06.30.05
Posted in culture at 12:00 pm by
After our responses here and elsewhere to Ingrid’s article about Natalee Holloway, I thought it might be prudent to bring some actual facts to light. In this country, I think the real tragedy involved with missing persons is not so much that their father’s have dropped the ball. The real tragedy lies more fundamentally in the missing person cases that DON’T get the national attention.
The news media tells stories about victims that are ‘likable.’ Particularly, police departments and news agencies go ‘ape’ when a white woman goes missing. Jean Benet Ramsey, Lacy Peterson, and now Natalee Holloway just to name a few. These white women are our highest priorities. However, the black woman looking for her sister has to repeatedly contact news agencies in the hopes of generating enough buzz so as to attempt to arouse public interest in finding her family member.
Perhaps it’s because we only feel compelled to care about ‘attractive’ white women, I don’t know. And, lest you think that it’s simply a case of more white women disappearing–try these stats on for size:
In this country, 12 percent of the population is African American. However, 29 percent of all missing persons are African American, 53 percent of all missing persons are male.
Do these folks just matter less to us?
I sure hope not, but I suspect so.
Permalink
06.29.05
Posted in culture at 2:35 pm by
So, last night I had the opportunity to enjoy a concert. I beheld a Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers concert. The Black Crowes opened for them. I’m certainly glad to have gone but, I’ll be honest, I’ve far more enjoyed other live concerts I’ve seen.
The Black Crowes were cool, but I couldn’t shake thoughts that the lead singer is married to Kate Hudson, and all that that implies. I’ll admit, I’m not much of a Black Crowes fan–I didn’t even know they were going to be opening for Tom Petty until I looked at my ticket in the dark auditorium to find out who the hell was playing their music so damn loudly. Once the sound was properly adjusted, their sound reminded me a lot of the Grateful Dead or something. The other thing I kept thinking was that it’d be great if I had the same level of moral quandry about doing pot as I had when I was 18. Fortunately, enough concert-goers around me were imbibing themselves in ye olde ‘wacky tabaccy’ that I was able to get enough of a contact buzz to take the edge off of, well, most everything.
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers put on a good show. Nice visuals, good sound mix, etc. Of course, for a band that’s been together for about 29 years, you’d expect a certain degree of polish. Tom sort of floated around stage ‘as if’ he were high on something flailing his arms around–artfully, I suppose. They played one song off the new album. As for the other 15 or so that they played, they were mostly Tom Petty standards. The only one I missed from his pop repetoire was “Great Wide Open.”
All in all, it was a nice show, a good experience. Though, I admit, I’m not a big venue music person. I suppose I was ruined by watching concerts throughout college in a comfortable, cozy auditorium. I’m pretty sure Ladysmith Black Mambazo, Ben Harper, Kelly Joe Phelps, or Harrod and Funck never sounded quite as good as they did in the Calvin College Fine Arts Center auditorium. Perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps not.
I think that playing an arena doesn’t really allow a band the necessary connection with a crowd that a smaller venue allows. Even the natural light a stadium affords allows at least a visual connection with an audience that an arena doesn’t. I don’t know if it’s just the cavernous emptiness that defines an arena venue, or what but I just felt markedly disconnected from the performers last night. That was disappointing.
Perhaps it was the venue, perhaps it was the fact that I don’t really LOVE Tom Petty–although I do think he’s pretty good. I don’t know. I had fun with friends and the time spent was worthwhile for that alone, but beyond that I don’t know that I’ll need to be going to watch a concert at the Van Andel arena again anytime soon.
Permalink
Posted in faith, philosophy at 8:33 am by
Upon further review, I’ve been able to isolate what it was about that comment I cited yesterday that pisses me off so much. First of all, in the comment section in question, the comment I picked on was in no way an isolated event. Comments displaying the same logical fallacy were all over the place. Here’s the example from yesterday:
Ingrid..
It appears your article is jangling all the right nerves.
Truth always offends.
I love it.
Never apologize for Truth.
So, let’s break down the crux of that argument. First it’s based on the somewhat untenable position that the truth ‘always’ offends. And, while I concede the well made point to Zalm, the truth can offend, I highly doubt that it is a characteristic of truth that it must ALWAYS offend. However, for the sake of argument, let’s–for the time being–concede the point.
