefulness by making sure they understand the true gospel.

Now the Judaizers, in order to get the people in Galatia to lean their way toward this false, Judaizing gospel, had to try to discredit Paul. So they denounced him, said he was a false apostle. So Paul has to open this book defending his apostleship. He opens the book defending his apostleship.

Now we’ve heard him give a defense in chapter 1. And what was his defense in chapter 1? That, “I was called an apostle not by men, I was called by God. I was called directly by Jesus Christ.” We saw that in the Damascus Road experience; he met the risen Christ.

He says, “I didn’t go to Jerusalem. I didn’t learn my theology from the apostles. I went into the desert in Nabataean Arabia for three years. For three years I was tutored by Jesus Christ, just as the twelve apostles were tutored by Him for three years when He was on earth. For three years I learned everything out of the mouth of Christ, not from the apostles. I am a true apostle taught by Christ.”

His first defense in chapter 1 is his own personal encounter with Christ. His second defense in the opening of chapter 2 is, “I did finally after fourteen years” – actually seventeen if you add the three in Arabia – “I finally went down to Jerusalem for a prolonged visit, and the apostles affirmed me, and said, ‘The gospel you preach is the true gospel’” – you see that in verse 9 – “I met with James the brother of our Lord, Cephas” – who’s Peter – “and John. They were the pillars, and they gave to me and Barnabas my companion the right hand of fellowship, so we might go to the Gentiles. They didn’t change our theology.”

“So I tell you I am a true apostle because of my encounter with Christ over three years. I tell you I’m a true apostle because of the validation of the apostles in Jerusalem.” But here, friends, is the final devastating proof: “I opposed Peter to his face.” Paul says elsewhere, “I don’t come behind any apostles.” And he didn’t. He took on Peter.

Let’s come down to verse 11. “When Cephas” – or Peter – “came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” Peter had come to Antioch, Antioch of Syria where the first church was and where Paul and Barnabas were pastors, along with a group of other men mentioned in the twelfth chapter of Acts. Peter had come there, and he’d stayed a long time. Peter obviously must have been the center of attention. “Tell us about Jesus.” Can you imagine that? “Tell us about Him. Tell us, What was it like when you walked on water? Tell us all the things that we’ve heard.” Remember the gospels haven’t been written yet, and an eyewitness with Christ would have meant everything to these Gentile believers up in Antioch in a flourishing gospel church. Peter would have been some kind of icon, some kind of hero to them.

Why would Paul oppose him to the face? And it’s very strong language. This is the clash we’ll call it, the clash. “What do you mean ‘oppose him’?” That’s a term that – it’s an interesting term, [???] anthistémi. It means “to stop somebody in the direction they’re going.” Peter is doing something that has to be stopped.

It could be translated, “I forbid him. I set myself against him. I play defense, stopping him in his tracks; and I did it to his face, eyeball to eyeball, because he stood condemned.” I mean that’s just shocking. How do you do that to someone like Peter? Where does Paul get this boldness? Is this some kind of personal jealousy? What’s going on here? No. Peter had done something that Paul saw as an attack on the gospel: the gospel of grace alone, faith alone, apart from works. And so he condemned him. This is an apostolic clash of massive proportions.

First half of the book of Acts is all the preaching of Peter. Second half’s all the preaching of Paul. What’s going on here? Why the clash? Well, the cause is in verse 12: “For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.” Wow.

What’s going on? Is this personal jealousy? Not at all. Let me unfold this for you.

“Prior to the coming of certain men from James.” James is the head of the Jerusalem church, the brother of our Lord. He’s kind of the leader there; we see that in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. So here comes some men. I don’t think James sent these men. I think they said they were from James, and they had some connection to the Jerusalem church. At this time, that’s the mother church, that’s the church. So somehow they were associated with it. And prior to the arrival of these men who came from the Jerusalem church and said they had a connection with James, Peter used to eat with the Gentiles.

Now why is that a big deal? Because Jews didn’t eat with Gentiles. Just as a normal rule of life, Jews didn’t eat with Gentiles. Forget Christianity, forget the gospel, forget the church; Jews didn’t do that. A Gentile was unclean; a Gentile home was unclean; a Gentile utensil was unclean. They couldn’t go near Gentiles. They couldn’t eat off the dish a Gentile offered them. And these were rabbinic standards that were iron-fisted laws. It was believed that all Gentile food was contaminated by being unclean, to say nothing of that which was not kosher, not according to the standards of the Mosaic dietary laws. So what you had was the Jews holding to their own dietary laws and a kind of developing racism toward Gentiles. We saw the racism even in the day of Jonah, where he didn’t want to see Gentiles repent. Jews resented, hated Gentiles; and they kept separate.

Peter was raised in that environment. He comes to Antioch; he’s in a Gentile church. And what does he do? He does what a Jew would never do. He used to eat with the Gentiles. What is that saying? That he knows that the lesson he learned in Acts 10, “Rise, Peter, kill and eat.” There’s nothing unclean anymore, nothing unclean anymore - the dietary laws are over. In Christ, the middle wall is broken down. Jew and Gentile are one, and Christ is neither Jew nor Greek. That’s all over with. That’s all over. He knows that.

He also knows that they are brothers and sisters in Christ. And when he eats with them, it’s not just a meal; it’s the love feast; it’s the Lord’s Table. He’s just living life with the Gentiles. He’s with them all the time. They’re being served the same food. He’s finding out what it is to eat all the stuff that Jews could never eat. He’s been liberated.

He is turning his back on the [???] halakhoth, the list of elder traditions that prescribed certain kinds of food. And the fact that you couldn’t eat certain kinds of meat. You couldn’t eat meat that was butchered by a Gentile, or that was, a part of it was offered to idols, or violated the laws of Moses, or had been in the hands of Gentiles, or served on Gentile plates, and all of that. And all of a sudden that’s not even an issue. Peter’s having a great time. He’s discovering all kinds of foods that he’d never eaten before, eating with Gentiles, his brothers and sisters in Christ, until certain men show up. And he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof. He pulled back.

They would have criticized him mercilessly for eating with those Gentiles. And they would have said this: “Not only are you not to eat with Gentiles, they’re not believers, because they haven’t been circumcised, and they don’t adhere to Mosaic rules. So you’re eating not only with Gentiles who are unclean, but you’re eating with nonbelievers.” And they obviously intimidated Peter.

“He began to withdraw and hold himself aloof” - and there’s no questioning the motive – “he was fearing the party of the circumcision.” That’s the Judaizers. “The party of the circumcision” they became known as. He was afraid of them. Good men, great men – for the sake of pride and self-protection, self-preservation, popularity – compromise. They compromise.

