The End of the Blockbuster Era?
Posted on 2006-09-30 at 00:17
Luis Villa, gnome-guy turned law student has a must-read blog entry about the changing role of media in our culture.
The short of it is that he went to see some very smart people talking. He took notes. Those notes are interesting. Lawrence Lessig (one of those guys talking) is a personal hero. He even got portrayed on the West Wing once. That's just how cool he is!
Oh God. I am Death Become Flesh.
Posted on 2006-09-26 at 06:53
I am so tired right now. I was at work on Saturday for 15 hours---leaving after 1am. I was at work last night (Monday) for 15 hours---leaving after 1am. It's currently 6:55 am.
I feel like death's vomit. I need sleep.
Is it 12 or 13?
Posted on 2006-09-26 at 06:49
Count the people. Wait for it to move. Count them again. Feel your brain hurt.
All I Really Need To Know I Learned From Soldier of Fortune
Posted on 2006-09-25 at 09:02
All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned by reading Soldier of Fortune magazine. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the killing fields.
These are the things I learned:
- Get others to share everything. You'll learn their secrets and obtain their power base.
- Always retaliate asymmetrically. The world isn't fair. If your opponent didn't already know that, it is your duty to teach them by example.
- Don't hit poeple. Shoot them. It's more final and it keeps your list of enemies managable.
- Freedom Is Never Free.
- Illegal Immigration is an invasion. Deal with it as such.
- Loose lips slit throats.
- Eat the heart of your enemy. You may not gain his courage and strength, but you'll scare the shit out of his comrades.
- Never hurt others. Wounding is inefficient. Aim for center mass.
- Accuracy Always Counts.
- Always set up the latrine first. You'll need it drinking that crazy third world water.
- Eat healthy. Buy MREs.
- Bring your "A" game if you’re going to sniper-duel "CRAZY HORSE".
- Balance is key. Your weapon should have a good mix of reliability and stopping power.
- Always post a guard. Death comes quickly to the sleeping.
- When you go out of a mission. Rely on your troop, but always be ready to shoot them. They, too, may betray you.
- Knowledge is power. Steal it whenever you can.
- Death is inevitable.
- Remember rule one: Exotic weapons are rare for a reason. Use a gun.
Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The rule of survival and engagement and basic sanitation. Economy and politics and equity and safe living.
Take any one of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated civilian terms and apply it to your family life or your work or government or your world and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it would be if we all---the whole world---knew how to survive in the woods with a Streamlight Rail-Mountable Tactical Strion Flashlight, Remington's Model 7615P with slide–action, and a cracked frying pan.
And it is still true, no matter how weak you are, when you go out in the world, it is best to shoot to kill and know your latrine locations.
Hugo Chavez Address to the United Nations
Posted on 2006-09-22 at 07:04
Hugo Chavez addressed the UN on my birthday (Sept 20th). You should read his address in full. In short, though, he makes some salient points. To wit:
And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.
And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.
And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.
And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.
Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.
But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.
We can't fight any "War of Terrorism" without first being willing to amend our own ways in that regard. We currently finance a coup in Venezuela, but are those men we arm and rally terrorists or "Freedom Fighters". Are they the Righteous Few or Guns-For-Hire? If they are the Righteous Few or Freedom Fighters, is that what we called Osama Bin Laden when he was on the CIA payroll fighting in a US Military-funded coup? If it's different, explain how?
The whole mess stinks of deceipt and I'm chagrined to be a tertiary part of it. Should we go after those who attack us? Of course, but we should also be asking ourselves why we were attacked and if we may have earned that anger toward us. We should be leading as a bright example of what a Democratic Republic can be, not goosestepping down an Orwellian path.
Breaking the rules
Posted on 2006-09-20 at 08:29
My one main rule here is that I don't revise content after posting---excepting particularly bad spelling errors.
I am breaking that rule with my post on early Methodist history. That post is really designed for my Sunday School class, and I want to make sure it is readable and clear, so I've revised it for content flow today. I may revise it again as needed. Just being clear about that since I've made such a big deal in the past of not revising posts here.
Peace out, dawgs.
A Brief Overview of Early Methodist History
Posted on 2006-09-17 at 21:10
Methodism began in 18th century Britain as a small society of students at Oxford. They became known, pejoratively, as "Methodists" becuase of their methodical approach to scripture and Christian living.
The three main proponents of this Anglican clarification movement were John Wesley (June 17, 1703 – March 2, 1791), Charles Wesley (18 December 1707 - 29 March 1788), and George Whitefield (December 16, 1714 - September 30, 1770).
Together these three men began the Methodist Revival. This early Methodist movement was a reaction to perceived apathy within the Church of England. It was driven by open-air preachers who established Methodist groups wherever they went. They gave boisterious, loud sermons that landed them accusations of being fanatical and mad. Critics popped up everywhere. Theophilus Evans wrote that it was "the natural Tendency of their Behaviour, in Voice and Gesture and horrid Expressions, to make People mad." William Hogarth also spoke of Methodists as "enthusiasts" full of "Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism." Despite these accusations, the Methodist movement gained traction every day.
