The Nature Biscuit Bible

Here is a quote from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to a forward to a new translation of the Bible:

"His (Jesus) supreme work is to reconcile us to God and to one another, and indeed, to reconcile all of us to God's creation. It is possible to have a new kind of world, a world where there will be more compassion, more gentleness, more caring, more laughter, more joy for all of God's creation, because that is God's creation. And God says, "Help me, help me, help me realize my dream."

This is from the Green Bible, an NRSV translation that places text of scripture that are of importance to the environmental crisis in green (of course).  For those that are interested, the NRSV comes from the KJV.  The KJV begat the American Standard Version, which begat the Revised Standard Version, which begat the New Revised Standard Version. 

So, what passages are in green you wonder?  I am glad you asked.  Here is a selection that I found skimming this Bible.

Genesis 1, 2:1-12.  This is an interesting selection.  Genesis 2:11-12 mentions the river Pishon and the land around it.  It is in green.  The next verse the river Gihon, and is not in green. Are some rivers more green than others?  Ah well, moving on.

Daniel 2:22  
"He reveals deep and hidden things, He knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with Him."

I am not sure what about this verse is "green". Any ideas?

Matthew 4:4

"But He answered 'It is written, one does not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes for the mouth of God.'"

Green?  I guess.

2nd Corinthians 2:17

"For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ."

A good verse.  I have no problems with it, but how is it green?  

I could go on. My point is that this version of the Bible is being published to push an environmental agenda. No surprise there, and I doubt that the publisher and editor would disagree. Is this really going to change the debate on environmentalism?  Printing a Bible on recycled paper with soy ink (maybe the Matthew 4 passage can be interpreted by us as actually eating the Bible?) may make a few people feel good about making a difference, but that is all it will do. Including an essay in the Bible entitled "Jesus is coming--Plant a Tree!" may make Al Gore smile, but does it make any difference to supposed anthropogenic global warming?

No.  

In the preface to the Green Bible, it describes how passages were chosen.  One of the reasons is 

"How all the elements of creation-land, water, air, plants, animals, humans-are interdependent."

Is that statement true? No.  The sun, center of our solar system, is not interdependent on humans.  Yet it most certainly is part of creation.  Or maybe they are just referring to creation here on earth?  Even then the statement does not work. While human beings are certainly dependent on water for life, water is not dependent on us to exist. For items to be interdepentent they would need to depend on each other, yet water and humans do not seem to. Humans can affect water quality, but the water still exists.  It is still water.  Without water, humans do not exist. That seems to be a very odd form of interdependence.  A casual read of Genesis would seem to indicate that water and humans were not created in a manner that would cause both to mutually depend on each other.  In fact, water seems to be around before humans. Yet if we are mutally dependent on each other, how did that happen? 

I could continue but you get the point. Christians should care about the environment. That is a given.  But the priorities and philosophy behind much of the work of this Bible do not appear to be consistent or factual.  Skip this Bible and simply enjoy God's creation, instead of reading why you should feel guilty for destroying it.

Artdog and Catman in 20 years

My wife was watching this video (she finds the oddest things online) and commented that this could be Artdog and Catman in 20 years.  The drummer's expression at the beginning especially reminded her of Artdog. 

In fact, she just about fell off the futon laughing at the idea.

It is time for all odd wives to go to bed now.

Enjoy!

Sotomayor is only for some Amendments, can you guess which one she doesn't like?

Here is a link to a story about the potential next Supreme Court Justice appointed by Obama.

Basically, Sotomayor says that the states get to choose whether or not to follow the Second Amendment.  She bases her decision on a poor interpretation of a previous decision back in the 1800's (read the story if you want to know more). So I wonder what other rights the states get to choose to allow citizens to have?

• Does she think that the states can choose to get rid of the right of trial by jury?
  
• Since the newspapers are dying, do we still need a freedom of the press? Outdated if you ask me.  
  
• Maybe the 13th amendment, you know the one outlawing slavery, is actually a state decision.  Then white people could be enslaved as well, making the world a much more fair place to people like Sotomayor.
  