Peter just can’t get out of his own shadow, can he? I mean it’s just a history of this guy doing this. He’s an illustration of how sanctification works. It’s not a straight line upward. It’s a few steps forward and a few steps back, and a few steps forward and a few steps back. And it’s where we all live, isn’t it?

All of a sudden now he doesn’t want to be with them, the Gentiles. He won’t eat with the Gentiles. He pulls back from the Lord’s Table. He pulls back from the love feast. He pulls back from the normal fellowship around the meals. He pulls back, fearing.

Peter afraid? It could cost him his reputation. He wants to be liked, he wants to be accepted. He also knows that he’s supposed to take the gospel to the Jews; that’s his particular calling. And now if he offends them all, what’s going to happen?

What he did was so influential, verse 13 says, that, “The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.” Peter became a hypocrite. He acted like he agreed with the Judaizers – devastating. And so did the rest of the Jews that were there, and so did Barnabas. And now what you have is a fracture in the whole church.

And what is this more than that? This is not about disunity; this is an assault on the gospel of faith, because now Peter is acting as if the Judaizers are right. “For that,” Paul says, “I opposed him to his face, because he was to be condemned.”

If you deviate from the gospel in what you say about the gospel, or if you deviate from the gospel in how you act, you’re in violation of the purity of the gospel. It’s hard; I understand. It’s hard to be bold for the gospel when you’re with people who compromise the gospel but also talk about Christ. It’s hard to talk to someone in a form of Christianity that is apostate, heretical, outside the bounds of the true gospel. It’s hard to talk to a Roman Catholic or somebody in some cult or some fringe group, or any kind of “Christian” organization that has a review of the gospel that’s in error.

It’s hard to be bold, because you want to be accepted by them. And maybe you say, “Well, you know, they’re not going to listen to what I have to say if they don’t” – it’s hard. And the fear of men brings a snare, doesn’t it. Even Peter had to be confronted to the face.

Don’t attack the gospel. Don’t attack it by changing it in its content, and don’t attack it by siding with people who have a false gospel. You can’t do that. Paul is saying to the church at Galatia, “We have to have the gospel clear; that’s why we’re in the world.”

Lord, we thank You that we’ve been able to look at this fascinating moment in the life of Paul and Peter. We know that as time went on, Peter grew in his love and respect for Paul, and even called the writings of Paul Scripture. But in this moment we see the importance of recognizing Paul as an apostle. He is an apostle to the degree that he is more faithful to the true gospel than even Peter, who was the head of the twelve. He is an apostle because he will defend the gospel.

Peter wanted to avoid persecution. He wanted to avoid unpopularity. Paul never did that, never did that. He wouldn’t compromise the gospel no matter what. Peter needed this rebuke. He needed to have someone he could look up to, and that someone was Paul.

Father, help us to be faithful to the gospel that we proclaim; and even in our relationships, make clear where we stand. May there be no hypocrisy that compromises the true gospel. May we not be intimidated into affirming those who preach a false gospel, who add works to the gospel of grace and faith. Do Your work in and through our church and through our lives, we pray in Christ’s name. Amen.

1 note · View note

jageunyeoujari · 6 years

Text

i had a good convo w @gam-zeh-yaavor abt fma so i’m gonna repost (edited a bit) so there’s more clarification on my blog proper abt how i view fma’s stance on war & reparations

me: to start off, i want to remind again that fma is written by a japanese person who's also part ainu. the context there is crucial. jpn war criminals & emperor hirohito got off scott-free. jpn's continued refusal to acknowledge what they did to korea & those policy makers NOT addressing reparations is an enormous point of contention & source of intergenerational trauma.

arakawa is coming from that perspective & she also has a personal stake in this considering she's descended from indigenous peoples who the yamato japanese colonized. & fma does hold roy & the others accountable BY making them use their power to enact meaningful, widespread change. giving up their power is maybe a symbolic gesture but it's not a concrete act to make amends

& the thing is that individual jpn ppl HAVE made monetary reparations to kr survivors of wwii/colonization. & that's all fine & good but it hasn't solved the core issue, the real point of contention, the real source of intergenerational trauma which is the utter lack of real accountability from the ppl who enacted those horrors

& roy & the others are feared. my first post abt this has screencaps from the manga that says that the amestrian uniform is the only thing protecting them, that in times of peace, roy & the others are nothing but mass murderers

bradley & the homunculi are all killed. bradley was killed by scar, an ishvalan survivor. kimblee was killed. fma is clear in this that if ppl refuse to be held accountable, they do deserve to be punished which includes death

gzy: ahhhh. so, in this context, accountability is more a matter of honesty, integrity and goodwill than it is a matter of reparative measures? the thing for me I think is that if I were living in this world as a citizen of ishval - or indeed as a survivor of yamato japan colonisation - I think I would feel very fearful and reticent about the notion of the same war criminals retaining their power and authority

it's definitely better to see people acknowledge their failures and mistakes than not, and it's obviously important that the experience of the victims is acknowledged and respected by a society trying to heal

but like, remembering how albert speer gets to be a part of the UN, I get a pretty bad taste in my mouth thinking about how people who used their influence to do evil hurtful things are in a position to do it again if it's ever convenient for them

actually I have to retract that because it totally wasn't speer. but I recall some other nsdap officials receiving power in the following establishment and that feels busted somehow

it's like... the idea that you can just say sorry and then you get to keep running things feels wrong. the intention to enact reparative measures... is always good. we of course have a lot of "insider info" about the motivations of Roy and the others... but nobody else does. how can a world still so scarred trust the people that inflicted those scars ever again?

me: oh i totally get you! i think that fma differs from those ppl tho bc roy & the other soldiers enact a coup. they dedicated their lives to toppling a corrupt, genocidal government which i would say is the only thing that could be done w a government like that. & the manga also addresses this: roy & the others know perfectly well that ppl will not automatically trust them to run things. they will be put on trial. they're willing to face consequences for their past actions but still work to better conditions

miles & scar are also going to actively work in the new government too so it's not like roy & the others are going to be solely deciding what to do

i mean i hate general macarthur, may he burn in hell eternally, but if he worked to topple the us government? that'll be a hell of a lot more meaningful to me than washing his hands of the whole ordeal

even if he did do that, he'd still need to be put on trial & all that but i'd rather someone like him use the power he has than... not

gzy: that's a fair point. I suppose by virtue of opposing the existing establishment, they do make a powerful statement that they have disavowed the things they did and believed before

doing something, yknow. they didn't feel bad about it and sit on their hands and just not do war crimes. they were proactively resisting the institution which enacted a culture that normalised their obedience to evil commands

which is a hell of a lot better than anything actual war criminals seem to ever be doing. I suppose the notion of fma as a kind of wish fulfilment - a sort of "man, we live in a fucked up world, but people can choose to be better and do better" - is a meaningful, hopeful idea

and those are rare and valuable.

in the same way, ed's growth from a boy who just wanted things exactly like they were before into a man who knew that the stone was a comforting lie and the only way forward was to find a way to create better things in the present is the same story

me: exactly! i think that ppl call fma 'liberal' bc yes it is a kind of wish fulfillment but arakawa is a humanist & fma is rly all abt the strength of individual humans coming together & we can actively choose to make the world a better place. humans are not mere ants like father & the homunculi think we are. our mortality & ability to choose to do better & capacity for genuine love & connection is what makes humans powerful.