In the late 1760s, the Methodist Revival was brought to America by two travelling lay ministers named Philip Embury and Robert Strawbridge. By 1770 they were joined by Methodist missionaries sent by John Wesley himself to help organize the new American movement. Francis Ashbury reorganized the mid-Atlantic groups under the Methodist model (which caused no small bit of ill-will with the extant lay leaders). As the American Revolutionary War came and Wesley called many of his missionaries back, only Ashbury was left in the mid-Atlantic circuit. Strawbridge, however, had seen wild success in him mission, which began in Maryland at the same time as Embury. Strawbridge ordained himself and set about organizing a circuit. He trained others in the Methodist way and set them off to start circuits of their own. His organization's growth was astounding. The British missionaries who'd been sent to help Embury's group became aware of Strawbridge's group and brought it under their "official" wing. This, however, did not stop the native lay ministers from continuing to preach side-by-side with the missionaries from Wesley. This Southern Methodism did not have the same dependence on missionaries that the mid-Atlantic Methodism.
Though Strawbridge was ordained, none of his lay ministers were, and at the insistence of John Wesley they would still bring their congregation to an ordained Anglican minister for the performance of the sacraments. This ended, however, when the Anglican ministers began their flight to England around the time of the war. Left with no recourse, the lay ministers of Southern Methodism ordained themselves and began performing the sacraments on their own. This was a matter of great strife between the Southern and mid-Atlantic branches. To reconcile the groups, Ashbury was able to convince the Southerners to wait for word from Wesley on the subject.
Meanwhile in England, John Wesley allied himself with the Moravians---going as far as to help them found the Fetter Lane Society, the first real precursor to modern Methodism.
As his following in England grew, so to did tensions between his group and the Anglican church of which it was a part. His brother Charles and many of the followers urged a seperation from the Church of England, but John did not want that. "We dare not," he said, "administer baptism or the Lord's Supper without a commission from a bishop in the apostolic succession." By the next year, however, he had a change of heart. His recent reading convinced him that apostolic succession was a fiction. He said he was "a scriptural episcopos as much as any man in England."
In 1784, Wesley sent Ashbury a response to the American sacramental crisis. His response took the form of the Rev. Thomas Coke. Coke was sent to America to form an independant American Methodist Church.
Coke was to ordain Ashbury as a joint superintendant of the new church. Ashbury, seeing the great weight of the decision, chose to ask the assembled conference to vote, stating he would not accept any such office without the vote of his conference. He was voted into the office of Superintendent. Later, Coke and Ashbury were named Bishops, though Wesley did not agree to, nor did he approve of that titular promotion.
By 1792, the controversy of espiscopal power came to a head. Ultimately the conference gathered that year sided with Bishop Ashbury, though it caused the first strong split in the Methodist church, as the Primitive Methodists and the Republican Methodists branched off from the main church.
By late 1793, he broke with the Moravians. He brought with him those converted to his teachings and those converted by the words of his brother Charles and his friend George Whitefield. "Thus," he wrote, "without any previous plan, began the Methodist Society in England."
Let the rant flow
Posted on 2006-09-16 at 09:31
I ordered my Tivo. I paid for next day shipping because I wanted it this weekend. What happened? They screwed up the shipping on everyone's order who ordered the same day as I did (the 12th). It'll likelu ship today and get here Monday. They did, on their own, refudn the shipping fee, but I'm still disappointed. I want my new Tivo now!
Bryan and I are going to see The Protector today
Posted on 2006-09-16 at 09:28
Can't wait. It's gonna rock so hard! Watch the trailer below and prepare to be impressed.
James pointed out...
Posted on 2006-09-15 at 08:23
...that some people might find a discontinuity between my post about Bryan rolling freshly minted off the Dick Factory and my post two days later about the Gospels and canonical inclusion. I find it mildly humorous that I'm so accustomed to switching gears in that way that I didn't even notice how odd that might appear to a stranger. Well, in any case, both posts are a reflection of me, so odd or not, you can expect more of the same jumbled ethical mess going forward.
Also, James, you have now been referred to by name in my blog. I'm still not sure why you wanted that, but it is done so you can quit yer bitching. :-)
McCain, Warner, and Graham defy Presidential wishes
Posted on 2006-09-15 at 08:07
Four Republican senators sided with Democrats on the Armed Services Committee in a vote rejecting legislation to set up trials for foreign terrorism suspects that would break Geneva Convention rules.
The Armed Services Committee voted to back a more reasonable bill in a 15-9 split. President Bush vows to block the measure should it come to his desk.