Here’s the second implied understanding: Satan is the one offended by the truth (i.e. he shoots his evil darts or whatever the hell at truth tellers.) Again, while I’ve got my questions about the nature of ‘Satan’ and evil altogether, I’ll concede this point for the sake of argument.
Therefore, anytime anyone is offended and speaks out against your message–you must be telling the truth.
Here’s the short version:
1. Truth always offends.
Therefore:
2. Anything offensive must be truth.
Gold stars to the first commenter to name that fallacy.
Permalink
06.28.05
Posted in faith at 12:23 pm by
Greg has a theory going that fundamentalists are completely immune from irony. I think he might be right.
My theory, however, is an altogether different one. It all started with my little piece yesterday about fatherhood, etc. Catholic_girl read that post and made some comments, that I think are, well, dead uterus on, (see link for an explanation of this term.) Plus, any comment that uses the term ‘fuckwit’ must be pretty cool in my book.
Anyway, Catholic_girl, bless her heart made a comment over on the original blog posting at Slice of Laodicea. A response to that comment went something like this:
Ingrid..
It appears your article is jangling all the right nerves.
Truth always offends.
I love it.
Never apologize for Truth.
Ah, the truth. For such a non-malleable construct in the eyes of fundagelicals, it certainly has undergone a number of inexplicable transformations through the years. Truths like: ‘Don’t drink alcohol’, ‘Feminism is bad’ or ‘Conservatism is best’, seem to be manufactured at best.
Things have not always been so. Jesus was all about the proper treatment and status of women, drank enough wine to be considered a drunkard, and would hardly classify as a conservative. However, that non-malleable, absolute, unchangable, incontrovertable truth seems to have *gasp* changed over the years.
Now, I’m all for the truth. I even believe in one absolute truth. I just don’t think fundagelicals should be so damn cavalier about having a corner on it. I mean, for crying out loud, Jesus ministry indubitably delivered the ‘truth’, right? We can all agree upon that.
While delivering the truth, Jesus had to so dumb it down for us that he talked in parables. And, even then, people had a hard time grasping the truth of his message. Thus, it’s hard to understand where this feeling that the truth is easily grasped comes from.
More difficult still is how a fundagelical can come to the understanding that the ‘truth is offensive.’ What’s offensive about the gospel? Doesn’t the very notion of something being offensive fundamentally defy its ability to be ‘good news?’
Believe it or not, I’ve said all that to say this. It’s the groundwork for my theory. Basically, it goes like this:
These fundamentalists have set up a false idol for themselves. They stand and worship not at the altar of an almighty God–but rather, at the altar of conservatism.
Conservatism is their new God.
No longer are they concerned with scripture–rather it’s merely fodder for their personal twisting in order to support the ‘gospel’ of conservatism. Unfortunately, conservatism can’t save you.
There’s a lesson, I think, here for us all. For, while I think I’m right, if you turn this theory on it’s ear, it whispers another truth. It’s quite possible for Liberalism to become a God, too. That’s something for those of us Christians on the other side of the aisle to remember from time to time.
Anytime Christians start serving a god that isn’t God–things get fucked up, and fast.
Permalink
06.27.05
Posted in life at 8:51 am by
This piece was posted in two distinct places. One was the Christian Worldview Network, another was a blog that I happened across: Slice of Laodicea.
I’m going to try very hard not to be disparaging, here. But here’s the article, my thoughts interspersed.
The cameras were rolling, the distraught parents were sobbing in front of microphones and a prayer vigil was set up in the local Baptist church. Natalee Holloway, an 18-year-old high school graduate from Alabama, had gone missing May 30th while on a trip to Aruba with over 100 other partying high school seniors. As I write, she remains missing while several men are investigated for their possible role in Natalee’s disappearance.
Amid the emotion, blogger speculation and celebrity-style media coverage, a critical factor in the disappearance of this teenager has been ignored. What in the world was an 18-year-old girl doing in a nightclub at 2:00 in the morning, on a Caribbean island, consorting with strange men? What does it say that in all of the hours of media coverage and exhortations to, “pray for Natalee”, so little has been said about the scandalous state of fatherhood in our land that allowed this girl to be in such a terribly risky situation in the first place?