#uig.y.eon #1 #2 #3 #4 #fullmetal alchemist

5 notes · View notes

ramrodd · 3 years

Video

youtube

Why Mark's Gospel Has Such a Strange Ending: The Mark Series pt 70 (16:8)

COMMENTARY:

The reason why the The Gospel According to Mark endss the way it does is because it is a military intelligence report from Cornelius, the curator of Quelle in Caesarea, to his direct report in the Praetorian Guard, Theophlus. The entirer Gospel According to Mark are the notes to a formal intelligence briefing by a field officer in the Roman equivalent of George Smilley in MI6, specifically, although he represents all the modern intelligence community and spy net works and he probably warned Tiberius about the treachery of Sejanus.

We know from Matthew that the Romans had a centurion and two contubernium at the tomb at the time. You have to remember that the Legions were fiercely habeas corpus in terms of held prisoners: somebody was in deep shit if Jesus is alve and somebody else, the centurion at the tomb, was in deep shit if he can't produce the corpse of Jesus, with or without His shroud. We know this from the Gospel of Peter, which is part of the very first intelligence report from Pilate and Cornelius about this resurrection shit to Tiberius. I have just this moment realized that the Gospel According to Mark was the evidence Theophilus presented to Tiberius to fully reveal the treachery of Sanjanus and the theft it reprented from the CEO of Rome, Inc and Commander-in-Chief of the Republic. At that time, the Praetorian Guard represented the bureaucratic functions of our modern Executive Brandh of the Federal Government. Congress controls the budget of our Executive Brandh, but I'm not particularly clear where Theophilus's budget originates. Taxes, for sure, but I'm not clear as to the comptroller of the enterprise. It woudn't have been Sajanus but he might have been part of Sejanus's order of battle for his coup.

I know that Tertullian reporst in the second and thrid century that Tiberius was compelled by an intelligenc report to propose Jesus as a legal deity, in a similar legal arrengement as the Jews to the Senate. This was somewhere between 31 and when he recalled Pilate in 36. The Senate wasn't interested: they were acting almost exactly the same way the House Freedom Caucus has been acting since AOC was elected, as sustained hissy fit that was turned to 11 when Tiberius won the election before Sejanus had a chance to steal the election and turned thumbs down on Jesus, just John McCain with the repeal of Obamacare. Tertullian reports that this proposal was the moment when the Roman soldier's slang for Folloers of the Way/Jesus Followers, Christian, was uttered in Rome. That's before 36. It takes about 10 years to get to Antioch by the normal migration of a viral meme. We can see that know, but that stuff was going on around Cornelius when he composed the Gospel According to Mark, which is a summation of everything Caesarea knew about this resurrection shit in 40, after he debriefed Peter for 3 days in the manner of George Smiley in The Little Drummer Girl. Everywhere your eye trips over εὐθὺς when you are reading manuscrpts, that's an appartus the Romans used to refert to Quelle: everthing around εὐθὺς either came directly from Quelle and/or was verified by Quelle, generally or Cornelius and other eye witnesses directly.

In orther words, the pereicope around εὐθὺς comes immediately from Quelle. The original autograph was probably in Latin, which is one of the reasons it is so concise. One of the first things Ilearned about Biblical scholarship was that the authenticity of the written text in Greek was easily translated into Amarinian, but that the voice of Jesus emerges clearly in any language. In contrast to the Koran. The Gospels are the Chrisian Hadiths. This is why Richard Carrier and Jimmy Swaggart are equally polemical crap. This is why the NRA version of the 2nd Amendment is crap. It's in the same catagory of Fascist sophistry as Rand Paul's anti-vaxxer apologetics as a defense against Trump haters. εὐθὺς is the remedy for the bullshit. It's the confrimation of Quelle.

But the intelligence report Tiberious would have received from Pilate and Cornelius would have been the Gospel of Peter, because, at that time, it was everything they knew about Jesus. Quell already existed and Cornelius knew Jesus, as testified in Matthey 8/Luke 7 and was in the room with Him and Pilate when Jesus sealed His own fate.

So, you may ask, why doesn't Cornelius save Jesus? Well, it really comes down to the triangulation of Romans 13:1 - 7 with the nature of duty as explored in the Binding of Isaac and the movie "A Man for All Seasons"> The Gospel According to Mark is written from the Roman perspective. In terms of Pilate, Mark 15 is written from the perspective of an aide-de-camp to Douglas MacArthur during the reconstruction of Japan. He had a job to do and a diplomatic portfolio to fulfill originally issued by Sajanus. The thing that may have saved them from Tiberius's purge after the execution of Sajanus in 31 was the Gospel of Peter.

The only fragment of the Gospel of Peter I have ever encountered in my methods of reseracy is on YouTube and it's all Roman content, just like Mark 15. We know from John that the Members of the Sanhedrin demanding the legal execution of Jesus didn't go inside the Praetorium, Fort Antonio, in Jerusalem. So, everything that comes from Mark 15 comes from Roman sources. Why don't we hear about the centurion piercing Jesus's side? Its a mundane detail "Yeah, I poked in His side to see if He was done and then I made sure. Popped open like a pinata in a future day! (locker room gaffaws)", This detail would have been included in Pilates decision to release the corpse.

But the Gospel of Peter is like a Roman police report of the events from the moment He was remanded and in the chain of custody of Rome until the end of their direct observation of the women in Mark 15, who were frightened when 17 bodies begin to wake up and rise out of the early morning mists are dried like the Saints arising from their graves.

The Gospel According to Mark ends when the Roman content at that moment ran out. All of Jesus's crew had gone to ground before they became Christians as a distinct group in the sociology of Jerusalem from the down-range perspective of a Roman soldier. According to Luke, Felix was totally briefed on the Christians by the time Paul appears before him in Acts 24:22. Sometime after this first hearing regarding Paul's legal status, Luke is introduced to Cornelius and is commissioned by Theophilus to expand on the Gospel According to Mark, and verify the Gospel of Matthew with access to Quelle and all the people with a living memory of Jesus within the intelligence network of Felix.