Even ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell has joined to fray in a move that seems to have surprised the White House. He wrote a letter stating that this measure would redefine Geneva Conventions and consequeently put US troops at risk. Continuing, Powell wrote, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."
In short, the new measure would have granted Guantanamo tribunals the right to use evidence gained through coercive means, such as torture, and to keep secret certain elements of prosecutorial cases from those being accused. The four Republican Senators who opposed the measure---including three prominent members (McCain (R-AZ), Warner (R-VA), and Graham (R-SC))---voted instead for a version that would provide for fairer trials.
On a more personal note, I've been saying for a couple of months now that while I actually like Senators Warner and Allen (our Senators here in VA) I would not vote for them solelyon the grounds that the Republicans have abused their position as senate majority and must be made a minority, even at the expense of Senators I like. News like this makes it hard to vote against Warner. It's not the first time he's made it clear that he would not vote along party lines. Perhaps he's one of the Republicans that should stay. I really don't know.
The Gospels and Canonical Inclusion
Posted on 2006-09-14 at 07:48
Abstract
Concerning the decisions which led to the inclusion of the four gospels currently found in the New Testament.
Paper
In their attempt to canonize the new covenant of Christ, it is profoundly important that Christians utilize those works extant that will most closely intimate the teachings and life of Jesus, the Messiah, and as there are no known written works whose authorship can be directly attributed to Jesus, Christianity must search elsewhere for source information concerning his word and deed; thus for this reason Christianity looks to the various Gospels. Sources other than the Gospels exist and are viable as references to the Christian doctrine in their own various ways; however, since each classification of source would merit its own separate essay, this essay will concentrate on the Gospel genre by discussing the concept of the Gospel, arguing for a Gospel inclusion into the New Testament, and positing a rationale for determining which Gospels should become canonical.
Gospels are as diverse and varied as the people who write them---each having its own unique emphases and style; nevertheless, there are certain universal qualities which characterize and classify them as Gospels. Scholarly opinion is divided on several fine points as to what specifically defines a Gospel. Some see the Gospels primarily as forms of biographies of Jesus Christ while others regard them as having much more to do with the statement of the good news of salvation through Christ, however, a middle ground is more likely to be the case. The Gospel genre of writing steps beyond simple storytelling and the manifesto of religious aphorisms and coalesces into an admixture of the two---the combination of a biographical narrative and a religious ethos. Having established what a Gospel essentially is, one must next consider what reasoning is there to include this genre of writing in a religious text at all.
Christianity is a religion based on both the Old Testament canon and the teachings of Jesus Christ and as such it becomes eminently important to gather detailed information concerning the life and teachings of Jesus. Since Jesus was not an author, the only sources of knowledge on these matters are found in the writings of others closely associated with the man himself and most of these writings were not meant be to used as religious text, such as those official Roman documents and other non-Jewish/Christian texts that reference Jesus and the Christian movement. The Gospels, much like Paul's letters, were set forth as true and proper accounts of what it was to know Jesus and his way. Several documents in the New Testament can give the careful reader an understanding of the Christian doctrine, yet none but the Gospels discuss the man, through his words and deeds, who pioneered these principles. If a person wished to learn about Plato, he would ask Socrates or another close associate (that is, of course, only if Plato, himself, were not available to respond), he would, rightfully, not assume that the random Grecian citizen would be capable of holding a meaningful conversation on the subject unless he were in some manner familiar with Plato. So it is with Jesus as well that one cannot expect to learn about Christianity without drawing knowledge from those persons familiar with Christ. Any other method would produce misinformation, misunderstanding, and possibly a biased or skewed view of the subject of the investigation. Therefore, it can be concluded that to best understand Jesus Christ in his role as founder of the Christian religion a careful study of his life and teachings must be undertaking and the Gospels, which as a rule lay claim to an "inside track" on these events, are the obvious best choice. The Christian community is now left with the decision as to which Gospel or Gospels are to be accepted and which are to be denied canonical status.
There are two logical and opposite paths which can be taken at this point. In this paper, they shall be referred to as the Marcionian and the Tatian perspectives. The Marcionian perspective involves the acceptance of one Gospel as the binding truth and denies all other Gospels this standing. More specifically Marcion, himself, was partial to the Gospel of Luke. His position on the subject of Gospel inclusion was that with only one Gospel as official scripture the critics who cite Gospel confliction as a sign of religious falsity could be more easily combated. His hypothesis is correct in that with only one official story of the life and words of Jesus, there would be no internal conflict, and it should be noted that for this purpose, the Gospel of Luke makes an excellent choice since it is Luke who seems to be not only an excellent writer of Greek text but who also lends a historical perspective to the life of Jesus and, unlike other Gospel authors, has written a sequel which is called the book of Acts. Choosing this Gospel allows the Christian church to portray Jesus as something other than a mythic and non-existent leader; it puts Jesus into a setting which can be identified and is familiar to the average reader. It further allows the church to show, through the continuity of the Gospel and Acts literature, a link between Jesus Christ and the development of the early church. All these things together bring Jesus into focus as a real person who lived and influenced the lives of his many Christian followers which has the effect of staving off the critics who would use inconsistency and source reliability as an attack against the early Christian church. It is also possible that Marcion was simply following Paul's lead by proclaiming the righteousness of only one gospel. Paul consistently refers to the Gospel of Christ in the singular and has stated his belief in Galatians 1:7 that there is only one Gospel. Paul's system of thought has been quite influential in the current theology of the Christian church and if Marcion wanted to follow Paul's example, he would have to conform appropriately. It cannot be denied that Marcion had many good reasons for choosing the position he did.