A young girl’s first line of defense is her parents, namely her father. God set up a father’s headship as a protection against the dangers of a world that preys on beauty and innocence. The daughter of a loving father is the beneficiary of a precious oversight that keeps her from the very real threats that menace her purity and safety. But America has thrown out God’s headship and authority in the biblical model of the family. Much of the church has, as well. Natalee is the unfortunate heir to a legacy of bitterness and death called feminism. Feminism laughs at the notion of loving headship. Feminism declares that females can take care of themselves, that they have need of nothing and that the very notion of innocence and purity is laughably archaic. Effeminized fathers go right along with this notion now, sending their daughters off to war in Iraq while their sons win football scholarships and sending their teen-age daughters off to Caribbean islands to party all night with strange men.
The author, here, is assuming a lot of things about the situation. Namely, that Natalee was with people with whom she was unfarmiliar, that Natalee was consorting with strange men, etc. Truth is, the writer hasn’t really a clue of the situation. That said, the comments she makes in this case seem hurtful and heartless at best.
Further, the attack here on feminism belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the movement. By decrying modern fathers as ineffective because of their ‘effeminate’ nature, the writer derogates all women. Her argument is that men behave like women are weaker. Beyond that, though, she goes on to blame feminism–to blame women–for this deficiency in Men (i.e. “Natalee is the unfortunate heir to a legacy of bitterness and death called feminism. Feminism laughs at the notion of loving headship.”)
Where are the pastors of the land to raise the question about fatherhood today? A pastor from Natalee’s hometown was seen tearfully announcing a prayer vigil on her behalf. Where was this pastor when the senior class at the local high school chose Aruba due to its low drinking age? How many students from his own church youth group were on the trip? Pastors, like fathers, have allowed themselves to be reduced to the role of a Greek chorus; weeping, and wailing and making red-eye appearances on CNN when their daughters and church kids go missing.
The fathers of America need a wake-up call and if Natalee’s disappearance and likely murder doesn’t do it, nothing will. Daughters need their fathers to stand in the gap. Daughters need a strong father to say, “no!” when necessary. Also, young people need to start submitting to parental authority. Our nation is facing tragedy time and time again because people have rejected the life-giving and life-saving truths of God’s Word. Natalee Holloway’s sad story is testimony to that.
Now, I’m all for fathers becoming more involved with the American family. Frankly, our writer is correct. The fathers of America need a wake-up call. Absolutely. But, they don’t need a wakeup call because they’re effeminate, or because feminism has ruined fatherhood. Fathers need a wakeup call because our culture tells them it’s okay for men to be detached. Our culture tells men that it’s good to be strong, to be the ruling voice of power in a family. In fact, I would argue that it’s just the vision of fatherhood the author praises that’s gotten us to where we’re at.
Fathers need to become more loving, caring, and nuturing. Fathers need to respect and love their family–wives, children, etc–as equals. As members of a unit.
Permalink
06.22.05
Posted in fun at 10:49 am by
WARNING: Sophomoric humor ahead. Consider yourself duly warned.
I learned a new word yesterday: manpon. (For any of you so inclined to write an entry at ye olde wikipedia about ‘manpons’ dive right in–so far they’ve been only defined on the ’shart’ page.)
I think I can use it in a sentence. Here goes. Had I been wearing my manpon when I was travelling for work, the mess may have been confined to my pants. (For some background about the preceding sentence check this post.) At any rate, the term manpon–as it should–caused my mind to wander to topics as grotesque as anal leakage, and sharts, etc.
As I pondered these things, at length, I remembered a short vignette involving my friend Ben. Ben and I used to work together. Sometimes he reads this blog–I suppose I’ll hear about it if he happens upon this entry. Worse yet, I suppose I’ll hear about it if his friends at the conservative Baptist Church he attends, read this and identify him. If so, Ben, remember the wise and immortal words of Forrest Gump: ‘Shit Happens.’
So, it was commonplace for Ben and I and some other co-workers to play basketball on our lunchbreak on Tuesdays and Thursdays when I was working at Calvin. This was truly a magical time for male bonding. Men showering together does something to their rapport. Enough said.