• How about poll taxes?  Can some states charge to vote?  Then only rich elites could vote. That sounds like a good state right.

Would the states choosing rights extend beyond the amendments? Could the states also have fun with other parts of the Constitution such as Article IV? Maybe people can begin to flee from one state to another when committing crimes?  Instead of a city of refuge we could have entire states! This could be a way for states to get people to move in and increase tax revenue.

So, what silly extra part of the Constitution do you want to give to the states?  I think Sotomayor should be a verb to describe the action of taking a section of the Constitution of the US and giving it over to the states.  

With that in mind, what part of the Constitution do you want to sotomayor (extra credit for which state as well and why)?  

Rant

Ok I need to rant.  If you do not care for what I have to say, then don't read.  Usually I provide links to articles, in case you want to read what I have read and comment on my interpretations and to help provide sources.  Today, no links. I just need to complain.

With that said, let me now comment on the pathetic condition of the Church in America as shown by Miss California, Carrie Prejean.  Her claim to fame seems to be that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and she said so during the Miss America competition. The question was a loaded question, asked by a homosexual that was pushing his agenda.  And she did a good job responding to the question.  And she did not win the competition.  That should be the end of the story.  But it wasn't. Far from it.

Miss Prejean soon became, rather quickly, a symbol and a martyr for the evangelical movement (she has said she is an evangelical Christian) to help fight the homosexual push to change the laws regarding marriage.  Here is an attractive, succesful woman and she is a Christian.  Hooray! Suddennly we had someone on our side that had all the right markings to be a success in the world and make Christianity look better, more marketable and attractive.  But often when we try to make things marketable, you can lose much of the instrinsic worth that made the item worth marketing in the first place.  

Take Miss Prejean.  We are to hold her as a role model for all of us, at least that is what I am hearing so much from various sources, Christian and wordly (though all conservative).  Yet, here is a young lady that has had plastic surgery to enhance her looks to win a beauty pagent and posed nude.  Yeah, great role model.  Just how I hope my daughters grow up to be.  An organization called National Organization for Women has picked her to be a spokesperson.  Not sure who they are but I am guessing I won't be supporting them.  

I live in a free country.  All of what she has done is legal.  All that has been done to her is legal. The question asked of her was loaded, but life is not always fair. We have the right to free speech in this country, but that right allows others to disagree with us.  Ok, so I have no problems here.

I just don't see how, as a Christian with a capital C, one can defend her actions. Morally, ethically, theologically, philosophically, and just plain common sense says that if you belive that the Bible is the living Word you try to live by it.  That does not mean you have to be perfect.  That does not mean you can't make mistakes and sin (Let the one with no sin throw the first stone), but choosing actions that directly go against the Bible just ain't right.  It is no different than two "christian" men living together in "marriage".  Both are living "christian" lives, yet living a life that directly conflicts with the teaching of the Bible, which is what God said.  Am I way off base here?  

The reason I am ranting and dragging the Church into this is that I have not heard condemnation from the Church regarding this.  It is probably out there, and I am sure some have spoken.  But should I have to go searching for it, looking to find out that Miss Prejean aint the Proverbs 31 women that DC talk was singing about.  

Sorry, I know that I said no links but I needed to include something to lighten the mood for a second.

Maybe I am missing something.  Maybe our scripture has changed and nudity is now acceptable if one is a model, since models do not need to be concerned with passages regarding modesty. Maybe implants are now scriptural, for it does say in Psalm 23 my cup runneth over. Maybe I am just an old fashioned guy that needs to get with the times.  

Or maybe the Church is the proverbial frog in the water, and the water is starting to boil.

Ugh.  I need to go listen to FIF now.

A discussion on Socialism

I was in class on Tuesday, and learned that socialism is alive and well in America today.

As a discussion was slowly moving from a look at the current culture of college age students to other topics, an older than average student in class decides that all the problems currently faced today can be blamed on capitalism, which is obviously evil.  Being rather astonished, I make the rather sensible claim that capitalism itself is not evil.  I was looked at rather oddly and the teacher moved on with the topic before the conversation went down a road she was not interested in pursuing.