The Tatian perspective falls on the opposing end of the Gospel inclusion spectrum with a belief in using many different Gospels as canonical sources for information about Jesus. According to this perspective, these source Gospels would be reviewed, evaluated and, after gaining a clearer idea of the truth of Jesus' life, synthesized into a single cohesive Gospel. Tatian has done this in his work, the Diatessaron, by using the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; some would also claim that he was influenced by other Gospels as well. His theory involved the belief that multiple portraits of the same thing must, by the simple law of common sense, be intrinsically better than relying on a single portrait. The multiple portraits would give the examiner a more thorough picture of the object portrayed. However, he, like Marcion, was concerned about the apparent inconsistencies in the various Gospels and how that may look to the critic---or worse, to the prospective Christian---thus for clarity's sake, Tatian chose to compose a new Gospel, the aforementioned Diatessaron, based strictly on the extant Gospels and thus merge the various portraits into a fused whole which would be as internally consistent as the canon proposed by Marcion.
There is yet another popular opinion on the subject which has been set forth most eloquently by a Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, who said that there is only one legitimate Gospel of Christ, but four worthy literary shapes which the Gospel has taken. He was referring to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which, by his day, had come into common use. This new perspective seems to be more pragmatic, in that it accepts Paul's notion that Jesus' true Gospel can only be singular, for he did not live multiple lives, but also recognizes that different people will recall and interpret the events in different ways. This notion seems the most sensible of the three options mentioned thus far for several reasons. Firstly, in the Marcionian perspective, the reader is expected to gain a clear and comprehensive understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus with only one witness to rely upon. Though Luke may have been a devoted Christian, his Gospel, just as with the other Gospels, emphasizes those aspects of the Word that he wanted emphasized; thorough as it may be, his Gospel is not all-inclusive and never claims to be. Secondly, the Tatian perspective requires that a person should, after careful study, pick-and-choose which parts should stay, which should go, which are right, and which are not. This might be acceptable if that editor were someone who had lived with and followed Jesus, but it is wholly impossible at this late date to find a candidate with the ability to meet this criterion. Anyone editing the Gospels at this point could not do so with any degree of assurity and the finished product could no more be counted upon for accuracy than the sources from which it was derived. It seems that, to Irenaeus, obtaining the truth about Jesus was deemed more important than the defensibility of the canonical Gospels. Ireneaus' perspective, it seems, welcomes the inconsistencies that the two previous perspectives denounced by accepting them as natural variations that arise when different artists paint the same scene. Ireneaus expects and accepts this, and furthermore, he seems to prefer this. One portrait may show something about the scene that the other portrait does not. This is the beauty of difference---to make the scene complete. So, while no single perspective can be said to be absolutely correct in all ways, it seems that Ireneaus provides Christianity with the most sensible solution to the dilemma---canonize several different versions of the Gospel of Jesus and thus gain the benefit of many different views on his life and teachings.