Ben is a Taylor University graduate. Evidently, at Taylor, they have some interesting showering procedures. So it came to pass that Ben was giving me a ’showering tutorial’ one day in the shower.
The perfect rinse is a tried and tested maneuver that ensures maximal cleanliness levels of one’s external anal region. As Ben explained the technique, he followed his own verbal instructions.
“First,” said Ben, “you get down onto your hands and knees.” Ben illustrated, bodily. “Next, you do this with your feet.” Ben proceeded to do a backward crawl until his feet touched the shower wall. What Ben did next surprised me. Ben continued walking his feet up the wall until he was almost completely inverted–doing a handstand while leaning up against the wall with his feet.
Acrobatically, this was certainly challenging; however, the true hygenic genius of the perfect rinse only becomes clear when one understands the positioning of the showerhead. The water stream–a tight pattern–was aimed almost directly into Ben’s ‘business end’. A perfect rinse, indeed.
Charming story, no? I’m sure that Ben wihes that the story ended there. It does not.
Ben, my co-workers, and I shared a chuckle, clearly caught up in the hilarity of the moment. For a mere fraction of a second, we forgot we were in a public restroom. A mere fraction of a second was all it took.
Just as Ben asked me to pass the soap, an elderly gentleman happened upon a scene that must have been shocking. I’d ballpark his age as around 75 or 80. The gentleman, who’d just been using the pool was wearing his suit. He saw fit to comment, “Whew, I sure am glad I decided to shower in my suit today.” Then he shook his head. A few minutes later, as three blushing admissions employees walked out of the shower, the man called after us with a chuckle, “Don’t worry guys, your secret’s safe with me–whatever blows your hair back, right?”
For some reason, the elderly man’s comment didn’t assuage our embarrassment.
Let that be a lesson to any of you who’re interested in pursuing extreme showering techniques–perhaps run a little interference before you get yourselves into any compromising situations.
Permalink
06.21.05
Posted in faith at 10:05 am by
I’ve adopted a new litmus test as to whether or not something is ‘blogworthy.’ What I do is I poke around the internets a touch and whenever something makes my blood boil: It’s blogworthy.
Today, the Christian Worldview Network has knocked it out of the park.
This article by Todd Friel is a barn burner:
So, you are an evangelical? Are you sure? Are you sure you want to be?
Twenty years ago, evangelicals had a born again experience, held the Bible in high esteem and attempted to evangelize. By 1995, a Gallup poll revealed only 19% claimed to meet all three criteria.
Today the broad tent of evangelicalism embraces everyone from John MacArthur to Brian MacLaren. The evangelical tent is growing wider every day with disastrous results in three arenas.
I wasn’t aware there was a laundry list of qualifications for evangelicals. The funniest thing about his claim here is that I’m not sure that by most standards the writer would even fall into the category of evangelical. If he wants to talk about hijacking evangelicalism, Mr. Friel needs to look no further than his own fundamentalist roots.
Politics
President Bush won the ’04 election with 78% of the white evangelical vote. Democrats realized they had to get a piece of that demographic or they would only see the White House when the president summoned them. What is the strategy to capture more evangelical votes? Redefinition.
After the election, John Kerry proclaimed he is reading the Bible again and he’s eager to take up the debate about voter values. “I am sick and tired of them saying they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo Christian ethic, of values … Show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich in this country.”
Now, doesn’t this really just display how very brainwashed the religious right is? John Kerry, for all his shortcomings, makes a pretty good point. Jesus talked about poverty, reconciliation, etc. Jesus would not have been a political pawn that enacted a massive redistribution of wealth to the richest citizens of a country. However, this wacko isn’t interested in faith anymore. He’s created his god: Conservatism. He’ll worship that god till the bitter end.
Tony Campolo, who believes that “evangelical Christianity has been hijacked,” recently said, “Evangelicals need to take a good look at what their issues are. Are they really being faithful to Jesus? Are they being faithful to the Bible?”
What once defined an evangelical is being re-written before our very eyes. With its roots deeply planted in liberation theology, the new evangelical has the following priorities:
>social programs for the poor
>health care for everyone
>no war
>love at all costs
>protect the environment
>do not judge other’s morals
So what the hell is wrong with this? Conservatives don’t like it because it’s a political theology that’s CONSISTENT with scripture’s commands to act with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?