After class, Shirley (the student) felt that she needed to convert me to socialism.  Here is a rough recollection of how the conversation went:

Shirely:  "But don't you think that we need to return to socialism now that we can see how much capitalism has hurt everyone?"

Me:  "No.  We cannot return to something that we have never been, and socialism is not the answer to our problems. "

S:  "Just look at all the Hardees and McDonalds.  All the mom and pop stores are closed.  That's sad.  That is what these greedy capitalistic companies have done."

Me:  "Under socialism, you would not have mom and pop stoes either. They will be run by the government."

S:  "No, that would be communism."

Me:  "No, under socialism the desire for profit and the attempt to make a profit is punished. Why work hard and have your own business if you have to give large amounts of your income to the government?  Just work at a store own by a company or the government and earn the same by working less."

S:  "But look at France.  There, people only work 35 hours a week, everyone gets 5 weeks of vacation a year, everyone gets free maid services in their house.  Don't you want a life like that?"

Me:  "France has also struggled with high unemployment at various times in the last few years, has had riots in the streets because people can't find work, executives at companies are held hostage during contract negotiations, strikes are common, and they have one of the largest tax burdens in Europe." (If I had been more clear headed and not surprised I might have suggested that she move there and let me live in America, but alas I did not).

S:  "But people have free healthcare.  Isn't that something that we should all have?"

Me:  "The healthcare is not free.  You are paying for it with your taxes."

S:  "Fine.  If I can get healthcare they can tax me more.  At least I will have free healthcare."

Me:  "No, you will have taxed, government run,  healthcare."

S:  "Whatever. But don't you think that socialism would benefit us all?  I mean, don't you see how America has infected the rest of the world?"

Me:  Here I really do not remember exactly what I said. I was too surprised to say anything.  I do remember disagreeing with her.  This viewpoint is completely alien to me.

S:  "Just think on it tonight.  I think you will understand better."

Me:  "I respectfully disagree. I will not be thinking on it tonight, or ever."

Yeah, maybe I wasn't really disagreeing respectfully.  I was trying to not lose my cool.  I was simply amazed at the idea that America is destroying the world.  No talk of Ahmadinejad and his desire to destroy another country with nuclear weapons.

I could have answered her questions much better, but at the time was more surprised than anything.  

How long until I talk with a student defending Stalin and his policies?

My wife made a apron

My wife made an apron*. She is irrationally happy about it. 

This makes my life happier.

Therefore, I like my wife's apron, even if it is goofy looking. My first memory of my wife is seeing her wearing a goofy hat. 

I thought she was odd.

Now she wears goofy aprons.

*Note:  Not actual apron.  My wife's is much goofier.

Seals to the Rescue

During the standoff between the US Navy and the pirates over a hostage, many people have wondered why don't we send in the Seals?  

Well we have.  And the mission went down perfectly.  

Pirates that the AP interviewed for the story (it always amazes me what kind of people the AP is able to interview) said that they are out for revenge.  The US is now their number one enemy.  

Maybe they missed the part where the Seals took out three pirates at once, at night, in choppy waters, and the hostage was completely unharmed.  

So, to Abdullahi, Jamac, and any other pirate that feels like capturing American ships and killing hostages, think again.  You may be able to kill some Americans, but the US Navy is going to come looking for you.  And an AK-47 is not going to do much damage to this. (OK, it could damage it but the MK V has enough firepower and speed you probably shouldn't try.)

One other thought.  International Law either needs to be changed or the US needs to start disregarding it.  The law for International shipping is that the crew is not allowed to be armed. Fine. Then hire some former Marines to be security for these ships. Not allowing weapons or soldiers on these boats seems to make these a slight target for the Somalis, among others.  It seems like just a small change like that would work. Maybe the founding fathers had an idea when they included the 2nd amendment. (For a laugh read this pdf put out by the International Maritime Organization where they suggest shining bright lights on pirates and spraying them with hoses but not to use guns because it may escalate the situation and cause attackers to carry guns too.  Page 11 is funny.)

Finally, a big thanks to the Seals.  The military may not be real popular with many, but you have shown why we need you.