The enormous task which now lies ahead is the determination of which Gospels to canonize. While there have been over 30 Gospels discovered to date, not all Gospels are suitable for canonization and for this reason Christians must be selective in choosing which ones to accept as "official" reference to the life of Christ and the doctrine he taught. A set of criteria must be developed to filter what enters into the New Testament. Based on earlier discussions in this paper, one can deduce that the first piece of criterion should be some form of association with Jesus or his direct disciples since any further distancing from the subject of the Gospel will be reflected in the Gospel writing itself. This first piece of criterion narrows the list dramatically to the following Gospels; Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, Thomas, James, Peter, and Philip. Of these remaining Gospels, several stand out as not having one or more of the familiar elements of traditional Gospel-genre writings. The Gospel of Thomas, which claims to contain the "secret words" given to Didymos Judas Thomas by Jesus, is a collection of sayings, typically beginning with "Jesus said...", does not discuss, in more than an inadvertent manner through sayings associated with events, the life of Jesus making this a less than satisfactory source for learn about the life of Jesus. The Gospel of James also proves not to be up to the task of retelling the story of Christ's life due to its engrossment in the discussion of Mary's birth and the subsequent virgin birth of Jesus. Further, James does not substantially delve into the teachings of the Messiah nor his death on the cross---a major theme of other Gospels as shall soon be discussed. The Gospel of Peter, which we possess only in part, seems closer to the traditional Gospel style; however, the text we have is short and contains only the account of Jesus' persecution on the cross while omitting, due to lost manuscript, the majority of his life and teachings. One point of note here is the unusual resurrection scene presented by Peter. He describes a heavenly host descending from heaven to spirit away the raised Jesus and all this is done within plain sight of the guards of his tomb. This account differs so substantially from the other discussions of the resurrection that, had we the full text of the Gospel of Peter, it still might not be included in the canon. The Gospel of Philip, discovered in the same collection as the Gospel of Thomas, is written in proper Gnostic fashion. The Gnostics tended to believe that true knowledge could not come from the written word, but only through the "living speech" according to Ireneaus in his work Against Heresies (3:1-3) and thus the Gospel of Philip is written not as a biography or a discussion of doctrine, but as a text on meditative ideas and symbolic gesturing which can best be explained through example as follows:
"Light and darkness, life and death, the right and the left are each others brothers. They cannot separate from one another. Therefore, the good are not good nor are the evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. On account of this, each one will dissolve into its beginning origin. But those who are exalted above the world cannot dissolve; they are eternal." (Philip 1:10)
This type of mystic interpretive language is not typical of the Gospel genre and, in addition to this, the Gospel of Philip does not discuss the life of Jesus. Some might argue that it does not even correctly reflect the teachings of the man.
Having disqualified all but the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, a discussion of their relative merits must be entered into. Of the remaining Gospels, it is now generally believed that the Gospels of Matthew and John were not written by apostles, as once believed, and Luke and Mark, contrary to the original idea, may not have been associated with the apostles either. So why then should they still be considered for canonical acceptance? Because they are the earliest known accounts of the life of Jesus and therefore are more reliable than other later Gospels. Still, it seems logical that if indeed these four Gospels are not as closely related as one might have otherwise thought, a closer look at the quality of their reliability and their use to the average Christian reader should be obtained. Certain questions must be answered before including them into the New Testament. Do they serve a purpose? What purpose do they serve? Are they reasonably true to the word of Jesus? And finally, taken together, is this group of Gospels going to provide the Christian church with a well-rounded view of the wisdom which Jesus preached and lived by as well as the message which Jesus brought with him and intended for his followers to spread? To answer these questions, an in-depth examination of these Gospels will be undertaken.
The inclusion of the Gospel of Matthew would serve a multitude of purposes. Beyond being a reasonably accurate portrayal of the life of Jesus, inasmuch as can be determined by modern scholarly exegesis, Matthew paints a picture of Jesus' deeds and words which grounds them firmly in the known Judaic history with a strong emphasis on Old Testament law which he is careful to explain that Jesus proclaims it to be correct and binding as exemplified in Matthew 5:17. It is noteworthy that there are instances when Jesus does side against the Old Testament law. He is shown to do so three times in Matthew 5:31-43; however, this is the exception and not the rule as adduced by the many times in which the Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus defends the Judaic laws. Moreover, Jesus is seen as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in Matthew 2:15 and 8:17. Matthew seems to distill his image of Christ and his teaching through Old Testament prophecy and doctrine which has the effect of giving Christianity a history or perhaps arguing that it already had one in conjunction with the Jews---something which many Christians and most Jews did not acknowledge. The popular layman opinion was that Christianity was a new religion and this rationale was used as a basis for attack and prejudice on the newly formed Christian community. Matthew shows that Christianity has a religious history and it is the Jews which have diverged from the faith, not the other way around.
The Gospel of Mark is perhaps less factually accurate, though not unacceptably so, than the four other Gospels being discussed and this is where its weakness lies. This is evidenced by the severe redaction seen in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke4 which are widely believed to be derivative works of the Gospel of Mark which was written years before any other Gospel. Mark's Gospel seems to have an emphasis on the pre-resurrection teachings of Jesus which stands in contrast to Paul's letters which demonstrate a profound interest in the theology of Jesus' death at the cross and his subsequent resurrection. Again a quandry is presented and the reader, who is most likely going to be familiar with Paul and his importance to the theology of the Christian church, might be inclined to find the common message or central theme present in both. Nevertheless, in doing so, the reader detracts from the richness of diversity in the portraits of Jesus. Mark may not be in total agreement with Paul or other prominent theologians as to the particular emphasis of Jesus' teachings but he certainly does not deny the significance of the theology of the cross. Here also lies its hidden strength. While Mark does not entirely accurately depict the events of Jesus' life it is only due to his emphasis on the works of Jesus and not geographical or chronological accuracy. As examples of this emphasis, one can turn to the many references to Jesus' miracles (Mark 1:25, 1:41, 2:11, 3:5, 4:39, 6:41-42, and over 10 other direct references to miracle acts.) and suffering (Mark 8:31, 9:30-31, 10:33-34 as well as the entire account of the crucifixion and torturous death of Jesus.) and the lessons to be learned therefrom. Mark, unlike some apocryphic Gospel authors, does not discuss miracles for their own sake but instead discusses them as they pertain to what Jesus taught. In this Gospel, the reader gains a clear idea of Jesus as a human, without denying his divine significance, whose example is shown as an inspiration to all.