You can argue till you’re blue in the face about biblical ideas being hijacked, but for fuck’s sake, when the ideas that you’re arguing aren’t Biblical are in the Bible to begin with–you don’t really have a leg to stand on. That just makes you look stupid.
Consider this:
> God’s Politics is Jim Wallis’ effort to help liberal Christians redefine what voter values are. “How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and only pro-American?” It has been on the NY Times best seller list for months.
>Hillary Clinton recently proclaimed to Holy Flame Pentecostal Church in Little Rock, “As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative.” Really? a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage conservative evangelical? Did you know there was such a thing? There is now.
Why belittle my faith? By all standards, I’m a conservative Christian. I just can’t fathom how you can come to the conclusion that my faith is completely inconsistent with my political views.
>Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter and John Kerry have all fired the salvo, “We must make OUR values the nation’s Christian values.” Yikes.
Perhaps you are thinking, “No, that can’t be. The foundation of evangelicalism is Christ and Him crucified. Salvation is the source of our compassion.” Not for long. The new evangelical is being redefined and love without salvation is the foundation.
While the bumper sticker that reads, “Jesus was a Liberal” are not many, they will be multiplying once the media jumps on board.
USA Today just reported that 33% of conservatives are prepared to vote for Hillary, the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage evangelical. If we do not define and defend evangelicalism as being “born again”, then say hello to Hillary in ’08 as she siphons off un-saved and undiscerning evangelicals.
So, what Dean, Carter, and Kerry are saying is that democratic views must be adjusted and reenvisioned and respoken so that the American populous hears a Democratic party that truly cares about faith, Christian and otherwise.
Oh, and Jesus WAS a liberal by any standards. In fact, he was so liberal he was issued the death penalty for being a liberal.
Morality
When love for loves sake replaces Christ and Him crucified as the foundation of the faith, evangelicals are going to come up with a different set of moral priorities. While “life” may be on their list, it won’t be number one, nor will it mean life at conception.
The new evangelical will love the person in a wheelchair more than the life in a petri-dish. The new evangelical will consider saving the invalid’s savings account for the grandchildren instead of saving the grandma. The new evangelical will not condemn the practicing homosexual as that would not be loving. Love when not rightly grounded will result in a love gone astray.
Ah, the moral issues…both of them. I’m glad there’s just two, or, shit, we could get overwhelmed being nice.
Another thing, the word ‘condemn.’ Pretty strong word for a sinner, no?
Eternity
Finally, evangelicalism stands at the door of work righteousness and knocks. If the new evangelical cornerstone is love and not Christ and Him crucified, we are just a stone’s throw from attempting to inherit the Kingdom by our own efforts.
The new-evangelical believes in the gospel of love, not of repentance and trust. While love is certainly a Biblical attribute, loving one’s neighbors will not save on the day of judgment. Many will cry out, “Lord, we did many wonderful things in your name.”
Losing an election to Hillary is painful to ponder. The thought of losing souls to the new evangelical gospel is unbearable.
Wow. Did you really just shit on the second commandment, “and the second is like it, love your neighbor?” As Christians we were given two key commandments: Love God, Love your neighbors. Keeping these commandments doesn’t save us, but it doesn’t make them obsolete either.
Permalink
06.17.05
Posted in life at 5:04 pm by
Well, friends, largely unbeknownst to me, it’s officially been one year since I began this little blog project. Who knew? I suppose it’s time for one of those obligatory ‘happy-blog-birthday-to-me’ posts.
I began a year ago to teach myself how to manage my own site, to vent a little, and to maybe hone my writing a touch, too. I must say, though, that I never expected to meet such wonderful folk along the way.
To all my new found blog-friends, thanks for reading, writing, and being generally hip folk with which to carry on electro-banter!
After Sunday–and the next version of my thesis (to which I’ve started referring as Matilda)–I’ll hopefully get something of substance up. I know it’s been a good while since anything of real value graced these pages, but I hope to remedy that soon. Perhaps I’ll begin with a few blogvention plans I’ve been kicking around…
…onward and upward.