Felix doesn't know anything about the Roman Christian Fellowship in the Praetorian Guards represented by Theophilus. Because ot the hatred for Tiberius, the Roman Christian Fellowship went immediately underground. They were like me. RINOs in the realm of the fans of Sajanus and their self-serving sophistry.

If you consider the Gopsel of Peter, especially the two sets of centurion and two contubernium, at the cross and at the tomb, the Gospel of Peter reveals a covenant cutting ceremony that is a doubling of the covenant cutting ceremony in Genesis 15 between The One and Abram, only this time between The One and the republican servant leaders, the centuriate. The Republic is the iron jaw and the centurions the iron teeth of Daniel's 4th beast. And The One makes a covenant cutting with this specific role in regards to Romans 13: 1 - 7 and the talking cross is the same ratification as the smoking pot of fire.

And that's part of Quelle that doesn't seem to get to Tertullian, although he reveals the impact of the Resurrection on the Roman military establishment, generally. A war story like that would have viral in the Legions just as fast as the word got to Theophilus from Pilate and Cornelius. By the time they get to the Milvian bridge, all the soldiers on both sides would have been Christians. Once again, Tertullian mentions it in his Apology, so when Constantine brought out his shields with XP on them, it was a force multiplier for all the soldiers on Constantine's side and a existential demoralizer for their opponents. And that's how it went down. Tertullian doesn't know there was a covenant cutting ceremony in the Gospel of Peter because he never met Peter.

John Mark was the publicsher of The Gospel According to Mark in Alexandria, Egypt, and he or one of his scribes, composed the long version of the ending of Mark and it was probably in John Mark's notes for the Gospel of John, with is called the Gospel of John as a disambiguation from John Mark's relationship with the Gospel According to Mark, which Pappias would have been as aware as Matthew when he wrote The Gospel of Matthew after the Jerusalem Concil as a polemic supporting the Judaizer understanding of Jesus' theology. It's hard to say who translated the original Latin of the Gospel Accrding to Mark into coine Greek, but I suspect it was Cornelius. John Mark is an editor and contributor and character, as well as publisher (he probably added the parenthetical at Mark 7:19 which Peter can't seem to embrace and he's the naked young man in the linen sheet that gets away, to the Gospel According to Mark. John Mark wrote the Gospel of John as a companion narrative to the Synoptic Gospels, generally, but splices fairly easily into the Gospel According to Makr in a most delightful manner. Among other things, their narrative converge in their 6th and llth chapter. John Mark is the stenographer to all the conversations he is witness to and does exactly what Pappias wants him to do, capture some of the experience of Peter with Jesus.

As I ssy, the Gospels are the Christian hadiths, only, instead of capturing the living memories of living memories, Quelle begins a written record in a Roman intelligenc file the moment Jesus pops up over the Roman military horizon as a potential ISIS-K when he is baptized and, Quelle was born. Contemporary eyewitness accounts. Fuck Richard Carrier, Richard Dawson and Ken Humphreys and thei Big Lie of Jesus as myth.

Paul's only mission was to bring Jesus's ethic contained in Romans 13:1 - 7 to the Romans to validate their social organization and nation building around the secular rule of law and the Republic. The Romans who accepted Paul's defense of The Epistle to the Romans didn't need to turn the corner around BUT NOW: the Gospel According to Mark established that foundation when Saul was still satisfied with stonnig Stephen as the Will of God.

But I digress. The Gospel According to Mark when the briefing to Theophilus is complete. Cornelius doesn't dwell on the that the 17 Roman soldiers had been asleep on duty: in fact, they aren't even at the tomb at all. It's possible Pilate and Cornelius didn't know of the deal the soldiers at the tomb made with the Sanhedrian to cover they ass. I think everyone in the distribution of Hebrews understood exactly what the covenant cutting ceremony in the Gospel of Peter meant: they just didn't know what it was connected to, the military implications of recurrection. It turns out, Romans 13:1 - 7 was the essential social engineering but there's a lot of good poop on how miracles work and the benefits of a working relationship with the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Lord. Pilate and Cornelius didn't know what they had, but they knew it was big medecine.

The long ending of the Gospel According to Mark is written with Luke's Acts available to John Mark. You can hear John Mark's syntax, especially John 20 and 21. I don't read Greek, but the Elizabethian rythyms of the King James translations is echoed, in my ear, in Mark 9 - 20, with a little of the overture from John 1 thrown in when Jesus ascends.

Keep it simple. Occam's Razor. The Gospel According to Mark isn't written by a Jewish prodigy for a Roman market but a Roman soldier giving name, rank and serial number to his direct report up the chain of command It doesn't destroy Christianity: it is Christianity in its literary incubator. The Christian Habith in real time.

0 notes

chiccywood · 6 years

Text

Why “Super Troopers 2″ Doesn’t Quite Hit The Highs Of The Original

Do you remember “Caddyshack 2” or are you actively trying to forget that it exists? That’s what happens when comedy sequels go bad. A movie studio wants to cash in on the good ol’ days and tries to force a homogenized piece of garbage down the movie going public’s collective throat. Some movies like this fail and then others ruin the original…looking at you “Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me.”

That’s what makes “Super Troopers 2” a rare animal. The only group of people begging for a sequel to the 2001 cult comedy were its fans, who are no longer 20ish year old stoners that want something to watch while sucking down tacos at 2 AM. The fanbase, who provided a $23 million box office run and massive DVD success, is now in their forties with mortgages and 401(k)s to worry about. Will they really run out to see this movie and more importantly, will it soil the good name of the original?

The answer to that depends on what’s happened to those people in the last seventeen years. If you’ve grown to be hyper-sensitive to political incorrectness, “Super Troopers 2” will most definitely upset you. If you can’t handle any mockery of the stereotypical Ugly American, again, you’ll be headed for the exits.

Of course, the Broken Lizard guys (Jay Chandrasekhar, Paul Soter, Steve Lemme, Erik Stolhanske, Kevin Heffernan) don’t care. This sequel about a group of dysfunctional Vermont police officers delivers exactly what superfans should have expected: an immature, devoid of plot comedy with ups and downs. The only difference is that the lows are way, way lower than the failed bits in the 2001 original.

The movie begins with such a wheels off, insane sequence that it rivals the brilliance of the original’s opener. The story kind of falls apart after that. The gang has lost their Vermont State Police jobs due to an unexplained incident involving Fred Savage. An obscure border dispute means that Vermont’s governor (Lynda Carter) needs a State Police force to now work in a tiny Canadian town that will soon be absorbed by the United States.