Luke's expertly crafted Gospel brings history into the Christian picture, albeit in a far different manner than Matthew. Rather than concentrating on the history of Christianity, Luke concentrates on the Christianity in history. He uses real-world events and places to create a "stage" which will be recognizable to the Christian and non-Christian reader and thereby places Christianity in the firm position of fact, showing these depicted stories as having actually occurred, and pulls it out of the realm of fantasy and imagined mythology. By referencing other events and associating them chronologically to Gospel events, he gives Christianity its reality. Take, as an example, the following passage from the Gospel of Luke:
"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in wilderness. He went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah..." (Luke 3:1-4)
Here Luke depicts the story of John receiving the word of God, yet before discussing the story itself, he paints an explicit picture of when and where this took place and goes further to discuss John's lineage so as to place him wholly in a setting which the typical reader will identify and accept, thus making it far easier for that reader to accept the story itself.
At this point, one might conclude that the Christian community could gain a reasonably clear understanding of Jesus' life and teachings with just the above three mentioned Gospels and they would be correct. The Gospel of John deviates from the standard Gospel genre ever so slightly---but meaningfully. It is feasible to postulate that, since John is believed to have been written last of the four main Gospels discussed herein, he recognized that the events of Jesus' life had been satisfactorily retold and therefore chose a fresh approach to the discussion of Jesus. He does tell the story of Jesus' life, for if he did not we might have some difficulty calling his work a Gospel, and yet his story takes on an entirely different significance. Some philologists have speculated that the Gospel of John is as different from the other Gospels as the Gospel of Mark was from previous Christian writings about Jesus. True or otherwise, John's work seems to have built upon the Gospel genre, improving it, rather than breaking away from it as Mark did from the earlier Christian documents and so John can still stand as a form of Gospel. Having established this, the discussion must turn to its proposed merits as a canonical Gospel. Many have said that John wrote a sort of "fill-in-the-blank" Gospel in that he speaks about those aspects of Jesus' life which are not discussed in the other Gospels. Found in the Gospel of John are many events that cannot be found in other Gospels but still possess a significance. Examples include Jesus' meeting with Nicodemus in John 3:1-21, the scene described in John 11:35 of Jesus weeping at the tomb of Lazarus before resurrecting him, and the discourse with the Samaritan at the well in Sychar in John 4:7-26. This Gospel seems to contain an interesting synthesis of the Hebraeistic and the Hellenistic philosophies of the time. John's use of the Logos idea was distinctly a Greek-influenced thought and he often referred to the enemies of Jesus as the "Jews." At the same time, however, though his use of the Logos was Greek-influenced, it was originated in the Old Testament book of Genesis as were many ideas he put forth. His Hebraeistic belief in God was naturally modified by his Grecian worldview and background giving him a distinctly unique perspective on the teachings of Christ which the other Gospel authors did not possess. John's Gospel helps to define what Jesus' relationship was with respect to the Jewish-Christian faith. He alone discusses Jesus as "the way" and "the light" and shows Christ to be the path to salvation.
The four Gospels discussed above give the reader an excellently well-rounded portrayal of Jesus, the man, the teacher, the Christ, and the way. They show the Christian community, with Matthew, that through Jesus, it is grounded firmly in the Judaic past and is not an upstart cult with no true meaningfulness. They show the Christian community, with Mark, that Jesus' teachings are to be used as an example for community. Mark also shows us Jesus' divinity and his humanity through the stories of his miracles and suffering. The Gospels further show the Christian community, with Luke, that it has a reality and concreteness which serves to fortify a faith in the stories to the reader. And finally, the Gospels show the Christian community, with John, the theological importance of the Christ figure as represented by Jesus. These Gospels do have their differences, but also they have their similarities. All of them concentrate on the teachings and life of Jesus and how that relates the Christian community to God and not just sayings or dissertations on theology. All of them accept the importance of Jesus' death at the cross for mankind's sins. All of them accept Jesus as the true messiah as expected in Old Testament prophecy. So it is seen that four portraits from differing angles do in fact give the observer a fuller and more complete rendering on the scene. These Gospels should be canonical due to the merits of what each one, individually, can teach the reader about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
Tivo is dead. Long live Tivo.
Posted on 2006-09-13 at 07:08
I've ordered my Tivo Series 3. Have you ordered yours? I requested Next Day Air, because I must have this before the weekend hits. Following is my epic "Ode to Tivo":
Roses are red.