Permalink
06.13.05
Posted in life at 3:32 pm by
Strange things happen here whilst I’m away. A major comment spam attack, 7 days of all-inclusive gluttony, and a herd of visits from angry mixed martial arts enthusiasts later…here I am.
With a domain name like badchristian.com, you’re bound to piss some people off. This week, while I was away, was no exception. Someone from a mixed martial arts bulletin board found the piece I wrote about Diego Sanchez. They took it upon themselves to write this post.
Following that post, a thread ensued.
Following that thread, I got a number of angry comments.
If there were ever a group of people I think it might be wise not to piss off, it would probably be a group of mixed martial arts enthusiasts. This pissed off throng of mixed martial arts enthusiasts proceeded to argue vehemently over my post. That’s fair enough, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion.
What will forever befuddle me, however, is the reticence of some to actually deal with the issues I bring up in my article. It is much easier to tear down themes which I didn’t deal with in my post or to participate in ad hominem attacks rather than to deal with the meat of my argument.
First, many commenters seem to insinuate that I wrote a piece that roundly condemns mixed martial arts as a sport. This is simply not true. Now, I will go on the record and say that I find fairly little redeeming value in two dudes who go into an octagonal ring in order to beat the shit out of one another. I will also admit that this preference is just that: a preference. It’s not really rooted in any theological mandate. In fact, as much as I don’t care for mixed martial arts on the whole, I actually enjoyed the other mixed martial art bout between the two Light Heavyweights on the Ultimate Fighter. They fought vigorously and honorably. And, if you actually took the time to read my first post rather than to put words in my mouth, you’d see that no where do I insinuate that Diego Sanchez is a particularly dis-honorable person. I just don’t buy his theology.
Another attack is that I’m putting words into God’s mouth. Of course, this was mostly in jest. (And, once again, if you actually take the time to read before squawking, you’ll notice that I gave a bit of a disclaimer about this.) I don’t think, though, that I was far off. Diego Sanchez, after winning his fight, insinuated that God was on his side and that’s why he won. That, my friends, is lousy theology. Also, it’s not as if I’m trying to place God firmly on the side of some controversial issue such as tax cuts or governmental versus individual aid packages and the merits of each. My guess about what God is thinking in this case is fairly well scripturally supported.
Others can’t handle my language. Read this, this, and this.
Someone even was foolish enough to think that my mission was to name ‘bad Christians.’ Diego Sanchez was just another target of mine. My how charming it is when folks decide to open their mouths without any sense for the context of a community.
My favourite comment though was this:
how about you do something better with your time? mixed martial arts is a sport, like basketball, boxing, or anything else. you dont have a problem where in football one guy slams another into the ground then thanks God after the game?
there have been ZERO (0) deaths in mma, how many deaths have there been because of religion? you and your fat girlfriend need to find a hobby you tree hugger. Go read the bible, or why dont you actually take the time to speak to an mam fighter who is Christian and get a real point of view. Btw great Job speaking on behalf of God, retard.
I really hardly need to respond to this comment. I suspect that most of you are laughing yourselves silly and musing about the neural damage that gross overuse of testosterone supplements must have done to this fellow. When you recover from the sheer lunacy of the above comment, I’d like to point out one key misunderstanding. The commenter above blames many deaths on religion. In truth, he is mostly correct. However, blaming religion for deaths is a spurious argument.
The combination of religion (and historically Christianity) and the belief that God hates the same people you do is what causes death. Theologies like the one espoused by Diego Sanchez where God is a supposed agent of power in the violence against other human beings…those are the theologies that cause death. Not peaceful Theologies. I highly doubt that a follower of Mahatma Ghandi or the Dali Lama is going to go ape shit on another human being and then go about claiming that God willed them to do so.
However, to all my MMA.TV visitors: Thanks. While I know that not all of you hold the same views as those who commented on my first post, those of you who visited and posted venom did truly give me a chuckle when I came home. And, for that: I thank you!
Permalink
06.03.05
Posted in life at 7:33 am by
Jen and I are out for a week and a day or two…wish us well.
I should be back in the blogflesh next Monday or so!
Permalink
« Previous entries ·