The tiny town in Quebec is none too pleased about becoming Americans and a trio of Mounties (Tyler Labine, Will Sasso, Hayes MacArthur) do their best to chase off their new police force. They also have to deal with the town’s mayor, Guy Le Franc (Rob Lowe), who owns a brothel and constantly pokes fun at uptight American sexuality and the low alcohol content of the beer.

The bits that work are really great and many of them are much more subtle than in the original. Most of the better moments involve Heffernan’s Rod Farva, who becomes the embodiment of American ugliness. He nonstop shouts American jingoism, overeats by swallowing M&Ms whole, and has a bad comeback for everything. We all have at a shred of stereotypical “America” in us and the entire point of Farva is for us to laugh at ourselves.

Are there easy swipes at French Canadian accents? Sure. But come on. Of course these guys are going to hammer away at how they say “sorry.” Those are easy jokes and even the extremely stupid ones are funny. Now the running gag involving Thorny Ramathorn (Chandrasekhar) becoming more and more feminine? Funny at first, but pushing it throughout the entire movie is the very definition of diminishing returns.

“Super Troopers 2” is exactly what you would expect it to be. It’s silly and not interested in being anything other than that. It’s all done with such a goofy wink that it manages to be offensive without actually offending anyone. The biggest plus is that the nods to the original are few and far between, but it doesn’t quite reach the overall comedic appeal of it.

#Super Troopers 2 #Movie Review #Broken Lizard #Super Troopers #Review #Rob Lowe #Fred Savage

1 note · View note

truthlives4ever · 4 years

Text

Righteous Rebellion or Political Power?

It would be ungrateful of me if I didn’t first mention that my spiritual life has greatly benefited from John MacArthur’s bible teaching over the years. Many of his sermons helped carry me through one of the most challenging times of my life as a young man moving across the country and transitioning into independent manhood. And I suppose the truth of those statements is the very reason I’ve wrestled with the way this story has unfolded. For decades, MacArthur has been a controversial figure in Christianity who is known for facing adversity head-on. Nevertheless, he’s also a man who is widely regarded for his firm faithfulness to Scripture and his intentional avoidance of political entanglements.

However, in his recent responses to COVID-19-related restrictions on in-person church gatherings of larger congregations, he has now taken a stand against the California government which seems to have created a conflict between his politics and his sermons on biblical submission to government. As someone who has always known MacArthur to be fairly consistent with aligning his words with his deeds, his recent political zeal and resistance came as somewhat of a surprise to me, which led me to discuss it with my pastor. The challenge for me hasn’t been in my ability to view him as a flawed human being who is prone to blind-spots and error like the rest of us. Instead, the challenge has been in my attempts to reconcile what appears to be contradictory positions, while also seeing him encourage many other pastors to follow his lead in defiance of adhering to COVID-19 restrictions that are put in place for people's safety.

In order to make sure I was doing my due diligence, I read the California COVID-19 Guidelines for Places of Worship issued by Governor Gavin Newsome. Upon reading the guidelines, I discovered that they still allow for in-person church gatherings. The guidelines limit indoor attendees to a maximum of 100 people and encourage outdoor attendance that observes physical distancing, face coverings, and other safety measures that make sense for a mega church with thousands of members. Despite MacArthur describing the restrictions as "utterly impossible" to follow, another mega church in Riverside, CA (Harvest Christian Fellowship) is complying successfully. Given the fact that conditional provisions exist in the guidelines that actually do allow MacArthur to lawfully have in-person service, it begs the question, “is this really about the suppression of religious freedom or something else?”

Considering the fact that MacArthur is refusing to comply with government guidelines not because there are no accommodations for in-person church gathering but because he doesn’t personally consider the restrictions to be fair enough, according to his sermon transcripts, the biblical basis for breaking the law doesn’t appear to exist. What adds more room for speculation about this potentially centering around a political power struggle is the fact that Donald Trump has personally told MacArthur that he’ll have presidential backing and access to his personal attorney—which harkens back to a 2016 speech Trump gave in Iowa where he stated:

“Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the country and yet we don’t exert the power that we should have. Christianity will have power. If I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power, you don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that.”

Thus far, keeping that promise has won Trump deep loyalty from White Evangelicals. Does that mean we should view MacArthur’s new political posture and powerful allegiance with President Trump as a move that discredits his 50+ year legacy of prioritizing gospel preaching? I don’t think so. Nevertheless, I do think it’s important that the church continue to have broader conversation around how healthy this kind of political alliance for “Christian Power” is for the body of Christ—particularly for those who may now feel somewhat confused/uncertain about what biblical submission to government looks like and what the valid exceptions truly are. Am I writing this this because I seek to cast aspersions or assign ill motives to MacArthur and his elders? Not at all. I’m writing this for the sake of pursuing clarity as someone who desires to help protect the church’s witness to the world.

Ultimately, my concern with this issue for the church is that if we don’t closely examine this controversy with honesty and transparency (which is often difficult for us to do when someone as prolific and impactful as John MacArthur is involved), we could potentially repeat some of the same mistakes we’ve made as a church historically when we allow our deference for those we consider heroes to prevent us from examining whether their words and actions are aligned in the same ways they encourage ours to be. Unfortunately, this then perpetuates the narrative that Christian orthodoxy fails to match its orthopraxy. In repeating these problematic patterns, we also run the risk of subconsciously training ourselves to be partial and selective about other inconvenient/uncomfortable truths we aren’t ready to deal with (i.e. Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and other Reformers in Christian history who rationalized, justified, or overlooked the prevalent racism in their congregations and societies).

All that said, I hope I’ve made my intentions clear. These observations are in no way meant to disparage or harshly condemn John MacArthur or his elders. On the contrary, they’re meant to share the things I’ve been closely considering regarding the perceptual challenges of the case while also expressing a loving concern about an issue that I believe has massive implications. We’re in a time where politics are infiltrating the church in ways that are causing confusion, division, and anger. Lord knows I’ve been prayerfully trying to guard my heart from bitterness towards those I see as encouraging and condoning injustice. My hope is that through open and respectful discourse around this issue, we can sort through the more troublesome aspects of these trends rather than remaining distant, tribal, passive-aggressive, condescending, and judgmental. May we all increase in patience, grace, and love toward one another in these tense times.

0 notes

alli-howard · 4 years

Text

Why I, A White Christian, Am Voting for Joe Biden

Before I jump right in to this blog post, I want to mention that I think everyone should vote in line with their conscience. I am not writing this to persuade anyone, but rather to explain what appears to be a minority position within my demographic group. Mike Huckabee recently mentioned that voting for Joe Biden was “not an option for religious voters,” and Pastor John MacArthur told President Trump that every true believer would be on his side. After giving those statements some serious thought, I feel like it might be helpful for me to explain my position.