My devotion is spastic.
My Series One is dead,
But Series Three is fantastic.
I should submit that masterwork to the American Poetry Review.
A fun game
Posted on 2006-09-12 at 07:20
Kudos to xkcd for the funny.
My inevitable march toward immortality continues
Posted on 2006-09-11 at 08:50
According to several sources online scientists in Britain have just announced substantial success in eliminating allergies from our lives.
They state that within 5 to 7 years that food allergies, hayfever, and the like could likely be eradicated. They have discovered that we are not allergic to the entire food or pollen grain but rather to certain proteins that are just a small part of them. They have identified these proteins and they are already testing a vaccine on humans. This is not an allergy shot as you may have experienced or heard of. Rather than being designed to get your body accustomed to the foreign substance over time through exposure, this method will eliminate your bodies need to attack said foreign substance.
Note that this has application in eliminating Asthma as well.
I'm achieving immortality one health discovery at a time.
Is he truly monkey-faced, Tom?
Posted on 2006-09-10 at 13:35
Yes, Bryan is truly monkey-faced as I claim in my previous blog entry. For proof I present this. Does it not remind you of a scene from Planet of the Apes? You can dress them up and stick a pipe in their banana-hole, but in the end you can't hide the monkey behind such a piss-poor man-mask.
Random Hostility: Sip it slowly so you can enjoy it longer
Posted on 2006-09-09 at 14:53
Maybe once this cheaper, faster FIOS stuff is done kicking Bryan's shit-ass company in the face for a few months, they'll consider a price reduction/speed increase. But then again, maybe not. Cox is run by retards. I know this because they hired a monkey-faced idiot like Bryan straight off the production line at the dick factory.
Four Horse Harmony
Posted on 2006-09-08 at 08:56
Enjoy the sites and sounds of this fine equine Doo Wop group.
Gnome 2.16 has been released
Posted on 2006-09-08 at 06:47
Gnome 2.16 has been released. Read a review of the new Linux Desktop. Read the release notes for this version to see what's new. Love the gnome. Hug the Gnome.
Ties, Times, and the Pursuit of Productivity
Posted on 2006-09-06 at 08:30
Dressing special for work is an antiquated waste of time, money, and effort. What purpose does the tie serve beyond placing an adorning frill around my neck? For what reason must a woman wear pantyhose other than to make her legs look good for the men in the office? Why do we still do these things? Unless you job is to look good, your morning primping session is a waste of your time. In so far as it is mandated, it is brainlessly ignorant and the sign of a company still stuck in the mud of the Victorian Era.
What purpose does the 8 to 5 work schedule serve? To please some anal retentive manager with a Napoleon complex who was potty trained just a bit too early? To ensure that all the road's traffic groups in unmanageable clusters twice a day? As with the suit and tie, this is a practice that must go. Stagger work schedules and let people choose which they want to be in. Let some work 7 to 4, some 8 to 5, some 9 to 6 and I see nothing wrong at al with allowing some 6 to 3 and 10 to 7 as well. The roads will clear up, people will still have opportunity to collaborate at work, and people will be able to work on a schedule that better suits their natural rhythms. Not everyone is an early riser. Not everyone is a late sleeper. Why make them all conform to the same schedule?
What happened to subjective analysis of productivity? Why must every petty manager implement objective productivity goals to determine if their workers are making the grade? A good manager knows which employees are pulling their weight and which aren't. A good manager has an open door policy so that other employees can complain about those things he might have missed. A good manager isn't afraid of subjective evaluation. Micromanaging progress only serves to make 90% of workers less productive for the arguable benefit of making the bottom 10% scared to slack off. It is not worth it. Stop.
That is all for now. Please tune in next blog entry where we will be discussing the pros and cons of inbreeding. Why? Because the word "inbreeding" makes people uncomfortable. That makes me smile. I need to smile more today.
My time as a porn peddler
Posted on 2006-09-05 at 07:38
I've had a lot of jobs in my life. I've worked in kitchens, loaded trucks, sat in the secretarial pool. I've been in plays, burgled homes and cars, done door-to-door encyclopedia sales. But one of my favorite jobs was as a porn peddler.
Don't judge me, dude. You've done things you weren't proud of either. Besides, it was only for two weekends. My time there was horrible and the pay would have sucked if I hadn't been skimming off the register. Why was it one of my favorite jobs, then? Easy. Two short weekends. Many, many, many stories.
I could tell you about the swinger couple that came in looking for the local swinger mag and wanted to break off a piece of the Tom. I could tell you about the gay dude that wanted to rape me (lesson: always bring a weapon to work in your porn shop career!). I could tell you about Conspiracy Dave and the rampant Man-Scent episode. I could tell you about the booth token guy who was dissatisfied with the quality of porn currently running in our private booth-theaters. But I'm gonna tell you about something a little more sedate for now. I'm gonna tell you about the man who didn't know where he was.
So I'm sitting there watching my black-n-white TV. The reception was a bit fuzzy, but when you are stuck sitting behind a counter trying to ignore the patrons for a straight 15 hour shift, you don't care about such things. It was getting late in the day. The tourists were leaving the beach, which meant I got to watch them passing by the front of the "book store" as walked back to their cars and hotels.
Now, I don't know what the guy was thinking. Maybe he thought "hey, I need a good book". Maybe his wife pushed him into it. I dunno. What I do know is that the store was otherwise empty when a husband, a wife, and their two little girls came waltzing into the porn shop. They didn't approach the counter, but rather went right to browsing the books in the front of the store.
I should explain. The store, because Virginia Beach was a bit uptight about such things, had an area in the front with cards and regular books for sale. The area was small and ended abruptly in a wall with a single door and a sign: "$3.00 for admittance past this point". Beyond the pay-for-play portal lie a cornucopia of pornography, from obscene to banal, awaiting the lascivious consumer. The front of the store---that veneer of normalcy slapped haphazard over the naked rear---was filled with musty paperbacks and rusting card racks.
So this guy and his family are walking around the tiny front end of the store perusing damp books and dusty cards. Without being obvious I'm trying to get the guy's attention---no point in letting his kids find out the hard way what sort of store their dad brought them into---when the mother calls out to me.
"These cards have cobwebs on them. You must not sell a lot of them!"
"Sure don't, Ma'am. It's not really our main product" Nudge nudge wink wink. Come on dude! You gotta get the hint now, right?
"Say honey", the guy says, "I found a copy of Dicken's 'Copperfield'. It's a bit worn looking, but I think I'll get it." Dude it's not worn. It's just been sitting there for like 15 years without human contact. Wake up and smell the scented oils, idiot!
So, I drop a few hints like this and they just keep shopping. I should add, I'm sitting behind a counter and the wall behind me advertises, for all to see, the more sedate of our "toy" collection---Oils and back massagers and such. Now, at the time I was a different person. Other's welfare wasn't high on my list of concerns, but even I saw the value in keeping kids from noticing the items behind me. Finally, the family comes waddling up to me, moldering books in hand. The guy starts the small talk.
"Pretty small store you have here."
"Yeah, well there's a lot more in the other section." My eyes try to lead him to the $3 admittance sign he's managed to miss as he walked past it 8 or so times so far. "The stuff up front is not our bread and butter here. Do you understand me?" Nothing. Blank stare. The kids are all scanning the wall behind me. Any second now they are gonna get what dad doesn't.
"Oh, what is your bread and butter then?" Blind and dumb. I swear, it's a wonder this guy managed to breed.
Finally his wife notices the sign. "You have to pay to see the rest of the store?" I nod ominously and give the knowing look to the guy, who for the first time realizes where he is.
"Honey, ya know what? We should go get dinner. I'm hungry. Let's leave now."
"But we're not done paying for the books?"
I interject, "It's cool. Take em. You look hungry. Consider it a gift. Go eat." I see curiosity dawning on the oldest girl. She is obviously waiting for a break in the conversation to ask her mom a question about the items behind me. Something like "Mommy, what does 'aphrodisiac' mean?" or "Daddy, that's a strange shape for a back massager. How does it work?"
The husband, with a quick thanks, grabs the bag of old books and his wife's arm and drags them both out the door as if the building were about to collapse. I can hear the wife all the way to the street "That sure was nice of him to give us these books."
Yes. I'm sure the store owner will miss them. I'll have to tell him to order another copy of 'Copperfield'. I know he'd hate to think his store was open for business without some good Dickens for sale.
Now THIS is a rock video!
Posted on 2006-09-02 at 15:08
A must-see, rocktacular, video of rocktabulous proportions!
It's like they put all other metal rock videos in a juicer and squeezed all the best stuff into one rocklicious cup of heavy metal poison.
Windows Vista Release Candidate 1 (or just beta 3)
Posted on 2006-09-01 at 19:43
According to Microsoft, they have released Windows Vista RC1. But not really.
You see, to be a "release candidate", the relase should be something they are considering, you know, releasing. But it isn't. From the mouth of Platforms and Services Co-President Jim Allchin:
You’ll notice a lot of improvements since Beta 2. We’ve made some UI adjustments, added more device drivers, and enhanced performance. We’re not done yet, however — quality will continue to improve. We’ll keep plugging away on application compatibility, as well as fit and finish, until RTM.
So let me get this straight. This release is a "release candidate", but you say you aren't done with it yet? Fascinating. Say, I'm working on a project at my current client. I've put about two days into it and I've still got about a month to go, but maybe I, too, should put out a "release candidate". I'm sure that would fly.