I don’t know why so many Christians support Donald Trump, since his personal life and rhetoric is so contrary to the way the Bible calls us to live. I know many believe he is the better choice based on the economy (although Michael Bloomberg’s DNC speech indicates otherwise). Some believe that he is secretly breaking up sex trafficking rings, and others feel that the policies he has put in place outweigh the damage done by his reckless speech. In general, though, my assumption is that most white Christians are voting for him because they have always voted for Republicans, they feel that he advocates for Christians or Christian interests, and because of his pro-life policies, so these are the points I am going to address with this blog post.

First, a little context will be helpful. I attended a predominately white private Christian high school and university, where voting for Republicans was pretty much assumed. My parents were always fair- my dad said you should consider what someone stands for, rather than just voting by political party, but my school and church reinforced other messages. If I had friends who voted for Democrats, I wasn’t aware of it. At the time, it seemed like voting against abortion and gay marriage was just part of what it meant to be a Christian.

As a result, I voted for John McCain in 2008 and I remember feeling discouraged when Obama was elected, although I couldn’t articulate why. I had my parents fill out my absentee ballot for Mitt Romney in 2012, and my dad jokingly sent me a confirmation email as if it were coming from Romney. The email read: “Thanks for your vote! If I’m elected, I promise to cut bloated government programs like FEMA and AmeriCorps. Sincerely, Mitt.” The email was ironic because I was living in New York at the time, working for AmeriCorps, after FEMA had just sent aid to help with Hurricane Sandy. Looking back, that was probably the first time I realized that there was a dissonance between what I thought was helpful for a flourishing society and the way I was voting.

From 2012 to 2016, I lived in New York, Spain, Salt Lake City, and San Diego. I met lots of different people with a variety of opinions and life experiences. My faith never wavered, but my understanding of government and its role in society started to change. My break with the Republican party finally occurred in 2016, when I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Donald Trump. When he said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” I realized that he viewed himself as someone who was above authority and accountability. When he said he never asked God for forgiveness because he has nothing to apologize for, I couldn’t understand why Christians voters found him appealing. And last but not least, when he challenged black voters to vote for him because “what do you have to lose?” and he implied that Mexicans were rapists, I realized that I didn’t want to have to look many of my new non-white friends in the eyes and tell them I had voted for him. Instead, I wrote someone in.

There’s an expression that says that Democrats have to fall in love with a candidate to show up at the polls, but Republicans just fall in line behind their candidate. There should be a line that we won’t cross. Donald Trump was too far over the line for me. Since then, I’ve decided to make a concerted effort not to align myself with either political party, because I think I am better able to honor God when I argue from my primary identity as a Christian rather than as a Republican or Democrat.

The second point I want to address is that many Christians seem to be voting for Trump because he will advocate for Christians and Christian interests. I believe that our country was built on religious freedom- not Christianity- so I hope that whoever our president is will want to serve all of his constituents, not just the ones who believe what I believe. I have noticed that there seems to be fear that Christians will be discriminated against if Trump is not elected. That confuses me, because if you wanted our national government to turn against Christians- Joe Biden isn’t someone you would pick to lead that charge. He often speaks of his Catholic faith and the way it guides his leadership and despite what Trump would have you believe, he is not radical.

I think we are so used to Christianity having a prominent place in the public sphere that we can hardly imagine what life would be like if we were only given the same freedoms as other faiths. If we are going to defend religious liberty, we should defend religious liberty for all- not just for ourselves. But even if- God forbid- we ceased to be a nation of religious liberty and Christianity came under legitimate attack, here’s what I think. I think we would be forced to put our faith and trust back in God rather than our political system. I think if we were thrown into the metaphorical fire like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, we would find that Jesus is standing right there with us. I think our faith would be refined and purified and we would have a clearer, purer picture of how the Gospel is good news for a broken and hurting world once again.

The third point I want to mention is that I have been hearing people claim that Trump is the most pro-life president we have ever had. I understand that abortion is a deeply emotional and personal issue for many, and I don’t want to make light of that at all. I understand why some Christians wouldn’t be comfortable voting for a party that talks about abortion in terms of being “pro-choice.” However, it is important to consider that over the last forty years, the number of abortions has been steadily decreasing, and it has decreased much more significantly during the years that Democrats are in office than when Republicans are in office. To be fair, this trend could exist for a number of reasons that may or may not directly correlate to who is in office at that time. I am certainly not an expert on this topic, but it appears that there are other ways to reduce abortions than simply crafting legislation that limits access to abortion.

Of course, we must remember that being pro-life calls us to so much more than delivering a baby. Being pro-life means that we care for the poor, affirm that black lives matter, and protect our vulnerable neighbors from the coronavirus. Being pro-life means that we don’t tweet ominous statements that incite violence. Being pro-life means that we don’t respond to the fact that 1,000 people are dying per day from coronavirus by saying, “they are dying, that’s true - it is what it is.” We can and absolutely should be pro-life people – people who promote the health, safety, and flourishing of everyone in our community – but I don’t believe our current president is deserving of that title.

As I conclude, I want to mention that I know this is a stressful and scary time for so many people. Based on what I saw at the DNC and RNC, both sides of the political aisle are deeply afraid of what the future might hold. I want to encourage you with the reminder that our true and ultimate hope is in Christ, not in our elected officials, and our primary citizenship is in Heaven (Philippians 3:20), not the United States.

Because we have the opportunity to vote, I hope you will vote with your neighbor in mind. I hope you won’t just ask yourself, “What is best for me and people like me?” but “What is best for all of us?” For me, the answer to that question is to elect someone who does not fan the flames of misogyny and racism, sparking protests from the day after he was inaugurated until now. For me, the answer is someone who won’t respond to white supremacist rallies by saying there were “very fine people on both sides,” while defending symbols and monuments to the Confederacy, and then claiming to have done more for black people than any president since Abraham Lincoln. For me, the answer is someone who at least attempts to unify us as a nation. In other words, for me, the answer is an imperfect but decent man: Joe Biden.

0 notes

rndyounghowze · 4 years

Text

More As This Develops: Guest Speaker Neil Macarthur

Sometimes you have to ask for what you want when you’re just starting out.

By Ricky and Dana Young-Howze

Hollins University, Roanoke, VA

One of the things I’ve heard program director Todd Ristau say for the past six Monday’s is that the guest speaker series is there to make sure Lab playwrights don’t have “late career expectations for early career opportunities”. I had an idea of what it meant before but no talk highlighted the sentiment better than the one given by Neil MacArthur.

I found it unusually hard to write anything about this guest speaker. On the face of it there shouldn’t have been a problem. I love music and especially Rockabilly. So when you’re talking about the chance to talk about part of the creative team behind a Jerry Lee Lewis jukebox musical you’d think I’d be bursting with ideas. But something Neil said during his talk really hit me hard.

He talked about walking into a professional theatre and just asking them if they needed a piano player. And what’s better they said yes. That’s not what got me down. What hit me was him observing that the professional theaters have gotten so big and formal that he didn’t think that was a viable option anymore.

I thought back and realized that he might be right. My specialty in my career has been forging new paths and creating jobs that didn’t exist before. In my college I was the first dramaturg because no one knew what it was. I was the first student director on the main stage because I campaigned for it for three years. When I got out of college I tried to be the first new play lab in my small town. None of these things existed before I was there and now they kinda do.

But there is a caveat to being a pioneer. My undergrad got built up to a BFA program and has dramaturgy classes and student directors all the time. I don’t know that if this program existed when I was leaving high school I would be able to get in. Pioneers plant trees whose shade they’ll never enjoy but sometimes they build structures that they could never get into.

Then I remembered something that Todd always says: “We learn by doing”. And I realized that I was a pioneer because of a hunger deep inside of me.. I was just craving a learning environment that encouraged risk taking and trying. I opened myself to learn how to direct by directing, I learned how important dramaturgy was by being a dramaturg for two productions and not advocating for the script enough. I learned the hardest parts about being a producer and a marketer by having some skin in the game and wondering how we made it out intact.

Cut to today where I’ve been a theatre reviewer for four years. No one asked me to start reviewing plays. Like Neil I got in contact with people and said “Hi I’m a theatre reviewer in the area can I come see your show?” Did I know everything that I was doing? No. Have I gotten it wrong sometimes? Yes. But I’ve learned more by doing it and sticking with it than anything I could have learned in the classroom. That’s exactly what Hollins taught me, I learned by doing, and I’ve carried that with me into professional life. I wish every state had more programs like the Playwright’s Lab. In that program we get work done.

To find out more about Hollins Playwrights Lab please visit their Facebook Page Here.

#theatre #nj #nj travels #theatrelives #hollins playwright's lab #hollins university #roanoke virginia #new play development #moreasthisdevelops

0 notes

ramblingsrantsreviews · 5 years

Text

Merry, Happy, Whatever Review (Netflix, 2019)

When I first saw the trailer for Netflix’s new sitcom Merry, Happy, Whatever I was so excited. It combined all my favorite things Christmas, sitcoms, and Ashley Tisdale together. What could be better?

The show, which was created by Tucker Cawley, follows the Quinn family as they get ready to spend the next 10 days celebrating a perfect holiday season in true Quinn family fashion. Of course, perfection and the holidays don’t exist and the Quinn’s quickly learn that family traditions can be hard to keep up when families are constantly evolving.

Don Quinn (played by Dennis Quaid) is the widowed, no-nonsense patriarch of the family. The most shocking thing about him is that he forms a crush on an emergency room nurse who happens to be black. It’s 2019 and interracial relationships shouldn’t be shocking but if you’ve watched the show you’d agree that it was a pretty surprising relationship to explore given Don’s conservative beliefs.

Don has four kids — 3 daughters and a son. Patsy (Siobham Murphy) is the eldest daughter who feels it is her responsibility to be the “mom” of the family since their own mother has passed away. That’s literally her whole purpose of being in the show and it gets old, fast. Kayla (Ashley Tisdale) is the middle daughter who learns her husband wants a divorce the moment they enter her childhood home. Sean (Hayes MacArthur) is Don’s only son who just so happens to be hiding a secret from his father — well, a secret or two. And then there is Emmy (Bridgit Mendler), Don’s youngest daughter and quite possibly his favorite child. Emmy has come back from LA to celebrate the holidays with her family and she’s brought along her struggling musician boyfriend Matt (Brent Morin) who Don is not too thrilled about.

In addition to the family, there are the two in-laws or “outlaws” as they call themselves, Todd (Adam Rose) who is married to Patsy and Joy (Elizabeth Ho) who is married to Sean. There are also a few grandkids in the mix rounding out the Quinn family.

With so many people together during a stressful time, chaos is bound to ensue and it sure does. Just like the Quinn’s rocky holiday celebration, Merry, Happy, Whatever faces a rollercoaster of good and bad episodes.

Without further ado, here’s Dani’s Desk review of Merry, Happy, Whatever.

Spoilers ahead.

Favorite Episode: Episode 4 – “Happy Mall-idays”

“Happy Mall-idays” is the episode that finally intrigued me enough to sit down and binge-watch the rest of the show. I was ready to give up after the first two episodes, the third was a little bit better but the fourth episode is where I finally started to connect with the characters.

The fourth episode follows the Quinns as they brace the holiday crowds at the mall to complete a multitude of tasks. Don is looking for the perfect gift for Nancy and enlists Sean to help him out. Emmy and Matt are faced with their first argument of the holiday season as they disagree on how to spend money. Meanwhile, Joy ends up crashing her car while trying to find parking space which means Patsy and Todd must wait in the Santa line until Joy can get the car situation under control. Oh, and then there’s Kayla who spends the entire time trying to hit on the cute barista she’s been secretly crushing on.

Pretty standard for a sitcom and yet, this is where the characters start to shine. I felt myself cringing along with Kayla as she tried to win over the barista who just thought she was interested in a job and not her. Matt and Emmy’s debate over how they spend money was relatable — especially when the conversation centered around how much was appropriate to spend on a Christmas gift. And I was really loving Joy’s heart-to-heart with the elderly woman whose car she hit until the woman said that. You’ll know what I mean when you watch it.

From episode 4 on it finally feels like we are apart of the Quinn family and not just some uninvited visitor.

Least Favorite Episode: Episode 1 – “Welcome Matt”

It’s a well-known fact in the television world that pilots usually aren’t that great. Merry, Happy, Whatever’s pilot episode is no exception to that fact. The episode is terrible and that’s putting it lightly. It’s a miracle I kept watching the show after that episode but I try to give every show at least 3 chances before calling it quits.

The plot of the episode goes like this: Don picks up his beloved daughter and her struggling musician boyfriend at the airport in his police cruiser. Matt hopes to make a good impression with the Quinn’s but his presence is quickly outshined when Kayla’s husband announces that he wants a divorce in front of the entire family. The writing staff was smart to include the standard “how could you do this in front of my entire family/everything we do is in front of your family” joke. From there chaos ensues as more secrets are revealed to certain characters setting up the promise of chaos to come.

The issue with “Welcome, Matt” is that it relies on sitcom gimmicks as a crutch. The plot isn’t fresh and neither are the characters who rely on sitcom troupes way too much. It’s a shame considering the premise of the show has so much potential and could really elevate Netflix’s original sitcom repertoire.

Favorite Character: Kayla Quinn

Kayla Quinn saved Merry, Happy, Whatever for me.

In the beginning, I was disappointed in Kayla’s character. Ashely Tisdale is such an amazing actress and it felt like she was playing a character I had already seen her portray (you can’t deny the Sharpey vibes). Thankfully, the third episode gives Kayla some depth when she confides in Matt about her feelings towards women.

Netflix isn’t a stranger to exploring LGBT character’s but Kayla’s revelation is really one of the first times I’ve seen a grown adult question their sexuality on television. We talk a lot about how important it is for younger generations to see themselves represented in media but it’s also important for older generations to see themselves represented as well. Kayla does that from them.

Here is a character who has been in a marriage that isn’t bringing either partner happiness but it’s what they’re “supposed” to do. When Kayla finds out her husband wants a divorce she’s sad at first but then she feels free. Free because she doesn’t have to hide behind a lie anymore — except, for the fact that her father is ultra-conservative and she’s not sure if he’ll accept her. Which, spoiler alert, he eventually does thank goodness.

So yeah, Kayla redeemed the show for me and she also has the plot that I was most invested in, making her my favorite character.

Least Favorite Character: Patsy Quinn

I physically groaned in annoyance every time Patsy was on the screen. Now that’s not to say Siobham Murphy’s performance was horrible because it was not (remember actors are not their characters), her character just had the worst plot and traits of the ensemble.

Patsy is a character reminiscent of the traditional “sitcom wife,” which, okay would have been fine except she wasn’t Don’s wife! It seems silly for the writers to decide to not have the wife/mom be alive and yet have this character do exactly what is expected of a wife/mom.

Listen, I get what the show was getting at. There is this perception that if a mother passes away the daughter should step into that role and help the family out. I’m not totally opposed to the show exploring that dynamic, however, it didn’t feel like a daughter stepping into her mother’s shoes. It felt like she was the damn mother and it was weird!

Patsy’s character is stereotypical and annoying when she could have been so much more. Underneath all that “sitcom wife” nonsense is a character who desperately wants to be a mother to her own children but is struggling to get pregnant. I would have loved to see the idea that Patsy mothered her siblings and father because she can’t mother her own children explored more. Instead, her role is there to provide laughs and be the kitchy sister.

If this show gets a second season I hope Patsy gets the justice she deserves.

Complaints:

One thing that struck me as interesting was the fact that the show never ventured into the world of politics despite its ability to do so. Yes, this is a holiday event sitcom that released on Thanksgiving in the hopes of bringing families together for co-viewing but then again, it’s family and holiday-themed and politics usually always find a way to be discussed. Instead, the show focuses its debates on sexist viewpoints (“are you the lady CEO of your job yet”) and religious differences (Catholic traditions vs Jewish traditions). It works for the contents of the show but it would have been interesting to see politics come into play somewhere. Let’s face it Don is a total Republican and Matt is not.

Speaking of Matt, though I did like his character, I couldn’t help but feel like he was a knock off version of Nick Miller from New Girl. I mean come on, Matt and Nick have a lot in common. They’re both dating women with successful careers, they both have no idea what they’re doing with their lives, and they’re both a little nerdy and awkward. Not to mention the actors kinda look similar. I would have liked to see Matt stand out more since he is the show’s main antagonist.

Another complaint of mine was how the show centered around this premise that Quinn’s follow tradition and that Don never breaks those traditions only to have him break these traditions three episodes in! And he doesn’t even feel guilty about it at first! It all just felt very out of place for me.

My biggest complaint comes from the pilot episode when Sean and Joy’s eldest son announces to his parents that he is an atheist. Now it’s not the announcement that bugged me, it’s the fact that they made it seem like the son was going to have his “coming out” talk with his parents and instead chose to divert from that to which the parents’ response was a sigh of relief. It seems odd and out of place for the show to laugh at or feel relief that this wasn’t a coming-out moment since the show eventually explores a true coming-out moment. I don’t know, I just hate when scary and heartfelt situations are played for laughs.

My one final complaint about Merry, Happy, Whatever is that it played it safe for a Netflix sitcom. Yes, multi-cams are more lighthearted than other forms of television but even Netflix’s One Day At A Time found a way to tackle heavy topics in a comedic way. Merry, Happy, Whatever felt very safe and very conservative. In fact, it could have aired on CBS and fit right in with their line up of multi-cam sitcoms.

Praise:

As I’ve said above, I love sitcoms and I love Christmas so the fact that Merry, Happy, Whatever is a combination of both is amazing. Do I wish it was better? Yes. Ultimately though, I did love the premise. I thought it was fun and had a lot of potential to be great and different. Netflix was wise in creating an event-based sitcom because it’s something that traditional broadcast sitcoms simply cannot do.

I did enjoy that we got to see Todd rival Don in a Jewish vs. Catholic tradition debate. Could it have gone deeper? Of course! But I think the way it was done was perfect for the tone of this show. I find that we often overlook other culture’s holiday’s because they aren’t popular with the masses and that’s not okay. I’m glad Todd got his point across to the Quinn’s. Hopefully, if we see the Quinn’s again during the winter holidays we get to see them explore Todd’s Hanukkah traditions.

By far my favorite thing about Merry, Happy, Whatever, was the bond between the “Outlaws.” It’s funny since I didn’t name any of them my favorite character but truthfully their scenes together were my favorite ones to watch. The idea of in-laws feeling unwelcomed and out-of-place isn’t something that’s talked about much and I liked that Merry, Happy, Whatever chose to go there. What I really loved though was that the outlaws bonded over their crazy extended family instead of choosing not to interact with one another. Watching Joy and Todd take Matt under their wing was heartfelt and hilarious. It’s definitely the highlight of the show for me and will be the reason this show stands out in my mind years from now.

Overall, Merry, Happy, Whatever ended up being cute and entertaining. It was a bumpy ride but it was certainly worth it if you love the holidays and quirky multi-cam sitcoms. Is it for everyone? Definitely not. But is a nice escape from your own holiday family drama.

It’ll be interesting to see if Netflix decides to pick the show up for another season and if it does, what the season will revolve around. The creator hopes the show can serve as a “potential anthology series with future seasons exploring other holidays,” hence the name Merry, Happy, Whatever. Only time will tell.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Merry, Happy, Whatever is streaming now on Netflix.

#reviews #merry happy whatever #kayla quinn #ashley tisdale #bridget mendler #emmy quinn #netflix #review #tv show #tv

1 note · View note